CytoDyn Inc

Corporate History/Business Overview

CytoDyn Inc. (the “Company”) was originally incorporated under the laws of Colorado on May 2, 2002, under the name RexRay Corporation and, effective August 27, 2015, reincorporated under the laws of Delaware. The Company is a clinical-stage biotechnology company focused on the clinical development of innovative treatments for multiple therapeutic indications based on its product candidate, leronlimab (also referred to as PRO 140), a novel humanized monoclonal antibody targeting the C-C chemokine receptor type 5 (“CCR5”). The pre-clinical and early clinical development of PRO 140 was led by Progenics through 2011. The Company acquired the asset from Progenics in October 2012. In November 2018, the United States Adopted Names Council adopted “leronlimab” as the official nonproprietary name for PRO 140. The Company has conducted clinical trials of leronlimab as a viral entry inhibitor for human immunodeficiency virus (“HIV”), believed to competitively bind to the N-terminus and second extracellular loop of the CCR5 receptor. For immunology, the CCR5 receptor is believed to be implicated in immune-mediated illnesses such as Metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (“MASH”), formerly known as nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (“NASH”). The CCR5 receptor may also be present on cells that undergo malignant transformation and in the tumor microenvironment. Studies of leronlimab have also been conducted in MASH and solid tumors in oncology, in addition to HIV, where CCR5 is believed to play an integral role.

Our principal business office is located at 1111 Main Street, Suite 660, Vancouver, Washington 98660. Our website can be found at www.cytodyn.com. We make available on our website, free of charge, the proxy statements and reports on Forms 8-K, 10-K, and 10-Q that we file with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), as soon as reasonably practicable after such materials are electronically filed with or furnished to the SEC. By making this and other references to the Company’s website, we do not intend to incorporate by reference any information posted on our website into this Form 10-K. The website should not be considered part of this Form 10-K.

The consolidated financial statements included in this Form 10-K include the accounts of CytoDyn Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiary CytoDyn Operations Inc.

Business Overview

The Company is a clinical stage biotechnology company focused on the clinical development and potential commercialization of its product candidate, leronlimab, which is being studied for oncology and inflammation, as well as other potential indications, including but not limited to HIV and MASH.

Our current business strategy is the clinical development of leronlimab, which may include the following:

Other programs that may be pursued include steatosis and liver fibrosis associated with MASH, either alone or as a combination therapy; and for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer with current standard of care, and/or exploring other trials with current standard of care and other cancer and immunologic indications.

We will need significant additional funding to execute the business strategy described above, including conducting additional pre-clinical studies and clinical trials, in furtherance of our efforts to obtain FDA approval to commercialize leronlimab. In addition to traditional fundraising the Company will pursue non-dilutive financing opportunities, such as license agreements and co-development or strategic partnerships, to help implement its strategy.

As further discussed in Part II, Item 8, Note 2,Summary of Significant Accounting Policies - Inventories, and Note 3,*Inventories, net,*in this Form 10-K, the Company previously capitalized procured or produced pre-launch inventories in preparation for product launches. As of May 31, 2024, the Company has written-off the full $99.2 million

of previously capitalized pre-launch inventories. Although these inventories have been written-off from an accounting perspective, they can be used in certain clinical contexts and could possibly be sold commercially upon regulatory approval if the shelf-lives can be extended as a result of the performance of on-going and future stability tests.

Recent Corporate Developments

On November 9, 2023, at the Company’s annual meeting, our stockholders voted in favor of an amendment to the Company’s Certificate of Incorporation to increase the total number of shares of common stock authorized for issuance from 1,350,000,000 shares to 1,750,000,000 shares.

On January 10, 2024, the Company entered into an agreement with an executive services firm to engage Mitchell Cohen to provide financial and accounting services to the Company as an independent contractor. On January 19, 2024, the Company’s Board of Directors approved the appointment of Mr. Cohen as the Company’s Interim Chief Financial Officer effective February 1, 2024. Mr. Cohen also serves as the Company’s principal financial officer and principal accounting officer.

On January 26, 2024, the Company entered into an employment agreement with Jacob P. Lalezari, M.D., under which he is serving as the Company’s Chief Executive Officer, effective as of January 26, 2024. Dr. Lalezari previously served as the Company’s Interim CEO beginning November 17, 2023. Dr. Lalezari is responsible for leading the Company’s corporate and product development, with a focus on short-term clinical development and related fundraising.

On April 3, 2024, the Company and Samsung BioLogics Co., Ltd. (“Samsung”) executed an agreement (the “Letter Agreement”), wherein the parties reached agreement for an orderly process for winding down services and a restructuring of the amount payable by the Company to Samsung (the “Total Balance”). The Letter Agreement resolves the Company’s obligations under the Master Services Agreement and related ancillary agreements first entered into between Samsung and the Company in or around April 2019 (collectively, the “Agreement”).

The Total Balance due as restructured under the Letter Agreement is $43,821,231.32. Except for a single $250,000 payment due on or before December 31, 2024, the entirety of the Total Balance is conditional, and will only be due and payable, upon the Company achieving a qualifying “Revenue” event, as defined in the Letter Agreement. Under the Letter Agreement, the Company agreed to pay 20% of its qualifying Revenue generated in each calendar year, if any, with such payments to be applied to reduce the Total Balance until it is repaid in full. Interest will not accrue on the Total Balance throughout the prospective repayment period. For additional information on the Samsung relationship, please see Part II, Item 8, Note 10,Commitments and Contingencies -**Commitments with Samsung BioLogics Co., Ltd. (“Samsung”).

On June 27, 2024, the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors of CytoDyn Inc. (the “Company”) engaged Marcum LLP (“Marcum”) and appointed the firm as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm, effective immediately, to perform audit services for the Company’s fiscal year ended May 31, 2024, and review services for the quarters ending August 31, 2024, November 30, 2024, and February 28, 2025. The appointment of Marcum followed the Audit Committee’s dismissal of BF Borgers CPA PC (“BF Borgers”), the Company’s prior independent accounting firm, on May 3, 2024.

On July 2, 2024, the Company and Amarex Clinical Research, LLC (“Amarex”), the Company’s former clinical research organization (“CRO”), entered into an agreement settling a lawsuit filed by the Company in October 2021 (the “Settlement Agreement”).

The terms of the Settlement Agreement include: (i) the payment by Amarex of $12,000,000 to the Company, of which $10,000,000 was paid on execution of the Settlement Agreement and the balance will be paid on or before July 2, 2025; (ii) the release of the Company’s surety bond posted in the lawsuit and the return of the Company’s cash collateral in the amount of $6,500,000 provided as security to the surety; (iii) the crediting of all amounts claimed by Amarex as due and payable for its CRO services, totaling approximately $14,000,000, reducing the Company’s outstanding balance to zero, with no funds required to be paid by the Company; and (iv) a mutual release of claims, resolving all legal claims between the parties.

Background: Leronlimab as a CCR5 Antagonist

CytoDyn is focused on developing leronlimab, a CCR5 receptor antagonist, to be used as a platform drug for various indications. The CCR5 receptor is a protein located on the surface of various cells, including white blood cells

and cancer cells. On white blood cells, it serves as a receptor for chemical attractants known as chemokines. Chemokines are key orchestrators of cell trafficking by directing immune cells to the sites of inflammation. At the site of an inflammatory reaction, chemokines are released. These chemokines bind to the CCR5 receptor and cause the migration of T-cells to these sites, promoting further inflammation. The CCR5 receptor is also the co-receptor needed for the most common strains of HIV to infect healthy T-cells.

