Risk Factors Dashboard

Item 1A. “Risk Factors” in this Annual Report.

CAUTIONARY NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Annual Report contains, and management may make, certain forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. All statements other than statements of historical facts contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K are forward-looking statements. In some cases, forward-looking statements can be identified by the use of terms such as “believe,” “expect,” “intend,” “plan,” “may,” “should,” “anticipate,” “could,” “might,” “seek,” “target,” “will,” “project,” “forecast,” “continue” or their negatives or variations of these words or other comparable words. These statements include, without limitation, our statements about: the Investment Transaction; our ability to successfully pursue our business strategy, including identifying and completing a Post-Investment Transaction; the Company’s financial condition and results of operations, including the financial impact of the Investment Transaction and related transactions and matters, our product candidates’ development; the anticipated effects of our product candidates; the market potential and treatment potential of our product candidates; our commercialization, marketing and manufacturing capabilities and strategy; our expectations about the willingness of healthcare professionals to use our product candidates; our general business strategy and the plans and objectives of management for future operations; our research and development activities and costs; our future results of operations and condition; the sufficiency of our cash and cash equivalents to fund our ongoing activities; the impact of current macroeconomic conditions, geopolitical events and ongoing military conflicts in the Middle East and the war between Russia and Ukraine on our operations, ability to access capital, and liquidity; and any impact of a pandemic, epidemic or other future health crisis on our business. These statements include, without limitation, our statements about: our product candidates’ development, including the timing and design of the Phase 1 clinical trial of Decoy20; our expectations regarding the recommended Phase 2 dose for subsequent multi-dosing and combination studies and related timing; the anticipated effects of our product candidates; our plans to develop and commercialize our product candidates; the market potential and treatment potential of our product candidates, including Decoy20; our commercialization, marketing and manufacturing capabilities and strategy; our expectations about the willingness of healthcare professionals to use our product candidates; our general business strategy and the plans and objectives of management for future operations; our research and development activities and costs; our future results of operations and condition; the sufficiency of our cash and cash equivalents to fund our ongoing activities; the impact of current macroeconomic conditions on our operations, ability to access capital, and liquidity; and any impact of a pandemic, epidemic or other future health crisis on our business.

The forward-looking statements in this Annual Report are only predictions and are based largely on our current expectations and projections about future events and financial trends that we believe may affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. These forward-looking statements speak only as of the date of this Annual Report and are subject to a number of known and unknown risks, uncertainties and assumptions, including those described under the sections in this Annual Report entitled “Summary Risk Factors,” Part I. Item 1A. “Risk Factors” and Part II. Item 7. “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and elsewhere in this Annual Report. You should also refer to our quarterly reports on Form 10-Q for future periods and current reports on Form 8-K as we file them with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, or the SEC, and to other materials we may furnish to the public from time to time through SEC filings.

Because forward-looking statements are inherently subject to risks and uncertainties, some of which cannot be predicted or quantified and some of which are beyond our control, you should not rely on these forward-looking statements as predictions of future events. The events and circumstances reflected in our forward-looking statements may not be achieved or occur and actual results could differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements. Moreover, we operate in an evolving environment. New risk factors and uncertainties may emerge from time to time, and it is not possible for management to predict all risk factors and uncertainties.

Except as required by applicable law, we do not plan to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements contained herein, whether as a result of any new information, future events, changed circumstances or otherwise. We intend the forward-looking statements contained in this Annual Report to be covered by the safe harbor provisions for forward-looking statements contained in Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Act, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act.

Summary Risk Factors

The principal factors and uncertainties that make investing in our common stock risky, include, among others:

PART I

Item 1. Business.

Overview

We are a clinical biotechnology company that has developed a novel and patented systemically-administered anti-cancer and anti-viral immunotherapy. We have evolved from more than a century of immunotherapy advances. Our approach is based on the hypothesis that efficient activation of both innate and adaptive immune cells and associated anti-tumor and anti-viral immune responses will require a multi-targeted package of immune system activating signals that can be administered safely intravenously. Our patented technology is composed of single strains of attenuated and killed, non-pathogenic, Gram-negative bacteria, designed to have reduced i.v. toxicity, but largely uncompromised ability to prime or activate many of the cellular components of innate and adaptive immunity. This approach has led to broad anti-tumor and anti-viral activity in preclinical models, including durable anti-tumor response synergy observed with each of four different classes of existing agents, including NSAIDs, checkpoint therapy, targeted antibody therapy and low-dose chemotherapy. Tumor eradication by our technology was associated with induction of both innate and adaptive immunological memory and, importantly, did not require provision of or targeting a tumor antigen in preclinical models. In 2023, we initiated a Phase 1 clinical trial with our lead clinical candidate, Decoy20, in patients with advanced solid tumors where currently approved therapies have failed. In May 2025, we decided to conclude enrollment in the dosing of Decoy20 as a monotherapy and focus on the combination study of Decoy20 with BeOne’s anti-PD-1 antibody, Tislelizumab for the treatment of participants with advanced solid tumors, or the Combination Study. As of the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, we have discontinued further enrollment in the Combination Study and there are no participants remaining in the study. We do not have any current plans to initiate a new clinical trial.

Recent Developments

Lazar Investment Transaction

On December 22, 2025, we entered into the Purchase Agreement with Mr. Lazar, pursuant to which he agreed to purchase from us 300,000 shares of Series AA Preferred Stock and 700,000 shares of Series AAA Preferred Stock at a purchase price of $6.00 per share of Preferred Stock for aggregate gross proceeds of $6.0 million, subject to the terms and conditions thereunder. The offering closed on December 23, 2025.

Pursuant to the Purchase Agreement, we held a special meeting of stockholders on February 26, 2026, where the stockholders approved the following actions (i) the issuance of common stock to Mr. Lazar in compliance with the rules and regulations of Nasdaq (without regard to any limitations on conversion set forth in the applicable Certificate of Designations) upon conversion of the shares of Preferred Stock, (ii) an amendment to our amended and restated certificate of incorporation that increases the authorized shares of common stock from 200,000,000 to 1,000,000,000 shares at the discretion of the Board, (iii) an amendment to our amended and restated certificate of incorporation that permits future shareholder action by written consent of the majority of shareholders, (iv) the election of Jerome Jabbour as Class I and Matthew McMurdo as Class III directors (each a designee of Mr. Lazar) to the Board of Directors to serve until the 2028 and 2027 annual meeting of stockholders, respectively, and (v) a reverse stock split of the common stock of the Company in the range to be determined by the Board.

Each share of Series AA Preferred Stock is convertible into 20 shares of our common stock and each share of Series AAA Preferred Stock is convertible into 150 shares of common stock for a combined total of 111,000,000 shares of common stock.

In connection with the Investment Transaction, our past Board members Mr. Robert E. Martell and Ms. Hila Karah resigned from the Board and Mr. Lazar and Mr. Avraham Ben-Tzvi (a designee of Mr. Lazar) were appointed to fill the vacancies created by their resignations. Both Mr. Lazar and Mr. Ben-Tzvi currently serve as Class I directors with a term expiring at our 2028 annual meeting of stockholders. Mr. Lazar was appointed as the Chairman of the Board taking over the role held by Dr. Roger Pomerantz. However, Dr. Pomerantz continued to serve as a member of the Board of Directors. Additionally, the Board appointed David Natan, also a designee of Mr. Lazar, to the Board effective January 7, 2026 as a Class II member to serve for a term ending at the 2026 annual meeting of stockholders.

Further, pursuant to the terms of the Purchase Agreement, we entered into employment modification agreements with each of Jeffrey A. Meckler, Michael J. Newman, Ph.D., Nir Sassi and Walt A. Linscott, Esq. (collectively, the “Executive Officers”). Pursuant to the terms of the employment modification agreements, or the Modification Agreements, each of the Executive Officers agreed to remain employed in their existing roles except for Mr. Meckler who agreed to change his title to Co-Chief Executive Officer. The Executive Officers agreed to modify certain terms of their original employment agreements, granted release of claims relating to their employment, and received certain cash and equity payments at the closing of the Investment Transaction. More recently, in January of 2026, the employment agreements of Mr. Meckler and Mr. Newman were further amended whereby their salaries were reduced to $60,000 per annum. Further, pursuant to the Investment Transaction, each of the Executive Officers entered into a voting agreement, dated December 22, 2025, pursuant to which each of the Executive Officers agreed, in their capacity as stockholders of the Company, to vote all of their shares of common stock in favor of all proposals at the special meeting of stockholders held on February 26, 2026.

As indicated above, following the Investment Transaction, we plan to pursue a strategic transaction involving either an investment in or acquisition of a Target Company. Should such a transaction be approved and successfully finalized, the Company anticipates that combining with a Target Company will create future growth opportunities for both the Company and its stockholders. We are currently in the process of evaluating our strategic options for a Post-Investment Transaction.

Warrant Repricing

On February 11, 2026, we entered into warrant repricing agreements, or the Repricing Agreements, with certain holders, or the Executing Holders, of warrants to purchase an aggregate of 913,638 shares of our common stock that were originally issued in financing rounds during 2024 and 2025 (financing rounds discussed below) at exercise prices ranging from $8.30 to $47.60 (the “Executing Warrants”). Pursuant to the Repricing Agreements, we agreed to reduce the per share exercise prices of the Executing Warrants to $1.75, which is equal to the “Minimum Price” as calculated in accordance with the Nasdaq rules, or the Exercise Price Reduction. As a condition to the Exercise Price Reduction, the Executing Holders agreed to enter into a voting agreement pursuant to which the Executing Holders agreed to vote all of the shares of common stock held by the Executing Holders in favor of all proposals at the special meeting of stockholders held on February 26, 2026.

In addition, on February 11, 2026, with respect to the remaining warrants and placement agent warrants to purchase an aggregate of 762,787 shares of common stock that were issued in the same financing rounds described above, our Board of Directors unilaterally reduced their per share exercise prices to $1.75. Other than the reduction in the per share exercise price, all other terms and provisions of the warrants described above remained unchanged.

ATM Offering

In June 2022, we entered into an at-the-market offering agreement (the “ATM Agreement”) with H.C. Wainwright & Co. LLC (“Wainwright”), which was amended on September 1, 2022, relating to the offer and sale of shares of our common stock having an aggregate offering price of up to $6.3 million. The issuances and sales of common stock by us under the ATM Agreement were being made pursuant to “shelf” registration statements on Form S-3 filed with the SEC on September 1, 2022 and declared effective on September 9, 2022 and most recently on August 13, 2025 and declared effective on August 20, 2025. Our ability to issue shares under the shelf registration statement on Form S-3 is limited by General Instruction I.B.6 to Form S-3. In September 2025, we sold 520,000 shares of our common stock for aggregate gross proceeds of approximately $2.3 million.

June 2025 Convertible Note Financing

In June 2025, we completed a private placement, or the June 2025 Financing, of convertible notes to certain investors, including our then Chief Executive Officer, Jeffrey Meckler, in the aggregate principal amount of approximately $5.7 million and warrants to purchase shares of common stock. The notes automatically converted in July 2025 into 501,566 shares of our common stock and pre-funded warrants to purchase 190,795 shares of our common stock at a conversion price of $8.30 per share. In connection with the offering, we also issued to the investors warrants to purchase 1,384,722 shares of our common stock, exercisable at $8.30 per share and expiring on July 27, 2030. The warrants issued in the June 2025 Financing were the subject of warrant repricing completed in February 2026. See “Warrant Repricing” on page 6 of this Annual Report.

Reverse Split

On June 26, 2025, we effected a 1-for-28 reverse stock split of our common stock and began trading on a post-split basis on the Nasdaq Capital Market on June 27, 2025, which resulted in our regaining compliance with Nasdaq’s minimum bid price requirement. As a result of the reverse stock split, every 28 shares of outstanding common stock were combined into one share of common stock. The reverse stock split decreased our outstanding common stock from 16,946,528 shares to 604,963 shares as of that date. In addition, a proportionate adjustment was made to the per share exercise price and the number of shares issuable upon the exercise of all outstanding options and warrants entitling the holders to purchase common stock. All share and per share amounts in this annual report on Form 10-K and the consolidated financial statements have been retroactively adjusted to reflect the reverse stock split.

February 2025 Equity Line

On February 12, 2025, we entered into a Standby Equity Purchase Agreement, or the SEPA with YA II PN, LTD., a Cayman Islands exempt limited company, or Yorkville. Pursuant to the SEPA, we have the right, but not the obligation, to sell to Yorkville from time to time up to $20.0 million of our common stock, during the 36 months following the execution of the Purchase Agreement, subject to the restrictions and satisfaction of the conditions in the SEPA. At our option, the shares of common stock would be purchased by Yorkville from time to time at a price equal to 97% of the lowest of the three daily VWAPs during a three consecutive trading day period commencing on the date that we, subject to certain limitations, deliver a notice to Yorkville that the Company is committing Yorkville to purchase such shares of common stock. We may also specify a certain minimum acceptable price per share in each Advance. As consideration for Yorkville’s irrevocable commitment to purchase our shares, we issued to Yorkville 10,927 shares of common stock. Under the applicable rules of Nasdaq and pursuant to the SEPA, in no event may we issue or sell to Yorkville more than 100,830 shares of common stock, or the Exchange Cap, which is 19.99% of the shares of common stock outstanding immediately prior to the execution of the SEPA, unless (i) we obtain stockholder approval to issue shares of common stock in excess of the Exchange Cap or (ii) the average price of all applicable sales of common stock under the SEPA equals or exceeds $22.882 per share (which represents the lower of (i) the Nasdaq Official Closing Price (as reflected on Nasdaq.com) on the trading day immediately preceding the effective date or (ii) the average Nasdaq Official Closing Price of the common stock (as reflected on Nasdaq.com) for the five trading days immediately preceding the effective date). In addition, effective February 12, 2025, we terminated the purchase agreement that we entered into with Lincoln Park Capital Fund, LLC in December 2022. As of March 16, 2026, we sold and issued 89,902 shares of common stock under the SEPA for aggregate net proceeds of approximately $1.74 million, after deducting offering expenses in the amount of approximately $0.1 million. In addition, effective February 12, 2025, we terminated the purchase agreement that we entered into with Lincoln Park Capital Fund, LLC in December 2022. January 2025 Financing On January 12, 2025, we entered into securities purchase agreements, or the January 2025 Purchase Agreements, with certain institutional and accredited investors, or the January 2025 Purchasers. Effective March 11, 2026, we terminated the SEPA with Yorkville, and the SEPA is no longer in effect.

January 2025 Financing

On January 12, 2025, we entered into securities purchase agreements, or the January 2025 Purchase Agreements, with certain institutional and accredited investors, or the January 2025 Purchasers. The January 2025 Purchase Agreements provide for the sale and issuance by us of an aggregate of: (i) 75,335 shares of our common stock and (ii) warrants to purchase 75,335 shares of common stock in a private placement, or the January 2025 Warrants. The January 2025 Purchase Agreements provide for the sale and issuance by us of an aggregate of: (i) 2,109,383 shares of our common stock and (ii) warrants to purchase 2,109,383 shares of common stock in a private placement, or the January 2025 Warrants. The shares and January 2025 Warrants were sold on a combined basis for consideration of $29.82 for one share and a January 2025 Warrant. The exercise price of the January 2025 Warrants is $26.32 per share.

The January 2025 Warrants were immediately exercisable upon issuance and will expire five years following the date of issuance. The January 2025 Warrants contain standard adjustments to the exercise price including for stock splits, stock dividends and reorganizations. In lieu of making the cash payment otherwise contemplated to be made upon exercise in payment of the aggregate exercise price, the holder may, in the event the shares underlying the January 2025 Warrants are not registered under the Securities Act, elect instead to receive upon such exercise (either in whole or in part) the net number of shares of common stock determined according to a formula set forth in the January 2025 Warrants. Under the terms of the January 2025 Warrants, a holder (together with its affiliates) may not exercise any portion of its January 2025 Warrant to the extent that the holder would beneficially own more than 4.99% or 9.99%, depending on the individual investor, of the outstanding common stock immediately after exercise, or the Beneficial Ownership Limitation, except that upon at least 61 days’ prior notice from the holder to us, the holder may increase the Beneficial Ownership Limitation, provided that the Beneficial Ownership Limitation in no event exceeds 19.99%.

Paulson Investment Company, LLC, or Paulson, served as the exclusive placement agent for the issuance and sale of the securities. As compensation for such placement agent services, we paid Paulson an aggregate cash fee equal to 7.0% of the gross proceeds received by us from the offering, and a non-accountable expense of $25,000. As additional compensation to Paulson, we issued to Paulson (or its designees) a warrant, or the January 2025 Placement Agent Warrants, to purchase an aggregate of 5,273 shares at an exercise price per share equal to $32.9 per share. As compensation for such placement agent services, we paid Paulson an aggregate cash fee equal to 7.0% of the gross proceeds received by us from the offering, and a non-accountable expense of $25,000. As additional compensation to Paulson, we issued to the Paulson (or its designees) a warrant, or the January 2025 Placement Agent Warrants, to purchase an aggregate of 147,656 shares at an exercise price per share equal to $1.175 per share. The January 2025 Placement Agent Warrants are exercisable six months from the date of issuance and expire on the fifth anniversary of the issue date. The January 2025 Warrants and the January 2025 Placement Agent Warrants were the subject of warrant repricing completed in February 2026. See “Warrant Repricing” on page 6 of this Annual Report.

November 2024 Financing

On November 22, 2024, we entered into securities purchase agreements, or the November 2024 Purchase Agreements, with certain institutional and accredited investors, or the November 2024 Purchasers. The November 2024 Purchase Agreements provide for the sale and issuance by us of an aggregate of: (i) 64,893 shares of our common stock in a registered direct offering and (ii) warrants to purchase 64,893 shares of common stock in a private placement, or the November 2024 Warrants. The November 2024 Purchase Agreements provide for the sale and issuance by us of an aggregate of: (i) 1,817,017 shares of our common stock in a registered direct offering and (ii) warrants to purchase 1,817,017 shares of common stock in a private placement, or the November 2024 Warrants. The shares and November 2024 Warrants were sold on a combined basis for consideration of $32.9 for one share and a November 2024 Warrant. The exercise price of the November 2024 Warrants is $29.4 per share. One of the November 2024 Purchasers was our then Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Jeffrey Meckler, who purchased 1,519 shares and November 2024 Warrants to purchase 1,519 shares, or the Affiliate Securities, at the same price and upon the same terms as the other November 2024 Purchasers.

The November 2024 Warrants were immediately exercisable upon issuance and will expire five years following the date of issuance. The November 2024 Warrants contain standard adjustments to the exercise price including for stock splits, stock dividends and reorganizations. In lieu of making the cash payment otherwise contemplated to be made upon exercise in payment of the aggregate exercise price, the holder may, in the event the shares underlying the November 2024 Warrants are not registered under the Securities Act, elect instead to receive upon such exercise (either in whole or in part) the net number of shares of common stock determined according to a formula set forth in the November 2024 Warrants. Under the terms of the November 2024 Warrants, a holder (together with its affiliates) may not exercise any portion of its November 2024 Warrant to the extent that the holder would beneficially own more than the Beneficial Ownership Limitation, except that upon at least 61 days’ prior notice from the holder to us, the holder may increase the Beneficial Ownership Limitation, provided that the Beneficial Ownership Limitation in no event exceeds 19.99%.

Paulson served as the exclusive placement agent for the issuance and sale of the securities. As compensation for such placement agent services, we paid Paulson an aggregate cash fee equal to 7.0% of the gross proceeds received by us from the offering (excluding the Affiliate Securities), and a non-accountable expense of $25,000. As additional compensation to Paulson, we issued to the Paulson (or its designees) a warrant, or the November 2024 Placement Agent Warrants, to purchase an aggregate of 4,436 shares at an exercise price per share equal to $36.75 per share. The November 2024 Placement Agent Warrants are exercisable six months from the date of issuance and expire on the fifth anniversary of the issue date. The November 2024 Warrants and the November 2024 Placement Agent Warrants were the subject of warrant repricing completed in February 2026. See “Warrant Repricing” on page 6 of this Annual Report.

