Black Diamond Therapeutics, Inc.

Previous report

Disruptions at the FDA, other government agencies or comparable foreign regulatory authorities caused by funding shortages could hinder their ability to hire and retain key leadership and other personnel, prevent new products and services from being developed or commercialized in a timely manner or otherwise prevent those agencies from performing normal business functions on which the operation of our business may rely, which could negatively impact our business.

Previous report

Currently, federal agencies in the U.S. are operating under a federal government shutdown due to expiration of the continuing resolution on September 30, 2025. The duration of the current government shutdown is unknown. Without appropriation of additional funding to federal agencies, our business operations related to our product development activities for the U.S. market could be impacted. The ability of the FDA to review and approve new products can be affected by a variety of factors, including government budget and funding levels (including due to the government shutdown), ability to hire and retain key personnel and accept the payment of user fees, availability of personnel and other resources, and statutory, regulatory and policy changes, and other events that may otherwise affect the FDA’s ability to perform routine functions. Average review times at the agency have fluctuated in recent years as a result. In addition, government funding of the SEC and other government agencies on which our operations may rely, including those that fund research and development activities is subject to the political process, which is inherently fluid and unpredictable. The Trump Administration has issued executive orders seeking to greatly reduce the size of the federal workforce, including through layoffs and severance packages offered to employees of federal agencies within the executive branch and independent agencies, including the FDA, SEC and U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Any such reduction in personnel may result in longer review times by the FDA and other agencies.

Previous report

Disruptions and personnel turnover, as a result of leadership changes, staff reductions or otherwise, at the FDA, other government agencies or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may also slow the time necessary for new drugs to be reviewed and/or approved by necessary government agencies, which would adversely affect our business.

Previous report

Changes and cuts in FDA staffing have been reported by some in the pharmaceutical industry as creating instances of delays in the FDA’s responsiveness or in its ability to review IND submissions or applications, issue regulations or guidance, or implement or enforce regulatory requirements in a timely fashion, or at all. There is also substantial uncertainty as to how regulatory reform measures being implemented by the current U.S. administration, and other political developments, such as government shutdowns or work stoppages, would impact other U.S. regulatory agencies, such as the FDA, SEC and USPTO, on which our operations rely. For example, over the last several years, including beginning on October 1, 2025, the U.S. government has shut down several times and certain regulatory agencies, such as the FDA and the SEC, have had to furlough critical employees and stop critical activities. Specifically, on October 1, 2025, the U.S. federal government entered a shutdown suspending services deemed non-essential as a result of the failure by Congress to enact regular appropriations for the 2026 fiscal year. If the shutdown continues for a prolonged period of time or a widespread freeze on federal funding continues, it could result in significant delays in the FDA's ability to timely review and process any submissions we have filed or may file or cause other regulatory delays, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. Additionally, disruptions at the National Institutes of Health or changes to its budget may negatively impact our operations and ongoing clinical trials. Further, in our operations as a public company, current and future government shutdowns or substantial leadership, personnel, and policy changes could impact our ability to access the public markets and obtain necessary capital in order to properly capitalize and continue our operations.

Previous report

Business, economic or geopolitical disruptions or global health concerns could seriously harm our development efforts and increase our costs and expenses.

Previous report

Broad-based business, macroeconomic conditions or market volatility resulting from national or global economic developments, political unrest, high inflation, rising interest rates, international tariffs, changes in international trade relationships and military conflicts could adversely affect our ongoing or planned research and development activities. Sanctions imposed by the U.S. and other countries in response to such conflicts may also continue to adversely impact the financial markets and the global economy, and any economic countermeasures by the affected countries or others could exacerbate market and economic instability. Tariffs levied by the U.S. and other countries also may adversely affect financial markets and the global economy. For example, the U.S. has recently imposed blanket 10% tariffs on virtually all imports to the U.S. and significantly higher tariffs applicable to imports from many countries, including tariffs aggregating 104% on imports from China, which have resulted in other countries imposing additional tariffs on imports from the U.S., including additional tariffs of 125% on imports from the U.S. announced by China, and is likely to continue to result in more retaliatory tariffs. On April 9, 2025, the U.S. announced a temporary pause on its tariffs applicable to many countries, while increasing the tariffs applicable to imports from China. On September 25, 2025, the U.S. announced a 100% tariff on brand-name or patented drugs unless pharmaceutical companies expand their manufacturing operations in the U.S., and may impose more restrictions on goods. While pharmaceutical products are currently excluded from the baseline and reciprocal tariffs imposed by the U.S., such tariffs still apply to the raw materials and other products necessary for the manufacture and formulation of our product candidates. In addition, the current U.S. administration has threatened to continue to broadly impose tariffs, which could lead to corresponding punitive actions by the countries with which the U.S. trades. While certain tariffs have been suspended, modified or temporarily reduced, we cannot predict the results of the U.S. government’s trade negotiations or the outcome of ongoing legal challenges to specific tariff policies.