The mechanism of action (“MOA”) of leronlimab has the potential to modulate the movement of T-cells to inflammatory sites, which could be beneficial by diminishing overactive inflammatory responses. Leronlimab is a unique humanized monoclonal antibody. Leronlimab binds to the second extracellular loop and N-terminus of the CCR5 receptor, and due to its selectivity and target-specific mechanism of action, it does not appear to activate the immune function of the CCR5 receptor through agonist activity. This apparent target specificity differentiates leronlimab from other CCR5 antagonists. Leronlimab is a competitive rather than allosteric inhibitor of the CCR5 receptor.

Leronlimab prevents CCR5 tropic strains of HIV, which are the great majority of circulating viruses, from using the CCR5 receptor as a gateway to enter healthy cells. Pre-clinical research has also shown that leronlimab blocks calcium channel signaling of the CCR5 receptor when present on the cancer cell surface. This research suggests that calcium channel signaling of the CCR5 receptor is a crucial component to the spread of metastatic cancer. The CCR5 receptor has been identified as a potential therapeutic target in a variety of settings, including HIV, graft-versus-host disease (“GvHD”), MASH, Alzheimer’s disease, cancer metastasis, multiple sclerosis, traumatic brain injury, stroke recovery, and a variety of inflammatory conditions, including COVID-19. This could present the potential for multiple opportunities for leronlimab to provide benefit in a variety of clinical settings.

Leronlimab and Cancer

Research indicates that the CCR5 receptor works as a potential “GPS” system for cancer cells that promotes the spread of metastatic disease. Pre-clinical studies have shown that leronlimab blocks the calcium channel signaling of the CCR5 receptor and has the potential to disable this GPS system. CCR5 inhibition may disrupt signaling and ultimately the spread of CCR5+ Circulating Tumor Cells (“CTCs”). Most current therapies are directed to the primary tumor rather than the movement or spread of cancer in the bloodstream. However, it is metastatic disease and not the primary tumor that is the cause of death in most cancer patients.

Research has shown that CCR5 expression is increased in a number of solid tumors including breast, colon, prostate, and pancreatic cancer among others. Increased CCR5 expression has also been identified as an indicator of increased risk of progression in several cancers. Research has hypothesized that CCR5 may play a variety of roles in the progression of cancer. The first is that the CCR5 receptor on cancer cells potentially plays a role in the migration and invasion of cells into the bloodstream, which may lead to metastasis. The second is that blocking the CCR5 receptor on a group of immunosuppressive immune cells known as Regulatory T cells (Tregs) could turn on anti-tumor fighting properties thereby restoring immune function. A third observation is that blocking the interaction of CCR5 with a chemokine known as RANTES (also known as CCL5) has a potentially synergistic effect with chemotherapy in controlling cancer progression. Fourth, animal studies revealed a significant decrease in angiogenesis or new blood vessel formation following administration of leronlimab. Such new blood vessel formation is critically important for the growth of tumors. And lastly, it is hypothesized that leronlimab exerts an effect on tissue macrophages in the tumor microenvironment to repolarize these cells into anti-tumor fighting cells.

Glioblastoma Multiforme (“GBM”) Pre-Clinical Development

In December 2023, the Company entered into a partnership with Albert Einstein College of Medicine and Montefiore Medical Center, located in New York. The Company will be providing leronlimab to support a pre-clinical study evaluating the efficacy of leronlimab independently and in combination with temozolomide in treating glioblastoma multiforme, also known as grade IV astrocytoma (“GBM”) in infected humanized mice. The study will involve three groups of humanized mice: one control group, one group that will receive only leronlimab, and another group that will receive a combination of leronlimab and temozolomide. The primary objective of this study is to evaluate the effect of leronlimab on the primary tumor growth and occurrence of metastases on CCR5+ and CCR5- cells in humanized mice. Upon completion of the study, the academic institutions will provide the Company with a research report outlining the study results, and they will have the right to publish and present the study results. GBM is the most

common type of primary malignant brain tumor and is aggressive and fast-growing. This study is expected to take place in the 2024 calendar year.

Metastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Pre-Clinical Development

In late November 2018, CytoDyn received FDA approval of our IND submission and subsequently initiated a Phase 1b/2 clinical trial for metastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer (“mTNBC”) patients. We previously reported that a pre-clinical research study with leronlimab reduced the incidence of human breast cancer metastasis in a mouse xenograft model for cancer through six weeks with leronlimab by more than 98%. The temporal equivalency of this six-week study in mice may be up to six years in humans. In May 2019, the FDA granted Fast Track designation for leronlimab for use in combination with carboplatin to treat patients with CCR5+ positive mTNBC.

Metastatic Trial for Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Phase 1b/2 Trial

This trial evaluated the feasibility of leronlimab in combination with carboplatin in patients with CCR5+ mTNBC. This trial advanced from Phase 1b/2 to Phase 2. The Phase 2 trial was a single arm study to test the hypothesis that the combination of intravenous carboplatin and maximum tolerated dose of subcutaneous leronlimab will increase progression free survival. This study also evaluated the change in Circulating Tumor Cells as a potential prognostic marker for clinical efficacy. The first patient was treated in September 2019. Leronlimab, in combination with carboplatin was well-tolerated at all three dose levels of 350mg, 525mg, and 700mg. Leronlimab showed early signs of anti-tumor activity in patients with CCR5+ mTNBC and publication of the study results is pending.

Metastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Compassionate Use Study

This was a single-arm, compassionate use study of leronlimab combined with a treatment of Physician’s Choice (“TPC”) in patients with CCR5+ mTNBC. Leronlimab was administered subcutaneously as a weekly dose of 350 mg until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. Based on our success in the Phase 1b/2 mTNBC trial with 350 mg dose, we were able to transition the compassionate use patients to 525 mg dose. TPC is defined as one of the following single-agent chemotherapy drugs administrated according to local practice: eribulin, gemcitabine, capecitabine, paclitaxel, nab-paclitaxel, vinorelbine, ixabepilone, or carboplatin. In this study, patients were evaluated for tumor response approximately every three (3) months or according to the institution’s standard practice by CT, PET/CT or MRI with contrast (per treating investigator’s discretion) using the same method as at baseline. This trial is no longer active, and publication of the results is pending.

Locally Advanced or Metastatic Solid Tumors for CCR5+ Phase 2 Basket Trial

This was a single arm Phase 2 study of leronlimab in patients with CCR5+ locally advanced or metastatic solid tumors. Leronlimab was administered subcutaneously as a weekly dose of 350 mg and 525 mg until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. Subjects participating in this study were also allowed to receive/continue standard-of-care chemotherapy or radiotherapy. In this study, patients were evaluated for tumor response approximately every three months or according to the institution’s standard practice by CT, PET/CT or MRI with contrast using the same method as at baseline. This trial is no longer active.

Leronlimab and HIV

We believe that leronlimab shows promise as an antiviral agent with the potential advantage of lower toxicity and less frequent dosing requirements as compared to certain daily drug therapies currently in use for the treatment of HIV. Leronlimab belongs to a class of HIV therapies known as viral entry inhibitors that block HIV from entering and infecting specific cells. Leronlimab blocks HIV from entering a cell by binding to a receptor called CCR5, a normal cell surface receptor protein to which CCR5 tropic strains of HIV, referred to as “R5” strains, attach as part of HIV’s entry into a cell. Leronlimab binds to a precise site on CCR5 that R5 strains of HIV use to enter the cell and, in doing so, inhibits the ability of these strains of HIV to infect the cell. As a result, we believe leronlimab represents a distinct class of CCR5 inhibitors with advantageous virological and immunological properties and may provide a unique tool to treat HIV-infected patients. We plan to explore the potential for leronlimab to be used in PrEP if a longer acting version of subcutaneous leronlimab is successfully developed. This longer acting version could also potentially be used in combination with standard of care therapies to treat HIV patients.