August 2024 Financing

On August 8, 2024, we completed a registered direct offering, pursuant to which we sold and issued to certain investors, including one of our officers, 58,708 shares of common stock. In addition, in a concurrent private placement, we issued to the investors unregistered warrants to purchase 58,708 shares of common stock, or the August 2024 Private Placement. The warrants were immediately exercisable at an exercise price of $47.60 per share and expire five years from the date of issuance. The combined purchase price for one share of common stock and one warrant was $51.1, resulting in gross proceeds of approximately $3.0 million, before deducting placement agent and other offering expenses in the amount of approximately $0.5 million. The warrants issued in the August 2024 Private Placement were the subject of warrant repricing completed in February 2026. See “Warrant Repricing” on page 6 of this Annual Report.

Background

Approved immunotherapies, such as Interluekin-2, Interferon-alpha and the more recently approved “checkpoint” and CAR-T therapies produce durable responses in a few percent to about fifty percent of patients across about a dozen out of over one hundred different types of cancer. Although checkpoint therapies are able to effectively cure many previously incurable patients, only about 15% of patients receiving this type of therapy respond. The main limitation of existing immunotherapies is that they each activate only one or a small number of key steps in either the innate or adaptive immune system, but there is general agreement that highly efficient cancer immunotherapy will require activation of both innate and adaptive immunity. The human body’s innate and adaptive immune systems are each capable of cell-mediated destruction of tumors if the tumor cells are recognized as foreign or damaged. Activation of innate and adaptive responses is also dependent on immune cells sensing the presence of “danger.” The most potent immune cell activating danger signals are released by bacteria and viruses in the setting of infection, and include agonists of immune cell receptors, such as Toll-Like (TLR), NOD and STING. Bacterial danger signals, including TLR agonists are called pathogen-associated molecular patterns (PAMPs) and can activate both innate and adaptive immune cells, including antigen-presenting cells, promoting innate (NK, macrophage) and adaptive (T cell-mediated) destruction of tumors.

The oldest form of cancer immunotherapy involves the provision of decoy danger signals from bacteria. It was based on the long-standing observation of tumor regression in the setting of bacterial infection. Treatment of cancer patients with heat-killed bacteria, or Coley’s toxins, was established in 1891 and used for 70 years with significant success. Treatment of cancer patients with heat-killed bacteria (“Coley’s toxins”) was established in 1891 and used for 70 years with significant success. For example, ≥5-year survival was reported for 45% of 432 inoperable sarcoma, lymphoma, melanoma, and carcinoma patients. Despite this success, several limitations led to the abandonment of this approach by the pharmaceutical industry. Although there was an indication that Coley’s toxins worked best when administered intravenously (i.v.), it was too toxic when given by this route, limiting the approach to local administration, which produced highly variable results. Another limitation was lack of knowledge about the mechanism of action, preventing optimization and standardization of manufacturing, leading to another source of variability in clinical response. Due to this high variability, Coley’s toxins was not grandfathered-in as an approved drug by the FDA in 1963 and was supplanted by radiation and chemotherapy, despite the fact that these more modern approaches rarely produce durable responses in advanced cancer patients. Scientists now understand the mechanism of action of Coley’s toxins. Gram-negative bacteria contain multiple immune-stimulating danger signals, including TLR agonists such as lipopolysaccharide (LPS). Bacteria and purified or mono-specific TLR agonists, including LPS derivatives, have been validated and approved for prevention and treatment of early stage cancer. However, a safe and effective TLR agonist-based approach for advanced cancer has been elusive, possibly due to limitations in the ability of intratumorally administered, mono-specific TLR agonists to induce potent, systemic anti-tumor immune responses. In addition, the intratumoral approach is not feasible with all tumor types or patients. Our hypothesis is that an effective TLR agonist-based immunotherapy for advanced cancer will require invention of a packaged, multi-TLR agonist or multi-danger signal product that is modified or attenuated to allow safe i.v. administration.

Our Approach

Our patented approach is based on the hypothesis that efficient activation of both innate and adaptive immune cells and associated anti-tumor immune responses can be achieved by using intact bacteria, containing multiple PAMPs, which have been attenuated so that they can be administered safely intravenously. Because LPS appears to be the most important contributor to both toxicity and efficacy, our patented product candidates are single strains of killed, non-pathogenic Gram-negative bacteria that have been treated in an effort to kill the bacteria and significantly reduce, but not completely eliminate, the cell surface LPS-endotoxin activity. Our product candidates are designed to have enhanced sufficient residual LPS to synergize with other PAMPs in the bacteria to efficiently prime innate and adaptive immune pathways. This approach has led to broad anti-tumor and anti-viral activity in preclinical models, including durable anti-tumor response synergy observed with each of four different classes of existing agents, including NSAIDs, checkpoint therapy, targeted antibody therapy and low-dose chemotherapy. Tumor eradication by our technology is designed to produce both innate and adaptive immunological memory and, importantly, not require provision of an exogenous tumor antigen, potentially due to the ability of LPS and other PAMPS to activate dendritic cells that have already captured a tumor antigen.

All immune cells can participate in killing of tumors and viruses. As illustrated below, current therapies activate only one or a small subset of both pathways and cure only a small percentage of patients.

Our technology, however, is designed to synergize with existing therapies to activate both innate and adaptive immune cells, inducing efficient anti- tumor immune responses with a wide safety margin. Induction of adaptive anti-tumor immune responses and immunological memory by our technology does not require an exogenous tumor antigen.

Innate and adaptive immune responses require identification of a tumor as foreign or not self. However, most steps required for migration and activation of immune cells are unrelated to the tumor or are tumor non-specific. All innate and adaptive non-specific steps are induced or promoted by immune system “danger signal” molecules, such as those found in our bacteria. Bacteria-derived danger signals are also able to enhance the processing and recognition of tumor antigens, which are frequently present, but not “seen” by the immune system.

Results

Preclinical Trials

In preclinical models, Indaptus treated bacteria induced less systemic toxicity than untreated bacteria but were still able to activate innate and adaptive immune responses. Despite exhibiting reduced in vivo pyrogenicity and a higher maximally tolerated dose, our bacteria were able to induce secretion of most cytokines and chemokines from mouse and human immune cells in vitro at levels comparable to those seen with untreated bacteria. Our bacteria were also able to synergize with human immune cells to kill human tumor cells in vitro.

We have observed significant single agent anti-tumor activity and/or combination therapy-mediated regression with durable responses in established non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, as well as colorectal, hepatocellular and pancreatic carcinoma in preclinical syngeneic and human tumor xenograft models. Our bacteria synergized with each of four different classes of approved agents in preclinical models, including NSAIDs, checkpoint therapy, targeted antibody therapy and low-dose chemotherapy to induce tumor regression, providing significant flexibility for targeting of diverse types of cancer. Our technology is designed to eradicate tumors via activation of both innate (NK cell) and adaptive (CD4+ and CD8+ T cell) mechanisms, with the goal of producing both innate and adaptive immunological memory. In our preclinical studies, tumor eradication occurred at non-toxic doses of our bacteria, with a very wide (10 to ≥33-fold) therapeutic index. Notable mechanism of action information has also been obtained, via gene expression analysis with treated tumors and plasma cytokine analysis, demonstrating that our combination technology has the potential to turn “cold” tumors into “hot” tumors and induce, activate or recruit innate and adaptive genes, cells and pathways. Immune cell pre-depletion studies have demonstrated that both innate (NK) and adaptive (CD4 T and CD8 T) immune cells are involved in tumor eradication. We have also demonstrated significant single agent activity against chronic Hepatitis B virus (HBV) and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection in standard preclinical models.

We have carried out successful cGMP manufacturing and stability studies with our lead product candidate, Decoy20. In addition, IND-enabling multi-dose toxicology studies have been completed and did not produce sustained induction of factors that are associated with cytokine release syndrome.

The chart above demonstrates that our bacteria synergize with Anti-PD-1 Checkpoint therapy to regress established mouse hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) Tumors. All mice (all groups) received a low-dose, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID/Indomethacin), which increases the number of regressions in the combination setting. Most regressions were durable, with 5/6 combination regressions stable through termination at Day 91 and in a repeat experiment through termination at Day 143 (see next Figure below) (CR = complete response or complete regression). The repeat experiment also produced 5/6 or 6/6 durable regressions per group over a 33-fold Indaptus concentration range and an absence of safety concerns, demonstrating a very wide therapeutic index. Similar tumor eradication results have been obtained by combining our bacteria with low-dose chemotherapy in a mouse non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma model. Eradication of established non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma tumors by our technology has also been observed with human tumor xenografts, via activation of the innate immune system. Development and preclinical efficacy characterization of a systemically administered multiple Toll-like receptor (TLR) agonist for antitumor immunotherapy [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Fourth CRI-CIMT-EATI-AACR International Cancer Immunotherapy Conference: Translating Science into Survival; Sept 30-Oct 3, 2018; New York, NY. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Immunol Res 2019;7(2 Suppl):Abstract nr B178.

The chart above illustrates that the synergistic tumor eradication by our technology and Anti-PD-1 produces immunological memory. Established tumors were regressed in 11 mice by combination treatment as in the Figure above and then the mice were re-challenged with fresh HCC tumor cells, without further treatment. All of the new tumors were rejected. Similar results have been obtained by combining our bacteria with low-dose chemotherapy in a non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma model.

Clinical Trials

In May 2022, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or the FDA, allowed us to proceed under our IND for a Phase 1 clinical trial in patients with advanced solid tumors where currently approved therapies have failed. In December 2022, we initiated an open label, multi-center, dose escalation and expansion, single arm (monotherapy) Phase 1 study conducted in 2 parts. The Phase 1 study began with single dose administration and was followed with continuous weekly dosing of Decoy20 in tumor-specific expansion cohorts. The Phase 1 study began with single dose administration and has now been followed with continuous weekly dosing of Decoy20 in tumor-specific expansion cohorts. The study enrolled patients with any one of six advanced/metastatic solid tumors, who have exhausted approved treatment options. The study is enrolling patients with any one of six advanced/metastatic solid tumors, who have exhausted approved treatment options. The study’s objectives were to assess the safety and tolerability of Decoy20, to determine the maximum tolerated dose, the optimal biologically active and recommended Phase 2 dose, as well as to assess Decoy20 pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics and clinical activity. The primary endpoints of the study were incidence, relatedness and severity of adverse events and treatment-emergent adverse events and determining the number of subjects per cohort with dose limiting toxicity-based adverse events. Secondary endpoints included the incidence of anti-drug antibodies and neutralizing antibodies pre- and post-treatment, change in Decoy20 PK parameters over time, objective response rate and duration of response. Secondary endpoints include the incidence of anti-drug antibodies and neutralizing antibodies pre- and post-treatment, change in Decoy20 PK parameters over time, objective response rate and duration of response.

In August 2023, we evaluated the first four patients who received a single dose of 7 x 10^7 Decoy20 in Part 1 of the Phase 1 clinical trial. All four patients who enrolled were evaluable in the first cohort. These patients experienced generally anticipated transient adverse events including hemodynamic changes such as changes in pulse or blood pressure that resolved within 30 minutes and laboratory abnormalities such as grade 1-3 elevations in transaminases (liver function tests) and grade 4 reductions in lymphocytes that generally resolved within three days. One patient had a dose-limiting toxicity of grade 3 bradycardia (slow heart rate) and grade 2 hypotension (low blood pressure) which resolved within approximately 90 minutes with i.v. fluids. Patients also experienced transient induction of over 50 different biomarkers associated with innate and adaptive anti-tumor immune responses. After the end of infusion, Decoy20 was cleared from the blood within 30 to 120 minutes. Peak cytokine and chemokine induction occurred within ~4 to 24 hours and most cytokine/chemokines returned to the patient’s respective baseline by 24-72 hours. This rapid clearance and associated transient cytokine/chemokine induction are desired to avoid prolonged toxicity, often associated with longer term cytokine exposure.

In September 2023, we began the second cohort of the Phase 1 clinical trial after receiving authorization from the Safety Review Committee. The second cohort dose was a reduction from 7 x 10^7 Decoy20 dose to 3 x 10^7 Decoy20. In March 2024, we completed the second cohort of patients who received a single dose of 3 x 10^7 Decoy20 in Phase 1 of the clinical trial. The second cohort dose was a reduction from 7 x 10^7 Decoy20 dose to 3 x 10^7 Decoy20. In March 2024, we completed the second cohort of patients who received a single dose of 3 x 10^7 Decoy20 in Part 1 of the clinical trial Patients on the second (lower dose) cohort experienced adverse events similar in frequency and severity to the higher dose cohort with one dose-limiting toxicity of grade 3 ALT elevation that required one week to resolve. Patients on the second (lower dose) cohort experienced adverse events similar in frequency and severity to the higher dose cohort with one dose-limiting toxicity of grade 3 ALT elevation that required one week to resolve. Pharmacodynamic effects included transient induction of multiple biomarkers. Clearance of Decoy20 was similarly rapid. Following authorization from the Safety Review Committee, we advanced into the weekly dosing part of the trial.

In May and June 2024, we enrolled two additional patients in the first cohort who received a single dose of 7 x 10^7 Decoy20, and in August 2024 we received the authorization from the Safety Review Committee to initiate the weekly dosing with 7 x 10^7 Decoy20.

As of October 2024, we completed one month of the weekly dosing part in the first six participants at the 3 x 10^7 Decoy20 dose and following the review of the safety data by the Safety Review Committee we received the authorization to initiate unrestricted enrollment of participants at the 3 x 10^7 Decoy20 dose. By May 2025, we had enrolled 13 participants on Decoy20 as a single dose and 32 participants in the weekly dosing among the two Decoy20 dose levels. In May 2025, we decided to conclude enrollment in the weekly dosing and focus on the Combination Study, as further described below. We have observed early signs of potential benefits emerging with some participants with stable disease. As expected with the mechanism of action of Decoy20, we have seen adverse events of cytokine release syndrome (CRS) in six participants that have resolved within 24-72 hours.

In October 2024, we entered into a clinical supply agreement, or the Supply Agreement, with BeOne Medicines (formerly known as BeiGene Switzerland GmbH), to advance clinical evaluation of Decoy20 in combination with BeOne’s anti-PD-1 antibody, Tislelizumab, or the BeOne Product, for the treatment of participants with advanced solid tumors, or the Combination Study. This Combination Study builds on preclinical results where Decoy20, combined with a PD-1 inhibitor, demonstrated tumor eradication. This Combination Study builds on preclinical results where Decoy20, combined with a PD-1 inhibitor, demonstrated high tumor eradication rates and established immunological memory. By November 2025, we had enrolled six evaluable participants in the Combination Study, and we have seen one related serious adverse event of CRS in one participant that has resolved within 72 hours. Following initial efficacy evaluations, we had three participants who experienced disease progression and had to discontinue from the study, and we had evidence of stable disease assessment in three subjects. Of the three stable disease participants, one subject with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck developed disease progression at the next restaging assessment and discontinued from the study; one subject with pancreatic adenocarcinoma maintained stable disease with Decoy20 for more than four months, with tislelizumab held between weeks 10-20 for autoimmune thyroiditis, before discontinuing after 6 months with disease progression; and the third subject with hepatocellular carcinoma had stable disease for four months before discontinuing for disease progression after six months. The Combination Study assessed safety, dose optimization, and early signs of anti-tumor activity in participants with advanced solid tumors, previously treated with a checkpoint inhibitor or with tumors typically unresponsive to checkpoint inhibitors. Currently, we have discontinued further enrollment and there are no participants remaining in the study. We do not have any current plans to initiate a new clinical trial.

Under the terms of the Supply Agreement, we covered all costs associated with the Combination Study, excluding the cost of the BeOne Product. BeOne supplied the BeOne Product for use in the study, and we supplied Decoy20 for the purposes of the Combination Study. Following the discontinuation of the Combination Study, we provided BeOne notice of termination per the Supply Agreement.

Historically, we have operated virtually with a team of highly experienced consultants and advisors, carrying out research and development at contract research organizations (CROs). We have developed patented treatment methods (and associated patented compositions) for attenuation and killing of non-pathogenic, Gram-negative bacteria. Since our inception, we have funded our operations primarily through public and private offerings of our equity securities.

Governmental Regulation

Among others, the FDA and comparable regulatory authorities in state and local jurisdictions and in other countries impose substantial and burdensome requirements upon companies involved in the clinical development, manufacture, marketing and distribution of drugs such as those we are developing. These agencies and other federal, state and local entities regulate, among other things, the research and development, testing, manufacture, quality control, safety, effectiveness, labeling, storage, record keeping, approval, advertising and promotion, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting, sampling and export and import of our product candidates.

U.S. Regulation of Drugs and Biologics

In the United States, the FDA regulates drugs under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) and its implementing regulations, and biologics under the FDCA and the Public Health Service Act (PHSA) and its implementing regulations. FDA approval is required before any new unapproved drug or dosage form, including a new use of a previously approved drug, can be marketed in the United States. Drugs and biologics are also subject to other federal, state, and local statutes and regulations. The process required by the FDA before product candidates may be marketed in the United States generally involves the following:

Once a product candidate is identified for development, it enters the preclinical testing stage. Preclinical tests include laboratory evaluations of product chemistry, toxicity and formulation, as well as animal studies. An IND sponsor must submit the results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information and analytical data, to the FDA as part of an IND. An IND is a request for authorization from the FDA to administer an investigational drug product to humans. An IND will also include a protocol detailing, among other things, the objectives of the clinical trial, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety, and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated, if the trial includes an efficacy evaluation. Some preclinical testing may continue even after the IND is submitted. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA, within the 30-day time period, places the clinical trial on a clinical hold. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. Clinical holds also may be imposed by the FDA at any time before or during clinical trials due to safety concerns about on-going or proposed clinical trials or non-compliance with specific FDA requirements, and the trials may not begin or continue until the FDA notifies the sponsor that the hold has been lifted.

All clinical trials must be conducted under the supervision of one or more qualified investigators in accordance with GCPs, which include the requirement that all research subjects provide their informed consent in writing for their participation in any clinical trial. Clinical trials must be conducted under protocols detailing the objectives of the trial, dosing procedures, subject selection and exclusion criteria and the safety and effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. Each protocol must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND, and a separate submission to the existing IND must be made for each successive clinical trial conducted during product development and for any subsequent protocol amendments. While the IND is active, progress reports summarizing the results of the clinical trials and nonclinical studies performed since the last progress report, among other information, must be submitted at least annually to the FDA, and written IND safety reports must be submitted to the FDA and investigators for serious and unexpected suspected adverse events, findings from other studies suggesting a significant risk to humans exposed to the same or similar drugs, findings from animal or in vitro testing suggesting a significant risk to humans, and any clinically important increased incidence of a serious suspected adverse reaction compared to that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure.

Furthermore, an independent IRB at each institution participating in the clinical trial must review and approve each protocol before a clinical trial commences at that institution and must also approve the information regarding the trial and the consent form that must be provided to each trial subject or his or her legal representative, monitor the study until completed and otherwise comply with IRB regulations. The FDA or the sponsor may suspend a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research subjects or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the drug has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients. In addition, some clinical trials are overseen by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board or committee. Depending on its charter, this group may determine whether a trial may move forward at designated check points based on access to certain data from the trial. There are also requirements governing the reporting of ongoing clinical studies and clinical study results to public registries, including clinicaltrials.gov.

The clinical investigation of a drug is generally divided into three phases. Although the phases are usually conducted sequentially, they may overlap or be combined.

Post-approval trials, sometimes referred to as Phase 4 studies, may be conducted after initial marketing approval. These trials are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication. In certain instances, the FDA may mandate the performance of Phase 4 clinical trials as a condition of approval of an NDA.

During the development of a product candidate, sponsors are given opportunities to meet with the FDA at certain points. These points may be prior to submission of an IND, at the end of Phase 2, and before an NDA or BLA is submitted. Meetings at other times may be requested. These meetings can provide an opportunity for the sponsor to share information about the data gathered to date, for the FDA to provide advice, and for the sponsor and the FDA to reach agreement on the next phase of development. Concurrent with clinical trials, companies usually complete additional animal studies and must also develop additional information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the drug and finalize a process for manufacturing the product in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMPs. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the product candidate and, among other things, the manufacturer must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality and purity of the final drug. In addition, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested, and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the product candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life.