Previous report

Any such disruptions or concerns may impact a broad range of stakeholders, including our target patient populations, the hospitals and clinical sites in which we conduct any of our clinical trials, third parties with whom we engage, including our CROs, suppliers and regulators. Such impacts could materially negatively affect our ability to conduct our business in the manner or on the timelines presently planned by causing delays in the enrollment of our clinical trials, the manufacture and supply of our product candidates, the conduct of experiments and studies and other interruptions and potential limitations on the quality, completeness and interpretability of data we are able to collect.

Previous report

Additionally, changes to policy implemented by the U.S. Congress, the Trump administration or any new administration have impacted and may in the future impact, among other things, the U.S. and global economy, international trade relations, unemployment, immigration, healthcare, taxation, the U.S. regulatory environment, inflation and other areas. For example, if the operations of our third-party manufacturers of drug substances and drug products in China were to be negatively affected, including as a result of the escalation of tariffs or other trade restrictions or if the previously proposed federal legislation known as the BIOSECURE Act or a similar law were to be enacted, it could result in delays or disruptions in the supply of our product candidates and the conduct of our clinical studies. Although the BIOSECURE Act was not passed, in October 2025, versions of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2026 passed each respective chamber of Congress and both included an amendment that would effectively implement federal government contracting, loan, and grant restrictions similar to those proposed in the 2024 BIOSECURE Act. If the BIOSECURE Act or similar legislation is passed in the future, we may not be able to engage a backup or alternative supplier or service provider in a timely manner or at all. This, in turn, could materially and adversely affect our or our collaborators’ ability to manufacture or supply product candidates or advance our clinical development programs, which could materially and adversely affect our business and future prospects.

Previous report

Any negative impact to patient enrollment or treatment or the timing and execution of our clinical trials could cause costly delays to our development programs, which could adversely affect our ability to obtain regulatory approval for and to commercialize our product candidates, increase our operating expenses and have a material adverse effect on our business and financial results. We continue to assess the legislation as it develops to determine whether it could have an effect on our contractual relationships. Also, current inflationary trends in the global economy may impact salaries and wages, costs of goods and transportation expenses, among other things, and recent and potential future disruptions in access to bank deposits or lending commitments due to bank failures may create market and economic instability.

Previous report

We have entered into a license agreement, and may form or seek collaborations or strategic alliances or enter into additional licensing arrangements in the future, and we may not realize the benefits of such collaborations, alliances or licensing arrangements.

Previous report

As part of our strategy, we have entered into a license agreement and may form or seek strategic alliances, create joint ventures or collaborations, or enter into additional licensing arrangements with third parties that we believe will complement or augment our development and commercialization efforts with respect to our product candidates and any future product candidates that we may develop.

Previous report

For example, in March 2025, we entered into a global licensing agreement (the Servier Agreement) with Servier Pharmaceuticals LLC (Servier) for our second clinical-stage asset, BDTX-4933, a small molecule designed to address unmet medical needs in RAF/RAS-mutant solid tumors. Under the Servier Agreement, we granted to Servier a worldwide license to develop and commercialize BDTX-4933. Pursuant to the terms of the Servier Agreement, Servier will lead the development activities and the worldwide commercialization of BDTX-4933 across multiple indications, including NSCLC, with potential applications in other solid tumors. Failure by Servier to meet its obligations under the Servier Agreement, to apply sufficient efforts at developing and commercializing licensed products, or to comply with applicable legal or regulatory requirements, may materially adversely affect our business and our results of operations. We are currently exploring potential partnerships for the pivotal development of silevertinib in EGFRm NSCLC and GBM.