We continue to believe leronlimab is positioned to add value to the HIV market, as an alternative, or in addition to current therapies, which are failing primarily due to patient non-compliance, which causes drug resistance. Several

factors give rise to patient non-compliance issues, such as toxicity and side effects, coupled with the need for a strict daily dosing regimen. In 26 clinical studies previously conducted, leronlimab was generally well tolerated. In addition, there were no dose-limiting toxicities or patterns of drug-related toxicities observed during these trials. We believe the results of these trials establish that leronlimab’s antiviral activity is potent, rapid, prolonged, and dose-dependent. Because leronlimab’s MOA as a monoclonal antibody in HIV is a relatively new therapeutic approach, it provides a potentially advantageous method of suppressing the virus in treatment-experienced patients who have failed a prior HIV regimen and need new treatment options.

To date, leronlimab has been tested and administered to patients primarily as a subcutaneous injection once per week. We believe that if leronlimab is approved by the FDA for use in HIV, it could be an attractive and marketable therapeutic option for patients, particularly in the following scenarios:

In 2016, we initiated a pivotal Phase 2b/3 trial for leronlimab as a combination therapy with existing HAART drug regimens for highly treatment-experienced HIV patients. The trial was completed in February 2018 and achieved its primary endpoint with a p-value of 0.0032. Most of the patients who completed this trial transitioned to an FDA-cleared rollover study, as requested by the treating physicians, to enable them to have continued access to leronlimab. This pivotal trial was the basis for the Company’s BLA submission to the FDA which was subsequently withdrawn by the Company in October 2022. We also conducted a rollover study for HIV, as combination therapy, designed for patients who had successfully completed the Phase 2b/3 combination therapy trial and for whom the treating physicians requested a continuation of leronlimab therapy to maintain suppressed viral load. Some of the patients received four years of treatment in this extension arm prior to its termination.

Leronlimab and MASH

As previously noted, CytoDyn believes that the CCR5 receptor is a crucial component in inflammatory responses. Some disease processes that could potentially benefit from CCR5 blockade include transplantation rejection, neuroinflammation, chronic inflammation, cancer, and Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatohepatitis (MASH). Due to leronlimab’s MOA, we believe leronlimab may have the potential for reduced side effects over other CCR5 antagonists and may be able to prevent the progression of Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatotic Liver Disease (MAFLD) into MASH. MAFLD is an inflammatory disease caused by the build-up of fat in hepatocytes (steatosis). In severe cases, MAFLD progresses into MASH. MASH is a chronic liver disease characterized by the presence of hepatic inflammation and fibrosis. Patients with advanced fibrosis due to MASH are at significantly higher risk of liver-related mortality. It is estimated that 30% to 40% of adults in the United States have MAFLD, while 3% to 12% of adults in the United States have MASH. If left untreated, MASH may progress to hepatocellular carcinoma and is expected to become the leading cause of liver transplantation. Further, liver disease is one of the leading causes of non-AIDS-related death in HIV patients. The Company is identifying the next steps in clinical development to continue the investigation of leronlimab in the MASH indication.

In MASH, liver homeostasis is impaired due to an accumulation of toxic lipids which can activate both Kupffer cells (KCs) and tissue-resident macrophages, resulting in the production of fibrogenic cytokines and chemoattractant chemokines such as transforming growth factor-beta (TGF-β) and monocyte chemoattractant protein1 (MCP1). Not only do these cytokines/chemokines promote differentiation of hepatic stellate cells (HSCs) into myofibroblasts (the primary source for fibrillary collagens), but they also amplify the immune response by recruiting additional cells into the damaged area. Recruitment of extra-hepatic inflammatory cells to the site of hepatic injury is typically mediated by interactions between cytokines/chemokines and their receptors. It has also been shown that patients with MASH also have high levels of CCR5 and the associated ligand, CCL5, thus demonstrating a potential role of CCR5 and its ligands in liver fibrosis.

MASH Pre-Clinical Development

The potential for leronlimab in the treatment of MASH was demonstrated in a pre-clinical model of fatty liver disease. Immunodeficient, NOD-SCID Gamma (NSG) mice were fed a high fat, MASH-inducing diet, transplanted with human stem cells to repopulate the deficient immune system, and treated with leronlimab. Sixteen (16) male NOD.Cg-Prkdcscid Il2rgtm1Wjl/SzJ, commonly known as the NODscid IL2 receptor gamma knockout mice (NSG), were first humanized by intravenous inoculation with normal human umbilical cord blood cells (105). After 5 weeks on normal mouse chow, mice were successfully humanized, demonstrating >25% human CD45 cells in peripheral blood. Mice were switched to high fat (52%) high cholesterol (1.25%) diet (FPC diet: fructose, palmitate, cholesterol, trans-fat; Envigo-Teklad TD.160785). Leronlimab and control antibody (normal human IgG, Sigma) were administered i.p. at a dose of 2mg i.p. twice weekly, n=8 mice/group. The results showed that leronlimab inhibited fatty liver development, a key characteristic of early-stage MASH, such that treatment of humanized NSG mice with leronlimab caused a three-fold reduction in hepatic steatosis compared to control in an animal model of high fructose, high palmitate, high cholesterol diet.

MASH Phase 2a Exploratory Study

The Company has reported clinical data from patients with MASH from the CDI-MASH01 trial which was designed as a multi-center Phase 2a study and was subsequently converted into an exploratory study to evaluate the dose, efficacy, and safety of leronlimab at 350 mg and 700 mg, versus placebo. The study also included an expansive biomarker program designed to inform future clinical trials and to more fully understand leronlimab’s mechanism of action within the MASH setting. CDI-MASH01 was conducted in two parts. Part 1 of the study was designed to assess the efficacy of leronlimab 700 mg (n=22) in improving measurements of liver steatosis and liver fibro-inflammation in adult patients diagnosed with MASH compared to placebo (n=28). Part 2 was subsequently added to assess leronlimab 350 mg in improving these same measurements in adult patients diagnosed with MASH (n=22). In Part 1 of the study, eligible subjects were randomized 1:1 to one of the two study arms to receive either leronlimab 700mg (Group A), or placebo (Group B), given once per week (±1day) at the study site for up to 13 weeks during the treatment period. In Part 2 of the study, eligible subjects were enrolled using the same inclusion and exclusion criteria to Part 1 and received open-label leronlimab 350 mg given once per week (±1day) at the study site for up to 13 weeks during the treatment period. The primary efficacy objective was percent change from baseline in hepatic fat fraction, as assessed by magnetic resonance imaging-derived proton density fat fraction (MRI-PDFF) at week 14. The secondary efficacy objective was absolute change from baseline in fibro-inflammatory activity in the liver as assessed by MRI-corrected T1 imaging (MRI-cT1) at week 14. MRI-cT1 is obtained by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the liver and is a quantitative metric for assessing a composite of liver inflammation and fibrosis, expressed in milliseconds (msec). MRI-PDFF is being studied as an imaging surrogate endpoint for the fat density in the liver. MRI-cT1 is being studied as an imaging surrogate endpoint for hepatic fibro-inflammation. This is a critical unmet need in the MASH space, as many agents have been unable to show reductions in fibro-inflammation despite reductions in hepatic steatosis.

All analyses performed are being treated as exploratory. Treatment with leronlimab was well tolerated in both Part 1 and Part 2 compared to placebo. In Part 1 of the study, leronlimab 700 mg did not reduce mean change in PDFF and cT1 from baseline to week 14 vs. placebo. In Part 2, leronlimab 350 mg reduced mean change in PDFF and cT1 from baseline to week 14 vs. the placebo group from Part 1, despite increased degree of baseline fibro-inflammation. In the combined group of patients with moderate (≥ 875 msec) and severe (≥ 950 msec) cT1 values at baseline, leronlimab 350 mg reduced cT1 from baseline to week 14 vs. placebo. The study has been completed and publication of the results is pending.