NDA and BLA Review Process

Assuming successful completion of all required testing in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements, the results of product development, nonclinical studies and clinical trials are submitted to the FDA as part of an NDA or BLA requesting approval to market the product for one or more indications. The NDA or BLA must include all relevant data available from pertinent preclinical studies and clinical trials, including negative or ambiguous results as well as positive findings, together with detailed information relating to the product’s chemistry, manufacturing and controls and proposed labeling, among other things. Data can come from company-sponsored clinical studies intended to test the safety and effectiveness of the product, or from a number of alternative sources, including studies initiated and sponsored by investigators. The submission of an NDA or BLA requires payment of a substantial application user fee to the FDA, unless a waiver or exemption applies.

In addition, under the Pediatric Research Equity Act, or PREA, an NDA or BLA or supplement to an NDA or BLA must contain data to assess the safety and effectiveness of the biological product candidate for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective. The Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act requires that a sponsor who is planning to submit a marketing application for a drug or biological product that includes a new active ingredient, new indication, new dosage form, new dosing regimen or new route of administration submit an initial pediatric study plan within sixty days after an end-of-Phase 2 meeting or as may be agreed between the sponsor and FDA. Unless otherwise required by regulation, PREA does not apply to any drug or biological product for an indication for which orphan designation has been granted.

Within 60 days following submission of the application, the FDA reviews the submitted BLA or NDA to determine if the application is substantially complete before the agency accepts it for filing. The FDA may refuse to file any NDA or BLA that it deems incomplete or not properly reviewable at the time of submission and may request additional information. In this event, the NDA or BLA must be resubmitted with the additional information. Once an NDA or BLA has been accepted for filing, the FDA’s goal is to review standard applications within ten months after the filing date, or, if the application qualifies for priority review, six months after the FDA accepts the application for filing. In both standard and priority reviews, the review process may also be extended by FDA requests for additional information or clarification. The FDA reviews an NDA to determine, among other things, whether a product candidate is safe and effective for its intended use and whether its manufacturing is sufficient to assure and preserve the product’s identity, strength, quality and purity. The FDA reviews a BLA to determine, among other things, whether a product candidate is safe, pure and potent and the facility in which it is manufactured, processed, packed or held meets standards designed to assure the product’s continued safety, purity and potency. When reviewing an NDA or BLA, the FDA may convene an advisory committee to provide clinical insight on application review questions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions.

Before approving an NDA or BLA, the FDA will typically inspect the facility or facilities where the product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve an application unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. Additionally, before approving an NDA or BLA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCP.

After the FDA evaluates the NDA or BLA and conducts inspections of manufacturing facilities where the investigational product and/or its drug substance will be produced, the FDA may issue an approval letter or a Complete Response Letter, or CRL. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the product with specific prescribing information for specific indications. A CRL indicates that the review cycle of the application is complete, and the application will not be approved in its present form. A CRL usually describes the specific deficiencies in the NDA or BLA identified by the FDA and may require additional clinical data, including additional clinical trials, or other significant and time-consuming requirements related to clinical trials, nonclinical studies or manufacturing. If a CRL is issued, the sponsor must resubmit the NDA or BLA, addressing all of the deficiencies identified in the letter, or withdraw the application. Even if such data and information are submitted, the FDA may decide that the NDA or BLA does not satisfy the criteria for approval.

If regulatory approval of a product is granted, such approval will be granted for particular indications and may entail limitations on the indicated uses for which such product may be marketed. For example, the FDA may approve the NDA or BLA with a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, to ensure the benefits of the product outweigh its risks. A REMS is a safety strategy to manage a known or potential serious risk associated with a product and to enable patients to have continued access to such medicines by managing their safe use, and could include medication guides, physician communication plans, or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. The FDA also may condition approval on, among other things, changes to proposed labeling or the development of adequate controls and specifications. The FDA may also require one or more Phase 4 post-market studies and surveillance to further assess and monitor the product’s safety and effectiveness after commercialization, and may limit further marketing of the product based on the results of these post-marketing studies.

Expedited Development and Review Programs

The FDA offers a number of expedited development and review programs for qualifying product candidates. For example, the fast track program is intended to expedite or facilitate the process for reviewing new products that meet certain criteria. Specifically, product candidates are eligible for fast track designation if they are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the disease or condition. Fast track designation applies to the combination of the product candidate and the specific indication for which it is being studied. The sponsor of a fast track product candidate has opportunities for more frequent interactions with the review team during product development and, once an NDA or BLA is submitted, the application may be eligible for priority review. A fast track product candidate may also be eligible for rolling review, where the FDA may consider for review sections of the NDA or BLA on a rolling basis before the complete application is submitted, if the sponsor provides a schedule for the submission of the sections of the NDA or BLA, the FDA agrees to accept sections of the NDA or BLA and determines that the schedule is acceptable, and the sponsor pays any required user fees upon submission of the first section of the NDA or BLA.

A product candidate intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition may also be eligible for breakthrough therapy designation to expedite its development and review. A product candidate can receive breakthrough therapy designation if preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product candidate, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs or biologics, may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. The designation includes all of the fast track program features, as well as more intensive FDA interaction and guidance beginning as early as Phase 1 and an organizational commitment to expedite the development and review of the product candidate, including involvement of senior managers.

Any marketing application for a drug or biologic submitted to the FDA for approval, including a product candidate with a fast track designation and/or breakthrough therapy designation, may be eligible for other types of FDA programs intended to expedite the FDA review and approval process, such as priority review. A product candidate is eligible for priority review if it has the potential to provide a significant improvement in the treatment, diagnosis or prevention of a serious disease or condition. For new-molecular-entity NDAs and original BLAs, priority review designation means the FDA’s goal is to take action on the marketing application within six months of the 60-day filing date (as compared to ten months under standard review).

Additionally, depending on the design of the applicable clinical trials, product candidates studied for their safety and effectiveness in treating serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions may receive accelerated approval upon a determination that the product candidate has an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit, or on a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than irreversible morbidity or mortality, that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity, or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. As a condition of accelerated approval, the FDA will generally require the sponsor to perform adequate and well-controlled confirmatory clinical studies to verify and describe the anticipated effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit, and may require that such confirmatory studies be underway before granting any accelerated approval. Products receiving accelerated approval may be subject to expedited withdrawal procedures if the sponsor fails to conduct the required confirmatory studies in a timely manner or if such studies fail to verify the predicted clinical benefit. In addition, the FDA currently requires as a condition for accelerated approval pre-approval of promotional materials, which could adversely impact the timing of the commercial launch of the product.

Fast track designation, breakthrough therapy designation, priority review, and accelerated approval do not change the standards for approval but may expedite the development or approval process. Even if a product qualifies for one or more of these programs, the FDA may later decide that the product no longer meets the conditions for qualification or decide that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened. We may explore some of these opportunities for our product candidates as appropriate.

Orphan drug designation

Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan designation to a drug or biologic intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is a disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States or, if it affects more than 200,000 individuals in the United States, there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making a drug product available in the United States for this type of disease or condition will be recovered from sales of the product. Orphan designation must be requested before submitting an NDA or BLA. After the FDA grants orphan designation, the identity of the therapeutic agent and its potential orphan use are disclosed publicly by the FDA. Orphan designation does not convey any advantage in or shorten the duration of the regulatory review and approval process.

If a product that has orphan designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for the disease or condition for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan product exclusivity, which means that the FDA may not approve any other applications to market the same drug or biologic for the same disease or condition for seven years, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan exclusivity or inability to manufacture the product in sufficient quantities. The designation of such drug or biologic also entitles a party to financial incentives such as opportunities for grant funding towards clinical trial costs, tax advantages and user-fee waivers. However, competitors, may receive approval of different products for the disease or condition for which the orphan product has exclusivity or obtain approval for the same product but for a different disease or condition for which the orphan product has exclusivity. Orphan exclusivity also could block the approval of a competing product for seven years if a competitor obtains approval of the “same drug,” as defined by the FDA, or if the active ingredient of the product candidate is determined to be contained within the competitor’s product for the same disease or condition. In addition, if an orphan designated product receives marketing approval for a disease or condition broader than what is designated, it may not be entitled to orphan exclusivity.

Post-Approval Requirements

Any products manufactured or distributed pursuant to FDA approvals are subject to pervasive and continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, requirements relating to record-keeping, reporting of adverse experiences, periodic reporting, product sampling and distribution, and advertising and promotion of the product. After approval, most changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications or other labeling claims, are subject to prior FDA review and approval. There also are continuing user fee requirements, under which the FDA assesses an annual program fee for each product identified in an approved NDA or BLA. Drug and biologic manufacturers and their subcontractors are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies, and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with cGMPs, which impose certain procedural and documentation requirements upon us and our third-party manufacturers. Changes to the manufacturing process are strictly regulated, and, depending on the significance of the change, may require prior FDA approval before being implemented. FDA regulations also require investigation and correction of any deviations from cGMPs and impose reporting requirements upon us and any third-party manufacturers that we may decide to use. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain compliance with cGMPs and other aspects of regulatory compliance.

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

The FDA closely regulates the marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of drug products and biologics. A company can make only those claims relating to safety and efficacy, purity and potency that are approved by the FDA and in accordance with the provisions of the approved label. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses. Failure to comply with these requirements can result in, among other things, adverse publicity, warning letters, corrective advertising and potential civil and criminal penalties. Physicians may prescribe legally available products for uses that are not described in the product’s labeling and that differ from those tested by us and approved by the FDA. Such off-label uses are common across medical specialties. Physicians may believe that such off-label uses are the best treatment for many patients in varied circumstances. The FDA does not regulate the behavior of physicians in their choice of treatments. The FDA does, however, restrict manufacturer’s communications on the subject of off-label use of their products.

Drug Product Marketing Exclusivity

Market exclusivity provisions authorized under the FDCA can delay the submission or the approval of certain marketing applications. For example, the FDCA provides a five-year period of non-patent data exclusivity within the United States to the first applicant to obtain approval of an NDA for a new chemical entity. A drug is a new chemical entity if the FDA has not previously approved any other new drug containing the same active moiety, which is the molecule or ion responsible for the action of the drug substance. During the exclusivity period, the FDA may not approve or even accept for review an abbreviated new drug application, or ANDA, or an NDA submitted under Section 505(b)(2), or 505(b)(2) NDA, submitted by another company for another drug based on the same active moiety, regardless of whether the drug is intended for the same indication as the original innovative drug or for another indication, where the applicant does not own or have a legal right of reference to all the data required for approval. However, an application may be submitted after four years if it contains a certification of patent invalidity or non-infringement to one of the patents listed with the FDA by the innovator NDA holder.

The FDCA alternatively provides three years of non-patent exclusivity for an NDA, or supplement to an existing NDA if new clinical investigations, other than bioavailability studies, that were conducted or sponsored by the applicant are deemed by the FDA to be essential to the approval of the application, for example new indications, dosages or strengths of an existing drug. This three-year exclusivity covers only the modification for which the drug received approval on the basis of the new clinical investigations and does not prohibit the FDA from approving ANDAs or 505(b)(2) NDAs for drugs containing the active agent for the original indication or condition of use. Five-year and three-year exclusivity will not delay the submission or approval of a full NDA. However, an applicant submitting a full NDA would be required to conduct or obtain a right of reference to any preclinical studies and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials necessary to demonstrate safety and effectiveness.

Pediatric exclusivity is another type of marketing exclusivity available in the United States. Pediatric exclusivity provides for an additional six months of marketing exclusivity attached to another period of existing exclusivity, including patent terms, if a sponsor conducts clinical trials in children in response to a written request from the FDA. The issuance of a written request does not require the sponsor to undertake the described clinical trials.

Biosimilars and Reference Product Exclusivity

The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, or BPCIA, created an abbreviated approval pathway for biological products that are highly similar, or “biosimilar,” to or interchangeable with an FDA-approved reference biological product. The FDA has issued several guidance documents outlining an approach to review and approval of biosimilars. Biosimilarity, which requires that there be no clinically meaningful differences between the biological product and the reference product in terms of safety, purity, and potency, is generally shown through analytical studies, animal studies, and a clinical study or studies. Interchangeability requires that a product is biosimilar to the reference product and the product must demonstrate that it can be expected to produce the same clinical results as the reference product in any given patient and, for products that are administered multiple times to an individual, the biologic and the reference biologic may be alternated or switched after one has been previously administered without increasing safety risks or risks of diminished efficacy relative to exclusive use of the reference biologic. A product shown to be biosimilar or interchangeable with an FDA-approved reference biological product may rely in part on the FDA’s previous determination of safety and effectiveness for the reference product for approval, which can potentially reduce the cost and time required to obtain approval to market the product.

Under the BPCIA, an application for a biosimilar product may not be submitted to the FDA until four years following the date that the reference product was first licensed by the FDA. In addition, the approval of a biosimilar product may not be made effective by the FDA until 12 years from the date on which the reference product was first licensed. During this 12-year period of exclusivity, another company may still market a competing version of the reference product if the FDA approves a full BLA for the competing product containing that applicant’s own preclinical data and data from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to demonstrate the safety, purity and potency of its product. The BPCIA also created certain exclusivity periods for biosimilars approved as interchangeable products. At this juncture, it is unclear whether products deemed “interchangeable” by the FDA will, in fact, be readily substituted by pharmacies, which are governed by state pharmacy law.

A biological product can also obtain pediatric market exclusivity in the United States. Pediatric exclusivity, if granted, adds six months to existing exclusivity periods and patent terms. This six-month exclusivity, which runs from the end of existing exclusivity protection or patent term, may be granted based on the voluntary completion of a pediatric study in accordance with an FDA-issued “Written Request” for such a study.

Other Healthcare Laws

Pharmaceutical companies are subject to additional healthcare regulation and enforcement by the federal government and by authorities in the states and foreign jurisdictions in which they conduct their business and may constrain the financial arrangements and relationships through which we research as well as sell, market and distribute any products for which we obtain marketing approval. Such laws include, without limitation, federal and state anti-kickback, fraud and abuse, false claims, data privacy and security and physician and other healthcare provider transparency laws and regulations. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of such laws or any other governmental regulations that apply, they may be subject to penalties, including, without limitation, administrative, civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, the curtailment or restructuring of operations, integrity oversight and reporting obligations, exclusion from participation in federal and state healthcare programs and imprisonment.

Coverage and Reimbursement

Sales of any product depend, in part, on the extent to which such product will be covered by third-party payors, such as federal, state, and foreign government healthcare programs, commercial insurance and managed healthcare organizations, and the level of reimbursement for such product by third-party payors. Decisions regarding the extent of coverage and amount of reimbursement to be provided are made on a plan-by-plan basis. The coverage determination process is often a time-consuming and costly process that will require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of our products to each payor separately, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be obtained. These third-party payors are increasingly reducing reimbursements for medical products, drugs and services. In addition, the U.S. government, state legislatures and foreign governments have continued implementing cost-containment programs, including price controls, restrictions on coverage and reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic products. Adoption of price controls and cost-containment measures, and adoption of more restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could further limit sales of any product. Decreases in third-party reimbursement for any product or a decision by a third-party payor not to cover a product could reduce physician usage and patient demand for the product and also have a material adverse effect on sales.

Healthcare Reform

In March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, each as amended, collectively known as the ACA, was enacted, which substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers, and significantly affected the pharmaceutical industry. The ACA contains a number of provisions, including those governing enrollment in federal healthcare programs, reimbursement adjustments and changes to fraud and abuse laws. By way of example, the ACA:

Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA was enacted. On March 11, 2021, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 was signed into law, which eliminated the statutory Medicaid drug rebate cap, beginning January 1, 2024. The rebate was previously capped at 100% of a drug’s average manufacturer price, or AMP. Most recently, on August 16, 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, or IRA, was signed into law. Among other things, the IRA requires manufacturers of certain drugs to engage in price negotiations with Medicare (beginning in 2026), with prices that can be negotiated subject to a cap; imposes rebates under Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation (first due in 2023); and replaces the Part D coverage gap discount program with a new discounting program (beginning in 2025). The IRA permits the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to implement many of these provisions through guidance, as opposed to regulation, for the initial years. On August 29, 2023, HHS announced the list of the first ten drugs that will be subject to price negotiations, although the drug price negotiation programs is currently subject to legal challenges. For that and other reasons, it is currently unclear how the IRA will be effectuated.

Moreover, there has recently been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several Congressional inquiries, proposed and enacted legislation and executive orders issued by the President designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug products. Individual states in the United States have also become increasingly active in implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical 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.

Data Privacy and Security Laws

Numerous state, federal and foreign laws, regulations and standards govern the collection, use, access to, confidentiality and security of health-related and other personal information, and could apply now or in the future to our operations or the operations of our partners. In the United States, numerous federal and state laws and regulations, including data breach notification laws, health information privacy and security laws and consumer protection laws and regulations govern the collection, use, disclosure, and protection of health-related and other personal information. In addition, certain foreign laws govern the privacy and security of personal data, including health-related data. Privacy and security laws, regulations, and other obligations are constantly evolving, may conflict with each other to complicate compliance efforts, and can result in investigations, proceedings, or actions that lead to significant civil and/or criminal penalties and restrictions on data processing.

Competition

The pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries are characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition, government regulation and a strong emphasis on proprietary products. While we believe that our technology, knowledge and scientific resources provide us with certain competitive advantages, we face competition from many sources, including foreign and domestic pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, academic institutions, governmental agencies and public and private research institutions. Many of these competitors may have access to greater capital and resources than us. These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel. Any product candidates that we successfully develop and commercialize will compete with new immunotherapies that may become available in the future. Our competitors include larger and better funded biopharmaceutical, biotechnology and therapeutics companies, specifically companies focused on cancer immunotherapies, such as Amgen, Inc., AstraZeneca plc, BMS, Genentech, Inc., GlaxoSmithKline PLC, Merck & Co. Inc., Novartis AG, Pfizer Inc., Roche Holding Ltd and Sanofi S.A. On the other hand, many of these companies are developing immunotherapeutics which may have potential to be used in concert with Decoy20 and in this regard, we view them as potentially complimentary.

With respect to our lead candidate, Decoy20, there are a number of companies that are developing possible treatments for cancer, however, we believe we are the only company using systemic administration of killed, non-pathogenic Gram-negative bacteria with reduced lipopolysaccharide-endotoxin to stimulate innate and adaptive immune system pathways.

Our success will be based in part upon our ability to successfully commercialize Decoy20 and to identify, develop and manage a portfolio of therapeutics that are safer and more effective than competing products in our target indications. Our market opportunity has the potential to be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, have fewer side effects, are more convenient or are less expensive than any therapeutics we may develop. Our competitive position will also be dependent upon our ability to attract and retain qualified personnel, to obtain patent protection or otherwise develop proprietary products or processes, and protect our intellectual property, to differentiate our product from other therapeutics and to secure sufficient capital resources for the period between technological conception and commercial sales. The availability of reimbursement from government and other third-party payors will also significantly affect the pricing and competitiveness of our products. Our competitors may also obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly or with broader applications than we may obtain approval for ours, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market.

Intellectual Property

Our success depends, at least in part, on our ability to protect our proprietary technology and intellectual property, and to operate without infringing or violating the proprietary rights of others. We rely on a combination of patent, trademark, trade secret and copyright laws, know-how, intellectual property licenses and other contractual rights (including confidentiality and invention assignment agreements) to protect our proprietary technology and intellectual property, including related intellectual property rights.

Patents

As of March 16, 2026, we own 61 granted patents and 17 pending patent applications to use within our field of business. Our patents and patent applications generally relate to compositions and methods for treating cancer and infectious diseases, and our patents and any patents that issue from our pending patent applications are expected to expire at various dates between 2033 and 2043.

Our ability to maintain and consolidate our proprietary position for our technology will depend on our success in obtaining effective claims and enforcing those claims once granted. We do not know whether any of our patent applications or any patent applications that we may license will result in the issuance of any patents. Our issued patents and those that may be issued in the future, or patents that we may exclusively license, may be challenged, narrowed, circumvented or found to be invalid or unenforceable, which could limit our ability to stop competitors from marketing related products or the length of term of patent protection that we may have for our products. We cannot be certain that we were the first to invent the inventions claimed in our owned patents or patent applications. In addition, our competitors may independently develop similar technologies or duplicate any technology developed by us, and the rights granted under any issued patents may not provide us with any meaningful competitive advantages against these competitors. Furthermore, because of the extensive time required for development, testing and regulatory review of a potential product, it is possible that, before any of our products can be commercialized, any related patent may expire or remain in force for only a short period following commercialization, thereby reducing any advantage of the patent.