Previous report

Any of these relationships may require us to incur non-recurring and other charges, increase our near and long-term expenditures, issue securities that dilute our existing stockholders or disrupt our management and business. In addition, we face significant competition in seeking appropriate strategic partners and the negotiation process is time-consuming and complex. Moreover, we may not be successful in our efforts to establish a strategic partnership or other alternative arrangements for our product candidates because they may be deemed to be at too early of a stage of development for collaborative effort and third parties may not view our product candidates as having the requisite potential to demonstrate safety, potency, purity and efficacy and obtain marketing approval.

Previous report

As a result, if we enter into additional collaboration agreements and strategic partnerships or license our product candidates, we may not be able to realize the benefit of such transactions, which could delay our timelines or otherwise adversely affect our business. We also cannot be certain that, following a strategic transaction or license, we will achieve the revenue or specific net income that justifies such transaction. Any delays in entering into new collaborations or strategic partnership agreements related to our product candidates could delay the development and commercialization of our product candidates in certain geographies for certain indications, which would harm our business prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

Previous report

In the United States, there have been and continue to be a number of legislative initiatives to contain healthcare costs. For example, on July 9, 2021, President Biden issued an executive order directing the FDA to, among other things, continue to clarify and improve the approval framework for generic drugs and identify and address any efforts to impede generic drug competition.

Previous report

Further, in March 2010, the ACA was passed, which substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers, and significantly impacted the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. The ACA, among other things, subjects biological products to potential competition by lower-cost biosimilars, addresses a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for drugs that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted or injected, increases the minimum Medicaid rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program and extends the rebate program to individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations, establishes annual fees and taxes on manufacturers of certain branded prescription drugs, and creates a new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program, in which manufacturers must agree to offer 70% (increased pursuant to the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, effective as of 2019) point-of-sale discounts off negotiated prices of applicable brand drugs to eligible beneficiaries during their coverage gap period, as a condition for the manufacturer’s outpatient drugs to be covered under Medicare Part D.

Previous report

Since its enactment, there have been judicial, administrative, executive and Congressional legislative challenges to certain aspects of the ACA, and we expect there will be additional challenges and amendments to the ACA in the future. For example, various portions of the ACA are currently undergoing constitutional challenges in the Fifth Circuit Court and the United States Supreme Court, and the Trump Administration issued various Executive Orders eliminating cost sharing subsidies and various provisions that would impose a fiscal burden on states or a cost, fee, tax, penalty or regulatory burden on individuals, healthcare providers, health insurers, or manufacturers of pharmaceuticals or medical devices. Additionally, Congress introduced several pieces of legislation aimed at significantly revising or repealing the ACA. It is unclear whether the ACA will be overturned, repealed, replaced, or further amended. We cannot predict what affect further changes to the ACA would have on our business, especially given the new administration.

Previous report

There have been legislative and executive efforts to fundamentally change or repeal parts of the ACA. While Congress has not passed repeal legislation to date, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA), repealed, effective January 1, 2019, the tax-based shared responsibility payment imposed by the ACA on certain individuals who fail to maintain qualifying health coverage for all or part of a year that is commonly referred to as the “individual mandate.” On June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the most recent judicial challenge to the ACA brought by several states without specifically ruling on the constitutionality of the ACA. Litigation and legislation over the ACA are likely to continue, with unpredictable and uncertain results. We will continue to evaluate the effect that the ACA and its possible repeal and replacement has on our business.

Previous report

Further, on January 20, 2017, President Trump signed an Executive Order directing federal agencies with authorities and responsibilities under the ACA to waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the implementation of any provision of the ACA that would impose a fiscal burden on states or a cost, fee, tax, penalty or regulatory burden on individuals, healthcare providers, health insurers, or manufacturers of pharmaceuticals or medical devices. On October 13, 2017, President Trump signed an Executive Order terminating the cost-sharing subsidies that reimburse insurers under the ACA. The Trump administration concluded that cost-sharing reduction, or CSR, payments to insurance companies required under the ACA have not received necessary appropriations from Congress and announced that it will discontinue these payments immediately until those appropriations are made. The loss of the CSR payments is expected to increase premiums on certain policies issued by qualified health plans under the ACA. Several state Attorneys General filed suit to stop the administration from terminating the subsidies, but their request for a restraining order was denied by a federal judge in California on October 25, 2017. On August 14, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in two separate cases that the federal government is liable for the full amount of unpaid CSRs for the years preceding and including 2017. For CSR claims made by health insurance companies for years 2018 and later, further litigation will be required to determine the amounts due, if any. Further, on June 14, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that the federal government was not required to pay to third-party payors more than $12 billion in ACA risk corridor payments that they argued were owed to them. On April 27, 2020, the United States Supreme Court reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision and remanded the case to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, concluding the government has an obligation to pay these risk corridor payments under the relevant formula. On March 2, 2020, the United States Supreme Court granted the petitions for writs of certiorari to review this case, and held oral arguments on November 10, 2020. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case is forthcoming. The effects of this gap in reimbursement on third-party payors, the viability of the ACA marketplace, providers, and potentially our business, are not yet known.

