Cabaletta Bio, Inc.

Previous wording

Cellular therapies are a novel approach to the treatment of autoimmune diseases, and negative perception or increased regulatory scrutiny of any product candidates that we develop could adversely affect our ability to conduct our business or obtain regulatory approvals for such product candidates. There are no cellular immunotherapies licensed to date in the United States or the European Union to treat autoimmune diseases or alloimmune responses. CAR T or CAAR T cell therapies for autoimmune or alloimmune diseases may not gain the acceptance of the public or the medical community. For example, CAR Ts and other cellular therapies have in some cases caused severe side effects, including death, and their broader use may therefore be limited. In the future, in the event such severe side effects are observed with other CAR T therapies (including those with a CD19 binder), it may increase negative perception of, and regulatory scrutiny on, our product candidates. For example, in November 2023, the FDA announced that it would be conducting an investigation into reports of T cell malignancies following treatment with BCMA-directed or CD19-directed autologous CAR T cell immunotherapies. The FDA also stated that patients and clinical trial participants receiving treatment with such approved products should be monitored life-long for new malignancies. In January 2024, the FDA determined that new safety information related to T cell malignancies should be included in the labeling with boxed warning language on these malignancies for all BCMA- and CD19-directed genetically modified autologous T cell immunotherapies. Public perception may be influenced by claims that gene therapy, including the insertion of a transgene, is unsafe, and products incorporating gene therapy may not gain the acceptance of the public or the medical community. The patient populations targeted by our product candidates are also typically not at risk of near-term death, even if they may suffer life-threatening symptoms, so patients will need to deem the benefits of cell therapy to be worth the risk of unknown potential adverse side effects. Our success will depend upon physicians who specialize in the treatment of autoimmune diseases targeted by our product candidates prescribing treatments that involve the use of our product candidates in lieu of, or in addition to, existing treatments with which they are more familiar and for which greater clinical data may be available. Adverse events in clinical trials of our product candidates, in clinical trials of others developing similar products or in the post-approval setting and the resulting publicity, as well as any other adverse events in the field of cellular therapies, could result in a decrease in demand for any product that we may develop.

Current wording

Cellular therapies are a novel approach to the treatment of autoimmune diseases, and negative perception or increased regulatory scrutiny of any product candidates that we develop could adversely affect our ability to conduct our business or obtain regulatory approvals for such product candidates. There are no cellular immunotherapies licensed to date in the United States or the European Union to treat autoimmune diseases or alloimmune responses. CAR T or CAAR T cell therapies for autoimmune or alloimmune diseases may not gain the acceptance of the public or the medical community. For example, CAR Ts and other cellular therapies have in some cases caused severe side effects, including death, and their broader use may therefore be limited. In the future, in the event such severe side effects are observed with other CAR T therapies (including those with a CD19 binder), it may increase negative perception of, and regulatory scrutiny on, our product candidates. For example, in November 2023, the FDA announced that it would be conducting an investigation into reports of T cell malignancies following treatment with BCMA-directed or CD19-directed autologous CAR T cell immunotherapies. The FDA also stated that patients and clinical trial participants receiving treatment with such approved products should be monitored life-long for new malignancies. In January 2024, the FDA determined that new safety information related to T cell malignancies should be included in the labeling with boxed warning language on these malignancies for all BCMA- and CD19-directed genetically modified autologous T cell immunotherapies. Public perception may be influenced by claims that gene therapy, including the insertion of a transgene, is unsafe, and products incorporating gene therapy may not gain the acceptance of the public or the medical community. The patient populations targeted by our product candidates are also typically not at risk of near-term death, even if they may suffer life-threatening symptoms, so patients will need to deem the benefits of cell therapy to be worth the risk of unknown potential adverse side effects. Our success will depend upon physicians who specialize in the treatment of autoimmune diseases targeted by our product candidates prescribing treatments that involve the use of our product candidates in lieu of, or in addition to, existing treatments with which they are more familiar and for which greater clinical data may be available. Adverse events in clinical trials of our product candidates, in clinical trials of others developing similar products or in the post-approval setting and the resulting publicity, as well as any other adverse events in the field of cellular therapies, could result in a decrease in demand for any product that we may develop. For example, in August 2026, after reports of immune effector cell-associated hemophagocytic syndrome resulting in three patient deaths in clinical trials, Novartis announced suspension of trials o…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Previous wording

If unacceptable toxicities or health risks, including risks inferred from other unrelated immunotherapy trials, arise in the development of our product candidates, we could suspend or terminate our trials or the FDA, the Safety Monitoring Boards for our trials (e.g. Data Safety Monitoring Board, or DSMB, or Independent Data Safety Monitoring Committee, or IDMC), or local regulatory authorities such as institutional review boards, or IRBs, or independent ethics commits, or IECs, as applicable, could recommend or order us to cease clinical trials. Regulatory authorities, such as the FDA, could also deny approval of our product candidates for any or all targeted indications. Treatment-related side effects could also affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled subjects to complete the trial or result in potential product liability claims. In addition, these side effects may not be appropriately recognized or managed by the treating medical staff, as toxicities resulting from T cell therapy are not normally encountered in the general patient population and by medical personnel. We expect to have to train medical personnel using CAR T or CAAR T cell product candidates to understand the side effect profile of our product candidates for both our preclinical studies and clinical trials and upon any commercialization of any of our product candidates, if licensed. Inadequate training in recognizing or managing the potential side effects of our product candidates could result in patient deaths. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly.

Current wording

If unacceptable toxicities or health risks, including risks inferred from other unrelated immunotherapy trials, arise in the development of our product candidates, we could suspend or terminate our trials or the FDA, the Safety Monitoring Boards for our trials (e.g. Data Safety Monitoring Board, or DSMB, or Independent Data Safety Monitoring Committee, or IDMC), or local regulatory authorities such as institutional review boards, or IRBs, or independent ethics committees, or IECs, as applicable, could recommend or order us to cease clinical trials. Regulatory authorities, such as the FDA, could also deny approval of our product candidates for any or all targeted indications. Treatment-related side effects could also affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled subjects to complete the trial or result in potential product liability claims. In addition, these side effects may not be appropriately recognized or managed by the treating medical staff, as toxicities resulting from T cell therapy are not normally encountered in the general patient population and by medical personnel. We expect to have to train medical personnel using CAR T or CAAR T cell product candidates to understand the side effect profile of our product candidates for both our preclinical studies and clinical trials and upon any commercialization of any of our product candidates, if licensed. Inadequate training in recognizing or managing the potential side effects of our product candidates could result in patient deaths. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly.

Previous wording

Our operations, Lonza Houston Inc., or Lonza's, operations, Cellares Corporation, or Cellares, and those of any CMOs, CROs and other contractors and consultants that we may engage could be subject to earthquakes, power shortages, telecommunications failures, water shortages, floods, hurricanes, typhoons, fires, extreme weather conditions, medical epidemics and other natural or man-made disasters or business interruptions, for which we are predominantly self-insured. Further, global conflicts or political unrest, such as the ongoing military conflict between Russia and Ukraine, the Israel-Hamas war, and the conflict in the Middle East may disrupt our global clinical trials and increase the likelihood of supply interruptions. Additionally, the effect of global financial and economic conditions and geopolitical events, including the consequences of the current administration in the United States, events or changes related thereto, including reductions in force at administrative agencies and tariffs, or political unrest or otherwise, or similar events, may have an impact on our business. Sanctions imposed by the U.S. and other countries in response to geopolitical events and conflicts may also 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. The occurrence of any of these business disruptions could seriously harm our research, clinical trials, operations and financial condition and increase our costs and expenses. Our ability to obtain clinical supplies of our product candidates could be disrupted if the operations of these suppliers are affected by a man-made or natural disaster or other business interruption.