Trade Secrets and Confidential Information

In addition to patents, we rely on trade secrets and know-how to develop and maintain our competitive position. Trade secrets and know-how can be difficult to protect. We rely on, among other things, confidentiality and invention assignment agreements to protect our proprietary know-how and other intellectual property that may not be patentable, or that we believe is best protected by means that do not require public disclosure. For example, we require our employees to execute confidentiality agreements in connection with their employment relationships with us, and to disclose and assign to us inventions conceived in connection with their services to us. However, there can be no assurance that these agreements will be enforceable or that they will provide us with adequate protection. We also seek to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of our data, trade secrets and know-how by maintaining physical security of our premises and physical and electronic security of our information technology systems.

We may be unable to obtain, maintain and protect the intellectual property rights necessary to conduct our business, and may be subject to claims that we infringe or otherwise violate the intellectual property rights of others, which could materially harm our business. For a more comprehensive summary of the risks related to our intellectual property, see Item 1A. “Risk Factors - Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property.”

Environmental Matters

We are subject to various environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, including those governing laboratory procedures, the handling, use, storage, treatment and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes and the cleanup of contaminated sites. Our operations involve the use of potentially hazardous and flammable materials, including chemicals and biological materials. Our operations also produce hazardous waste products. Although we generally contract with third parties for the operations that involve the disposal of hazardous materials and waste, we cannot eliminate the risk of contamination or injury from these materials. Based on information currently available to us, we do not expect environmental costs and contingencies to have a material adverse effect on us. However, we could incur substantial costs as a result of violations of our liabilities under environmental requirements in connection with our operations or property, including fines, penalties and other sanctions, investigation and cleanup costs and third-party claims. However, we could incur substantial costs as a result of violations of or liabilities under environmental requirements in connection with our operations or property, including fines, penalties and other sanctions, investigation and cleanup costs and third-party claims. In the event of contamination or injury resulting from our use of hazardous materials, we could be held liable for any resulting damage, and any liability could exceed our resources. See Part I. Item 1A. “Risk Factors - Risks Related to Healthcare Laws and Other Legal Compliance Matters - Violations of or liabilities under environmental, health and safety laws and regulations could subject us to fines, penalties or other costs that could have a material adverse effect on the success of our business.”

We believe that our business, operations and facilities are being operated in compliance with all material respects with applicable environmental and health and safety laws and regulations.

Human Capital Management

As of December 31, 2025, we had five full-time employees. None of our employees are represented by labor unions or covered by collective bargaining agreements.

We believe that our future success will depend, in part, on our continued ability to attract, hire and retain qualified personnel. In particular, we depend on the skills, experience and performance of our senior management and research personnel. We compete for qualified personnel with other biotechnology, medical device, pharmaceutical and healthcare companies, as well as universities and non-profit research institutions.

We provide competitive compensation and benefits programs to help meet the needs of our employees. In addition to salaries, these programs include incentive compensation plan, pension, healthcare and insurance benefits, paid time off, and family leave, among others. We also use targeted equity-based grants with vesting conditions to facilitate retention of personnel, particularly for our key employees.

The success of our business is fundamentally connected to the well-being of our people. Accordingly, we are committed to the health and safety of our employees, and we consider our relations with our employees to be good.

Available Information

We maintain a corporate website at http://www.indaptusrx.com. The information contained on, or that can be accessed through, our website is neither a part of nor incorporated into this Annual Report.

Copies of our reports on Forms 10-K, Forms 10-Q and Forms 8-K, may be obtained, free of charge, electronically through our corporate website at http://www.indaptusrx.com as soon as reasonably practicable after we file such material electronically with, or furnish to, the SEC. Additionally, the SEC maintains an Internet site that contains reports, proxy and information statements, and other information regarding issuers that file electronically with the SEC at www.sec.gov.

Item 1A. Risk Factors.

You should carefully consider the factors described below, together with all of the other information contained in this Annual Report, including the audited consolidated financial statements and the related notes included in this Annual Report beginning on page F-1, before deciding whether to invest in our common stock. If any of the risks discussed below actually occur, our business, financial condition, operating results and cash flows could be materially adversely affected. This could cause the trading price of our common stock to decline, and you may lose all or part of your investment.

General Risks Related to the Investment Transaction

As a result of the issuance of Preferred Stock, our stockholders will experience significant dilution from the issuance of shares of our common stock upon future conversion of the Preferred Stock.

All of the shares of Preferred Stock are convertible into 111.0 million shares of common stock. As a result of the full conversion of the Preferred Stock, 111.0 million shares of common stock will be issued, which collectively will represent approximately 96.4% of the total number of shares of common stock expected to be outstanding on a fully diluted basis immediately after the conversion. Upon the conversion of the Preferred Stock, our existing stockholders will experience significant dilution in their ownership percentage and their voting power, with Mr. Lazar, or any transferee of the Preferred Stock, receiving effective voting control over matters presented to stockholders in the future relating to our Company.

We may fail to realize the anticipated benefits of the Investment Transaction if we are not able to identify and/or pursue a Post-Investment Transaction.

The success of the Investment Transaction and the pursuit of our business strategy to grow will depend on, among other things, our ability to identify, pursue and consummate a Post-Investment Transaction with a Target Company. We may not be able to identify a suitable Target Company to acquire or ultimately enter into and consummate a Post-Investment Transaction within the necessary timing before our capital resources are depleted. Any potential transaction would be dependent on a number of factors that may be beyond our control, including, among other things, market conditions, industry trends, the interest of third parties in a potential transaction with us, and the availability of financing, if at all. If we do enter into and consummate a Post-Investment Transaction with a Target Company, there is no assurance that the transaction will be successful or that we will be able to achieve the anticipated revenues, efficiencies, cost savings and/or realize other expected benefits of the Post-Investment Transaction. As a result, the Board may determine it is in the best interests of the stockholders to alternatively dissolve the Company or otherwise seek bankruptcy protection or protection under other insolvency laws. In pursuing a Post-Investment Transaction, it is possible that we may need additional capital to fund the acquisition of a Target Company and/or we may issue common stock or other equity securities as consideration to acquire the Target Company. The number of shares and/or the value of the additional shares of common stock or other equity securities, if any, that we may issue in connection with a Post-Investment Transaction is not currently known and any such issuance would be subject to required corporate and/or stockholder approvals that may be applicable under law or the Nasdaq Listing Rules. As a result, we have no meaningful historical operations upon which to evaluate our business and prospects and have not yet demonstrated an ability to obtain marketing approval for any of our product candidates or successfully overcome the risks and uncertainties frequently encountered by companies in the biopharmaceutical industry. To the extent we raise additional capital by issuing equity securities or issue equity securities as consideration in a Post-Investment Transaction, our stockholders may experience substantial dilution and the new equity securities may have greater rights, preferences or privileges than our existing common stock and/or our preferred stock issued, as the case maybe.

In addition, the further development of our product candidates will require substantial additional cash. Consequently, any potential counterparty in a Post-Investment Transaction is likely to choose not to spend additional resources to continue development of our product candidates and may attribute little or no value, in such a transaction, to those product candidates.

If we are not successful in setting forth a new strategic path for the Company, or if our plans are not executed in a timely fashion, this may cause reputational harm with our stockholders and the value of our securities may be adversely impacted. In addition, speculation regarding any developments related to a Post-Investment Company and perceived uncertainties related to the future of the Company could cause our stock price to fluctuate significantly.

Our Board and management team has significantly changed in connection with the Investment Transaction and we expect it to further change in connection with pursuing a Post-Investment Transaction.

In connection with the Investment Transaction, material changes to the management of our Company have occurred with Mr. Lazar being appointed as Co-Chief Executive Officer and as Chairman of the Company. Further, four additional directors nominated by Mr. Lazar have replaced prior Board members since the closing of the Investment Transaction. Additionally, we expect there to be further changes to our executive management team and Board in the future in connection with any transfer of Preferred Stock by Mr. Lazar and/or our pursuing a Post-Investment Transaction. Accordingly, we expect that we will have significant changes and turnover to our executive management team and the Board who would lead our Company.

A recent increase in the number of authorized shares of common stock, or a potential future reverse stock split, would make additional shares available for issuance. Any issuance of these additional shares could lead to increased dilution for our stockholders and/or negatively impact the market price of our common stock.

At the special meeting held on February 26, 2026, our stockholders authorized the Board to increase our authorized common stock from 200,000,000 shares to up to 1,000,000,000 shares and to effect a reverse stock split, in each case at the discretion of the Board. On February 27, 2026, we filed a certificate of amendment with the Delaware Secretary of State to increase the authorized stock to 1,000,000,000 shares of common stock. Any issuance resulting from the increase in authorized common stock may have a dilutive effect, including on earnings per share, on stockholders’ equity and/or voting rights. Furthermore, future sales of substantial amounts of our common stock, or the perception that these sales might occur, could adversely affect the prevailing market price of our common stock or limit our ability to raise additional capital. A decision by the Board to effect a reverse stock split will yield similar increase in availability of shares and any new issuances resulting therefrom may have a similar dilutive effect on our outstanding shares.

Risks Related to Control of the Company

Our stockholders will have significantly reduced ownership and voting power as a result of the conversion of the shares Preferred Stock.

At the special meeting held on February 26, 2026, our stockholders approved the issuance of common stock upon conversion of Preferred Stock to Mr. Lazar and the change in control of the Company associated with the conversion. Accordingly, our stockholders who owned shares of common stock prior to the conversion of the Preferred Stock will have a significantly lower percentage of ownership and correspondingly reduced voting power than they held immediately prior to the conversion. Although the Preferred Stock has not been converted into common stock yet and has no voting rights, following the conversion of the Preferred Stock, Mr. Lazar, or any transferee of the Preferred Stock, will own in the aggregate approximately 96.4% of the total number of shares of common stock outstanding on a fully diluted basis. Therefore, without taking into account future issuances of our securities (including pursuant to a Post-Investment Transaction), our stockholders will have significantly less ownership of our Company and voting power, and, therefore, they will have a substantially reduced ability to influence significant corporation decisions that require approval of holders of the outstanding common stock.

Mr. Lazar has significant control and influence over our Company and corporate matters.

In addition to the ownership concentration that will result with the conversion of the Preferred Stock, Mr. Lazar was appointed as the Chairman to our Board and began serving as our Co-Chief Executive Officer in connection with the closing of the Investment Transaction. Additionally, since the closing of the Investment Transaction, four additional directors namely Mr. Avraham Ben-Tzvi, Mr. Jabbour, Mr. McMurdo and Mr. Natan, all designees of Mr. Lazar have joined the Board. As a result of Mr. Lazar’s positions as Chief Executive Officer and a director, Mr. Lazar will have input on all matters before our Board. Separately, due to his ownership of Preferred Stock, Mr. Lazar, or any transferee of the Preferred Stock, would also have the ability to exercise significant influence and control over the outcome of all matters requiring Board and stockholder approval, including the election of directors. As a result of the voting power from the Preferred Stock, we may determine that we are a “controlled company” as defined in the Nasdaq Listing Rule 5615 and, therefore, are not subject to the Nasdaq Listing Rules that would otherwise require us to have (a) a majority of independent directors; (b) director nominees selected, or recommended for the Board selection, either by a majority of the independent directors or a nominating committee composed solely of independent directors; (c) a nominating committee composed solely of independent directors; (d) compensation of our chief executive officer and all other officers determined by a majority of the independent directors or a compensation committee composed solely of independent directors; and/or (e) a compensation committee charter which provides the compensation committee with the authority and funding to retain compensation consultants and other advisors.

Risks Related to Reverse Stock Split

The proposed reverse stock split, if effected, may not increase our stock price, and could lead to a decrease in our overall market capitalization.

On March 10, 2026, the closing sale price of our common stock on the Nasdaq was $1.87 per share of common stock. We expect that the reverse stock split, if effected, will increase the per share trading price of our common stock. However, the market price per share of our common stock after the reverse stock split may not rise (or remain constant) in proportion to the reduction in the number of shares of common stock outstanding before the reverse stock split. We cannot predict the effect of the reverse stock split on the per share trading price of our common stock, and the history of reverse stock splits for us and other companies is varied, particularly since some investors may view a reverse stock split negatively. In many cases, the market price of a company’s shares declines after a reverse stock split, or the market price of a company’s shares immediately after a reverse stock split does not reflect a proportionate or mathematical adjustment to the market price based on the ratio of the reverse stock split. Accordingly, our total market capitalization after a reverse stock split may be lower than our total market capitalization before the reverse stock split, and it is possible that a reverse stock split may not result in a per share trading price that would attract investors who do not trade in lower priced stocks.

Even if we implement the reverse stock split, the per share trading price of our common stock may decrease due to factors unrelated to the reverse stock split. Other factors, such as our financial results, market conditions and the market perception of our business, may adversely affect the per share trading price of our common stock. These factors may result in lower prices for our common stock than might otherwise be obtained and could also result in a larger spread between the bid and ask prices for our common stock. As a result, we cannot assure you that the reverse stock split, if completed, will result in the benefits that we anticipate, that the per share trading price of our common stock will increase following the reverse stock split or that the per share trading price of our common stock will not decrease in the future.

The proposed reverse stock split, if effected, may decrease the liquidity of our common stock.

The liquidity of our common stock may be harmed by the proposed reverse stock split, given the reduced number of shares that would be outstanding after the reverse stock split, particularly if the per share trading price does not increase proportionately as a result of the reverse stock split. While the Board believes that a higher stock price may help generate the interest of new investors, the reverse stock split may not result in a per share price that will attract certain types of investors, such as institutional investors or investment funds, and such share price may not satisfy the investing guidelines of institutional investors or investment funds. As a result, the trading liquidity of our common stock may not improve as a result of a reverse stock split and could be adversely affected by a higher per share price. Accordingly, the reverse stock split may not increase marketability of our common stock. In addition, investors might consider the increased proportion of unissued authorized shares to issued shares to have an anti-takeover effect under certain circumstances, because the proportion allows for dilutive issuances that could prevent certain stockholders from changing the composition of the Board or render tender offers for a combination with another entity more difficult.

The proposed reverse stock split, if effected, may result in some stockholders owning “odd lots” that may be more difficult to sell or require greater transaction costs per share to sell.

If the proposed reverse stock split is implemented, it will increase the number of stockholders who own “odd lots” of less than 100 shares of common stock. A purchase or sale of less than 100 shares of common stock may result in incrementally higher trading costs through certain brokers, particularly “full service” brokers. Therefore, those stockholders who own less than 100 shares of our common stock following the reverse stock split may be required to pay higher transaction costs if they sell their shares of common stock.

Risks Related to Our Financial Position and Capital Requirements

We are a clinical-stage company with a limited operating history. We are not currently profitable, do not expect to become profitable in the near future and may never become profitable.

We are a clinical-stage biotechnology company focused primarily on developing a novel and patented systemically-administered anti-cancer and anti-viral immunotherapy. All of our product candidates are in the preclinical or early clinical development stage, and none of our product candidates have been approved for marketing or are being marketed or commercialized. We have currently discontinued enrolment of new patients to our Combination Study and do not have any current plans to initiate a new clinical trial.

As a result, we have no meaningful historical operations upon which to evaluate our business and prospects and have not yet demonstrated an ability to obtain marketing approval for any of our product candidates or successfully overcome the risks and uncertainties frequently encountered by companies in the biopharmaceutical industry. Furthermore, we have not been profitable and have incurred significant operating losses in every reporting period since our inception. As a result, we have not been profitable and have incurred significant operating losses in every reporting period since our inception. For the year ended December 31, 2025, we reported a net loss of approximately $20.8 million and as of December 31, 2025, we had an accumulated deficit of approximately $81.3 million. For the year ended December 31, 2024, we reported a net loss of approximately $15.0 million and as of December 31, 2024, we had an accumulated deficit of approximately $60.4 million.

For the foreseeable future, we expect to continue to incur losses. Further, the net losses we incur may fluctuate significantly from quarter-to-quarter and year-to-year, such that a period-to-period comparison of our results of operations may not be a good indication of our future performance. Even if we succeed in developing and commercializing one or more product candidates, we may never become profitable, or even if we achieve profitability in the future, we may not be able to sustain profitability in subsequent periods. Our prior losses, combined with expected future losses, have had and will continue to have an adverse effect on our stockholders’ equity and working capital.

We have identified conditions and events that raise substantial doubt regarding our ability to continue as a going concern.

We have incurred net losses and utilized cash in operations since inception as described above. In addition, as of December 31, 2025, we had approximately $8.5 million and during the twelve months ended December 31, 2025, we used $14.8 million of cash in operations and expect to continue to incur significant cash outflows and incur future additional losses to execute our operating plan. We believe that the cash and cash equivalents as of December 31, 2025 will enable us to fund our operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements into the second quarter of 2026. We will need to increase our capital resources through equity and/or debt financings. We may also seek to finance our cash needs through collaborations, strategic alliances, or license agreements with third parties and/or debt or equity financings. If sources of financing are available, they may result in substantial dilution to our stockholders. We cannot provide any assurance that new financing will be available to us on commercially acceptable terms or in the amounts required, if at all. Due to the uncertainty in securing additional funding, and as existing cash resources are not sufficient to fund planned operations for at least 12 months from the date of this Annual Report, we have concluded that substantial doubt exists about our ability to continue as a going concern. If we are unsuccessful in securing sufficient financing, we may need to delay, reduce, or eliminate our research and development programs, which could adversely affect our business prospects, or cease operations. As such, there can be no assurance that we will be able to continue as a going concern.

Our audited consolidated financial statements included in this Annual Report have been prepared on a going concern basis under which an entity is able to realize its assets and satisfy its liabilities in the ordinary course of business. The audited consolidated financial statements do not give effect to any adjustments relating to the carrying values and classification of assets and liabilities that would be necessary should we be unable to continue as a going concern within one year after the date that the financial statements are issued.

Substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern may materially and adversely affect the price per share of our common stock, and it may be more difficult for us to obtain financing. If potential collaborators decline to do business with us or potential investors decline to participate in any future financing due to such concerns, our ability to increase our cash position may be limited. The perception that we may not be able to continue as a going concern may cause others to choose not to deal with us due to concerns about our ability to meet our contractual obligations. If we are unable to continue as a going concern, you could lose all or part of your investment in our Company.

Given our lack of current cash flow, we will need to raise additional capital. If we are unable to raise a sufficient amount of capital when needed in required amounts and on acceptable terms or at all, we may be forced to delay, limit or eliminate some or all of our research programs, product development activities and commercialization efforts.

Since we will be unable to generate sufficient, if any, cash flow to fund our operations for the foreseeable future, we will need to seek additional equity or debt financing to provide the capital required to maintain or expand our operations.

There can be no assurance that we will be able to raise sufficient additional capital on acceptable terms or at all. If such additional financing is not available on satisfactory terms, or is not available in sufficient amounts, we may be required to delay, limit or eliminate some or all of our research programs, product development activities and commercialization efforts, and our ability to achieve our business objectives, our competitiveness, and our business, financial condition and results of operations may be materially adversely affected. In addition, we may be required to grant rights to develop and market product candidates that we would otherwise prefer to develop and market ourselves. Our inability to fund our business could lead to the loss of your investment.

Our future capital requirements will depend on many factors, including, but not limited to:

Even if we believe we have sufficient funds for our current or future operating plans, we may continue to seek additional capital if market conditions are favorable or in light of specific strategic considerations. Adequate additional financing may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all. If we are unable to obtain sufficient funding on a timely basis, in required amounts or on favorable terms, we may be required to significantly delay, reduce or eliminate one or more of our research or product development programs and/or commercialization efforts. We may also be unable to expand our operations or otherwise capitalize on business opportunities as desired. Any of these events could materially adversely affect our financial condition and business prospects.

Raising additional capital would cause dilution to our shareholders and may restrict our operations or require us to relinquish rights to our technologies or product candidates.