Previous report

On December 20, 2019, the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act (H.R. 1865) was signed into law and repealed the so called “Cadillac” tax on certain high cost employer-sponsored insurance plans, the annual fee imposed on certain health insurance providers based on market share, and the medical devise excise tax on non-exempt medical devises. It is impossible to determine whether similar taxes could be instated in the future. The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, also amended the ACA, effective January 1, 2019, by increasing the point-of-sale discount that is owed by pharmaceutical manufacturers who participate in Medicare Part D and closing the coverage gap in most Medicare drug plans, commonly referred to as the “donut hole.” CMS published a final rule permitting further collections and payments to and from certain ACA qualified health plans and health insurance issuers under the ACA risk adjustment program in response to the outcome of federal district court litigation regarding the method CMS uses to determine this risk adjustment. In addition, CMS published a final rule that gives states greater flexibility, as of 2020, in setting benchmarks for insurers in the individual and small group marketplaces, which may have the effect of relaxing the essential health benefits required under the ACA for plans sold through such marketplaces.

Previous report

Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA was enacted. In August 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, created measures for spending reductions by Congress including resulting in aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers up to 2% per fiscal year, and, due to subsequent legislative amendments, will remain in effect through fiscal year 2031, absent additional action from Congress. In January 2013, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, or ATRA, was signed into law, which, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to several providers, including hospitals, imaging centers and cancer treatment centers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. In addition, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, or IRA, includes several provisions that may impact our business to varying degrees, including provisions that reduce the out-of-pocket cap for Medicare Part D beneficiaries to $2,000 starting in 2025; impose new manufacturer financial liability on certain drugs under Medicare Part D, allow the U.S. government to negotiate Medicare Part B and Part D price caps for certain high-cost drugs and biologics without generic or biosimilar competition, which can include small molecule drugs; and require companies to pay rebates to Medicare for certain drug prices that increase faster than inflation, also including small molecule drugs. Further, under the IRA, orphan drugs were previously exempted from the Medicare drug price negotiation program; however, this exemption was restricted to drugs with only one orphan designation and for which the only approved indication is for that disease or condition. If a product received multiple orphan designations or had multiple approved indications, it would not qualify for the orphan drug exemption. Under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act of 2025, or the OBBB Act, this restriction was eliminated; and effective for the 2028 initial price applicability year, all orphan drugs, regardless of the number of orphan designations or indications, are exempt from the Medicare drug price negotiation program. The effects of the IRA on our business and the healthcare industry in general is not yet known.

Previous report

There has been increasing legislative and enforcement interest in the United States with respect to specialty drug pricing practices. Specifically, there have been several recent U.S. Congressional inquiries and proposed federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, reduce the cost of prescription drugs under Medicare, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs. Additionally, the Trump administration also previously released a “Blueprint” to lower drug prices and reduce out of pocket costs of drugs that contains additional proposals to increase manufacturer competition, increase the negotiating power of certain federal healthcare programs, incentivize manufacturers to lower the list price of their products and reduce the out of pocket costs of drug products paid by consumers. HHS solicited feedback on some of these measures and has implemented others under its existing authority. For example, in May 2019, CMS issued a final rule to allow Medicare Advantage Plans the option of using step therapy, a type of prior authorization, for Part B drugs effective January 1, 2020.

Previous report

Further, 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 drug 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 pharmaceutical manufacturer to make its drug products available to eligible patients as a result of the Right to Try Act.