Current wording

Our operations, Lonza Houston Inc., or Lonza's, operations, Cellares Corporation, or Cellares, and those of any CMOs, CROs and other contractors and consultants that we may engage could be subject to earthquakes, power shortages, telecommunications failures, water shortages, floods, hurricanes, typhoons, fires, extreme weather conditions, medical epidemics and other natural or man-made disasters or business interruptions, for which we are predominantly self-insured. Further, global conflicts or political unrest, such as the ongoing military conflict between Russia and Ukraine and the escalating conflict in the Middle East, including the ongoing U.S.-Israel military conflict with Iran and related hostilities involving other regional actors, may disrupt our global clinical trials and increase the likelihood of supply interruptions. These conflicts have contributed to heightened geopolitical tensions, volatility in energy prices and costs, disruptions to global supply chains and transportation networks, and the expansion of sanctions by the United States and other governments to additional sectors, any of which could increase our costs or impair our ability to source materials and conduct our clinical programs. Additionally, the effect of global financial and economic conditions and geopolitical events, including the consequences of the current administration in the United States, events or changes related thereto, including reductions in force at administrative agencies and tariffs, or political unrest or otherwise, or similar events, may have an impact on our business. Sanctions imposed by the U.S. and other countries in response to geopolitical events and conflicts may also 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. The occurrence of any of these business disruptions could seriously harm our research, clinical trials, operations and financial condition and increase our costs and expenses. Our ability to obtain clinical supplies of our product candidates could be disrupted if the operations of these suppliers are affected by a man-made or natural disaster or other business interruption.

Previous wording

There are also geopolitical tensions with China. For example, in December, 2025, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026, or the NDAA, was enacted, which includes Section 851, commonly referred to as the “BIOSECURE Act.” The BIOSECURE Act restricts U.S. government agencies from procuring biotechnology equipment or services from, or entering into contracts with, entities that use biotechnology equipment or services from, designated “biotechnology companies of concern”, or BCCs, and from expending federal loan or grant funds for such equipment or services. If our current or future vendors with which we work are designated as BCCs in the future, or if our collaborators, customers, investors, or future commercial partners become subject to BIOSECURE-related restrictions as a result of their relationships with such vendors, we could be required to terminate or restructure existing arrangements, transition manufacturing or other services to alternative suppliers, or delay or suspend development activities, subject to a grace period of 5 years during which time a company could continue to work with such restricted vendor. Any such transition could involve significant cost, operational complexity, regulatory risk, and delays, and alternative suppliers may not be available on acceptable terms or at all.

Current wording

There are also geopolitical tensions with China. For example, in December, 2025, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026, or the NDAA, was enacted, which includes Section 851, commonly referred to as the “BIOSECURE Act.” The BIOSECURE Act restricts U.S. government agencies from procuring biotechnology equipment or services from, or entering into contracts with, entities that use biotechnology equipment or services from, designated “biotechnology companies of concern”, or BCCs, and from expending federal loan or grant funds for such equipment or services. If our current or future vendors with which we work are designated as BCCs in the future, or if our collaborators, customers, investors, or future commercial partners become subject to

Previous wording

As a result, we are not profitable and have incurred net losses in each period since our inception. For the six months ended June 30, 2026 and 2025, we recorded net losses of $94.5 million and $81.1 million, respectively. As of June 30, 2026, we had an accumulated deficit of $611.5 million. We expect to incur significant losses for the foreseeable future, and we expect these losses to increase substantially if, and as, we:

Current wording

As a result, we are not profitable and have incurred net losses in each period since our inception. For the nine months ended September 30, 2026 and 2025, we recorded net losses of $147.6 million and $125.9 million, respectively. As of September 30, 2026, we had an accumulated deficit of $664.5 million. We expect to incur significant losses for the foreseeable future, and we expect these losses to increase substantially if, and as, we:

Previous wording

*We will require substantial additional financing to develop and commercialize our product candidates and implement our operating plans. We have also identified conditions that raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. If we fail to obtain additional financing or cannot obtain financing at the levels we require, we may be forced to delay, reduce or discontinue our plans and operations or unable to complete the development and commercialization of our product candidates.

Current wording

*We will require substantial additional financing to develop and commercialize our product candidates and implement our operating plans. If we fail to obtain additional financing or cannot obtain financing at the levels we require, we may be forced to delay, reduce or discontinue our plans and operations or unable to complete the development and commercialization of our product candidates.

Previous wording

Our operations have consumed substantial amounts of cash since inception. We expect to continue to spend substantial amounts to continue the preclinical and clinical development of our product candidates, including our RESETTM trials, and our research and development, preclinical studies and clinical trials for any future product candidates, to seek regulatory approvals for our product candidates, to enable commercial production of our products, if licensed, and to initiate and complete registration trials for multiple products. From our inception in April 2017 to the time of our initial public offering, or IPO, our operations were financed by proceeds of $86.4 million from the sale of convertible notes and our convertible preferred stock and proceeds of $71.0 million from the sale of common stock in our IPO. Since our IPO and through June 30, 2026, we have generated cash from public offerings of our common stock and pre-funded warrants to purchase our common stock resulting in aggregate net proceeds of approximately $567.0 million. As of June 30, 2026, we had $225.1 million of cash and cash equivalents. We currently expect our existing cash and cash equivalents as of June 30, 2026, to be sufficient to fund our operations into mid-2027, which includes our plans to fund the expanded clinical development of rese-cel in multiple indications with and/or without preconditioning, including the ongoing myositis registrational study and initiation of additional potentially registrational studies, and to further advance our manufacturing capabilities in preparation for commercial readiness of rese-cel. We expect to require significant additional financing to complete these clinical trials and any future clinical trials of these and our other product candidates. Further, if marketing approval is received, we will require significant additional amounts of cash to launch and commercialize our product candidates. However, we have based this estimate on assumptions that may prove to be wrong. Additionally, changing circumstances may cause us to consume capital significantly faster than we currently anticipate, and we may need to spend more money than currently expected because of circumstances beyond our control. We may require substantial additional capital for the further development and commercialization of our product candidates, including funding our internal manufacturing capabilities, and may need to raise additional funds sooner if we choose to expand more rapidly than we presently anticipate. Because the length of time and activities associated with development of our product candidates is highly uncertain, we are unable to estimate the actual funds we will require for development and any approved marketing and commercialization activities. Our future funding requirements, both near- and long-term, will depend on many factors, including, but not limited to:

Current wording

Our operations have consumed substantial amounts of cash since inception. We expect to continue to spend substantial amounts to continue the preclinical and clinical development of our product candidates, including our RESETTM trials, and our research and development, preclinical studies and clinical trials for any future product candidates, to seek regulatory approvals for our product candidates, to enable commercial production of our products, if licensed, and to initiate and complete registration trials for multiple products. From our inception in April 2017 to the time of our initial public offering, or IPO, our operations were financed by proceeds of $86.4 million from the sale of convertible notes and our convertible preferred stock and proceeds of $71.0 million from the sale of common stock in our IPO. Since our IPO and through September 30, 2026, we have generated cash from public offerings of our common stock and pre-funded warrants to purchase our common stock, and from the exercise of common stock warrants, resulting in aggregate net proceeds of approximately $688.0 million. As of September 30, 2026, we had $299.4 million of cash and cash equivalents. We currently expect our existing cash and cash equivalents as of September 30, 2026, to be sufficient to fund our operations into the first quarter of 2028, which includes our plans to fund the expanded clinical development of rese-cel in multiple indications with and/or without preconditioning, including the ongoing myositis registrational study and initiation of additional potentially registrational studies, and to further advance our manufacturing capabilities in preparation for commercial readiness of rese-cel. We expect to require significant additional financing to complete these clinical trials and any future clinical trials of these and our other product candidates. Further, if marketing approval is received, we will require significant additional amounts of cash to launch and commercialize our product candidates. However, we have based this estimate on assumptions that may prove to be wrong. Additionally, changing circumstances may cause us to consume capital significantly faster than we currently anticipate, and we may need to spend more money than currently expected because of circumstances beyond our control. We may require substantial additional capital for the further development and commercialization of our product candidates, including funding our internal manufacturing capabilities, and may need to raise additional funds sooner if we choose to expand more rapidly than we presently anticipate. Because the length of time and activities associated with development of our product candidates is highly uncertain, we are unable to estimate the actual funds we will require for development and any approved marketing and commercialization activities. Our future funding requirements, both near- and long-term, will depend on many factors, including, but not limited to:

Previous wording

the cost of maintaining the amount patient data for which we would be responsible following commercialization of one or more of our product candidates; and

Current wording

the cost of maintaining the amount of patient data for which we would be responsible following commercialization of one or more of our product candidates; and

Previous wording

Subsequently, we issued (i) 39,200,000 shares of our common stock and accompanying warrants to purchase an aggregate of 39,200,000 shares of common stock (or pre-funded warrants in lieu thereof) and (ii) in lieu of common stock, to certain investors, pre-funded warrants to purchase an aggregate of up to 10,800,000 shares of our common stock and accompanying warrants to purchase an aggregate of 10,800,000 shares of common stock (or pre-funded warrants in lieu thereof), at an exercise price of $0.00001 per pre-funded warrant, or the 2025 Offering. The combined offering price of each share of common stock and accompanying common stock warrant was $2.00. The combined offering price of each pre-funded warrant and accompanying common stock warrant was $1.99999. The accompanying warrant has an exercise price of $2.50 per share, is immediately exercisable from the date of issuance and will expire on September 12, 2026, fifteen months from the date of issuance. Aggregate net proceeds were $93.6 million after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and offering expenses. As a result of this offering, our stockholders experienced significant dilution. Sales of common stock, debt securities or other equity securities by us may represent a significant percentage of our common stock currently outstanding. If we sell, or the market perceives that we intend to sell, substantial number of additional shares of our common stock under the 2025 Shelf Registration Statement or otherwise, the market price of our common stock could decline significantly.

Current wording

Subsequently, we issued (i) 39,200,000 shares of our common stock and accompanying warrants to purchase an aggregate of 39,200,000 shares of common stock (or pre-funded warrants in lieu thereof) and (ii) in lieu of common stock, to certain investors, pre-funded warrants to purchase an aggregate of up to 10,800,000 shares of our common stock and accompanying warrants to purchase an aggregate of 10,800,000 shares of common stock (or pre-funded warrants in lieu thereof), at an exercise price of $0.00001 per pre-funded warrant, or the 2025 Offering. The combined offering price of each share of common stock and accompanying common stock warrant was $2.00. The combined offering price of each pre-funded warrant and accompanying common stock warrant was $1.99999. The accompanying warrant has an exercise price of $2.50 per share, is immediately exercisable from the date of issuance and expired on September 12, 2026, fifteen months from the date of issuance. Aggregate net proceeds were $93.6 million after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and offering expenses. As a result of this offering, our stockholders experienced significant dilution. Sales of common stock, debt securities or other equity securities by us may represent a significant percentage of our common stock currently outstanding. If we sell, or the market perceives that we intend to sell, substantial number of additional shares of our common stock under the 2025 Shelf Registration Statement or otherwise, the market price of our common stock could decline significantly.

Previous wording

On August 7, 2025, we filed the 2025 Registration Statement (File No. 333-289339) with SEC, which was declared effective on August 15, 2025, in relation to the registration of common stock, preferred stock, debt securities, warrants and/or units of any combination thereof for the purposes of selling, from time to time, our common stock, debt securities or other equity securities in one or more offerings. We also simultaneously entered into the 2025 Sales Agreement with TD Cowen to provide for the offering, issuance and sale of up to an aggregate amount of $150.0 million of our common stock from time to time in “at-the-market” offerings, or 2025 ATM Program, under the 2025 Shelf Registration Statement and subject to the limitations thereof. During the year ended December 31, 2025, we sold 4,160,176 shares pursuant to the 2025 ATM Program for net proceeds of $10.2 million. During the six months ended June 30, 2026, we sold 10,132,367 shares, for net proceeds of $28.7 million. Subsequent to June 30, 2026, we sold 1,802,770 additional shares, for net proceeds of $5.5 million.

Current wording

On August 7, 2025, we filed the 2025 Registration Statement (File No. 333-289339) with SEC, which was declared effective on August 15, 2025, in relation to the registration of common stock, preferred stock, debt securities, warrants and/or units of any combination thereof for the purposes of selling, from time to time, our common stock, debt securities or other equity securities in one or more offerings. We also simultaneously entered into the 2025 Sales Agreement with TD Cowen to provide for the offering, issuance and sale of up to an aggregate amount of $150.0 million of our common stock from time to time in “at-the-market” offerings, or 2025 ATM Program, under the 2025 Shelf Registration Statement and subject to the limitations thereof. During the year ended December 31, 2025, we sold 4,160,176 shares pursuant to the 2025 ATM Program for net proceeds of $10.2 million. During the nine months ended September 30, 2026, we sold 12,057,202 shares, for net proceeds of $34.7 million.

Previous wording

In addition, as of June 30, 2026, we had outstanding 47,815,090 common stock warrants and pre-funded warrants to purchase 6,000,000 shares of our common stock. If some or all of these warrants are exercised, our stockholders could experience substantial dilution and may cause the market price of our stock to decline.

Current wording

In addition, as of September 30, 2026, we had outstanding pre-funded warrants to purchase 6,000,000 shares of our common stock. If some or all of these warrants are exercised, our stockholders could experience substantial dilution and may cause the market price of our stock to decline.

Previous wording

Pursuant to our equity incentive plans, our management is authorized to grant stock options to our employees, directors and consultants. Additionally, the number of shares of our common stock reserved for issuance under the 2019 Stock Option and Incentive Plan, or the 2019 Plan, automatically increased on January 1, 2026 and will automatically increase each January 1 thereafter through and including January 1, 2029, by 4% of the total number of shares of our capital stock outstanding on December 31 of the preceding calendar year, or a lesser number of shares determined by our board of directors. Unless our board of directors elects not to increase the number of shares available for future grant each year, our stockholders may experience additional dilution, which could cause our stock price to fall. In addition, on April 7, 2023, our board of directors adopted, and at our 2023 annual meeting our stockholders approved, an amendment to the 2019 Plan, or the Plan Amendment, to increase the aggregate number of shares authorized for issuance under the 2019 Plan by 3,000,000 shares, subject to adjustment.