Until such time, if ever, as we can generate substantial product revenues, we expect to finance our cash needs through a combination of equity and/or debt financings and collaborations, licensing agreements or other strategic arrangements. We may seek additional capital through a combination of private and public equity offerings, “at-the-market” issuances, equity-linked and structured transactions, debt (straight, convertible, or otherwise) financings, collaborations and licensing arrangements. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, your ownership interest will be diluted, and the terms may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect your rights as a shareholder. For example, in December 2025, we entered into a securities purchase agreement with Mr. Lazar for sale of an aggregate of 700,000 shares of Preferred Stock, which are convertible into 111,000,000 shares of common stock. Additionally, we have consistently raised capital through private and public offerings over the last few years and may continue to raise additional capital as the need arises, which may result in further dilution to our shareholders. We may also issue in the future equity securities that provide for rights, preferences and privileges senior to those of our common stock. Given our need for cash and that equity issuances are the most common type of fundraising for similarly situated companies, the risk of dilution is particularly significant for our stockholders. Depending upon market liquidity at the time, additional sales of shares registered at any given time could cause the trading price of our common stock to decline. Debt financing, if available, would result in increased fixed payment obligations and may involve agreements that include covenants limiting or restricting our ability to take specific actions such as incurring debt, making capital expenditures or declaring dividends. If we raise additional funds through collaborations, strategic alliances and licensing arrangements with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our technologies, future revenue streams or product candidates, or grant licenses on terms that are not favorable to us.

Risks Related to the Discovery and Development of Our Product Candidates

We are dependent on the success of one or more of our current product candidates, and we cannot be certain that any of them will receive regulatory approval or be commercialized.

We have spent significant time, money and effort on the development of our lead product candidate, Decoy20. As a result, our business is largely dependent on the commencement of and success of clinical trials evaluating Decoy20 and our ability to complete the development of, obtain regulatory approval for, and successfully commercialize Decoy20 in a timely manner. We have currently discontinued enrolment of new patients to our Combination Study and do not have any current plans to initiate a new clinical trial. The process to develop, obtain regulatory approval and commercialize Decoy20 is long, complex, costly and uncertain as to the outcome.

To date, no clinical trials designed to provide substantial evidence of efficacy have been completed with any of our product candidates. All of our product candidates will require additional development, including clinical trials as well as further preclinical studies to evaluate their toxicology and optimize their formulation and regulatory approvals before they can be commercialized. Positive results obtained during early development do not necessarily mean later development will succeed or that regulatory approvals will be obtained. Our development efforts may not lead to commercial products, either because our product candidates fail to be safe and effective, or in the case of our product candidates regulated as biologics, safe, pure and potent, or because we have inadequate financial or other resources to advance our product candidates through the clinical development and approval processes. If any of our product candidates fail to demonstrate safety, purity, potency or efficacy at any time or during any phase of development, we would experience potentially significant delays in, or be required to abandon, development of the product candidate.

We do not anticipate that any of our current product candidates will be eligible to receive regulatory approval from the FDA, the EMA or comparable foreign authorities and begin commercialization for a number of years, if ever. Even if we ultimately receive regulatory approval for any of these product candidates, we or our potential future partners, if any, may be unable to commercialize them successfully for a variety of reasons. These include, for example, the availability of alternative treatments, lack of cost-effectiveness, the cost of manufacturing the product on a commercial scale and competition with other products. The success of our product candidates may also be limited by the prevalence and severity of any adverse side effects. If we fail to commercialize one or more of our current product candidates, we may be unable to generate sufficient revenues to attain or maintain profitability, and our financial condition may decline.

Clinical and preclinical development involves a lengthy and expensive process with an uncertain outcome. Any difficulties or delays in the commencement or completion, or the termination or suspension, of our current or planned clinical trials could result in increased costs to us, delay or limit our ability to generate revenue or adversely affect our commercial prospects.

Before obtaining approval from regulatory authorities for the commercialization of any of our product candidates, we must conduct extensive clinical trials to demonstrate the safety, purity, and potency, or efficacy of the product candidate in humans. Preclinical and clinical drug development is expensive and can take many years to complete, and its outcome is inherently uncertain. Failure can occur at any time during the preclinical study or clinical trial process. Despite promising preclinical or clinical results, any product candidate can unexpectedly fail at any stage of preclinical or clinical development. The historical failure rate for product candidates in our industry is high.

The results from preclinical studies or early clinical trials of a product candidate may not predict the results of later clinical trials of the product candidate, and interim results of a clinical trial are not necessarily indicative of final results. Product candidates in later stages of clinical trials may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy characteristics despite having progressed through preclinical studies and initial clinical trials. It is not uncommon to observe results in clinical trials that are unexpected based on preclinical studies and early clinical trials, and many product candidates fail in clinical trials despite very promising early results. Moreover, preclinical and clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses. A number of companies in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries have suffered significant setbacks in clinical development even after achieving promising results in earlier studies.

Before we can initiate clinical trials for any product candidates, we must submit the results of preclinical studies to the FDA, the EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities along with other information, including information about product candidate chemistry, manufacturing and controls and our proposed clinical trial protocol, as part of an IND or similar regulatory submission. The FDA, the EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require us to conduct additional preclinical studies for any product candidate before it allows us to initiate clinical trials under any IND or similar regulatory submission, which may lead to delays and increase the costs of our preclinical development programs. Moreover, even if we commence clinical trials, issues may arise that could cause regulatory authorities to suspend or terminate such clinical trials. Any such delays in the commencement or completion of our ongoing and planned clinical trials for our product candidates could significantly affect our product development timelines and product development costs and harm our financial position.

The commencement, data readouts and completion of clinical trials can be delayed for a number of reasons, including delays related to:

Clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with the FDA and other applicable regulatory authorities’ legal requirements, regulations and guidelines, and remain subject to oversight by these governmental agencies and ethics committees or IRBs at the medical institutions where such clinical trials are conducted. We could also encounter delays if a clinical trial is suspended or terminated by us, by the IRBs of the institutions in which such trials are being conducted, by a Data Safety Monitoring Board for such trial or by the FDA, the EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. Such authorities may impose such a suspension or termination due to a number of factors, including failure to conduct the clinical trial in accordance with regulatory requirements or applicable clinical trial protocols, adverse findings from inspections of clinical trial sites by the FDA, the EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, unforeseen safety issues or adverse side effects, failure to demonstrate a benefit from using a product candidate, changes in governmental regulations or administrative actions or lack of adequate funding to continue the clinical trial. In addition, changes in regulatory requirements and policies may occur, and we may need to amend clinical trial protocols to comply with these changes. Amendments may require us to resubmit our clinical trial protocols to regulators or to IRBs for reexamination, which may impact the costs, timing or successful completion of a clinical trial.

Moreover, principal investigators for our clinical trials may serve as scientific advisors or consultants to us from time to time and receive compensation in connection with such services. Under certain circumstances, we may be required to report some of these relationships to the FDA, the EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. The FDA, the EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authority may conclude that a financial relationship between us and a principal investigator has created a conflict of interest or otherwise affected interpretation of the study. The FDA, the EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authority may therefore question the integrity of the data generated at the applicable clinical trial site and the utility of the clinical trial itself may be jeopardized. This could result in a delay in approval, or rejection, of our marketing applications by the FDA, the EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authority, as the case may be, and may ultimately lead to the denial of marketing approval of one or more of our product candidates.

In addition, the FDA’s, the EMA’s and other regulatory authorities’ policies with respect to clinical trials may change and additional government regulations may be enacted. For instance, the regulatory landscape related to clinical trials in the EU recently evolved. The EU Clinical Trials Regulation (CTR) which was adopted in April 2014 and repeals the EU Clinical Trials Directive, became applicable on January 31, 2022. While the Clinical Trials Directive required a separate clinical trial application (CTA) to be submitted in each member state, to both the competent national health authority and an independent ethics committee, the CTR introduces a centralized process and only requires the submission of a single application to all member states concerned. The CTR allows sponsors to make a single submission to both the competent authority and an ethics committee in each member state, leading to a single decision per member state. The assessment procedure of the CTA has been harmonized as well, including a joint assessment by all member states concerned, and a separate assessment by each member state with respect to specific requirements related to its own territory, including ethics rules. Each member state’s decision is communicated to the sponsor via the centralized EU portal. Once the CTA is approved, clinical study development may proceed. The CTR foresees a three-year transition period. The extent to which ongoing and new clinical trials will be governed by the CTR varies. Clinical trials for which an application was submitted (i) prior to January 31, 2022 under the Clinical Trials Directive, or (ii) between January 31, 2022 and January 31, 2023 and for which the sponsor has opted for the application of the Clinical Trials Directive remain governed by said Directive until January 31, 2025. After this date, all clinical trials (including those which are ongoing) will become subject to the provisions of the CTR. Compliance with the CTR requirements by us and our third-party service providers, such as CROs, may impact our developments plans. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies governing clinical trials, our development plans may be impacted.

In addition, many of the factors that cause, or lead to, the termination or suspension of, or a delay in the commencement or completion of, clinical trials may also ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval of a product candidate. Any resulting delays to our clinical trials could shorten any period during which we may have the exclusive right to commercialize our product candidates. In such cases, our competitors may be able to bring products to market before we do, and the commercial viability of our product candidates could be significantly reduced. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition and prospects.

We may need to incur significant research and development expenses and other operating expenses to advance our product candidates, which may make it difficult for us to attain profitability.

We have currently discontinued enrollment of new patients to our Combination Study and do not have any current plans to initiate a new clinical trial. Accordingly, we expect to incur less research and development expenses compared to prior years. However, in the event we commence enrollment and dosing of patients again, we will need to expend substantial funds in research and development, including preclinical studies and clinical trials of our product candidates, and to manufacture and market any product candidates in the event they are approved for commercial sale. We also may need additional funding to develop or acquire complementary companies, technologies and assets, as well as for working capital requirements and other operating and general corporate purposes. Moreover, any increases in staffing will dramatically increase our costs in the near and long-term. Moreover, our planned increases in staffing will dramatically increase our costs in the near and long-term.

Because the successful development of our product candidates is uncertain, we are unable to precisely estimate the actual funds we will require to develop and potentially commercialize them. In addition, we may not be able to generate sufficient revenue, even if we are able to commercialize any of our product candidates, to become profitable.

We may expend our limited resources to pursue a limited number of research programs, product candidates and specific indications and fail to capitalize on product candidates or indications that may be more profitable or for which there is a greater likelihood of success.

Due to our limited financial and managerial resources, we must focus on a limited number of research programs and product candidates and on specific indications. As such, we have been focused on the development of Decoy20. As a result, we may forego or delay pursuit of opportunities with other product candidates or for other indications for anti-cancer and anti-viral immunotherapy that later prove to have greater commercial potential. As such, we are currently focused on the development of Decoy20. As a result, we may forego or delay pursuit of opportunities with other product candidates or for other indications for anti-cancer and anti-viral immunotherapy that later prove to have greater commercial potential. Our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial products or profitable market opportunities. Our spending on current and future research and development programs and product candidates for specific indications may not yield any commercially viable products.

Our product candidates may cause undesirable side effects that could delay or prevent their regulatory approval or commercialization, cause us to suspend or discontinue clinical trials, abandon a product candidate, limit the commercial profile of an approved product, or result in other significant adverse implications on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

As is the case with pharmaceuticals generally, it is likely that there may be side effects and adverse events associated with our product candidates’ use. Results of our clinical trials could reveal a high and unacceptable severity and prevalence of side effects or unexpected characteristics. For example, because the mechanism of action of our product candidates depends on stimulation of the immune system, there is the potential for over-stimulation or undesirable immune reactions. Undesirable side effects caused by our product candidates, whether used alone or in combination with other therapies, could cause us or regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay or halt clinical trials or the delay or denial of regulatory approval by the FDA, the EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, or, if such product candidates are approved, result in a more restrictive label and other post-approval requirements. Any treatment-related side effects could also affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled patients to complete the trial or could result in potential product liability claims. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly.

If our product candidates are associated with undesirable side effects or have unexpected characteristics in preclinical studies or clinical trial, when used alone or in combination with other approved products or product candidates, we may need to interrupt, delay or abandon their development or limit development to more narrow uses or subpopulations in which the undesirable side effects or other characteristics are less prevalent, less severe or more acceptable from a risk-benefit perspective. We have currently discontinued enrolment of new patients to our Combination Study and do not have any current plans to initiate a new clinical trial.

Patients in any future clinical trials may suffer significant adverse events or other side effects not observed in our preclinical studies or previous clinical trials. Patients treated with our product candidates may also be undergoing surgical, radiation or chemotherapy treatments, which can cause side effects or adverse events that are unrelated to our product candidate, but may still impact the success of our clinical trials. The inclusion of critically ill patients in our clinical trials may result in deaths or other adverse medical events due to other therapies or medications that such patients may be using or due to the gravity of such patients’ illnesses. If such significant adverse events or other side effects are observed in any of our current or future clinical trials, we may have difficulty recruiting patients to the clinical trials, or we may be required to abandon the trials or our development efforts of that product candidate altogether. We, the FDA, other comparable regulatory authorities or an IRB may suspend clinical trials of a product candidate at any time for various reasons, including a belief that subjects in such trials are being exposed to unacceptable health risks or adverse side effects. Even if the side effects do not preclude the product candidate from obtaining or maintaining regulatory approval, undesirable side effects may inhibit market acceptance due to tolerability concerns as compared to other available therapies. Any of these developments could materially harm our business, financial condition and prospects.

Additionally, if any of our product candidates receives regulatory approval, and we or others later identify undesirable side effects caused by such product, a number of potentially significant negative consequences could result. For example, the FDA could require us to adopt a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS), to ensure that the benefits of treatment with such product candidate outweigh the risks for each potential patient, which may include, among other things, a communication plan to health care practitioners, patient education, extensive patient monitoring or distribution systems and processes that are highly controlled, restrictive and more costly than what is typical for the industry. We or our collaborators may also be required to adopt a REMS or engage in similar actions, such as patient education, certification of health care professionals or specific monitoring, if we or others later identify undesirable side effects caused by any product that we develop alone or with collaborators. Other potentially significant negative consequences associated with adverse events include:

Any of these events could diminish the usage or otherwise limit the commercial success of our product candidates and prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of our product candidates, if approved by the FDA or other regulatory authorities.

We may find it difficult to enroll patients in any future clinical trials. If we encounter difficulties enrolling patients in our clinical trials, our clinical development activities could be delayed or otherwise adversely affected.

Patient enrollment is a significant factor in the timing of clinical trials, and the timing of our clinical trials depends, in part, on the speed at which we can recruit patients to participate in our trials, as well as completion of required follow-up periods. We may not be able to initiate or continue clinical trials for our product candidates if we are unable to locate and enroll a sufficient number of eligible patients to participate in these trials to such trial’s conclusion as required by the FDA or other comparable regulatory authorities. The conditions for which we currently plan to evaluate our product candidates are diseases with limited patient pools from which to draw for clinical trials. The eligibility criteria of our clinical trials, once established, may further limit the pool of available trial participants.

Patient enrollment for any of our clinical trials may be affected by other factors, including:

Additionally, other pharmaceutical companies targeting these same diseases are recruiting clinical trial patients from these patient populations, which may make it more difficult to fully enroll our clinical trials. We also rely on, and will continue to rely on, CROs and clinical trial sites to ensure proper and timely conduct of our clinical trials and preclinical studies. Though we have entered into agreements governing their services, we will have limited influence over their actual performance. Our inability to enroll a sufficient number of patients for our clinical trials would result in significant delays or may require us to abandon one or more clinical trials altogether. Enrollment delays in our clinical trials may result in increased development costs for our product candidates and jeopardize our ability to obtain regulatory approval for the sale of our product candidates. Furthermore, even if we are able to enroll a sufficient number of patients for our clinical trials, we may have difficulty maintaining enrollment of such patients in our clinical trials. We have currently discontinued enrolment of new patients to our Combination Study and do not have any current plans to initiate a new clinical trial. We do not have any current plans to initiate a new clinical trial.

Interim, “topline” and preliminary data from our clinical trials and preclinical studies that we announce or publish from time to time may change as more patient data become available and are subject to audit and verification procedures that could result in material changes in the final data.

From time to time, we may publicly disclose interim, topline, or preliminary data from our clinical trials and preclinical studies, which is based on a preliminary analysis of then-available data, and the results and related findings and conclusions are subject to change following a more comprehensive review of the data related to the particular study or trial. We also make assumptions, estimations, calculations and conclusions as part of our analyses of data, and we may not have received or had the opportunity to fully and carefully evaluate all data. As a result, the interim, topline, or preliminary results that we report may differ from future results of the same studies or trials, or different conclusions or considerations may qualify such results, once additional data have been received and fully evaluated. Topline and preliminary data also remain subject to audit and verification procedures that may result in the final data being materially different from the topline or preliminary data we previously published. As a result, topline and preliminary data should be viewed with caution until the final data is available.

Interim data from clinical trials that we may complete are further subject to the risk that one or more of the clinical outcomes may materially change as patient enrollment continues and more patient data becomes available. Adverse differences between interim, topline, or preliminary data and final data could significantly harm our business prospects. Further, disclosure of such data by us or by our competitors could result in volatility in the price of our common stock.

Further, others, including regulatory agencies, may not accept or agree with our assumptions, estimates, calculations, conclusions or analyses or may interpret or weigh the importance of data differently, which could impact the value of the particular program, the approvability or commercialization of the particular product candidate or product and our company in general. In addition, the information we choose to publicly disclose regarding a particular study or clinical trial is based on what is typically extensive information, and you or others may not agree with what we determine is material or otherwise appropriate information to include in our disclosure, and any information we determine not to disclose may ultimately be deemed significant with respect to future decisions, conclusions, views, activities or otherwise regarding a particular product candidate or our business. If the interim, topline, or preliminary data that we report differ from actual results, or if others, including regulatory authorities, disagree with the conclusions reached, our ability to obtain approval for, and commercialize, our product candidates may be harmed, which could harm our business, operating results, prospects or financial condition.

Our efforts to discover product candidates beyond our current product candidates may not succeed, and any product candidates we recommend for clinical development may not actually begin clinical trials.

The process of researching and developing new product candidates is expensive, time-consuming and unpredictable. Data from our current preclinical programs may not support the clinical development of our product candidates, and we may not identify any additional products suitable for recommendation for clinical development. Moreover, any product candidate we recommend for clinical development may not demonstrate, through preclinical studies, indications of safety and potential efficacy that would support advancement into clinical trials. Such findings would potentially impede our ability to maintain or expand our clinical development pipeline. Our ability to develop new product candidates and advance them into clinical development also depends upon our ability to fund our research and development operations, and we cannot be certain that additional funding will be available on acceptable terms, or at all.

The regulatory approval processes of the FDA, the EMA and comparable foreign authorities are lengthy, time consuming and inherently unpredictable, and if we are ultimately unable to obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates, our business will be substantially harmed.

The clinical development, manufacturing, labeling, storage, record-keeping, advertising, promotion, import, export, marketing and distribution of our product candidates are subject to extensive regulation by the FDA in the U.S. and by comparable foreign regulatory authorities in foreign markets, such as the EMA in Europe. In the U.S., we are not permitted to market our product candidates in the U.S. until we receive regulatory approval of a Biologics License Application (BLA) or New Drug Application (NDA) from the FDA. The process of obtaining such regulatory approval is expensive, often takes many years following the commencement of clinical trials and can vary substantially based upon the type, complexity and novelty of the product candidates involved, as well as the target indications and patient population. Approval policies or regulations may change, and the FDA, EMA and comparable regulatory authorities have substantial discretion in the approval process, including the ability to delay, limit or deny approval of a product candidate for many reasons. Despite the time and expense invested in clinical development of product candidates, regulatory approval of a product candidate is never guaranteed. Of the large number of drugs in development, only a small percentage successfully complete the FDA, EMA or comparable regulatory approval processes and are commercialized.

Prior to obtaining approval to commercialize a product candidate in the U.S. or abroad, we must demonstrate with substantial evidence from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials, and to the satisfaction of the FDA, EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, that such product candidates are safe and effective for their intended uses, and in the case of biological products, that such product candidates are safe, pure and potent. Results from nonclinical studies and clinical trials can be interpreted in different ways. Even if we believe available nonclinical or clinical data support the safety purity, potency or efficacy of our product candidates, such data may not be sufficient to obtain approval from the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities. The FDA, EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, as the case may be, may also require us to conduct additional preclinical studies or clinical trials for our product candidates either prior to or post-approval, or may object to elements of our clinical development program.