Leronlimab and Other Immunological Applications

SARS-CoV 2 was identified as the cause of an outbreak of respiratory illness first detected in Wuhan, China. The virus is highly contagious and has developed several variants. COVID-19 disease typically transmits person to person through respiratory droplets, commonly resulting from close personal contact. Coronaviruses are a large family of viruses, some causing illness in people and others that circulate among animals. For confirmed SARS-CoV2 infections, symptoms have included fever, cough, and shortness of breath, amongst many others. The symptoms of COVID-19 may appear in as few as two days or as long as 14 days after exposure. Clinical manifestations in patients have ranged from non-symptomatic to severe and fatal.

Based upon analyses of potential effects of leronlimab on the immune system and the results from over 60 Emergency Investigation New Drug (“EIND”) authorizations provided by the FDA, the Company conducted and completed two clinical trials in the United States for COVID-19 starting in fiscal 2020 and ending in fiscal 2022. Subsequently, the Company paused two additional clinical COVID trials in Brazil which commenced during fiscal 2022. Further, the Company withdrew its COVID-19 IND with the FDA, and the FDA put the COVID-19 program on a full clinical hold in March 2022. If CytoDyn were to continue to pursue the COVID-19 indication, we believe that subgroup analyses from our previous trials may inform the design of future clinical trials investigating leronlimab for the treatment of COVID-19.

Pre-Clinical Development of Long-Acting CCR5 Antagonist** **

In March 2023, the Company entered into a joint development agreement with a third-party generative AI drug discovery and development company to develop one or more longer-acting molecules. The Company believes working with a partner with AI capabilities will result in the expedited development of a modified, longer-acting therapeutic, and could lead to greater acceptance by patients due to the requirement for less frequent injections. The services provided by the third party may yield extended intellectual property protection, thereby increasing the value of the Company’s patent portfolio. In December 2023, the Company received various iterations of potential long-acting therapeutics, on which the Company will be performing assays to determine the suitability and feasibility of the long-acting therapeutic candidates for further development.

If successful, such a modified therapeutic would require less frequent injections for patients on drug, furthering the convenience and overall marketability of the product. Working with a company with established AI-capabilities allows for a robust development path for this modified, longer-acting therapeutic for the Company. This joint development initiative remains in progress at this time and the Company will provide further updates when appropriate.

We are focused on developing leronlimab, a CCR5 receptor antagonist, to be used as a platform drug for various indications. The CCR5 receptor is a protein located on the surface of various cells including white blood cells and cancer cells. On white blood cells, it serves as a receptor for chemical attractants known as chemokines. Chemokines are the key orchestrators of leukocyte trafficking by attracting immune cells to the sites of inflammation. At the site of an inflammatory reaction, chemokines are released. These chemokines are specific for CCR5 and cause the migration of T-cells to these sites promoting further inflammation. The CCR5 receptor is also the co-receptor needed for certain strains of HIV to infect healthy T-cells.

Patents, Proprietary Technology and Data Exclusivity

Protection of the Company’s intellectual property rights is important to our business. We may file patent applications in the U.S., Canada, China, Japan, European countries that are party to the European Patent Convention, and other countries on a selective basis, to protect inventions we consider to be important to the development of our business.

Generally, patents issued in the U.S. are effective for 20 years from the earliest asserted filing date. A U.S. patent, to be selected by us upon receipt of FDA regulatory approval, may be subject to up to a five-year patent term extension in certain instances. While the duration of foreign patents varies in accordance with the provisions of applicable local law, most countries provide for a patent term of 20 years measured from the application filing date and some may also allow for patent term extension to compensate for regulatory approval delay.

We pursue opportunities for seeking new meaningful patent protection on an ongoing basis. Absent patent protection, others may attempt to make and use the leronlimab antibody for uses not covered by later patent filings, such as attempts to produce and sell the leronlimab antibody as a research reagent and/or as a component for use in diagnostics. However, the formulation composition patent protection remains viable, and third parties face additional regulatory hurdles together with CytoDyn’s various method patents with respect to any contemplated attempts to commercialize leronlimab for therapeutic indications. We currently anticipate, absent patent term extension, that patent protection relating to the leronlimab antibody itself started to expire in 2023, the leronlimab concentrated protein formulation will start to expire in 2031, certain methods of using leronlimab for treatment of HIV will start to expire on or before 2035, certain methods of using leronlimab for cancer indications if granted will start to expire in 2040, certain methods of using leronlimab for treatment of COVID-19 will start to expire in 2040, and certain methods of using leronlimab for treatment of MASH if granted will start to expire in 2043.

Patents do not enable us to preclude competitors from commercializing drugs in direct competition with our products that are not covered by granted and enforceable patent claims. Consequently, patents may not provide us with any meaningful competitive advantage. Refer to “Risk Factors” for the related risks. We may also rely on data exclusivity, trade secrets, and proprietary know-how to develop and attempt to achieve a competitive position with our product candidates. We require our employees, consultants, and partners who have access to our proprietary information to sign confidentiality agreements to protect our intellectual property.

Separate from and in addition to the patent rights noted above, we expect that leronlimab will be subject to market and data exclusivity period, during which period no other applications referencing leronlimab will be approved by FDA. Accordingly, this period of regulatory exclusivity is expected to provide a term of protection against competing products shown to be biosimilar or interchangeable with leronlimab. Similar data exclusivity or data protection periods may be provided in other countries. We note that data exclusivity is not an extension of patent rights, and it does not prevent the introduction of generic versions of the innovative drug during the data exclusivity period, as long as the marketing approval of the generic version does not use or rely upon the innovator’s test data.

Patents and data exclusivity are different concepts, protect different subject matter, arise from different efforts, and have different legal effects over different time periods. Information with respect to our current patent portfolio as of May 31, 2024 is as follows:

Research, development and commercialization of a biopharmaceutical product often requires choosing between alternative development and optimization routes at various stages in the development process. Preferred routes depend upon current availability of financial resources, may also be affected by subsequent discoveries, test results and other factors, and therefore cannot be identified with certainty. There are numerous third-party patents in fields in which we work, and we may need to obtain licenses under patents of others to pursue a preferred development route of one or more of our product candidates. The need to obtain a license would decrease the ultimate value and profitability of an affected product. If we cannot negotiate such a license, we might have to pursue a less desirable development route or terminate the program altogether.

Government Regulation

The research, development, testing, manufacture, quality control, packaging, labeling, storage, record-keeping, distribution, import, export, promotion, advertising, marketing, sale, and reimbursement of pharmaceutical products are extensively regulated by governmental authorities in the United States and other countries. The processes for obtaining regulatory approvals in the United States and in foreign countries and jurisdictions, along with compliance with applicable statutes and regulations and other requirements, both pre-approval and post-approval, require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. The regulatory requirements applicable to product development, approval and marketing are subject to change, and regulations and administrative guidance often are revised or reinterpreted by the agencies in ways that may have a significant impact on our business.

Licensure and Regulation of Biological Products in the United States

In the United States, the FDA regulates human drugs under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or the FDCA, and in the case of biological products, also under the Public Health Service Act, or the PHSA, and their implementing regulations. The failure to comply with the applicable U.S. requirements may result in FDA refusal to

approve any pending applications or delays in development and may subject an applicant to administrative or judicial sanctions, such as issuance of warning letters, or the imposition of fines, civil penalties, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, and injunctions and/or civil or criminal prosecution brought by the FDA and the U.S. Department of Justice or other governmental entities.