Current wording

Plan, or the 2019 Plan, automatically increased on January 1, 2026 and will automatically increase each January 1 thereafter through and including January 1, 2029, by 4% of the total number of shares of our capital stock outstanding on December 31 of the preceding calendar year, or a lesser number of shares determined by our board of directors. Unless our board of directors elects not to increase the number of shares available for future grant each year, our stockholders may experience additional dilution, which could cause our stock price to fall. In addition, on April 7, 2023, our board of directors adopted, and at our 2023 annual meeting our stockholders approved, an amendment to the 2019 Plan, or the Plan Amendment, to increase the aggregate number of shares authorized for issuance under the 2019 Plan by 3,000,000 shares, subject to adjustment.

Previous wording

The patent positions of companies engaged in the development and commercialization of biologics are particularly uncertain. For example, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its decision in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., or Myriad, a case involving patent claims held by Myriad Genetics, Inc. relating to the breast cancer susceptibility genes BRCA1 and BRCA2. Myriad held that an isolated segment of naturally occurring DNA, such as the DNA constituting the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, is not patent-eligible subject matter, but that complementary DNA, which is an artificial construct that may be created from RNA transcripts of genes, may be patent-eligible. Thereafter, the USPTO issued a guidance memorandum instructing USPTO examiners on the ramifications of the Prometheus and Myriad rulings and apply the Myriad ruling to natural products and principles including all naturally occurring nucleic acids. Certain claims of our owned and in-licensed patent applications contain, and any future patents we may obtain may contain, claims that relate to specific recombinant DNA sequences that are naturally occurring at least in part and, therefore, could be the subject of future challenges made by third parties.

Current wording

BRCA2. Myriad held that an isolated segment of naturally occurring DNA, such as the DNA constituting the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, is not patent-eligible subject matter, but that complementary DNA, which is an artificial construct that may be created from RNA transcripts of genes, may be patent-eligible. Thereafter, the USPTO issued a guidance memorandum instructing USPTO examiners on the ramifications of the Prometheus and Myriad rulings and apply the Myriad ruling to natural products and principles including all naturally occurring nucleic acids. Certain claims of our owned and in-licensed patent applications contain, and any future patents we may obtain may contain, claims that relate to specific recombinant DNA sequences that are naturally occurring at least in part and, therefore, could be the subject of future challenges made by third parties.

Previous wording

Certain of our employees, consultants or advisors are currently, or were previously, employed at universities or other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. Although we try to ensure that our employees, consultants and advisors do not use the proprietary information or know-how of others in their work for us, we may be subject to claims that these individuals or we have used or disclosed intellectual property, including trade secrets or other proprietary information, of any such individual’s current or former employer. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel.

Current wording

Certain of our employees, consultants or advisors are currently, or were previously, employed at universities or other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. Although we try to ensure that our employees, consultants and advisors do not use the proprietary information or know-how of others in their work for us, we may be subject to claims that these individuals or we have used or disclosed intellectual property, including trade secrets or other proprietary information, of any such individual’s current or former employer. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management. Our licensors may face similar risks, which could have an adverse impact on intellectual property that is licensed to us.

Previous wording

There have been, and may continue to be, significant changes to U.S. trade policies, sanctions, legislation, treaties and tariffs, including, but not limited to, trade policies and tariffs affecting products from outside of the U.S. The extent and duration of increased tariffs and the resulting impact on general economic conditions and on our business are uncertain and depend on various factors, such as negotiations between the U.S. and affected countries, the responses of other countries or regions, exemptions or exclusions that may be granted, availability and cost of alternative sources of supply and demand in affected markets. Supply chain disruptions and delays as a result of any new tariff policies or trade restrictions could negatively impact our cost of materials processes. If we or our current or future service providers, manufacturers and other partners are unable to obtain materials in sufficient quantity and in a timely manner due to disruptions in the global supply chain caused by macroeconomic events and conditions, the development, testing and our clinical trials and any future product candidates may be delayed or infeasible, and regulatory approval or commercial launch of any resulting product may be delayed or not obtained, which could significantly harm our business.

Current wording

There have been, and may continue to be, significant changes to U.S. trade policies, sanctions, legislation, treaties and tariffs, including, but not limited to, trade policies and tariffs affecting products from outside of the U.S. The legal basis for U.S. tariffs has continued to evolve during 2026: the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, with related tariff refunds subsequently ordered by the U.S. Court of International Trade; the global 10% surcharge imposed under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which applied from February 24, 2026 through July 24, 2026, has since expired; and tariffs of 10% to 12.5% imposed under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 took effect on July 24, 2026 and remain subject to ongoing litigation. The U.S. government has indicated that it may pursue further or replacement tariffs under other statutory authorities, and other countries may respond with retaliatory measures. The extent and duration of increased tariffs and the resulting impact on general economic conditions and on our business are uncertain and depend on various factors, such as negotiations between the U.S. and affected countries, the responses of other countries or regions, exemptions or exclusions that may be granted, the outcome of pending tariff litigation, the availability and cost of alternative sources of supply, and demand in affected markets. Supply chain disruptions and delays as a result of any new, replacement or retaliatory tariff policies or trade restrictions could increase our cost of materials and disrupt our manufacturing processes. If we or our current or future service providers, manufacturers and other partners are unable to obtain materials in sufficient quantity and in a timely manner due to disruptions in the global supply chain caused by macroeconomic events and conditions, the development and testing of our current and any future product candidates, including our clinical trials, may be delayed or become infeasible, and regulatory approval or commercial launch of any resulting product may be delayed or not obtained, which could significantly harm our business.

Previous wording

Challenges complying with cGMP requirements and other quality issues could arise during efforts to increase manufacturing capacity, optimize manufacturing and scale up production. In addition, in order to obtain regulatory approval of our product candidates (and in order to release our products for commercial use), our manufacturing processes and analytical methods, including with respect to certain raw materials used in the manufacturing of our product candidates, such as lentiviral vector, must be validated in accordance with regulatory guidelines. Failure to successfully validate, or maintain validated state of our manufacturing processes and analytical methods for the product candidates or certain raw materials used in the manufacturing of our product candidates, such as lentiviral vector, in a timely or cost-effective manner, or at all, may undermine our clinical development timelines or delay, or prevent, our ability to obtain regulatory approval of our product candidates. Any process performance qualification (PPQ) campaign for rese-cel must show that the commercial process can consistently produce product meeting predefined specifications under normal variability, including variability of critical materials such as lentiviral vector (LVV). Regulators may question PPQ approaches that rely on limited or single lots of critical inputs to establish consistency, and may expect a risk assessment, process characterization, and evidence that input material specifications are representative of intended commercial supply. If our PPQ design or results are deemed insufficient, we could be required to perform additional PPQ runs, repeat validation activities, adjust specifications, or conduct further studies, which could be costly and delay our BLA or other regulatory approval.