The FDA, EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities can delay, limit or deny approval of a product candidate for many reasons, including:

With respect to foreign markets, approval procedures vary among countries and, in addition to the foregoing risks, may involve additional product testing, administrative review periods and agreements with pricing authorities. Even if we eventually complete clinical trials and receive approval of a BLA, NDA or comparable foreign marketing application for our product candidates, the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authority may grant approval contingent on the performance of costly additional clinical trials and/or the implementation of a REMS, which may be required because the FDA believes it is necessary to ensure safe use of the product after approval. Any delay in obtaining, or inability to obtain, applicable regulatory approval would delay or prevent commercialization of that product candidate and would materially adversely impact our business and prospects.

Even if we obtain FDA approval for any of our product candidates in the United States, we may never obtain approval for or commercialize such candidates in any other jurisdiction, which would limit our ability to realize their full market potential.

In order to market any products in any particular jurisdiction, we must establish and comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements on a country-by-country basis regarding safety and efficacy. Approval by the FDA in the United States does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries or jurisdictions. However, the failure to obtain approval in one jurisdiction may negatively impact our ability to obtain approval elsewhere. In addition, clinical trials conducted in one country may not be accepted by regulatory authorities in other countries, and regulatory approval in one country does not guarantee regulatory approval in any other country.

Approval processes vary among countries and can involve additional product testing and validation, as well as additional administrative review periods. Seeking foreign regulatory approval could result in difficulties and increased costs for us and require additional preclinical studies or clinical trials which could be costly and time consuming. Regulatory requirements can vary widely from country to country and could delay or prevent the introduction of our products in those countries. We do not have any product candidates approved for sale in any jurisdiction, including in international markets, and we do not have experience in obtaining regulatory approval in international markets. If we fail to comply with regulatory requirements in international markets or to obtain and maintain required approvals, or if regulatory approvals in international markets are delayed, our target market will be reduced and our ability to realize the full market potential of any product we develop will be unrealized.

Disruptions at the FDA and other government agencies caused by funding shortages or global health concerns could hinder their ability to hire, retain or deploy key leadership and other personnel, prevent new or modified products from being developed, reviewed, approved or commercialized in a timely manner or at all, which could negatively impact our business.

The ability of the FDA and foreign regulatory authorities to review and approve new products can be affected by a variety of factors, including government budget and funding levels, statutory, regulatory, and policy changes, the FDA’s or foreign regulatory authorities’ ability to hire and retain key personnel and accept the payment of user fees, and other events that may otherwise affect the FDA’s or foreign regulatory authorities’ ability to perform routine functions. Average review times at the FDA and foreign regulatory authorities have fluctuated in recent years as a result. In addition, government funding of other government agencies that fund research and development activities is subject to the political process, which is inherently fluid and unpredictable.

Disruptions at the FDA and other agencies, such as the EMA following its relocation to Amsterdam and resulting staff changes, may also slow the time necessary for new drugs, and biologics or modifications to approved drugs and biologics to be reviewed and/or approved by necessary government agencies, which would adversely affect our business. For example, over the last several years, the U.S. government has shut down several times and certain regulatory agencies, such as the FDA, have had to furlough critical FDA employees and stop critical activities.

Separately, in response to the global COVID-19 pandemic, the FDA postponed most inspections of domestic and foreign manufacturing facilities at various points. Even though the FDA has since resumed standard inspection operations, any resurgence of the virus or emergence of new variants may lead to further inspectional or administrative delays. If a prolonged government shutdown occurs, or if global health concerns continue to prevent the FDA or other regulatory authorities from conducting their regular inspections, reviews, or other regulatory activities, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA or other regulatory authorities to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Even if we receive regulatory approval for any product candidate, we will be subject to ongoing regulatory obligations and continued regulatory review, which may result in significant additional expenses.

Any regulatory approvals that we may receive for our product candidates will require the submission of reports to regulatory authorities and surveillance to monitor the safety and efficacy of the product candidate, may contain significant limitations related to use restrictions for specified age groups, warnings, precautions or contraindications, and may include burdensome post-approval study or risk management requirements. For example, the FDA may require a REMS in order to approve our product candidates, which could entail requirements for a medication guide, physician training and communication plans or additional elements to ensure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. In addition, if the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities approve our product candidates, the manufacturing processes, labeling, packaging, distribution, adverse event reporting, storage, advertising, promotion, import, export and recordkeeping for our product candidates will be subject to extensive and ongoing regulatory requirements. These requirements include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, registration, as well as on-going compliance with cGMPs and GCP for any clinical trials that we may conduct. In addition, manufacturers of drug products and their facilities are subject to continual review and periodic, unannounced inspections by the FDA and other regulatory authorities for compliance with cGMP regulations and standards. If we or a regulatory agency discover previously unknown problems with a product, such as adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or problems with the facilities where the product is manufactured, a regulatory agency may impose restrictions on that product, the manufacturing facility or us, including requiring recall or withdrawal of the product from the market or suspension of manufacturing. In addition, failure to comply with FDA and other comparable foreign regulatory requirements may subject our company to administrative or judicially imposed sanctions, including:

●	restrictions on the marketing or manufacturing of our products, withdrawal of the product from the market or voluntary or mandatory product recalls;

●	restrictions on product distribution or use, or requirements to conduct post-marketing studies or clinical trials;

The occurrence of any event or penalty described above may inhibit our ability to commercialize our product candidates and generate revenue and could require us to expend significant time and resources in response and could generate negative publicity.

The FDA’s and other regulatory authorities’ policies may change and additional government regulations may be promulgated that could prevent, limit or delay marketing authorization of any product candidates we develop. We also cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action, either in the United States or abroad. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may be subject to enforcement action and we may not achieve or sustain profitability.

The FDA and other regulatory agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses.

The FDA strictly regulates marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of prescription drugs. These regulations include standards and restrictions for direct-to-consumer advertising, industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities, promotional activities involving the internet and off-label promotion. Any regulatory approval that the FDA grants is limited to those specific diseases and indications for which a product is deemed to be safe and effective by FDA. While physicians in the United States may choose, and are generally permitted, to prescribe drugs for uses that are not described in the product’s labeling and for uses that differ from those tested in clinical trials and approved by the regulatory authorities, our ability to promote any products will be narrowly limited to those indications that are specifically approved by the FDA.

If we are found to have promoted such off-label uses, we may become subject to significant liability. The U.S. federal government has levied large civil and criminal fines against companies for alleged improper promotion of off-label use and has enjoined several companies from engaging in off-label promotion. The FDA has also requested that companies enter into consent decrees or permanent injunctions under which specified promotional conduct is changed or curtailed. If we cannot successfully manage the promotion of any product candidates, if approved, we could become subject to significant liability, which would materially adversely affect our business and financial condition.

Risks Related to Our Dependence on Third Parties

The commercial success of our product candidates depends upon their market acceptance among physicians, patients, healthcare payors and the medical community.

Even if our product candidates obtain regulatory approval, our products, if any, may not gain market acceptance among physicians, patients, healthcare payors and the medical community. The degree of market acceptance of any of our approved product candidates will depend on a number of factors, including:

●	the effectiveness of our approved product candidates as compared to currently available products;

In addition, the potential market opportunity for our product candidates is difficult to precisely estimate. Our estimates of the potential market opportunity for our product candidates include several key assumptions based on our industry knowledge, industry publications, third-party research reports and other surveys. Independent sources have not verified all of our assumptions. If any of these assumptions prove to be inaccurate, then the actual market for our product candidates could be smaller than our estimates of our potential market opportunity. If the actual market for our product candidates is smaller than we expect, our product revenues may be limited, it may be harder than expected to raise funds, and it may be more difficult for us to achieve or maintain profitability. If we fail to achieve market acceptance of our product candidates in the U.S. and abroad, our revenue will be limited and it will be more difficult to achieve profitability.

We rely on third parties to conduct our preclinical studies and clinical trials and perform other tasks. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties, meet expected deadlines, or comply with regulatory requirements, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for or commercialize our product candidates and our business, financial condition and results of operations could be substantially harmed.

We rely upon third-party CROs, medical institutions, clinical investigators and contract laboratories to monitor and manage data for our ongoing preclinical and clinical programs. These CROs, investigators and other third parties play a significant role in the conduct and timing of these trials and subsequent collection and analysis of data. Though we expect to carefully manage our relationships with such CROs, investigators and other third parties, there can be no assurance that we will not encounter challenges or delays in the future, or that these delays or challenges will not have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition and prospects. Further, while we have and will have agreements governing the activities of our third-party contractors, we have limited influence over their actual performance. Nevertheless, we maintain responsibility for ensuring that each of our clinical trials and preclinical studies is conducted in accordance with the applicable protocol, legal, regulatory, and scientific standards and our reliance on these third parties does not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities. We and our CROs and other vendors are required to comply with requirements for cGMP, or similar foreign requirements, GCP, and good laboratory practice (GLP), which are a collection of laws and regulations enforced by the FDA, the EMA and comparable foreign authorities for all of our product candidates in clinical development. Regulatory authorities enforce these regulations through periodic inspections of preclinical study and clinical trial sponsors, principal investigators, preclinical study and clinical trial sites, and other contractors. If we or any of our CROs or vendors fail to comply with applicable regulations, the data generated in our preclinical studies and clinical trials may be deemed unreliable, and the FDA, the EMA or comparable foreign authorities may require us to perform additional preclinical studies and clinical trials before approving our marketing applications. We cannot assure you that upon inspection by a given regulatory authority, such regulatory authority will determine that any of our clinical trials comply with GCP regulations. In addition, our clinical trials must be conducted with products produced consistent with cGMP regulations, or similar foreign requirements. Our failure to comply with these regulations may require it to repeat clinical trials, which would delay the development and regulatory approval processes.

We may not be able to enter into arrangements with CROs on commercially reasonable terms, or at all. In addition, our CROs will not be our employees, and except for remedies available to us under our agreements with such CROs, we will not be able to control whether or not they devote sufficient time and resources to our ongoing preclinical and clinical programs. If CROs do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or obligations or meet expected deadlines, if they need to be replaced or if the quality or accuracy of the data they obtain is compromised due to the failure to adhere to our protocols, regulatory requirements, or for other reasons, our clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated, and we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for or successfully commercialize our product candidates. CROs may also generate higher costs than anticipated. As a result, our business, financial condition and results of operations and the commercial prospects for our product candidates could be materially and adversely affected, our costs could increase, and our ability to generate revenue could be delayed.

In addition, principal investigators for our clinical trials may be asked to serve as scientific advisors or consultants to us from time to time and may receive cash or equity compensation in connection with such services. If these relationships and any related compensation result in perceived or actual conflicts of interest, or the FDA concludes that the financial relationship may have affected the interpretation of the study, the integrity of the data generated at the applicable clinical trial site may be questioned and the utility of the clinical trial itself may be jeopardized, which could result in the delay or rejection by the FDA of any BLA or NDA we submit. Any such delay or rejection could prevent us from commercializing our product candidates.

In addition, our CROs have the right to terminate their agreements with us in the event of an uncured material breach and under other specified circumstances. If any of our relationships with these third parties terminate, we may not be able to enter into arrangements with alternative third parties on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Switching or adding additional CROs, medical institutions, clinical investigators or contract laboratories involves additional cost and requires management time and focus. In addition, there is a natural transition period when a new CRO commences work replacing a previous CRO. As a result, delays occur, which can materially impact our ability to meet our desired clinical development timelines. There can be no assurance that we will not encounter similar challenges or delays in the future or that these delays or challenges will not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

We currently rely on third parties for the manufacture of our product candidates during clinical development, and expect to continue to rely on third parties for the foreseeable future. This reliance on third parties increases the risk that we will not have sufficient quantities of our product candidates, or such quantities at an acceptable cost, which could delay, prevent or impair our development or potential commercialization efforts.

We do not own or operate manufacturing facilities and have no current plans to develop our own clinical or commercial-scale manufacturing capabilities. We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties for the manufacture of our product candidates, and related raw materials for clinical development, as well as for commercial manufacture if any of our product candidates receives regulatory approval. The facilities used by our third-party manufacturers must be approved for the manufacture of our product candidates by the FDA, EMA, or any comparable foreign regulatory authority, pursuant to inspections that will be conducted after we submit an NDA or BLA to the FDA, or submit a comparable marketing application to a foreign regulatory authority. We do not control the manufacturing process of, and are completely dependent on, third-party manufacturers for compliance with cGMP requirements for manufacture of our product candidates. If these third-party manufacturers cannot successfully manufacture material that conforms to our specifications and the strict regulatory requirements of the FDA or any comparable foreign regulatory authority, they will not be able to secure and/or maintain regulatory approval for the use of their manufacturing facilities.

In addition, we have no control over the ability of third-party manufacturers to maintain adequate quality control, quality assurance and qualified personnel. If the FDA, EMA or any comparable foreign regulatory authority does not approve these facilities for the manufacture our product candidates, or if such authorities withdraw any such approval in the future, we may be required to find alternative manufacturing facilities, which would significantly impact our ability to develop, obtain regulatory approval for or market our product candidates, if approved. Our failure, or the failure of our third-party manufacturers, to comply with applicable regulations could result in sanctions being imposed on us, including clinical holds, fines, injunctions, civil penalties, delays, suspension or withdrawal of approvals, seizures or recalls, operating restrictions and criminal prosecutions, any of which could significantly and adversely affect our financial position.

Our or a third party’s failure to execute on our manufacturing requirements on commercially reasonable terms and in compliance with cGMP or other regulatory requirements could adversely affect our business in a number of ways, including:

In addition, we do not have any long-term commitments or supply agreements with any third-party manufacturers. We may be unable to establish any long-term supply agreements with third-party manufacturers or to do so on acceptable terms, which increases the risk of failing to timely obtain sufficient quantities of our product candidates or such quantities at an acceptable cost. Even if we are able to establish agreements with third-party manufacturers, reliance on third-party manufacturers entails additional risks, including:

Any performance failure on the part of our existing or future manufacturers could delay clinical development or marketing approval, and any related remedial measures may be costly or time consuming to implement. We do not currently have arrangements in place for redundant supply or a second source for all required raw materials used in the manufacture of our product candidates. If our existing or future third-party manufacturers cannot perform as agreed, we may be required to replace such manufacturers and we may be unable to replace them on a timely basis or at all, which would have a material adverse impact on our financial position.

Any clinical supply or collaboration arrangement that we may enter into in the future may not be successful, which could adversely affect our ability to develop and commercialize our current and potential future product candidates.

We may seek clinical supply or collaboration arrangements with biopharmaceutical companies for the development or commercialization of our current and potential future product candidates.

To the extent that we decide to enter into collaboration agreements, we will face significant competition in seeking appropriate collaborators. Moreover, collaboration arrangements are complex and time consuming to negotiate, execute and implement. We may not be successful in our efforts to establish and implement collaborations or other alternative arrangements should we choose to enter into such arrangements, and the terms of the arrangements may not be favorable to us. If and when we collaborate with a third party for development and commercialization of a product candidate, we can expect to relinquish some or all of the control over the future success of that product candidate to the third party.

The success of our clinical supply and collaboration arrangements will depend heavily on the efforts and activities of our collaborators. Collaborators generally have significant discretion in determining the efforts and resources that they will apply to these collaborations.

Disagreements between parties to a clinical supply or collaboration arrangement can lead to delays in developing or commercializing the applicable product candidate and can be difficult to resolve in a mutually beneficial manner. In some cases, collaborations with biopharmaceutical companies and other third parties are terminated or allowed to expire by the other party. Any such termination or expiration would adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

If we are unable to develop our own commercial organization or enter into agreements with third parties to sell and market our product candidates, we may be unable to generate significant revenues.

We do not have a sales and marketing organization, and we have no experience as a company in the sales, marketing and distribution of pharmaceutical products. If any of our product candidates are ever approved for commercialization, we may be required to develop our sales, marketing and distribution capabilities, or make arrangements with a third party to perform sales and marketing services. Developing a sales force for any product resulting from any of our product candidates is expensive and time consuming and could delay any product launch. We may be unable to establish and manage an effective sales force in a timely or cost-effective manner, if at all, and any sales force we do establish may not be capable of generating sufficient demand for our product candidates. To the extent that we enter into arrangements with collaborators or other third parties to perform sales and marketing services, our product revenues are likely to be lower than if we marketed and sold our product candidates independently. If we are unable to establish adequate sales and marketing capabilities, independently or with others, we may not be able to generate significant revenues and may not become profitable.

Risks Related to Commercialization

The successful commercialization of Decoy20 or any future product candidates, if approved, will depend in part on the extent to which governmental authorities and health insurers establish coverage, adequate reimbursement levels and favorable pricing policies. Failure to obtain or maintain coverage and adequate reimbursement for our products could limit our ability to market those products and decrease our ability to generate revenue.

The availability of coverage and the adequacy of reimbursement by governmental healthcare programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, private health insurers and other third-party payors are essential for most patients to be able to afford prescription medications such as Decoy20 and any future product candidates, if approved. Our ability to achieve coverage and acceptable levels of reimbursement for our products by third-party payors will have an effect on our ability to successfully commercialize those products. Accordingly, we will need to successfully implement a coverage and reimbursement strategy for any approved product candidate. Even if we obtain coverage for a given product by a third-party payor, the resulting reimbursement payment rates may not be adequate or may require co-payments that patients find unacceptably high.

If we participate in the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program or other governmental pricing programs, in certain circumstances, our products would be subject to ceiling prices set by such programs, which could reduce the revenue we may generate from any such products. Participation in such programs would also expose us to the risk of significant civil monetary penalties, sanctions and fines should we be found to be in violation of any applicable obligations thereunder.

For products administered under the supervision of a physician, obtaining coverage and adequate reimbursement may be particularly difficult because of the higher prices often associated with such drugs. Additionally, separate reimbursement for the product itself or the treatment or procedure in which the product is used may not be available, which may impact physician utilization. We cannot be sure that coverage and reimbursement in the United States, the European Union or elsewhere will be available, or at an acceptable level, for any product that we may develop, and any reimbursement that may become available may be decreased or eliminated in the future.

Third-party payors increasingly are challenging prices charged for biopharmaceutical products and services, and many third-party payors may refuse to provide coverage and reimbursement for particular drugs when an equivalent generic drug or a less expensive therapy is available. It is possible that a third-party payor may consider our products as substitutable and only offer to reimburse patients for the less expensive product. Even if we are successful in demonstrating improved efficacy or improved convenience of administration with our products, pricing of existing drugs may limit the amount we will be able to charge for our products. These payors may deny or revoke the reimbursement status of a given product or establish prices for new or existing marketed products at levels that are too low to enable us to realize an appropriate return on our investment in product development. If reimbursement is not available or is available only at limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize our products and may not be able to obtain a satisfactory financial return on products that we may develop.

There is significant uncertainty related to third-party payor coverage and reimbursement of newly approved products. In the United States, third-party payors, including private and governmental payors, such as the Medicare and Medicaid programs, play an important role in determining the extent to which new drugs will be covered. Some third-party payors may require pre-approval of coverage for new or innovative devices or drug therapies before they will reimburse healthcare providers who use such therapies. It is difficult to predict at this time what third-party payors will decide with respect to the coverage and reimbursement for Decoy20 and any future product candidates.

Obtaining and maintaining reimbursement status is time-consuming, costly and uncertain. The Medicare and Medicaid programs increasingly are used as models for how private payors and other governmental payors develop their coverage and reimbursement policies for drugs. However, no uniform policy for coverage and reimbursement for products exists among third-party payors in the United States. Therefore, coverage and reimbursement for products can differ significantly from payor to payor. As a result, the coverage determination process is often a time consuming and costly process that will require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of our products to each payor separately, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be applied consistently or obtained in the first instance. Furthermore, rules and regulations regarding reimbursement change frequently and, in some cases, at short notice, and we believe that changes in these rules and regulations are likely.

Outside the United States, international operations are generally subject to extensive governmental price controls and other market regulations, and we believe the increasing emphasis on cost-containment initiatives in Europe and other countries has and will continue to put pressure on the pricing and usage of our products candidates, if approved in these jurisdictions. In many countries, the prices of medical products are subject to varying price control mechanisms as part of national health systems. Other countries allow companies to fix their own prices for medical products but monitor and control company profits. Additional foreign price controls or other changes in pricing regulation could restrict the amount that we are able to charge for our products. Accordingly, in markets outside the United States, if any, the reimbursement for our products may be reduced compared with the United States and may be insufficient to generate commercially reasonable revenue and profits.

