ImmunityBio, Inc.

From time to time, we may be involved in various claims and legal proceedings relating to claims arising out of our operations. We are not currently a party to any legal proceedings that, in the opinion of our management, are likely to have a material adverse effect on our business. If we are served with any such complaints, we will assess at that time any contingencies for which we may need to reserve. Regardless of the outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact on us because of defense and settlement costs, diversion of management resources, and other factors.

Shenzhen Beike Biotechnology Co. Ltd. Arbitration

In 2020, we received a Request for Arbitration before the International Chamber of Commerce, International Court of Arbitration. The arbitration relates to a license, development, and commercialization agreement that Altor entered into with Beike in 2014, which was amended and restated in 2017, pursuant to which Altor granted to Beike an exclusive license to use, research, develop and commercialize products based on ANKTIVA in China for human therapeutic uses. In the arbitration, Beike is asserting a claim for breach of contract under the license agreement. Among other things, Beike alleges that we failed to use commercially reasonable efforts to deliver to Beike materials and data related to ANKTIVA. Beike is seeking specific performance and declaratory relief for the alleged breaches. On September 25, 2020, the parties entered into a standstill and tolling agreement (standstill agreement) under which, among other things, the parties affirmed they will perform certain of their obligations under the license agreement by specified dates and agreed that all deadlines in the arbitration are indefinitely extended. The standstill agreement could be terminated by any party on ten calendar days’ notice, and upon termination, the parties had the right to pursue claims arising from the license agreement in any appropriate tribunal. On March 20, 2023, we terminated the standstill agreement, and on April 11, 2023, Beike served an amended Request for Arbitration. We served an Answer and Counterclaims on May 19, 2023. Beike served a Reply to our counterclaims on June 21, 2023. Beike served its Statement of Claim on March 22, 2024, the company served its Statement of Defense and Counterclaim on June 21, 2024, and Beike served its Statement of Defense to the Counterclaim on August 2, 2024. After the parties completed discovery, Beike served its Reply and Defense to Counterclaim on January 17, 2025, we served our Rejoinder and Response to Defense to Counterclaim on March 14, 2025, and Beike served its Rejoinder on Counterclaim on March 28, 2025. The hearing in the arbitration was held from June 9, 2025 through June 13, 2025. Post-hearing submissions concluded in February 2026. The arbitration tribunal issued its Award on July 1, 2026. The Award denied all claims and counterclaims, declined to award damages or specific performance, and ordered that the parties should bear their own fees and costs. We intend to seek confirmation of the Award in the appropriate judicial forum.

Washington State Attorney General Investigation

In June 2025, the company received a request from the Attorney General of the State of Washington (the Request) seeking information and documents from the company relating to its relationship with the Access to Advanced Health Institute, a nonprofit biotech research institute located in Seattle (AAHI). ImmunityBio licensed and explored the development of AAHI’s RNA COVID vaccine and upon further investigation of the technology terminated the license. Dr. Soon-Shiong served on the board of directors of AAHI in his capacity as representative of a non-profit foundation. The company is cooperating with the Washington Attorney General’s Office with respect to the Request.

SRS/Altor Shareholder CVR Arbitration

In connection with our 2017 acquisition of Altor, we issued CVRs under which we agreed to pay the prior stockholders of Altor approximately $304.0 million of contingent consideration upon the successful regulatory approval of a BLA by the FDA, or foreign equivalent, for ANKTIVA by December 31, 2022, and $304.0 million of contingent consideration upon calendar-year worldwide net sales of ANKTIVA exceeding $1.0 billion prior to December 31, 2026. As of June 30, 2026, Dr. Soon-Shiong, our Founder, Executive Chairman and Global Chief Scientific and Medical Officer, and his related party hold approximately $139.8 million of FDA approval CVRs and $139.8 million of net sales CVRs, and they have both irrevocably agreed to receive shares of the company’s common stock in satisfaction of their CVRs. Because the FDA did not approve our BLA on or before December 31, 2022, the first CVR milestone was not met.