Current wording

Challenges complying with cGMP requirements and other quality issues could arise during efforts to increase manufacturing capacity, optimize manufacturing and scale up production. In addition, in order to obtain regulatory approval of our product candidates (and in order to release our products for commercial use), our manufacturing processes and analytical methods, including with respect to certain raw materials used in the manufacturing of our product candidates, such as lentiviral vector, must be validated in accordance with regulatory guidelines. Failure to successfully validate, or maintain validated state of our manufacturing processes and analytical methods for the product candidates or certain raw materials used in the manufacturing of our product candidates, such as lentiviral vector, in a timely or cost-effective manner, or at all, may undermine our clinical development timelines or delay, or prevent, our ability to obtain regulatory approval of our product candidates. Any process performance qualification (PPQ) campaign for rese-cel must show that the commercial process can consistently produce product meeting predefined specifications under normal variability, including variability of critical materials such as lentiviral vector, or LVV. Regulators may question PPQ approaches that rely on limited or single lots of critical inputs to establish consistency, and may expect a risk assessment, process characterization, and evidence that input material specifications are representative of intended commercial supply. If our PPQ design or results are deemed insufficient, we could be required to perform additional PPQ runs, repeat validation activities, adjust specifications, or conduct further studies, which could be costly and delay our BLA or other regulatory approval.

Previous wording

Lentiviral vector, or LVV, is a critical manufacturing input for CAR T-cell products. FDA guidance highlights expectations for vector manufacturing and testing, including identity, purity, functional (e.g., potency-related) characteristics, and safety testing. Regulators also emphasize having an appropriately qualified potency strategy in place as development progresses, and they may expect potency-relevant assays for critical components used to support pivotal study supplies, or, if not available at the time of manufacture, a risk-based justification with follow-up testing. Challenges in qualifying or validating vector-related assays, securing vector supply, or meeting evolving specifications could delay batch release, clinical milestones, or approval.

Current wording

LVV is a critical manufacturing input for CAR T-cell products. FDA guidance highlights expectations for vector manufacturing and testing, including identity, purity, functional (e.g., potency-related) characteristics, and safety testing. Regulators also emphasize having an appropriately qualified potency strategy in place as development progresses, and they may expect potency-relevant assays for critical components used to support pivotal study supplies, or, if not available at the time of manufacture, a risk-based justification with follow-up testing. Challenges in qualifying or validating vector-related assays, securing vector supply, or meeting evolving specifications could delay batch release, clinical milestones, or approval.

Previous wording

Our manufacturing process may be susceptible to technical and logistics delays or failures due to the fact that each patient is an independent manufacturing lot, and also due to unique supply chain requirements. These include the collection of white blood cells from patients’ blood, variability in the quality of white blood cells collected from patients’ blood, cryopreservation of the white blood cells collected, packaging and shipment of frozen white blood cells to the manufacturing site in order to enable multi-site studies, procurement of lentiviral vectors that meet potency and purity requirements and shipment to the product candidate manufacturing site, shipment of the final product to clinical centers, manufacturing issues associated with interruptions in the manufacturing process, scheduling constraints for cell manufacturing slots, process contamination, equipment or reagent failure or supply shortage(s)/interruption(s), improper installation or operation of equipment, vendor or operator error, and inconsistency in cell growth. Even minor deviations from normal manufacturing processes could result in reduced production yields, lot failures, product defects, product recalls, product liability claims and other supply disruptions. If microbial, viral, or other contaminations are discovered in our product candidates or in the manufacturing facilities in which our product candidates are made, production at such manufacturing facilities may be interrupted for an extended period of time to investigate and remedy the contamination. Further, as product candidates are developed through preclinical studies to late-stage clinical trials toward approval and commercialization, it is common that various aspects of the development program, such as manufacturing methods, are altered along the way in an effort to optimize processes and results. Such changes may result in the need to enroll additional patients or to conduct additional clinical studies to evaluate the impact of changes on product safety and efficacy. Penn has informed us that it will be unable provide clinical supply for any late-phase or non-U.S. clinical trials of our product candidates that we may conduct. Therefore, we will need maintain and/or add new agreements with additional CMOs to produce clinical supply of our product candidates for late-phase clinical trials and at the necessary scale. We cannot guarantee that we will be able to enter into such agreements on commercially acceptable terms, if at all. Such changes carry the risk that they will not achieve these intended objectives, and any of these changes could cause our product candidates to perform differently and affect the results of ongoing and planned clinical trials or other future clinical trials.

Current wording

Our manufacturing process may be susceptible to technical and logistics delays or failures due to the fact that each patient is an independent manufacturing lot, and also due to unique supply chain requirements. These include the collection of white blood cells from patients’ blood, variability in the quality of white blood cells collected from patients’ blood, cryopreservation of the white blood cells collected, packaging and shipment of frozen white blood cells to the manufacturing site in order to enable multi-site studies, procurement of lentiviral vectors that meet potency and purity requirements and shipment to the product candidate manufacturing site, shipment of the final product to clinical centers, manufacturing issues associated with interruptions in the manufacturing process, scheduling constraints for cell manufacturing slots, process contamination, equipment or reagent failure or supply shortage(s)/interruption(s), improper installation or operation of equipment, vendor or operator error, and inconsistency in cell growth. Even minor deviations from normal manufacturing processes could result in reduced production yields, lot failures, product defects, product recalls, product liability claims and other supply disruptions. If microbial, viral, or other contaminations are discovered in our product candidates or in the manufacturing facilities in which our product candidates are made, production at such manufacturing facilities may be interrupted for an extended period of time to investigate and remedy the contamination. Further, as product candidates are developed through preclinical studies to late-stage clinical trials toward approval and commercialization, it is common that various aspects of the development program, such as manufacturing methods, are altered along the way in an effort to optimize processes and results. Such changes may result in the need to enroll additional patients or to conduct additional clinical studies to evaluate the impact of changes on product safety and efficacy. Penn has informed us that it will be unable provide clinical supply for any late-phase or non-U.S. clinical trials of our product candidates that we may conduct. Therefore, we will need to maintain and/or add new agreements with additional CMOs to produce clinical supply of our product candidates for late-phase clinical trials and at the necessary scale. We cannot guarantee that we will be able to enter into such agreements on commercially acceptable terms, if at all. Such changes carry the risk that they will not achieve these intended objectives, and any of these changes could cause our product candidates to perform differently and affect the results of ongoing and planned clinical trials or other future clinical trials.