Previous report

Additionally, the FDA published a final rule, effective November 30, 2020, that allows for the importation of certain prescription drugs from Canada. Under the final rule, states and Indian Tribes, and in certain future circumstances pharmacists and wholesalers, may submit importation program proposals to the FDA for review and authorization. On September 25, 2020, CMS stated drugs imported by States under this rule will not be eligible for federal rebates under Section 1927 of the Social Security Act and manufacturers would not report these drugs for “best price” or Average Manufacturer Price purposes. Since these drugs are not considered covered outpatient drugs, CMS further stated it will not publish a National Average Drug Acquisition Cost for these drugs. Separately, the FDA also issued a final guidance document outlining a potential pathway for manufacturers to obtain an additional National Drug Code, or NDC, for an FDA-approved drug that was originally intended to be marketed in a foreign country and that was authorized for sale in that foreign country.

Previous report

At the state level, individual states are increasingly aggressive in passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. In addition, regional health care authorities and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and which suppliers will be included in their prescription drug and other health care programs. Some of these proposed measures, including drug importation and pharmacy benefit manager rebate rule changes, face legal challenges from industry groups and participants. These measures could reduce the ultimate demand for our products, once approved, or put pressure on our product pricing.

Previous report

We expect that additional state and federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand for our product candidates or additional pricing pressures.

Previous report

•the availability of capital.

Previous report

Since the start of the Trump Administration in 2025, U.S. policy changes have been implemented at a rapid pace and additional changes are likely. For example, the U.S. government has adopted new approaches to trade policy and in some cases may renegotiate, or potentially terminate, certain existing bilateral or multi-lateral trade agreements. The U.S. government has also imposed substantial tariffs on most countries throughout the world and has further threatened to continue to broadly impose tariffs, which could lead to corresponding punitive actions by the countries with which the U.S. trades. While certain tariffs have been suspended, modified or temporarily reduced, we cannot predict the results of the U.S. government’s trade negotiations or the outcome of ongoing legal challenges to specific tariff policies. Changes to U.S. policy implemented by the U.S. Congress, the Trump administration or any new administration have impacted and may in the future impact, among other things, the U.S. and global economy, international trade relations, unemployment, immigration, healthcare, taxation, the U.S. regulatory environment, inflation and other areas. Although we cannot predict the impact, if any, of these changes to our business, they could adversely affect our business. Until we know what policy changes are made, whether those policy changes are challenged and subsequently upheld by the court system and how those changes impact our business and the business of our competitors over the long term, we will not know if, overall, we will benefit from them or be negatively affected by them.

Previous report

The rules dealing with U.S. federal, state, and local income taxation are constantly under review by persons involved in the legislative process and by the Internal Revenue Service and the U.S. Treasury Department. For example, the OBBB Act was signed into law on July 4, 2025 and made significant changes to U.S. federal tax law. Changes to tax laws (which changes may have retroactive application) could adversely affect us or holders of our common stock. For example, under Section 174 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or the IRC, in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2021, expenses that are incurred for research and development performed outside the U.S. will be capitalized and amortized, which may have an adverse effect on our cash flow. The OBBB Act provides that for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2024, expenses that are incurred for research and development performed in the U.S. may, at the taxpayer’s election, be immediately deducted or capitalized and amortized. In addition, the OBBB Act provides that for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2021 and before January 1, 2025, certain eligible taxpayers generally may elect to retroactively deduct expenses for research and development performed in the U.S. in such taxable years by filing amended tax returns for such taxable years, and all other taxpayers that are not eligible to make such an election and that amortized expenses for research and development performed in the U.S. in such taxable years generally may elect to accelerate and deduct the remaining unamortized amounts of such research and development expenses (i) in the first taxable year beginning after December 31, 2024, or (ii) ratably over the two-taxable year period beginning with the first taxable year beginning after December 31, 2024. In recent years, many such changes have been made and changes are likely to continue to occur in the future. It cannot be predicted whether, when, in what form or with what effective dates tax laws, regulations and rulings may be enacted, promulgated or issued, which could result in an increase in our or our shareholders’ tax liability or require changes in the manner in which we operate in order to minimize or mitigate any adverse effects of changes in tax law. In the third quarter of 2025, we evaluated the impact of the enacted tax law and noted that it had an immaterial impact on our forecasted annual effective tax rate for the period. However, future changes in tax laws could have a material adverse effect on our business, cash flow, financial condition or results of operations. We urge investors to consult with their legal and tax advisers regarding the implications of potential changes in tax laws on an investment in our common stock.