On December 27, 2022, Shareholder Representative Services, LLC (SRS), in its capacity as shareholder representative on behalf of former Altor BioScience Corp. shareholders, sent the company’s subsidiary NantCell a notice of claims relating to the regulatory milestone CVR. The notice of claims asserted that SRS was exploring, and might pursue, claims on behalf of

Altor shareholders for additional merger consideration in the amount of the $2.00 per share milestone payment under the regulatory CVR milestone. The notice stated that any such claim would be based on NantCell’s alleged failure to use commercially reasonable efforts to secure FDA approval of ANKTIVA on or before December 31, 2022. In a separate October 2022 letter, SRS requested that NantCell preserve all documents and information relating to its efforts to achieve milestones set forth in the regulatory milestone CVR, and requested that the company provide certain categories of documents under the information-sharing provisions of the CVR agreement.

After the company provided many of the requested documents, on September 29, 2023, SRS filed a demand for arbitration with JAMS, seeking to compel the company to produce additional documents identified in its October 2022 letter relating to its efforts to obtain FDA approval for ANKTIVA. The arbitration demand did not include any claims beyond SRS’s claim that it had a right to obtain additional documents, and sought a ruling that the company was obligated to provide additional documents. After the arbitrator issued a preliminary ruling regarding the scope of the company’s obligation to provide information under the CVR Agreements, the company produced additional documents responsive to SRS’s requests.

On August 27, 2025, several months after SRS’s document-access claim had been resolved, SRS requested leave to amend its JAMS arbitration demand to state a claim for breach of contract. SRS’s proposed amended demand alleged that the company and NantCell had failed to exercise commercially reasonable efforts to obtain FDA approval of ANKTIVA on or before December 31, 2022. The JAMS arbitrator presiding over the document-access arbitration denied SRS’s motion for leave to amend its claims, and on September 26, 2025, the parties filed a joint stipulation asking that the JAMS document-access arbitration be closed.

After SRS’s motion for leave to amend was denied, on September 26, 2025, SRS sent the company a further notice of claims and essentially the same arbitration demand, asserting that the company had breached its obligations to exercise commercially reasonable efforts to achieve FDA approval of ANKTIVA on or before December 31, 2022. SRS’s arbitration demand seeks relief in the form of payment, in the amount of approximately $164.2 million plus interest exceeding $50.0 million, to former Altor shareholders not affiliated with Dr. Soon-Shiong. SRS filed its most recent arbitration demand with JAMS on November 5, 2025. The company filed its response on November 19, 2025, and an arbitrator was appointed on January 16, 2026. The arbitration hearing has been scheduled to begin on January 25, 2027, and the parties are currently engaged in discovery. It remains too early to evaluate the likely outcome of the case or to estimate any range of potential loss. We believe the company exercised commercially reasonable efforts in its pursuit of FDA approval of ANKTIVA, and that the claims asserted against the company lack merit.

Securities Class Action

On March 26, 2026, a putative securities class action complaint, captioned Douglas v. ImmunityBio, Inc. et al., No. 2:26-cv-03261, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against the company and our Executive Chairman, asserting violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act stemming from the company’s receipt of a warning letter from the FDA’s OPDP regarding a television advertisement (which never aired) and a podcast interview. The complaint alleges that the statements made in the television advertisement and podcast were knowingly and materially false and misleading. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and attorneys’ fees and costs. On July 15, 2026, the court appointed a lead plaintiff. The company intends to defend the case vigorously. The company is unable to estimate a range of loss, if any, that could result were there to be an adverse final decision in this action. If an unfavorable outcome were to occur, it is possible that the impact could be material to the company’s results of operations in the period(s) in which any such outcome becomes probable and estimable.

Shareholder Derivative Actions

On April 17, 2026, a shareholder derivative complaint, captioned Davies v. ImmunityBio, Inc. et al., No. 2:26-cv-04130, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. On April 21, 2026, a second derivative complaint, captioned Mody v. ImmunityBio, Inc. et al., No. 2:26-cv-04245, was filed in the same court. Both lawsuits name the company, our Executive Chairman, and every member our Board of Directors as defendants. The plaintiffs, suing derivatively on behalf of ImmunityBio, allege that the company’s directors and officers breached their fiduciary duties by making, permitting, or failing to prevent the same alleged misstatements identified in the securities complaint, and that, as a result, the company has suffered financial losses, potential financial exposure in the related securities lawsuit, reputational damage, and legal and regulatory costs. The complaints seek unspecified damages from the individual defendants to the company for damages sustained by the company, enhancements to the company’s corporate governance and internal procedures, and attorneys’ fees and costs. On June 29, 2026, the court entered a stipulated order that consolidated the Davies and Mody actions and stayed the consolidated derivative action through the motion to dismiss phase of the related securities lawsuit.