Previous wording

Because we are developing novel CAR T and CAAR T cell product candidates that are unique biological entities, the regulatory requirements that we will be subject to are not entirely clear. Even with respect to more established products that fit into the categories of gene therapies or cell therapies, the regulatory landscape is still developing. For example, regulatory requirements governing gene therapy products and cell therapy products have changed frequently and may continue to change in the future. Moreover, there is substantial, and sometimes uncoordinated, overlap in those responsible for regulation of existing gene therapy products and cell therapy products. For example, in the United States, the FDA established the Office of Tissues and Advanced Therapies, or OTAT, in 2016, within its Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, or CBER, to consolidate the review of gene therapy and related products, and the Cellular, Tissue and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee to advise CBER on its review. In September 2022, the FDA announced retitling of OTAT to the Office of Therapeutic Products, or OTP, and elevation of OTP to a “Super Office” to meet its growing cell and gene therapy workload. In addition, under guidelines issued by the National Institutes of Health, or NIH, gene therapy clinical trials are also subject to review and oversight by an institutional biosafety committee, or IBC, a local institutional committee that reviews and oversees research utilizing recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecules at that institution. Before a clinical trial can begin at any institution, that institution’s institutional review board, or IRB, and its IBC assesses the safety of the research and identifies any potential risk to public health or the environment. While the NIH guidelines are not mandatory unless the research in question is being conducted at or sponsored by institutions receiving NIH funding of recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecule research, many companies and other institutions not otherwise subject to the NIH Guidelines voluntarily follow them. Although the FDA decides whether individual gene therapy protocols may proceed, review process and determinations of other reviewing bodies can impede or delay the initiation of a clinical study, even if the FDA has reviewed the study and approved its initiation. Conversely, the FDA can place an IND application on clinical hold even if such other entities have provided a favorable review. Furthermore, each clinical trial must be reviewed and approved by an independent IRB at or servicing each institution at which a clinical trial will be conducted. In addition, adverse developments in clinical trials of gene therapy products conducted by others or in the post-approval context may cause the FDA or other regulatory bodies to change the requirements for approval of any of our product candidates. For example, after the FDA’s November 2023 announcement of its investigation into reports of …

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Current wording

Because we are developing novel CAR T and CAAR T cell product candidates that are unique biological entities, the regulatory requirements that we will be subject to are not entirely clear. Even with respect to more established products that fit into the categories of gene therapies or cell therapies, the regulatory landscape is still developing. For example, regulatory requirements governing gene therapy products and cell therapy products have changed frequently and may continue to change in the future. Moreover, there is substantial, and sometimes uncoordinated, overlap in those responsible for regulation of existing gene therapy products and cell therapy products. For example, in the United States, the FDA established the Office of Tissues and Advanced Therapies, or OTAT, in 2016, within its Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, or CBER, to consolidate the review of gene therapy and related products, and the Cellular, Tissue and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee to advise CBER on its review. In September 2022, the FDA announced retitling of OTAT to the Office of Therapeutic Products, or OTP, and elevation of OTP to a “Super Office” to meet its growing cell and gene therapy workload. In addition, under guidelines issued by the National Institutes of Health, or NIH, gene therapy clinical trials are also subject to review and oversight by an institutional biosafety committee, or IBC, a local institutional committee that reviews and oversees research utilizing recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecules at that institution. Before a clinical trial can begin at any institution, that institution’s IRB and its IBC assesses the safety of the research and identifies any potential risk to public health or the environment. While the NIH guidelines are not mandatory unless the research in question is being conducted at or sponsored by institutions receiving NIH funding of recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecule research, many companies and other institutions not otherwise subject to the NIH Guidelines voluntarily follow them. Although the FDA decides whether individual gene therapy protocols may proceed, review process and determinations of other reviewing bodies can impede or delay the initiation of a clinical study, even if the FDA has reviewed the study and approved its initiation. Conversely, the FDA can place an IND application on clinical hold even if such other entities have provided a favorable review. Furthermore, each clinical trial must be reviewed and approved by an independent IRB at or servicing each institution at which a clinical trial will be conducted. In addition, adverse developments in clinical trials of gene therapy products conducted by others or in the post-approval context may cause the FDA or other regulatory bodies to change the requirements for approval of any of our product candidates. For example, after the FDA’s November 2023 announcement of its investigation into reports of T cell malignancies for BCMA- an…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Previous wording

We have obtained from the FDA orphan drug designation for DSG3-CAART for the treatment of pemphigus vulgaris, for MuSK-CAART for the treatment of MuSK MG and for rese-cel for the treatment of idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM, or myositis) and systemic sclerosis. We may seek orphan drug designation for certain other of our product candidates, but may be unable to obtain orphan drug designation for some or all of our product candidates in specific orphan indications in which we believe there is a medically plausible basis for the use of these products. Even if we obtain orphan drug designation, exclusive marketing rights in the United States may be limited if we seek approval for an indication broader than the orphan designated indication and may be lost if the FDA later determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if we are unable to assure sufficient quantities of the product to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition, or if a subsequent applicant demonstrates clinical superiority over our products, if licensed. Although we may seek orphan drug designation for other product candidates, we may never receive such designations. In addition, the FDA may further reevaluate the Orphan Drug Act and its regulations and policies. We do not know if, when, or how the FDA may change the orphan drug regulations and policies in the future, and it is uncertain how any changes might affect our business. Depending on what changes the FDA may make to its orphan drug regulations and policies, our business could be adversely impacted.

Current wording

We have obtained from the FDA orphan drug designation for DSG3-CAART for the treatment of pemphigus vulgaris, for MuSK-CAART for the treatment of MuSK MG and for rese-cel for the treatment of IIM (myositis) and systemic sclerosis. We may seek orphan drug designation for certain other of our product candidates, but may be unable to obtain orphan drug designation for some or all of our product candidates in specific orphan indications in which we believe there is a medically plausible basis for the use of these products. Even if we obtain orphan drug designation, exclusive marketing rights in the United States may be limited if we seek approval for an indication broader than the orphan designated indication and may be lost if the FDA later determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if we are unable to assure sufficient quantities of the product to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition, or if a subsequent applicant demonstrates clinical superiority over our products, if licensed. Although we may seek orphan drug designation for other product candidates, we may never receive such designations. In addition, the FDA may further reevaluate the Orphan Drug Act and its regulations and policies. We do not know if, when, or how the FDA may change the orphan drug regulations and policies in the future, and it is uncertain how any changes might affect our business. Depending on what changes the FDA may make to its orphan drug regulations and policies, our business could be adversely impacted.

Previous wording

Disruptions at the FDA, patent offices in the United States and abroad and other agencies – including as a result of reductions in force, significant organizational changes, substantial leadership departures, and policy changes – may also slow the time necessary for new drugs or biologics to be reviewed or for patent applications to be examined and granted, which would adversely affect our business. Changes and cuts in FDA staffing have also been reported by some within the pharmaceutical industry as creating instances of in 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. In addition, over the past decade, 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, in October 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. In addition, the U.S. government has issued certain policies and executive orders directed towards reducing the employee headcount and costs associated with U.S. administrative agencies, including the FDA, and it remains unclear the degree to which these efforts may limit or otherwise adversely affect the FDA’s ability to conduct routine activities. If a prolonged government shutdown, such as the one that occurred in October 2025, or if funding shortages or staffing limitations hinder or prevent the FDA, the SEC or other regulatory authorities from conducting their regular inspections, reviews, or other regulatory activities, including formal and informal interactions with product developers, it could significantly affect the ability of the FDA or other such regulatory authorities to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. Further, future government shutdowns or other substantial disruptions at other government agencies, such as the SEC, may also impact our business by delaying review of our public filings, which in turn could delay or frustrate our ability to access the public markets and obtain necessary capital in order to properly capitalize and continue our operations.