The FDA must approve product candidates for therapeutic indications before they may be marketed in the United States. For biological products, such as our product candidate, leronlimab, the FDA must approve a BLA. An applicant seeking approval to market and distribute a new biologic in the United States generally must satisfactorily complete each of the following steps:

Pre-clinical Studies

Before an applicant begins testing a product candidate with potential therapeutic value in humans, the product candidate enters the pre-clinical testing stage. Pre-clinical tests include laboratory evaluations of product chemistry, formulation, and stability, as well as other studies to evaluate, among other things, the toxicity of the product candidate. The conduct of the pre-clinical tests and formulation of the compounds for testing must comply with federal regulations and requirements, including GLP regulations and standards. The results of the pre-clinical tests, together with manufacturing information and analytical data, are submitted to the FDA as part of an IND. Some long-term pre-clinical testing, such as animal tests of reproductive adverse events and carcinogenicity, and long-term toxicity studies, may continue after the IND is submitted.

The IND and IRB Processes

An IND is an exemption from the premarket approval requirements of the FDCA allowing an unapproved product candidate to be shipped in interstate commerce for use in an investigational clinical trial. An IND must be in effect prior to interstate shipment and administration of any product candidate that is not the subject of an approved NDA or BLA. When submitting an IND to FDA, applicants must submit a protocol for each planned clinical trial, and any subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. The FDA requires a 30-day waiting period after the filing of each IND before clinical trials may begin. This waiting period is designed to allow the FDA to review the IND to determine whether human research subjects will be exposed to unreasonable health risks. At any time during this 30-day period, the FDA may raise concerns or questions about the conduct of the trials as outlined in the IND and

impose a clinical hold or partial clinical hold. In this case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before clinical trials can begin.

At any time after the IND goes into effect, the FDA may also place a clinical hold or partial clinical hold on the IND or on any clinical trial that has commenced under the IND. A clinical hold is an order issued by the FDA to the sponsor to delay a proposed clinical investigation or to suspend an ongoing investigation. A partial clinical hold is a delay or suspension of only part of the clinical work requested under the IND. For example, a partial clinical hold might state that a specific protocol or part of a protocol may not proceed, while other parts of a protocol or other protocols may do so. No more than 30 days after the imposition of a clinical hold or partial clinical hold, the FDA will provide the sponsor a written explanation of the basis for the hold. Following the issuance of a clinical hold or partial clinical hold, a clinical investigation may only resume once the FDA has notified the sponsor that the investigation may proceed. The FDA will base that determination on information provided by the sponsor correcting the deficiencies previously cited or otherwise satisfying the FDA that the investigation can proceed or recommence.

For each foreign clinical study, a sponsor may choose, but is not required, to conduct it under an IND. When a foreign clinical study is conducted under an IND, all IND requirements must be met unless waived by the FDA. When a foreign clinical study is not conducted under an IND, the sponsor must ensure that the study complies with certain regulatory requirements of the FDA in order to use the study as support for an IND or application for marketing approval. Specifically, the studies must be conducted in accordance with GCP, including undergoing review and receiving approval by an independent ethics committee, or IEC, and seeking and receiving informed consent from subjects. The GCP requirements in the final rule encompass both ethical and data integrity standards for clinical studies. The FDA’s regulations are intended to help ensure the protection of human subjects enrolled in non-IND foreign clinical studies, as well as the quality and integrity of the resulting data.

In addition to the foregoing IND requirements, an IRB must review and approve the plan for any clinical trial before it commences at each institution participating in the clinical trial, and the IRB must conduct continuing review and reapprove the study at least annually. The IRB, which must operate in compliance with FDA regulations, must review and approve, among other things, the study protocol and informed consent information to be provided to study subjects. An IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution, or an institution it represents, if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the product candidate has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients.

Additionally, some trials are overseen by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the trial sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board, or DSMB. This group provides authorization as to whether or not a trial may move forward at designated checkpoints based on review of available data from the study, to which only the DSMB maintains access. Suspension or termination of development during any phase of a clinical trial can occur if the DSMB determines that the participants or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. A sponsor may suspend or terminate development for other reasons, including evolving business objectives and/or a competitive climate.

Expanded Access

Expanded access, sometimes called “compassionate use,” is the use of investigational new drug products outside of clinical trials to treat patients with serious or immediately life-threatening diseases or conditions when there are no comparable or satisfactory alternative treatment options. The rules and regulations related to expanded access are intended to improve access to investigational drugs for patients who may benefit from investigational therapies. FDA regulations allow access to investigational drugs under an IND by the company or the treating physician for treatment purposes on a case-by-case basis for: individual patients (single-patient IND applications for treatment in emergency settings and non-emergency settings); intermediate-size patient populations; and larger populations for use of the drug under a treatment protocol or Treatment IND Application. FDA’s regulations also provide for emergency procedures if there is a situation that requires the patient to be treated before a written submission can be made.

When considering an IND application for expanded access to an investigational product with the purpose of treating a patient or a group of patients, the sponsor and treating physicians or investigators will determine suitability when all of the following criteria apply: patient(s) have a serious or immediately life-threatening disease or condition, and there is no comparable or satisfactory alternative therapy to diagnose, monitor, or treat the disease or condition; the potential patient benefit justifies the potential risks of the treatment and the potential risks are not unreasonable in the context or condition to be treated; and the expanded use of the investigational drug for the requested treatment will not interfere with the

initiation, conduct, or completion of clinical investigations that could support marketing approval of the product or otherwise compromise the potential development of the product.

There is no obligation for a sponsor to make its drug products available for expanded access; however, as required by the 21st Century Cures Act, or Cures Act, passed in 2016, a sponsor must make its policy regarding how it evaluates and responds to expanded access requests public and readily available. Sponsors are required to make such policies publicly available upon the earlier of initiation of a Phase 2 or Phase 3 study; or 15 days after the investigational drug or biologic receives designation as a breakthrough therapy, fast track product, or regenerative medicine advanced therapy.

In addition, on May 30, 2018, the Right to Try Act was signed into law. The law, among other things, provides a federal framework for certain patients to access certain investigational new products that have completed a Phase 1 clinical trial and that are undergoing investigation for FDA approval. Under certain circumstances, eligible patients can seek treatment without enrolling in clinical trials and without obtaining FDA permission under the FDA expanded access program. There is no obligation for a manufacturer to make its products available to eligible patients as a result of the Right to Try Act, but the manufacturer must develop an internal policy and respond to patient requests according to that policy.

Human Clinical Trials in Support of an NDA or BLA

Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational product candidate to human subjects under the supervision of a qualified investigator in accordance with GCP requirements which include, among other things, the requirement that all research subjects provide their informed consent in writing before they participate in any clinical trial. Clinical trials are conducted under written clinical trial protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the study, inclusion and exclusion criteria, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated.

Human clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases, but the phases may overlap or be combined. Additional studies may also be required after approval. As described in FDA’s regulations at 21 CFR 312.21, the three phases are as follows:

Phase 1includes the initial introduction of an investigational new drug into humans. Phase 1 studies are typically closely monitored and may be conducted in patients or normal volunteer subjects. These studies are designed to determine the metabolism and pharmacologic actions of the drug in humans, the side effects associated with increasing doses, and, if possible, to gain early evidence on effectiveness. During Phase 1, sufficient information about the drug’s pharmacokinetics and pharmacological effects should be obtained to permit the design of well-controlled, scientifically valid, Phase 2 studies. The total number of subjects and patients included in Phase 1 studies varies with the drug but is generally in the range of 20 to 80. Phase 1 studies also include studies of drug metabolism, structure-activity relationships, and mechanism of action in humans, as well as studies in which investigational drugs are used as research tools to explore biological phenomena or disease processes.

Phase 2 includes the controlled clinical studies conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the drug for a particular indication or indications in patients with the disease or condition under study and to determine the common short-term side effects and risks associated with the drug. Phase 2 studies are typically well controlled, closely monitored, and conducted in a relatively small number of patients, usually involving no more than several hundred subjects.

Phase 3 studies are expanded controlled and uncontrolled trials. They are performed after preliminary evidence suggesting effectiveness of the drug has been obtained and are intended to gather the additional information about effectiveness and safety that is needed to evaluate the overall benefit-risk relationship of the drug and to provide an adequate basis for physician labeling. Phase 3 studies usually include from several hundred to several thousand subjects.

In some cases, the FDA may approve an NDA or BLA for a product candidate but require the sponsor to conduct additional clinical trials to further assess the product candidate’s safety and effectiveness after approval. Such post-approval trials are typically referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials. These trials are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of a larger number of patients in the intended treatment group and to further verify and describe clinical benefit in the case of products approved under FDA’s accelerated approval regulations. Failure to exhibit due diligence with regard to conducting Phase 4 clinical trials could result in withdrawal of FDA approval for products.

Progress reports detailing the results of clinical trials must be submitted annually to the FDA. In addition, IND safety reports must be submitted to the FDA for any of the following: serious and unexpected suspected adverse reactions; findings from other studies or animal or in vitro testing that suggest a significant risk in humans exposed to the product; and any clinically important increase in the occurrence of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure. Expedited reporting is required for unexpected fatal or life-threatening suspected adverse reactions. Phase 1, Phase 2, and Phase 3 clinical trials may not be completed successfully within any specified period, or at all. The FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCP and the integrity of the clinical data submitted.

Expedited Programs for Serious Conditions

The FDA is authorized to expedite the development and review of new therapeutic products to address unmet need in the treatment of a serious or life-threatening condition. A product development program may qualify for one or more of FDA’s expedited programs for serious conditions: fast track designation, breakthrough therapy designation, accelerated approval, and priority review designation.

Any product candidate submitted to the FDA for marketing, including under a Fast Track program, may be eligible for other types of FDA programs intended to expedite development and review, such as breakthrough therapy designation, priority review, and accelerated approval.

None of these expedited programs change the standards for approval but they may help expedite the development or approval process of product candidates.

Emergency Use Authorizations

The FDA has the authority to permit the use of unapproved medical products following a determination of a public health emergency (“PHE”) by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the “Secretary”) and a declaration by the Secretary that circumstances exist justifying the authorization of emergency use of particular types of medical products to respond to the PHE. Once the Secretary has made the requisite determination and declaration, the FDA may issue Emergency Use Authorizations (“EUAs”), for specific unapproved medical products if the following statutory criteria have been met: (1) the pathogen that is the subject of the PHE can cause a serious or life-threatening condition; (2) based on the totality of the scientific evidence available, it is reasonable to believe that (i) the product may be effective in preventing or treating such condition, and (ii) the known and potential benefits of the product outweigh the known and potential risks; and (3) there is no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the product.

If an EUA is granted, it generally will remain in effect until the Secretary’s declaration that circumstances exist justifying the authorization of emergency use of the type of products at issue or the product is approved under one of FDA’s traditional approval pathways. The EUA also may be revoked or revised for other reasons, including a finding that the criteria for its issuance are no longer met or other circumstances make a revision or revocation appropriate to protect public health or safety.

Review and Approval of BLAs

Assuming successful completion of the required clinical testing, the results of the pre-clinical studies and clinical trials, along with information relating to the product’s chemistry, manufacturing, and controls and proposed labeling, are submitted to the FDA as part of a BLA requesting approval to market the product for one or more indications. Data may come from company-sponsored clinical trials intended to test the safety and efficacy of a product’s use or from a number of alternative sources, including studies initiated by investigators. To support marketing approval, the data submitted must be sufficient in quality and quantity to establish the safety, potency, and purity of the investigational product to the satisfaction of the FDA. The fee required for the submission of an NDA or BLA under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or PDUFA, is substantial (for example, for FY2024 this application fee is approximately $4.0 million), and the sponsor of an approved BLA is also subject to an annual program fee, approximately $0.4 million per program. These fees are typically adjusted annually, but exemptions and waivers may be available under certain circumstances.

The FDA conducts a preliminary review of all BLAs within 60 days of receipt and informs the sponsor by the 74th day after the FDA’s receipt of the submission whether an application is sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. In the event that the FDA determines that a BLA does not satisfy this standard, it will issue a Refuse to File (“RTF”), determination to the applicant. Typically, an RTF for a BLA will be based on administrative incompleteness, such as clear omission of information or sections of required information; scientific incompleteness, such as omission of critical data, information, or analyses needed to evaluate safety, purity, and potency or provide adequate directions for use; or inadequate content, presentation, or organization of information such that substantive and meaningful review is precluded. The FDA may request additional information rather than accept a BLA for filing. In this event, the application must be resubmitted with the additional information. The resubmitted application is also subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing.

After the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth substantive review of the application. Under the goals and policies agreed to by the FDA under PDUFA, the FDA aims to review and act on 90 percent of standard submissions within ten months of the filing date and 90 percent of priority review submissions within six months of the filing date. The review process may be extended by the FDA for three additional months to consider new information or, in the case of a clarification provided by the applicant, to address an outstanding deficiency identified by the FDA following the original submission. Despite these review goals, it is not uncommon for FDA review of a BLA to extend beyond the PDUFA goal date.

Before approving a BLA, the FDA will typically conduct a pre-approval inspection of the manufacturing facilities for the new product to determine whether the manufacturing processes and facilities comply with GMPs. The FDA will not approve the product unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. The FDA also may inspect the sponsor and one or more clinical trial sites to assure compliance with GCP requirements and the integrity of the clinical data submitted to the FDA.

Additionally, the FDA may refer a BLA, including applications for novel product candidates which present difficult questions of safety or efficacy, to an advisory committee for review, evaluation, and recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. Typically, an advisory committee is a panel of independent experts, including clinicians and other scientific experts. The FDA is not bound by the recommendation of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations when making final decisions on approval. The FDA also may require submission of a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (“REMS”), if it determines that a REMS is necessary to ensure that the benefits of the product outweigh its risks and to assure the safe use of the biological product. If the FDA concludes a REMS is needed, the sponsor of the BLA must submit a proposed REMS and the FDA will not approve the BLA without a REMS.

The FDA reviews a BLA to determine, among other things, whether the product is safe, pure, and potent and whether the facility in which it is manufactured, processed, packed, or held meets standards designed to assure the product’s continued safety, purity, and potency. The approval process is lengthy and often difficult, and the FDA may refuse to approve a BLA if the applicable regulatory criteria are not satisfied or may require additional clinical or other data and information. After evaluating the application and all related information, including the advisory committee recommendations, if any, and inspection reports of manufacturing facilities and clinical trial sites, the FDA may issue either an approval letter or a Complete Response Letter, or CRL.

An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the product with specific prescribing information for specific indications. A CRL indicates that the review cycle of the application is complete, and the application will not be approved in its present form. A CRL generally outlines the deficiencies in the submission and may require substantial additional testing or information in order for the FDA to reconsider the application. The CRL may require additional clinical or other data, additional pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial(s) and/or other significant and time-consuming requirements related to clinical trials, pre-clinical studies, or manufacturing. If a CRL is issued, the applicant may either resubmit the BLA addressing all the deficiencies identified in the letter or withdraw the application. If and when those deficiencies have been addressed to the FDA’s satisfaction in a resubmission of the BLA, the FDA will issue an approval letter. The FDA has committed to reviewing and acting on 90 percent of such resubmissions in response to an issued CRL in either two or six months depending on the type of information included. Even with the submission of this additional information, however, the FDA ultimately may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval.