Current wording

Disruptions at the FDA, patent offices in the United States and abroad and other agencies – including as a result of reductions in force, significant organizational changes, substantial leadership departures, and policy changes – may also slow the time necessary for new drugs or biologics to be reviewed or for patent applications to be examined and granted, which would adversely affect our business. Changes and cuts in FDA staffing have also been reported by some within the pharmaceutical industry as creating instances of in 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. In addition, over the past decade, 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, in October 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. Federal government operations are currently funded under a continuing resolution that expires on December 11, 2026. If Congress does not enact full-year appropriations or a further continuing resolution before that date, the federal government could again shut down, and agencies such as the FDA and the SEC could again furlough employees and suspend non-essential activities, which could delay review of our regulatory submissions, meetings with the FDA and review of our public filings. In addition, the U.S. government has issued certain policies and executive orders directed towards reducing the employee headcount and costs associated with U.S. administrative agencies, including the FDA, and it remains unclear the degree to which these efforts may limit or otherwise adversely affect the FDA’s ability to conduct routine activities. If a prolonged government shutdown, such as the one that occurred in October 2025, or if funding shortages or staffing limitations hinder or prevent the FDA, the SEC or other regulatory authorities from conducting their regular inspections, reviews, or other regulatory activities, including formal and informal interactions with product developers, it could significantly affect the ability of the FDA or other such regulatory authorities to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. Further, future government shutdowns or other substantial disruptions at other government agencies, such as the SEC, may also impact our business by delaying review of our public filings, which in turn could delay or frustrate our ability to access the public markets and obtain necessary capital in order to properly capitalize and continue our operations.

Previous wording

On May 12, 2025, President Trump signed the executive order titled “Delivering Most-Favored-Nation Prescription Drug Pricing,” which directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to identify and communicate most-favored-nation, or MFN, price targets for prescription drugs and to propose a rulemaking plan to impose such pricing if “significant progress” is not made. The order also directs the federal government to explore regulatory pathways that would facilitate direct-to-patient sales for manufacturers that meet these price targets. Additionally, it signals potential further action against manufacturers that fail to offer MFN pricing, including evaluating whether to modify or rescind marketing approvals or allow individual drug importation waivers. Notably, a similar rule promulgated during President Trump’s first term would have tied Medicare Part B reimbursement rates to the lowest price available for a drug in certain foreign countries. That rule was subject to litigation and ultimately rescinded by the Biden Administration in August 2021. In a related development, FDA Commissioner Makary announced in July 2025 that the agency is considering a new fast-track priority review voucher program for manufacturers that commit to pricing drugs in line with those in economically comparable countries. The implementation timeline and commercial implications of these proposals remain uncertain.

Current wording

On May 12, 2025, President Trump signed the executive order titled “Delivering Most-Favored-Nation Prescription Drug Pricing,” which directs the Secretary of HHS to identify and communicate most-favored-nation, or MFN, price targets for prescription drugs and to propose a rulemaking plan to impose such pricing if “significant progress” is not made. The order also directs the federal government to explore regulatory pathways that would facilitate direct-to-patient sales for manufacturers that meet these price targets. Additionally, it signals potential further action against manufacturers that fail to offer MFN pricing, including evaluating whether to modify or rescind marketing approvals or allow individual drug importation waivers. Notably, a similar rule promulgated during President Trump’s first term would have tied Medicare Part B reimbursement rates to the lowest price available for a drug in certain foreign countries. That rule was subject to litigation and ultimately rescinded by the Biden Administration in August 2021. In a related development, FDA Commissioner Makary announced in July 2025 that the agency is considering a new fast-track priority review voucher program for manufacturers that commit to pricing drugs in line with those in economically comparable countries. The implementation timeline and commercial implications of these proposals remain uncertain.

Previous wording

On April 15, 2025, President Trump issued the executive order “Lowering Drug Prices by Once Again Putting Americans First,” which contains a broad set of directives aimed at reducing drug costs. Among other actions, the order directs HHS to revise guidance under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) to eliminate the so-called “pill penalty,” which currently subjects small molecule drugs to Medicare price negotiation four years earlier than biologics. The order also calls for a comprehensive evaluation of the role played by pharmacy benefit managers, or PBMs, in drug pricing and market access.

Current wording

On April 15, 2025, President Trump issued the executive order “Lowering Drug Prices by Once Again Putting Americans First,” which contains a broad set of directives aimed at reducing drug costs. Among other actions, the order directs HHS to revise guidance under the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, or the IRA, to eliminate the so-called “pill penalty,” which currently subjects small molecule drugs to Medicare price negotiation four years earlier than biologics. The order also calls for a comprehensive evaluation of the role played by pharmacy benefit managers, or PBMs, in drug pricing and market access.

Previous wording

Further, the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program, administered by CMS as part of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, commonly referred to as the IRA, may apply to our products if they are selected for negotiation, which could materially reduce the amount of revenue we can generate from our products if they are approved. Prior to the enactment of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act of 2025, or the OBBBA, orphan drugs were exempt from Medicare price negotiation under the IRA only if they had received a single orphan designation and were approved solely for the corresponding rare disease or condition. The OBBBA amended this exemption to apply more broadly: now, any orphan-designated drug is exempt from price negotiation, regardless of the number of orphan designations it has received, provided the drug’s approved indications are exclusively for those rare diseases. The OBBBA also included significant reforms to Medicaid, including an estimated $1 trillion in reduced federal Medicaid spending from 2025 through 2034, the imposition of work requirements for certain adult enrollees, more frequent eligibility redeterminations, and increased cost-sharing for beneficiaries. These changes are expected to reduce overall Medicaid enrollment and access to care. Although the effect on our future product candidates or business is unknown, any decrease in the number of insured patients or reimbursement levels for our products could adversely affect our potential for revenue and our commercial prospects.

Current wording

Further, the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program, administered by CMS as part of the IRA, may apply to our products if they are selected for negotiation, which could materially reduce the amount of revenue we can generate from our products if they are approved. Prior to the enactment of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act of 2025, or the OBBBA, orphan drugs were exempt from Medicare price negotiation under the IRA only if they had received a single orphan designation and were approved solely for the corresponding rare disease or condition. The OBBBA amended this exemption to apply more broadly: now, any orphan-designated drug is exempt from price negotiation, regardless of the number of orphan designations it has received, provided the drug’s approved indications are exclusively for those rare diseases. The OBBBA also included significant reforms to Medicaid, including an estimated $1 trillion in reduced federal Medicaid spending from 2025 through 2034, the imposition of work requirements for certain adult enrollees, more frequent eligibility redeterminations, and increased cost-sharing for beneficiaries. These changes are expected to reduce overall Medicaid enrollment and access to care. Although the effect on our future product candidates or business is unknown, any decrease in the number of insured patients or reimbursement levels for our products could adversely affect our potential for revenue and our commercial prospects.

Previous wording

On December 19, 2025, CMS released two proposed rules that would incorporate MFN pricing principles into federal reimbursement for prescription drugs. The first proposal, the Global Benchmark for Efficient Drug Pricing Model, or GLOBE, for Medicare Part B, would require manufacturers of specified single source drugs and sole source biologics to pay incremental rebates based on international benchmark prices, with participation triggered for products meeting CMS’s spending and eligibility criteria. The second proposal, the Guarding U.S. Medicare Against Rising Drug Costs, or GUARD, model for Medicare Part D, would similarly mandate manufacturer rebates for qualifying sole source drugs where the Medicare net price exceeds an MFN benchmark derived from international reference pricing methodologies. As proposed, GLOBE would begin a five year performance period on October 1, 2026 and GUARD would begin its performance period in 2027. These proposals will likely be subject to legal challenges that could delay their implementation or modify their impact on manufacturer pricing and revenue. Additionally, in November 2025, CMS introduced the GENErating cost Reductions for U.S. Medicaid Model, or GENEROUS Model, a voluntary MFN framework for manufacturers participating in the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program. Although it is voluntary, the GENEROUS Model could also impact the drug pricing landscape for manufacturers.