If a product receives marketing approval from the FDA, the approval is limited to the conditions of use (e.g., patient population, indication) described in the FDA-approved labeling. Further, depending on the specific risk(s) to be addressed, the FDA may require that contraindications, warnings, or precautions be included in the product labeling, require that post-approval trials, including Phase 4 clinical trials, be conducted to further assess a product’s safety after approval, require testing and surveillance programs to monitor the product after commercialization or impose other conditions, including distribution and use restrictions or other risk management mechanisms under a REMS which can materially affect the potential market and profitability of the product. The FDA may prevent or limit further marketing of a product based on the results of post-marketing trials or surveillance programs. After approval, some types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications, manufacturing changes, and additional labeling claims, are subject to further testing requirements and FDA review and approval.

Reference Product Exclusivity for Biological Products

With approval of a BLA, a biological product is licensed for marketing by FDA, and the product may be entitled to certain types of market and data exclusivity barring FDA from approving competing products for certain periods of time. For example, in March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was enacted in the United States and included the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, or the BPCIA. The BPCIA amended the PHSA to create an abbreviated approval pathway for biological products that are biosimilar to or interchangeable with an FDA-licensed biological reference product. To date, the FDA has approved several biosimilars, and in 2021, the FDA approved the first interchangeable biologic. The FDA has also issued several guidance documents outlining its approach to reviewing and approving biosimilars and interchangeable biologics.

Under the BPCIA, a manufacturer may submit an application for a product that is “biosimilar to” or “interchangeable with” a previously approved biological product or “reference product.” For the FDA to approve a biosimilar product, it must find that there are no clinically meaningful differences between the reference product and the

proposed biosimilar product in terms of safety, purity, and potency. For the FDA to approve an interchangeable biological product, the agency must find that the biological product is biosimilar to the reference product, can be expected to produce the same clinical results as the reference product, and “for a biological product that is administered more than once to an individual, the risk in terms of safety or diminished efficacy of alternating or switching between use of the biological product and the reference product is not greater than the risk of using the reference product without such alternation or switch.” Upon licensure by the FDA, an interchangeable biosimilar may be substituted for the reference product without the intervention of the healthcare provider who prescribed the reference product, although the substitutability of drug and biological products are determined at the state level.

The biosimilar applicant generally must demonstrate that the product is biosimilar based on data from analytical studies showing that the biosimilar product is highly similar to the reference product, data from animal studies (including toxicity) and data from one or more clinical studies to demonstrate safety, purity, and potency in one or more appropriate conditions of use for which the reference product is approved. The FDA, however, may waive any of these data requirements upon a finding that the data are “unnecessary.” In addition, the applicant must show that the biosimilar and reference products have the same mechanism of action for the approved conditions of use, route of administration, dosage and strength, and the production facility must meet standards designed to assure product safety, purity, and potency.

In the US, a reference biological product is granted 12 years of exclusivity from the time of first licensure of the product, and the first approved interchangeable biological product will be granted an exclusivity period of up to one year after it is first commercially marketed. The FDA will not accept an application for a biosimilar or interchangeable product until four years after the date of first licensure of the reference product.

The BPCIA is complex, and there have been various legislative proposals to change certain aspects of the BPCIA. As a result, the ultimate impact, implementation, and meaning of aspects of the BPCIA are subject to significant uncertainty.

Orphan Drug Designation and Exclusivity

Orphan drug designation in the United States is designed to encourage sponsors to develop products intended for treatment of rare diseases or conditions. In the United States, a rare disease or condition is statutorily defined as a condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States or that affects more than 200,000 individuals in the United States and for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making available the drug for the disease or condition will be recovered from sales of the product in the United States.

Orphan drug designation may qualify a company for certain tax credits and market exclusivity for seven years following the date of the product’s marketing approval if granted by the FDA. An application for designation as an orphan product can be made any time prior to the filing of an application for approval to market the product. A product that has received orphan drug designation must go through the review and approval process like any other product.

A sponsor may request orphan drug designation of a previously unapproved product or new orphan indication for an already marketed product. In addition, a sponsor of a product that is otherwise the same drug as an already approved orphan drug may seek and obtain orphan drug designation for the subsequent product for the same rare disease or condition if it can present a plausible hypothesis that its product may be clinically superior to the first drug. More than one sponsor may receive orphan drug designation for the same drug for the same rare disease or condition, but each sponsor seeking orphan drug designation must file a complete request for designation.

If a product with orphan drug designation receives the first FDA approval for the rare disease or condition for which it has such designation, the product generally will receive orphan drug exclusivity. Orphan drug exclusivity means that the FDA may not approve another sponsor’s marketing application for the same drug for the same disease or condition for seven years, except in certain limited circumstances.

The period of exclusivity begins on the date that the marketing application is approved by the FDA. Orphan drug exclusivity will not bar approval of another product under certain circumstances, including if the company with orphan drug exclusivity is not able to meet market demand or the subsequent product that is otherwise considered the same drug for the same disease or condition is shown to be clinically superior to the approved product based on greater efficacy or safety, or providing a major contribution to patient care. Additionally, the statute requires that a sponsor must

demonstrate clinical superiority in order to receive orphan drug exclusivity for a product that is considered the same drug as a previously approved product for the same rare disease or condition.

Patent Term Restoration and Extension

In the United States, a patent claiming a new biological product, its method of use or its method of manufacture may be eligible for a limited patent term extension under the Hatch Waxman Act, which permits a patent extension of up to five years for patent term lost during product development and FDA regulatory review. Assuming grant of the patent for which the extension is sought, the restoration period for a patent covering a product is typically one half the time between the effective date of the IND involving human beings and the submission date of the BLA, plus the time between the submission date of the BLA and the ultimate approval date. Patent term restoration cannot be used to extend the remaining term of a patent past a total of 14 years from the product’s approval date in the United States. Only one patent applicable to an approved product is eligible for the extension, and the application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent for which extension is sought. A patent that covers multiple products for which approval is sought can only be extended in connection with one of the approvals. The USPTO reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension in consultation with the FDA.

Post-approval Requirements

Following approval of a new product, the manufacturer and the approved product are subject to pervasive and continuing regulation by the FDA, governing, among other things, monitoring and recordkeeping activities, reporting of adverse experiences with the product and product problems to the FDA, product sampling and distribution, manufacturing, and promotion and advertising. Although physicians may prescribe legally available products for unapproved uses or patient populations (i.e., “off-label uses”), manufacturers may not market or promote such uses. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label uses may be subject to significant liability.

Specifically, if a company is found to have promoted off-label uses, it may become subject to adverse public relations and administrative and judicial enforcement by the FDA, the Department of Justice, or the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, as well as state authorities. This could subject a company to a range of penalties that could have a significant commercial impact, including civil and criminal fines and agreements that materially restrict the way a company promotes or distributes drug products. The federal government has levied large civil and criminal fines against companies for alleged improper promotion and has also requested that companies enter into consent decrees or permanent injunctions under which specified promotional conduct is changed or curtailed.

Further, if there are any modifications to the product, including changes in indications, labeling, or manufacturing processes or facilities, the applicant may be required to submit and obtain FDA approval of a new BLA or a BLA supplement, which may require the applicant to develop additional data or conduct additional pre-clinical studies and clinical trials. The FDA may also place other conditions on approvals including the requirement for a REMS to assure the safe use of the product, which may require substantial commitment of resources post-approval to ensure compliance. A REMS could include medication guides, physician communication plans, or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries, and other risk minimization tools. Any of these limitations on approval or marketing could restrict the commercial promotion, distribution, prescription, or dispensing of products. Product approvals may be withdrawn for non-compliance with regulatory standards or if problems occur following initial marketing.