Current wording

On December 19, 2025, CMS released two proposed rules that would incorporate MFN pricing principles into federal reimbursement for prescription drugs. The Global Benchmark for Efficient Drug Pricing Model, or GLOBE, for Medicare Part B, requires manufacturers of specified single source drugs and sole source biologics to pay incremental rebates based on international benchmark prices, with participation triggered for products meeting CMS’s spending and eligibility criteria. On September 30, 2026, CMS finalized the GLOBE model, which becomes effective on November 30, 2026, with its performance period beginning on January 1, 2027. As finalized, GLOBE excludes certain cell and gene therapies; however, the scope of this exclusion, and whether it would apply to any of our product candidates, if approved, remains uncertain, and CMS could narrow or eliminate the exclusion in future rulemaking. On October 7, 2026, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America filed a lawsuit challenging the GLOBE model, and the outcome of this litigation, which could delay, modify or invalidate the model, is uncertain. The second proposal, the Guarding U.S. Medicare Against Rising Drug Costs, or GUARD, model for Medicare Part D, would similarly mandate manufacturer rebates for qualifying sole source drugs where the Medicare net price exceeds an MFN benchmark derived from international reference pricing methodologies. As proposed, GUARD would begin its performance period in 2027, and it has not been finalized. GUARD, if finalized, will likely also be subject to legal challenges that could delay its implementation or modify its impact on manufacturer pricing and revenue. Additionally, in November 2025, CMS introduced the GENErating cost Reductions for U.S. Medicaid Model, or GENEROUS Model, a voluntary MFN framework for manufacturers participating in the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program. Although it is voluntary, the GENEROUS Model could also impact the drug pricing landscape for manufacturers.

Previous wording

Numerous other states have enacted similarly comprehensive privacy laws, adding additional complexity, variation in requirements, restrictions and potential legal risk, requiring additional investment of resources in compliance programs. These laws impact our strategies, the availability of previously useful data and could result in increased compliance costs and/or changes to our business practices and policies. The existence of comprehensive privacy laws in different states in the country make our compliance obligations more complex and costly and may increase the likelihood that we may be subject to enforcement actions or otherwise incur liability for noncompliance. There are also states that are specifically regulating health information. For example, Washington state passed a health privacy law that regulates the collection and sharing of health information, and the law also has a private right of action, which further increases the relevant compliance risk. Connecticut and Nevada have also passed similar laws regulating consumer health data. In addition, other states have proposed and/or passed legislation that regulates the privacy and/or security of certain specific types of information. For example, a small number of states have passed laws that regulate genetic data and biometric data specifically. These various privacy and security laws may impact our business activities, including our identification of research subjects, relationships with business partners and ultimately the marketing and distribution of our products. State laws are changing rapidly and there is discussion in the U.S. Congress of comprehensive federal data privacy laws to which we may could become subject, if enacted.

Current wording

Numerous other states have enacted similarly comprehensive privacy laws, adding additional complexity, variation in requirements, restrictions and potential legal risk, requiring additional investment of resources in compliance programs. These laws impact our strategies, the availability of previously useful data and could result in increased compliance costs and/or changes to our business practices and policies. The existence of comprehensive privacy laws in different states in the country make our compliance obligations more complex and costly and may increase the likelihood that we may be subject to enforcement actions or otherwise incur liability for noncompliance. There are also states that are specifically regulating health information. For example, Washington state passed a health privacy law that regulates the collection and sharing of health information, and the law also has a private right of action, which further increases the relevant compliance risk. Connecticut and Nevada have also passed similar laws regulating consumer health data. In addition, other states have proposed and/or passed legislation that regulates the privacy and/or security of certain specific types of information. For example, a small number of states have passed laws that regulate genetic data and biometric data specifically. These various privacy and security laws may impact our business activities, including our identification of research subjects, relationships with business partners and ultimately the marketing and distribution of our products. State laws are changing rapidly and there is discussion in the U.S. Congress of comprehensive federal data privacy laws to which we may become subject, if enacted.

Previous wording

Moreover, a growing number of legislators and regulators are adopting laws and regulations and have focused enforcement efforts on the adoption of AI and use of such technologies in compliance with ethical standards and societal expectations. These developments may increase our compliance burden and costs in connection with use of AI and lead to legal liability if we fail to meet evolving legal standards or if use of such technologies results in harms or other causes of action we did not predict. For example, the EU began implementing the Artificial Intelligence Act, or AI Act, on August 1, 2024, with a significant part of the law scheduled to come into effect in August 2026. As currently enacted, the AI Act, which may be amended as part of the EU’s Digital Omnibus, imposes significant obligations on providers and deployers of high-risk AI systems, and encourages providers and deployers of AI systems to account for EU ethical principles in their development and use of these systems. The scope of requirements depends on judicial interpretations and forthcoming legislative amendments, and non-compliance can lead to significant fines.

Current wording

Moreover, a growing number of legislators and regulators are adopting laws and regulations and have focused enforcement efforts on the adoption of AI and use of such technologies in compliance with ethical standards and societal expectations. These developments may increase our compliance burden and costs in connection with use of AI and lead to legal liability if we fail to meet evolving legal standards or if use of such technologies results in harms or other causes of action we did not predict. For example, the EU began implementing the Artificial Intelligence Act, or AI Act, on August 1, 2024. On July 27, 2026, Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, known as the Digital Omnibus on AI, entered into force and postponed the application of the AI Act’s obligations for high-risk AI systems to December 2, 2027 for systems listed in Annex III and August 2, 2028 for systems covered by Annex I. The AI Act imposes significant obligations on providers and deployers of high-risk AI systems, and encourages providers and deployers of AI systems to account for EU ethical principles in their development and use of these systems. The scope of requirements depends on judicial interpretations and implementing guidance, and non-compliance can lead to significant fines.

Previous wording

Since the start of the current administration in 2025, there have been significant changes to U.S. trade, healthcare, immigration and government regulatory policy and additional changes are likely. For example, the U.S. government has 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. Changes to U.S. policy implemented by the U.S. Congress, the current administration or any new future 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.

Current wording

Since the start of the current administration in 2025, there have been significant changes to U.S. trade, healthcare, immigration and government regulatory policy and additional changes are likely. For example, the U.S. government has imposed tariffs on most countries throughout the world, and the legal basis for these tariffs has continued to shift during 2026, including the U.S. Supreme Court's invalidation of tariffs imposed under IEEPA, the expiration of the global surcharge imposed under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, and the imposition of tariffs under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 that remain subject to ongoing litigation. The U.S. government has indicated that it may continue to impose tariffs broadly, including under alternative statutory authorities, which could lead to retaliatory actions by the countries with which the U.S. trades. Changes to U.S. policy implemented by the U.S. Congress, the current administration or any future 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. In addition, the U.S. midterm elections held on November 3, 2026 have resulted in changes in the composition or control of one or both chambers of Congress, which could lead to changes in legislative, oversight and regulatory priorities, including with respect to drug pricing, healthcare, the FDA and trade policy. Public responses to the elections or their outcomes could also cause disruptions to our operations or those of the third parties on which we rely. 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.