In addition, FDA regulations require that biological products be manufactured in specific approved facilities and in accordance with cGMPs. The cGMP regulations include requirements relating to organization of personnel, buildings and facilities, equipment, control of components and drug product containers and closures, production and process controls, packaging and labeling controls, holding and distribution, laboratory controls, records and reports, and returned or salvaged products. The manufacturing facilities for our product candidates must meet cGMP requirements and satisfy the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities’ satisfaction before any product is approved and our commercial products can be manufactured.

We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties to produce clinical (and, in the future, commercial) supplies of our product candidate in accordance with cGMP regulations. These manufacturers must comply with cGMP

regulations, including requirements for quality control and quality assurance, the maintenance of records and documentation, and the obligation to investigate and correct any deviations from cGMP. Manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved drugs or biologics are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with cGMP and other laws. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money, and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain cGMP compliance. Inspections by the FDA and other regulatory agencies may identify compliance issues at facilities that may disrupt production or distribution or require substantial resources to correct. In addition, the discovery of conditions that violate these rules, including failure to conform to cGMPs, could result in enforcement actions, and the discovery of problems with a product after approval may result in restrictions on a product, manufacturer, or holder of an approved BLA, including voluntary recall and regulatory sanctions as described below.

The FDA may withdraw approval if compliance with regulatory requirements and standards is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the market. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in mandatory revisions to the approved labeling to add new safety information, imposition of post-market clinical trials requirement to assess new safety risks or imposition of distribution or other restrictions under a REMS program. Other potential consequences include, among other things:

In addition, the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical products is subject to the Prescription Drug Marketing Act, or PDMA, which regulates the distribution of samples at the federal level and sets minimum standards for the registration and regulation of drug distributors by the states. Additionally, the Drug Supply Chain Security Act, or DSCSA, imposes requirements related to identifying and tracing certain prescription products distributed in the United States, including most biological products.

Other U.S. Healthcare Laws and Regulations

In the United States, biopharmaceutical manufacturers and their products are subject to extensive regulation at the federal and state level, such as laws intended to prevent fraud and abuse in the healthcare industry. These laws, some of which apply only to approved products, include:

individual for, or the purchasing or ordering of, a good or service for which payment may be made under federal healthcare programs such as Medicare and Medicaid;

Violations of these laws are punishable by criminal and/or civil sanctions, including, in some instances, exclusion from participation in federal and state health care programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid. Ensuring compliance is time consuming and costly.

Similar healthcare laws and regulations exist in the European Union (the “EU”) and other jurisdictions, including reporting requirements detailing interactions with and payments to healthcare providers and laws governing the privacy and security of personal information.

U.S. Privacy Law

In the U.S., there are numerous state and federal laws and regulations governing the security and privacy of personal information. Additionally, state and federal regulators have begun to pay more attention to companies’ data processing activities.

At the state level, laws require companies to safeguard personal information and take action in the event of a data breach (e.g., notifying governmental authorities and data subjects). State attorney generals have been active in using their consumer protection authority to investigate companies’ data security practices. A number of states have passed laws governing data privacy and many others have similar legislation under consideration. Although many of these laws contain exceptions for certain health data, these exceptions are not comprehensive. All of these laws give rights to residents in their states and require businesses to take certain actions with respect to those rights (similar to the General Data Protection Regulation in effect in the EU, but with notable differences).

At the federal level, the Federal Trade Commission has been active in using its Section 5 authority to bring enforcement actions against companies for deceptive or unreasonable data processing activities.

Registrational Clinical Trials Process

Described below is the traditional registrational drug development track.

Phase 1includes the initial introduction of an investigational new drug or biologic into humans. These studies are closely monitored and may be conducted in patients but are usually conducted in a small number of healthy volunteer patients. These studies are designed to determine the metabolic and pharmacologic actions of the investigational product in humans, the side effects associated with increasing doses, and, if possible, to gain early evidence on effectiveness. During Phase 1, sufficient information about the investigational product’s pharmacokinetics and pharmacological effects are obtained to permit the design of well-controlled, scientifically valid, Phase 2 studies. Phase 1 studies of PRO 140

were conducted and completed by or on behalf of Progenics by certain principal investigators prior to our acquisition of PRO 140.

Phase 2includes the early controlled clinical studies conducted to obtain some preliminary data on the effectiveness of the drug for a particular indication or indications in patients with the disease or condition. This phase of testing also helps determine the common short-term side effects and risks associated with the drug. Phase 2 studies are typically well-controlled, closely monitored, and conducted in a relatively small number of patients, typically no more than several hundred people. In some cases, depending upon the need for a new drug, a particular drug candidate may be licensed for sale in interstate commerce after a “pivotal” Phase 2 trial. Phase 2 is often broken into Phase 2a, which can be used to refer to “pilot trials,” or more limited trials evaluating exposure response in patients, and Phase 2b trials that are designed to evaluate dosing efficacy and ranges.

Phase 3studies are expanded controlled clinical studies. They are performed after preliminary evidence suggesting effectiveness of the drug has been obtained in Phase 2 and are intended to gather the additional information about effectiveness and safety that is needed to evaluate the overall benefit/risk relationship of the drug. Phase 3 studies also provide an adequate basis for extrapolating the results to the general population and transmitting that information in the physician labeling. Phase 3 studies usually involve significantly larger groups of patients, and considerable additional expense. We were required to pay significant fees to third parties upon the first patient dosing in a Phase 3 trial of leronlimab, and we may be required to make additional fee payments to third parties upon the completion of additional milestones. Refer to Part II, Item 8, Note 10,Commitments and Contingencies - PRO 140 Acquisition and Licensing Arrangements, for further information.

Manufacturing

We do not own or operate manufacturing facilities to produce leronlimab or perform chemistry, manufacturing, and controls (“CMC”) related activities. As such, we must depend on third-party manufacturing organizations and suppliers for all of our CMC activities. We continue to explore alternative CMC partners and sources to obtain access to adequate resources to support our CMC efforts for leronlimab in a cost-efficient manner.

We previously engaged two global contract manufacturing organizations (“CMOs”), to initiate the scale-up to commercial batch quantities of product and develop the necessary controls and specifications to manufacture product on a consistent and reproducible manner. We also contracted with suitable CMO(s) to fill, finish, label, and package product into the final commercial package for commercial use. In order to commercialize product, this scaled-up material will need to be validated under best practices and demonstrated to meet approved specifications on an ongoing basis. GMP material will be produced as needed to support clinical trials for all therapeutic indications and until commercial product is approved by the FDA. We will continue to rely on active CMO relationships for all of our developmental and commercial needs. As noted above under “Recent Corporate Developments”, we terminated our relationship with Samsung in April 2024 and currently maintain one active CMO relationship. We will continue to evaluate the need for any additional CMO services and/or relationships, as well as the potential use of our remaining pre-launch inventories described under the heading “Business Overview” above.

Research and Development Costs

The Company’s research and development expenses totaled approximately $7.2 million and $2.6 million for the fiscal years ended May 31, 2024, and 2023, respectively.

Properties

We lease the space at which our principal executive offices are located at a monthly cost of approximately $15.6 thousand. We do not own or lease any other properties.

Employees and Human Capital Resources

As of August 15, 2024, we had nine full-time employees, as well as a number of independent consultants, including our interim Chief Financial Officer and other individuals assisting us with the Company’s regulatory, quality, and medical matters. Our research and development team is geographically dispersed throughout the United States. CytoDyn is committed to pay equity regardless of gender or race/ethnicity. We invest in our workforce by offering competitive salaries and benefits. We may award stock options or other stock-based awards to selected employees and consultants under our equity incentive plan. We also offer various benefits to all eligible employees, including health care coverage

and a 401(k) plan. None of our employees are subject to a collective bargaining agreement. We consider our relationship with our employees to be good. There can be no assurance, however, that we will be able to identify or hire and retain additional employees or consultants on acceptable terms in the future.