Moreover, increasing efforts by governmental and third-party payors in the United States and abroad to cap or reduce healthcare costs may cause such organizations to limit both coverage and the level of reimbursement for newly approved products and, as a result, they may not cover or provide adequate payment for our products. We expect to experience pricing pressures in connection with the sale of any of our products due to the trend toward managed healthcare, the increasing influence of health maintenance organizations and additional legislative changes. The downward pressure on healthcare costs in general, and prescription drugs, surgical procedures and other treatments in particular, has become very intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products.

Recently enacted legislation, future legislation and healthcare reform measures may increase the difficulty and cost for us to obtain marketing approval for and commercialize Decoy20 and any future product candidates and may affect the prices we may set.

In the United States and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been, and we expect there will continue to be, a number of legislative and regulatory changes to the healthcare system, including cost-containment measures that may reduce or limit coverage and reimbursement for newly approved drugs and affect our ability to profitably sell any product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. In particular, there have been and continue to be a number of initiatives at the U.S. federal and state levels that seek to reduce healthcare costs and improve the quality of healthcare.

By way of example, in March 2010, the ACA was enacted in the United States. The ACA established an annual, nondeductible fee on any entity that manufactures or imports specified branded prescription drugs and biologic agents; extended manufacturers’ Medicaid rebate liability to covered drugs dispensed to individuals who are enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations; expanded eligibility criteria for Medicaid programs; expanded the entities eligible for discounts under the 340B drug pricing program; increased the statutory minimum rebates a manufacturer must pay under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program; established a new Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to oversee, identify priorities in and conduct comparative clinical effectiveness research, along with funding for such research; and establishes a Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation at CMS to test innovative payment and service delivery models to lower Medicare and Medicaid spending.

Since its enactment, there have been executive, judicial and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA, and 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. Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision, President Biden had issued an executive order to initiate a special enrollment period from February 15, 2021 through August 15, 2021 for purposes of obtaining health insurance coverage through the ACA marketplace. The executive order also instructed certain governmental agencies to review and reconsider their existing policies and rules that limit access to healthcare, including among others, reexamining Medicaid demonstration projects and waiver programs that include work requirements, and policies that create unnecessary barriers to obtaining access to health insurance coverage through Medicaid or the ACA. It is unclear how the healthcare reform measures will impact our business.

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted. On March 11, 2021, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 was signed into law, which eliminate the statutory cap on the Medicaid drug rebate, beginning January 1, 2024 at 100% of a drug’s AMP. Further, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny in the United States of pharmaceutical pricing practices in light of the rising cost of prescription drugs. Such scrutiny has resulted in several recent congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient assistance programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for products. Most recently, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, or IRA, included a number of significant drug pricing reforms, which include the establishment of a drug price negotiation program within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS (beginning in 2026) that requires manufacturers to charge a negotiated “maximum fair price” for certain selected drugs or pay an excise tax for noncompliance, the establishment of rebate payment requirements on manufacturers under Medicare Parts B and D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation (first due in 2023), and a redesign of the Part D benefit, as part of which manufacturers are required to provide discounts on Part D drugs (beginning in 2025). The IRA permits the HHS Secretary to implement many of these provisions through guidance, as opposed to regulation, for the initial years. On August 29, 2023, HHS announced the list of the first ten drug that will be subject to price negotiations, although the drug price negotiation program is currently subject to legal challenges. For that and other reasons, it is currently unclear how the IRA will be effectuated. Additional drug pricing proposals could appear in future legislation.

At the state level, legislatures have increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or 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. Legally mandated price controls on payment amounts by third-party payors or other restrictions could harm our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects. In addition, regional healthcare 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 healthcare programs. This could reduce the ultimate demand for Decoy20 and any future product candidates, if approved, or put pressure on our product pricing, which could negatively affect our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects.

We expect that these new laws and other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding, more rigorous coverage criteria, new payment methodologies and additional downward pressure on the price that we receive for any approved product. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability or commercialize Decoy20 and any future product candidates, if approved.

Product liability lawsuits against us could cause us to incur substantial liabilities and could limit commercialization of any product candidates that we may develop.

We will face an inherent risk of product liability exposure related to the testing of our product candidates in human clinical trials and will face an even greater risk if we commercially sell any product candidates that we may develop. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against claims that our product candidates caused injuries, we could incur substantial liabilities. Regardless of merit or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in:

Although we maintain product liability insurance coverage, it may not be adequate to cover all liabilities that we may incur and is subject to deductibles and coverage limitations. We anticipate that we will need to increase our insurance coverage when and if we successfully commercialize any product candidate. Insurance coverage is increasingly expensive. We may not be able to maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost or in an amount adequate to satisfy any liability that may arise. If we are unable to obtain insurance at acceptable cost or otherwise protect against potential product liability claims, we will be exposed to significant liabilities, which may materially and adversely affect our business and financial position. These liabilities could prevent or interfere with our commercialization efforts.

If we commence manufacturing of our products, we will be subject to a multitude of manufacturing risks, any of which could substantially increase our costs and limit the supply of our product candidates.

The process of manufacturing our product candidates is complex, highly regulated, and subject to several risks. For example, the process of manufacturing our product candidates is extremely susceptible to product loss due to contamination, equipment failure or improper installation or operation of equipment, or vendor or operator error. Even minor deviations from normal manufacturing processes for any of our product candidates could result in reduced production yields, product defects, 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, such manufacturing facilities may need to be closed for an extended period of time to investigate and remedy the contamination. In addition, the manufacturing facilities in which our product candidates are made could be adversely affected by equipment failures, labor shortages, natural disasters, power failures and numerous other factors.

In addition, any adverse developments affecting manufacturing operations for our product candidates may result in shipment delays, inventory shortages, lot failures, withdrawals or recalls, or other interruptions in the supply of our product candidates. We also may need to take inventory write-offs and incur other charges and expenses for product candidates that fail to meet specifications, undertake costly remediation efforts, or seek costlier manufacturing alternatives.

Risks Related to Competition and Managing Growth

If our competitors have product candidates that are approved faster, marketed more effectively, are better tolerated, have a more favorable safety profile or are demonstrated to be more effective than our product candidates, our commercial opportunity may be adversely affected.

The industry in which we operate is characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition and a strong emphasis on proprietary products. While we believe that our technology, knowledge, experience and scientific resources provide it with competitive advantages, we face potential competition from many different sources, including commercial biotechnology enterprises, academic institutions, government agencies and private and public research institutions. Any product candidates that we successfully develop and commercialize will compete with existing immunotherapies and new immunotherapies that may become available in the future.

Many of our competitors have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical studies, clinical trials, regulatory approvals and marketing approved products than we do. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. Our competitors may succeed in developing technologies and therapies that are more effective, better tolerated or less costly than any which we are developing, or that would render our product candidates obsolete and noncompetitive. Even if we obtain regulatory approval for any of our product candidates, our competitors may succeed in obtaining regulatory approvals for their products earlier than we do. We will also face competition from these third parties in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel, in establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, and in acquiring and in-licensing technologies and products complementary to our programs or advantageous to our business.

The key competitive factors affecting the success of each of our product candidates, if approved, are likely to be its efficacy, safety, tolerability, frequency and route of administration, convenience and price, the level of branded and generic competition, market acceptance by physicians and patients, and the availability of coverage and reimbursement from government and other third-party payors.

Any product candidates for which we intend to seek approval as biologic products may face competition sooner than anticipated.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, signed into law on March 23, 2010, includes a subtitle called the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, or BPCIA, which created an abbreviated approval pathway for biological products that are biosimilar to or interchangeable with an FDA-licensed reference biological product. Under the BPCIA, an application for a biosimilar product may not be submitted to the FDA until four years following the date that the reference product was first licensed by the FDA. In addition, the approval of a biosimilar product may not be made effective by the FDA until 12 years from the date on which the reference product was first licensed. During this 12-year period of exclusivity, another company may still market a competing version of the reference product if the FDA approves a full BLA for the competing product containing the sponsor’s own preclinical data and data from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to demonstrate the safety, purity and potency of its product.

We believe that any of our future product candidates approved as a biological product under a BLA should qualify for the 12-year period of exclusivity. However, there is a risk that this exclusivity could be shortened due to Congressional action or otherwise, or that the FDA will not consider our product candidates to be reference products for competing products, potentially creating the opportunity for generic competition sooner than anticipated. Moreover, the extent to which a biosimilar, once approved, could be substituted for any one of our reference products in a way that is similar to traditional generic substitution for non-biological products will depend on a number of marketplace and regulatory factors that are still developing.

We will need to increase the size of our organization and may not successfully manage our growth.

We are an early clinical-stage biotechnology company with a small number of employees, and our management systems currently in place are not likely to be adequate to support our future growth plans. Our ability to grow and to manage our growth effectively will require us to hire, train, retain, manage and motivate additional employees and to implement and improve our operational, financial and management systems. These demands also may require the hiring of additional senior management personnel or the development of additional expertise by our senior management personnel. Hiring a significant number of additional employees, particularly those at the management level, would increase our expenses significantly. Moreover, if we fail to expand and enhance our operational, financial and management systems in conjunction with our potential future growth, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property

We may not be able to adequately protect our proprietary or licensed technology in the marketplace.

We depend on our ability to protect our proprietary technology and products, or those that we may license. We intend to rely on trade secret, patent, copyright and trademark laws, confidentiality, license, and other agreements with employees and third parties to protect our intellectual property. Our success depends in large part on our ability and any licensor’s or licensee’s ability to obtain and maintain patent protection in the U.S. and other countries with respect to our proprietary or licensed technology and products. We cannot be certain that patent enforcement activities by future licensors will be conducted in compliance with applicable laws and regulations or will result in valid and enforceable patents or other intellectual property rights. We also cannot be certain that future licensors will allocate sufficient resources or prioritize their or our enforcement of such patents. Even if we are not a party to these legal actions, an adverse outcome could prevent us from licensing intellectual property that we may need to operate our business, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We believe we will be able to obtain, through prosecution of patent applications covering our owned technology, adequate patent protection for our proprietary technology. If we are compelled to spend significant time and money protecting or enforcing our patents and future patents that we may own, designing around patents held by others or licensing or acquiring, potentially for large fees, patents or other proprietary rights held by others, our business, financial condition and results of operations may be materially and adversely affected. If we are unable to effectively protect the intellectual property that we own or in-license, other companies may be able to offer the same or similar products for sale, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. The patents of others from whom we may license technology, and any future patents we may own, may be challenged, narrowed, invalidated or circumvented, which could limit our ability to stop competitors from marketing the same or similar products or limit the length of term of patent protection that we may have for our products.

We may not be successful in obtaining or maintaining necessary rights to our product candidates through acquisitions and in-licenses.

We may be unable to acquire or in-license any compositions, methods of use, processes or other intellectual property rights from third parties that we identify as necessary for our current or future product candidates. We may face competition with regard to acquiring and in-licensing third-party intellectual property rights, including from a number of more established companies. These established companies may have a competitive advantage over us due to their size, cash resources and greater clinical development and commercialization capabilities. In addition, companies that perceive us to be a competitor may be unwilling to assign or license intellectual property rights to us. We also may be unable to acquire or in- license third-party intellectual property rights on terms that would allow us to make an appropriate return on our investment.

We may enter into collaboration agreements with U.S. and foreign academic institutions to accelerate development of our current or future preclinical product candidates. Typically, these agreements include an option for the company to negotiate a license to the institution’s intellectual property rights resulting from the collaboration. Even with such an option, we may be unable to negotiate a license within the specified timeframe or under terms that are acceptable to us. If we are unable to license rights from a collaborating institution, the institution may offer the intellectual property rights to other parties, potentially blocking our ability to pursue our desired program.

If we are unable to successfully obtain required third-party intellectual property rights or maintain our existing intellectual property rights, we may need to abandon development of the related program and our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected.

Obtaining and maintaining patent protection depends on compliance with various procedural, document submission, fee payment and other requirements imposed by governmental patent agencies, and our patent protection for licensed patents, pending patent applications and potential future patent applications and patents could be reduced or eliminated for non-compliance with these requirements.

Periodic maintenance fees, renewal fees, annuity fees and various other governmental fees on patents and/or patent applications will be due to be paid to the United States Patent and Trademark Office “USPTO” and various governmental patent agencies outside of the U.S. in several stages over the lifetime of the applicable patent and/or patent application. The USPTO and various non-U.S. governmental patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar provisions during the patent application process. In many cases, an inadvertent lapse can be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules. However, there are situations in which noncompliance can result in abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. If this occurs with respect to our in-licensed patents or patent applications we may file in the future, our competitors might be able to use our technologies, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The patent positions of products are often complex and uncertain. The breadth of claims allowed in patents in the U.S. and many jurisdictions outside of the U.S. may not be consistent. Changes in either the patent laws or interpretations of patent laws in the U.S. and other countries may diminish the value of our licensed or owned intellectual property or create uncertainty. In addition, publication of information related to our current product candidates and potential products may prevent us from obtaining or enforcing patents relating to these product candidates and potential products, including without limitation composition-of-matter patents, which are generally believed to offer the strongest patent protection.

Patents that we may own now or may own or license in the future do not necessarily ensure the protection of our licensed or owned intellectual property for a number of reasons, including, without limitation, the following:

Our competitors may be able to circumvent patents or future patents that we may own by developing similar or alternative technologies or products in a non-infringing manner. Our competitors may seek to market generic or biosimilar versions of any approved products by submitting abbreviated new applications or biosimilar biological product applications to the FDA in which our competitors claim that our licensed patents or any future patents we may own are invalid, unenforceable or not infringed. Alternatively, our competitors may seek approval to market their own products similar to or otherwise competitive with our products. In these circumstances, we may need to defend or assert our patents or any future patents we may own, including by filing lawsuits alleging patent infringement. In any of these types of proceedings, a court or other agency with jurisdiction may find our licensed patents or any future patents we may own invalid or unenforceable. We may also fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development before it is too late to obtain patent protection. Even if we own or in-license valid and enforceable patents, these patents still may not provide protection against competing products or processes sufficient to achieve our business objectives.

The issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, ownership, priority, validity or enforceability. In this regard, third parties may challenge our patents or any future patents we may own in the courts or patent offices in the U.S. and abroad. Such challenges may result in loss of exclusivity or freedom to operate or in patent claims being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable, in whole or in part, which could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical technology and products, or limit the duration of the patent protection of our technology and potential products. In addition, given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting such product candidates might expire before or shortly after such product candidates are commercialized.

Patent terms may be inadequate to protect our competitive position on our product candidates for an adequate amount of time.

Patents have a limited lifespan, and the protection patents afford is limited. In the United States, if all maintenance fees are timely paid, the natural expiration of a patent is generally 20 years from its earliest U.S. non-provisional filing date. Even if patents covering our product candidates are obtained, once the patent life has expired for patents covering a product or product candidate, we may be open to competition from competitive products and services. As a result, our patent portfolio may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing products similar or identical to ours. We may infringe the intellectual property rights of others, which may prevent or delay our product development efforts and prevent us from commercializing, or increase the costs of commercializing, our products.

Our commercial success depends significantly on our ability to operate without infringing the patents and other intellectual property rights of third parties. For example, there could be issued patents of which we are not aware that our current or potential future product candidates infringe. There also could be patents that we believe we do not infringe upon, but that we may ultimately be found to infringe upon.

Moreover, patent applications are in some cases maintained in secrecy until patents are issued. The publication of discoveries in the scientific or patent literature frequently occurs substantially later than the date on which the underlying discoveries were made and patent applications were filed. Because patents can take many years to issue, there may be currently pending applications of which we are unaware that may later result in issued patents that our product candidates or potential products infringe. For example, pending applications may exist that claim or can be amended to claim subject matter that our product candidates or potential products infringe. Competitors may file continuing patent applications claiming priority to already issued patents in the form of continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part applications, in order to maintain the pendency of a patent family and attempt to cover our product candidates.

Third parties may assert that we are employing their proprietary technology without authorization and may sue us for patent or other intellectual property infringement. These lawsuits are costly and could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and divert the attention of managerial and scientific personnel. If we are sued for patent infringement, we would need to demonstrate that our product candidates, potential products or methods either do not infringe the claims of the relevant patent or that the patent claims are invalid, and we may not be able to do this. Proving invalidity is difficult. For example, in the U.S., proving invalidity requires a showing of clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption of validity enjoyed by issued patents. Even if we are successful in these proceedings, we may incur substantial costs and the time and attention of our management and scientific personnel could be diverted in pursuing these proceedings, which could have a material adverse effect on us. In addition, we may not have sufficient resources to bring these actions to a successful conclusion. If a court holds that any third-party patents are valid, enforceable and cover our products or their use, the holders of any of these patents may be able to block our ability to commercialize our products unless it acquires or obtains a license under the applicable patents or until the patents expire.

We may not be able to enter into licensing arrangements or make other arrangements at a reasonable cost or on reasonable terms. Any inability to secure licenses or alternative technology could result in delays in the introduction of our products or lead to prohibition of the manufacture or sale of products by us. Even if we are able to obtain a license, it may be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors access to the same technologies licensed to us. We could be forced, including by court order, to cease commercializing the infringing technology or product. In addition, in any such proceeding or litigation, we could be found liable for monetary damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees, if we are found to have willfully infringed a patent. A finding of infringement could prevent us from commercializing our product candidates or force us to cease some of our business operations, which could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. Any claims by third parties that we have misappropriated their confidential information or trade secrets could have a similar material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. In addition, any uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of any litigation could have a material adverse effect on our ability to raise the funds necessary to continue our operations.

Any claims or lawsuits relating to infringement of intellectual property rights brought by or against us will be costly and time consuming and may adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We may be required to initiate litigation to enforce or defend our licensed and owned intellectual property. Lawsuits to protect our intellectual property rights can be very time consuming and costly. There is a substantial amount of litigation involving patent and other intellectual property rights in the biopharmaceutical industry generally. Such litigation or proceedings could substantially increase our operating expenses and reduce the resources available for development activities or any future sales, marketing or distribution activities.

In any infringement litigation, any award of monetary damages we receive may not be commercially valuable. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during litigation. Moreover, there can be no assurance that we will have sufficient financial or other resources to file and pursue such infringement claims, which typically last for years before they are resolved. Further, any claims we assert against a perceived infringer could provoke these parties to assert counterclaims against us alleging that we have infringed their patents. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of such litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their greater financial resources. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings could have a material adverse effect on our ability to compete in the marketplace.

In addition, our patents and patent applications, and patents and patent applications that we may apply for, own or license in the future, could face other challenges, such as interference proceedings, opposition proceedings, re-examination proceedings and other forms of post-grant review. Any of these challenges, if successful, could result in the invalidation of, or in a narrowing of the scope of, any of our patents and patent applications and patents and patent applications that we may apply for, own or license in the future subject to challenge. Any of these challenges, regardless of their success, would likely be time consuming and expensive to defend and resolve and would divert our management and scientific personnel’s time and attention.

Changes in U.S. patent law could diminish the value of patents in general, thereby impairing our ability to protect our products.

As is the case with other biotechnology companies, our success is heavily dependent on intellectual property, particularly patents. Obtaining and enforcing patents in the biotechnology industry involves both technological and legal complexity and is costly, time-consuming and inherently uncertain. For example, the U.S. previously enacted and is currently implementing wide-ranging patent reform legislation. Specifically, on September 16, 2011, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or the Leahy-Smith Act, was signed into law and included a number of significant changes to U.S. patent law, and many of the provisions became effective in March 2013. However, it may take the courts years to interpret the provisions of the Leahy-Smith Act, and the implementation of the statute could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our licensed and future patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our licensed and future patents, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on several patent cases in recent years, either narrowing the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances or weakening the rights of patent owners in certain situations. In addition to increasing uncertainty with regard to our ability to obtain patents in the future, this combination of events has created uncertainty with respect to the value of patents, once obtained. Depending on decisions by the U.S. Congress, the federal courts and the USPTO, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that would weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce patents that we might obtain in the future.

We may not be able to protect our intellectual property rights throughout the world.

Filing, prosecuting and defending patents on product candidates throughout the world could be prohibitively expensive. Competitors may use our licensed and owned technologies in jurisdictions where we have not licensed or obtained patent protection to develop their own products and, further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we may obtain or license patent protection, but where patent enforcement is not as strong as that in the U.S. These products may compete with our products in jurisdictions where we do not have any issued or licensed patents and any future patent claims or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing.

Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents and other intellectual property protection, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our licensed patents and future patents we may own, or marketing of competing products in violation of our proprietary rights generally. Further, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect proprietary rights to the same extent or in the same manner as the laws of the U.S. As a result, we may encounter significant problems in protecting and defending our licensed and owned intellectual property both in the U.S. and abroad. Proceedings to enforce our future patent rights, if any, in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial cost and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business.

We may be unable to adequately prevent disclosure of trade secrets and other proprietary information.

In order to protect our proprietary technology and processes, we rely in part on confidentiality agreements with our corporate partners, employees, consultants, manufacturers, outside scientific collaborators and sponsored researchers and other advisors. These agreements may not effectively prevent disclosure of our confidential information and may not provide an adequate remedy in the event of unauthorized disclosure of confidential information. In addition, others may independently discover our trade secrets and proprietary information. Failure to obtain or maintain trade secret protection could adversely affect our competitive business position.

We may be subject to claims challenging the inventorship of our patents, any future patents we may own, and other intellectual property.

Although we are not currently experiencing any claims challenging the inventorship of our patents or our owned intellectual property, we may in the future be subject to claims that former employees, collaborators or other third parties have an interest in our patents or other owned intellectual property as an inventor or co-inventor. For example, we may have inventorship disputes arise from conflicting obligations of consultants or others who are involved in developing our product candidates. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these and other claims challenging inventorship. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights, such as exclusive ownership of, or right to use, valuable intellectual property. Such an outcome could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management and other employees.

Risks Related to Healthcare Laws and Other Legal Compliance Matters

We are subject to various U.S. federal, state and foreign healthcare laws and regulations, which could increase compliance costs, and our failure to comply with these laws and regulations could harm our results of operations and financial condition.

Our business operations and current and future arrangements with investigators, healthcare professionals, consultants, third-party payors, patient organizations and customers expose us to broadly applicable foreign, federal and state fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations. These laws may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we conduct our operations, including how we research, market, sell and distribute any products for which we obtain marketing approval. Such laws include:

●

the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, which prohibits, among other things, persons or entities from knowingly and willfully soliciting, offering, receiving or providing any remuneration (including any kickback, bribe or certain rebates), directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, in cash or in kind, in return for, either the referral of an individual or the purchase, lease, or order, or arranging for or recommending the purchase, lease, or order of any good, facility, item or service, for which payment may be made, in whole or in part, under a federal healthcare program such as Medicare and Medicaid. A person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation;

Efforts to ensure that our current and future business arrangements with third parties will comply with applicable healthcare and privacy laws and regulations will involve ongoing substantial costs. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices may not comply with current or future statutes, regulations or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of these laws or any other governmental regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant penalties, including civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, imprisonment, exclusion from participation in government-funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, integrity oversight and reporting obligations, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations. Defending against any such actions can be costly and time-consuming and may require significant financial and personnel resources.

Therefore, even if we are successful in defending against any such actions that may be brought against us, our business may be impaired. Further, if any of the physicians or other healthcare providers or entities with whom we expect to do business are found not to be in compliance with applicable laws or regulations, they may be subject to significant criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government-funded healthcare programs.

Actual or perceived failures to comply with applicable data protection, privacy and security laws, regulations, standards and other requirements could adversely affect our business, results of operations, and financial condition.

The global data protection landscape is rapidly evolving, and we are or may become subject to numerous state, federal and foreign laws, requirements and regulations governing the collection, use, disclosure, retention, and security of personal information. Implementation standards and enforcement practices are likely to remain uncertain for the foreseeable future, and we cannot yet determine the impact future laws, regulations, standards, or perception of their requirements may have on our business. This evolution may create uncertainty in our business, affect our ability to operate in certain jurisdictions or to collect, store, transfer use and share personal information, necessitate the acceptance of more onerous obligations in our contracts, result in liability or impose additional costs on us. Each of these laws is subject to varying interpretations by courts and government agencies, creating complex compliance issues. If we fail to comply with applicable laws and regulations, we may face government investigations and/or enforcement actions, fines, civil or criminal penalties, private litigation or adverse publicity that could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operation. For example, we may be subject to criminal penalties if we knowingly obtain or disclose individually identifiable health information from a covered entity in a manner that is not authorized or permitted by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009, and regulations implemented thereunder or applicable state laws.

Violations of or liabilities under environmental, health and safety laws and regulations could subject us to fines, penalties or other costs that could have a material adverse effect on the success of our business.

We are subject to numerous environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, including those governing laboratory procedures, the handling, use, storage, treatment and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes and the cleanup of contaminated sites. Our operations involve the use of potentially hazardous and flammable materials, including chemicals and biological materials. Our operations also produce hazardous waste products. We could incur substantial costs as a result of violations of or liabilities under environmental requirements in connection with our operations or property, including fines, penalties and other sanctions, investigation and cleanup costs and third-party claims. Although we generally contract with third parties for the disposal of hazardous materials and wastes from our operations, we cannot eliminate the risk of contamination or injury from these materials. In the event of contamination or injury resulting from our use of hazardous materials, we could be held liable for any resulting damages, and any liability could exceed our resources.

Furthermore, environmental laws and regulations are complex, change frequently and have tended to become more stringent. We cannot predict the impact of changes to applicable laws and regulations and cannot be certain of our future compliance. In addition, we may incur substantial costs in order to comply with current or future environmental, health and safety laws and regulations. These current or future laws and regulations may impair our research, development or production efforts.

Although we maintain workers’ compensation insurance to cover us for costs and expenses we may incur due to injuries to our employees resulting from the use of hazardous materials, this insurance may not provide adequate coverage against potential liabilities. We do not maintain insurance for environmental liability or toxic tort claims that may be asserted against us in connection with our storage or disposal of biological, hazardous or radioactive materials.

Other Risks Related to Our Business

Our business and operations may suffer in the event of information technology system failures, cyberattacks or deficiencies in our cybersecurity.

We collect and maintain information in digital form that is necessary to conduct our business, and we are increasingly dependent on information technology systems and infrastructure to operate our business. In the ordinary course of our business, we collect, store and transmit large amounts of confidential information, including intellectual property, proprietary business information and personal information of customers and our employees and contractors. It is critical that we do so in a secure manner to maintain the confidentiality and integrity of such confidential information.

Our information technology systems and those of our third-party service providers, strategic partners and other contractors or consultants are vulnerable to attack and damage or interruption from computer viruses and malware (e.g. ransomware), malicious code, natural disasters, terrorism, war, telecommunication and electrical failures, hacking, cyberattacks, phishing attacks and other social engineering schemes, employee theft or misuse, human error, fraud, denial or degradation of service attacks, sophisticated nation-state and nation-state-supported actors or unauthorized access or use by persons inside our organization, or persons with access to systems inside our organization. We have also outsourced elements of our information technology infrastructure, and as a result a number of third-party vendors may or could have access to our confidential information. Moreover, we have not instituted strict processes to oversee and identify such risks from cybersecurity threats associated with our use of any third-party service provider so we rely on risk management strategies implemented by them and have no assurance that they follow best practices or are robust in nature.

Further, attacks upon information technology systems are increasing in their frequency, levels of persistence, sophistication and intensity, and are being conducted by sophisticated and organized groups and individuals with a wide range of motives and expertise. As a result of the changes brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic, we may also face increased cybersecurity risks due to our reliance on internet technology and the number of our employees who are working remotely, which may create additional opportunities for cybercriminals to exploit vulnerabilities. Furthermore, because the techniques used to obtain unauthorized access to, or to sabotage, systems change frequently and often are not recognized until launched against a target, we may be unable to anticipate these techniques or implement adequate preventative measures. We may also experience security breaches that may remain undetected for an extended period. Even if identified, we may be unable to adequately investigate or remediate incidents or breaches due to attackers increasingly using tools and techniques that are designed to circumvent controls, to avoid detection, and to remove or obfuscate forensic evidence.

We and certain of our service providers are from time to time subject to cyberattacks and security incidents. While we do not believe that we have experienced any significant system failure, accident or security breach to date, if such an event were to occur and cause interruptions in our operations, it could result in a material disruption of our development programs and our business operations, whether due to a loss, corruption or unauthorized disclosure of our trade secrets, personal information or other proprietary or sensitive information or other similar disruptions. If a security breach or other incident were to result in the unauthorized access to or unauthorized use, disclosure, release or other processing of personal information, it may be necessary to notify individuals, governmental authorities, supervisory bodies, the media and other parties pursuant to privacy and security laws. We could also incur liability, including litigation exposure, penalties and fines, and we could become the subject of regulatory action or investigation. Our competitive position could be harmed and the further development and commercialization of our products and services could be delayed. We maintain cyber liability insurance; however, this insurance may not be sufficient to cover the financial, legal, business or reputational losses that may result from an interruption or breach of our systems. While we have implemented a cybersecurity risk management program, there can be no assurance that our cybersecurity risk management program and processes, including our policies, controls or procedures, will be fully implemented, complied with or effective in protecting our systems and information.

Risks Related to Our Common Stock

If we fail to comply with the continued listing requirements of the Nasdaq Capital Market, our common stock may be delisted and the price of our common stock and our ability to access the capital markets could be negatively impacted.

Nasdaq has established certain standards for the continued listing of a security on the Nasdaq Capital Market. The standards for continued listing include, among other things, that the minimum bid price for the listed securities not fall below $1.00 per share for a period of 30 consecutive trading days and that we maintain a minimum of $2,500,000 in stockholders’ equity.

We have in the past fallen out of compliance with the minimum bid price requirement although we have subsequently been able to regain compliance. No assurance can be given that we will be able to regain compliance with the Rule. Failure to meet applicable Nasdaq continued listing standards could result in a delisting of our common stock. A delisting of our common stock from Nasdaq could materially reduce the liquidity of our common stock and result in a corresponding material reduction in the price of our common stock. In addition, delisting could harm our ability to raise capital through alternative financing sources on terms acceptable to us, or at all, and may result in the potential loss of confidence by investors, employees and fewer business development opportunities.

Risks related to Nasdaq’s proposed rule regarding minimum market value of listed securities.

In January 2026, Nasdaq proposed to strengthen its continued listing standards by requiring all companies listed on the Nasdaq Global or Capital Markets to maintain a minimum Market Value of Listed Securities (MVLS) of at least $5 million. If a company’s MVLS falls below this threshold for 30 consecutive business days, Nasdaq will immediately suspend trading and delist the company’s securities, with no compliance or cure period. While companies may request a hearing to challenge a delisting determination, trading will remain suspended throughout the appeals process, and the hearing panel can only reverse the decision if Nasdaq staff made a factual error. If this proposed rule is approved and adopted, any sustained decline in our MVLS below $5 million could result in the immediate suspension and delisting of our securities from Nasdaq, which would materially and adversely affect the liquidity and market price of our shares and could negatively impact our ability to raise capital or attract investors. Our MVLS over the 30 consecutive business days as of March 17, 2026 has been under $5 million.

The market price of our common stock is volatile and you may sustain a complete loss of your investment.

Our common stock currently trades on the Nasdaq Capital Market. The market price of our common stock has been, and is likely to continue to be, volatile. The market price of our common stock may fluctuate significantly in response to numerous factors, some of which are beyond our control, such as:

These factors and any corresponding price fluctuations may materially and adversely affect the market price of our common stock, which would result in substantial losses by our investors.

Further, the stock market in general, the Nasdaq Capital Market and the market for biotechnology companies in particular, have experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have often been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of companies like theirs. See also “General Risk Factors - “Unfavorable global economic conditions could adversely affect our business, financial condition or results of operations.” Broad market and industry factors may negatively affect the market price of our common stock regardless of our actual operating performance. In addition, a systemic decline in the financial markets and related factors beyond our control may cause our share price to decline rapidly and unexpectedly. Price volatility of our common stock might be worse if the trading volume of our common stock is low. In the past, following periods of market volatility, stockholders have often instituted securities class action litigation. This risk is especially relevant for us because biopharmaceutical companies have experienced significant stock price volatility in recent years. If we face such securities litigation, it could result in substantial costs and a diversion of management’s resources and attention, which could harm our business. Future sales of our common stock could also reduce the market price of our stock.

Moreover, the liquidity of our common stock will be limited, not only in terms of the number of shares of common stock that can be bought and sold at a given price, but by potential delays in the timing of executing transactions in our common stock and a reduction in security analyst and media’s coverage of us, if any. These factors may result in lower prices for our common stock than might otherwise be obtained and could also result in a larger spread between the bid and ask prices for our common stock. In addition, without a large float, our common stock will be less liquid than the stock of companies with broader public ownership and, as a result, the trading prices of our common stock may be more volatile. In the absence of an active public trading market, an investor may be unable to liquidate their investment in our common stock. Trading of a relatively small volume of our common stock may have a greater impact on the trading price of our common stock than would be the case if our public float were larger. We cannot predict the prices at which our common stock will trade in the future.

An active trading market for our common stock may not be sustained.

An active public trading market for our common stock may not be sustained. The lack of an active market may impair your ability to sell your shares at the time you wish to sell them or at a price that you consider reasonable. The lack of an active market may also reduce the fair value of your shares. An inactive market may also impair our ability to raise capital to continue to fund operations by selling shares and may impair our ability to acquire other companies or technologies by using our shares as consideration.

If securities or industry analysts do not publish or cease publishing research or reports, or publish unfavorable reports about us, our business or our market, our share price and trading volume could be negatively impacted.

The trading market for our common stock could be influenced by the research and reports that industry or securities analysts may publish about us, our business, our market or our competitors. We do not have any control over these analysts and cannot provide any assurance that analysts will cover us or provide favorable coverage. If any of the analysts who may cover us adversely change their recommendation regarding our common stock, or provide more favorable relative recommendations about our competitors, our share price would likely decline. If any analyst who may cover us were to cease coverage of us or fail to regularly publish reports on us, we could lose visibility in the financial markets, which in turn could negatively impact our share price or trading volume.

Sales of a substantial number of our shares in the public market by our existing shareholders could cause our share price to decline.

Sales of a substantial number of our shares in the public market or the perception that these sales might occur, could depress the market price of our securities and could impair our ability to raise capital through the sale of additional equity securities. We are not able to predict the effect that sales may have on the prevailing market price of our securities.

We are a “smaller reporting company” and the reduced disclosure requirements applicable to smaller reporting companies may make our common stock less attractive to investors.

We are considered a “smaller reporting company.” We are therefore entitled to rely on certain reduced disclosure requirements, such as an exemption from providing selected financial data and executive compensation information. These exemptions and reduced disclosures in our SEC filings due to our status as a smaller reporting company may make it harder for investors to analyze our results of operations and financial prospects. We cannot predict whether investors will find our common stock less attractive because we may rely on these exemptions. If some investors find our common stock less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for our common stock and our stock prices may be more volatile. Furthermore, as a result of voting power of the Preferred Stock, we may determine that we are a “controlled company” as defined in the Nasdaq Listing Rule 5615 and, therefore, are not subject to the Nasdaq Listing Rules that would otherwise require us to have (a) a majority of independent directors; (b) director nominees selected, or recommended for the Board selection, either by a majority of the independent directors or a nominating committee composed solely of independent directors; (c) a nominating committee composed solely of independent directors; (d) compensation of our chief executive officer and all other officers determined by a majority of the independent directors or a compensation committee composed solely of independent directors; and/or (e) a compensation committee charter which provides the compensation committee with the authority and funding to retain compensation consultants and other advisors.

Maintaining and improving our financial controls and the requirements of being a public company may strain our resources, divert management’s attention and affect our ability to attract and retain qualified board members.

As a public company, we are subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or the Exchange Act, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC, or the Nasdaq, rules. The requirements of these rules and regulations increase our legal and financial compliance costs, make some activities more difficult, time-consuming or costly and place strain on our personnel, systems and resources. The Exchange Act requires, among other things, that we file annual, quarterly and current reports with respect to our business and financial condition.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires, among other things, that we disclose whether we maintain effective disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting. Ensuring that we have adequate internal financial and accounting controls and procedures in place is a costly and time-consuming effort that needs to be re-evaluated frequently.

We may need to hire additional accounting and financial staff with appropriate public company experience and technical accounting knowledge. Implementing any appropriate changes to our internal controls may require specific compliance training for our directors, officers and employees, entail substantial costs, and take a significant period of time to complete. Such changes may not, however, be effective in maintaining the adequacy of our internal controls, and any failure to maintain that adequacy, or consequent inability to produce accurate financial statements on a timely basis, could increase our operating costs and could materially impair our ability to operate our business. Moreover, effective internal controls are necessary for us to produce reliable financial reports and are important to help prevent fraud.

In accordance with Nasdaq rules, we will be required to maintain a majority independent board of directors. The various rules and regulations applicable to public companies make it more difficult and more expensive for us to maintain directors’ and officers’ liability insurance, and we may be required to accept reduced coverage or incur substantially higher costs to maintain coverage. If we are unable to maintain adequate directors’ and officers’ insurance, our ability to recruit and retain qualified officers and directors will be significantly curtailed.

It is expected that the rules and regulations applicable to public companies will result in us incurring substantial legal and financial compliance costs. These costs will decrease our net income or increase our net loss and may require us to reduce costs in other areas of our business.

Failure to maintain effective internal control over financial reporting in accordance with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 could have a material adverse effect on our share price.

As a public company in the U.S., we incur significant accounting, legal and other expenses in order to comply with requirements of the SEC, and the Nasdaq Capital Market, including requirements under Section 404 and other provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Pursuant to Section 404, we are required to furnish a report by our management on our internal control over financial reporting. However, so long as we remain a smaller reporting company, we will not be required to include an attestation report on internal control over financial reporting issued by our independent registered public accounting firm. The process to document and evaluate our internal control over financial reporting to achieve compliance with Section 404 within the prescribed period is both costly and challenging. If we fail to maintain the adequacy of our internal control over financial reporting as such standards are modified, supplemented or amended from time to time, we may not be able to ensure that we can conclude on an ongoing basis that we have effective internal control over financial reporting in accordance with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and the related rules and regulations of the SEC. If we cannot in the future favorably assess the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting, investor confidence in the reliability of our financial reports may be adversely affected, which could have a material adverse effect on our share price.

If the Domestication Merger (defined below), taken together with the Merger (defined below), fails to qualify as a Section 351(a) Exchange, former U.S. holders of Intec Pharma, or Intec Israel, ordinary shares may recognize taxable gain as a result of the Domestication Merger.

On July 27, 2021, Intec Israel, Indaptus Therapeutics, Inc. and Domestication Merger Sub Ltd., an Israeli company and a wholly owned subsidiary of Indaptus, completed a domestication merger, or the Domestication Merger, pursuant to the terms and conditions of an Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization, dated April 27, 2021, whereby Domestication Merger Sub Ltd., an Israeli company and a wholly owned subsidiary of Indaptus, completed a domestication merger (the “Domestication Merger”), pursuant to the terms and conditions of an Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization, dated April 27, 2021, whereby Domestication Merger Sub Ltd. merged with and into Intec Israel, with Intec Israel being the surviving entity and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Indaptus Therapeutics, Inc. On August 3, 2021, Indaptus Therapeutics, Inc. completed its merger with Decoy, pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization, or the Merger Agreement, dated March 15, 2021, following which Decoy became the surviving entity and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Indaptus Therapeutics, Inc. completed its merger with Decoy, pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization (the “Merger Agreement”), dated March 15, 2021, following which Decoy became the surviving entity and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Indaptus Therapeutics, Inc. and the business conducted by Decoy became the business conducted by the combined company. Intec Israel intended for the Merger to qualify as a Section 351(a) Exchange. The position of Intec Israel is not binding on the IRS or the courts, and Intec Israel does not intend to request a ruling from the IRS with respect to the Merger. Accordingly, there can be no assurance that the IRS will not challenge the qualification of the Domestication Merger and the Merger as a Section 351(a) Exchange or that a court will not sustain such a challenge. If the IRS were to be successful in any such contention, or if for any other reason the Domestication Merger was not treated as part of a Section 351(a) Exchange, the Domestication Merger could be a taxable event to the former U.S. holders of ordinary shares of Intec Israel. Former holders of Intec Israel’s ordinary shares are urged to consult with their own tax advisors with respect to the tax consequences of the Domestication Merger.

Notwithstanding that the Domestication Merger and the Merger together are intended to qualify as a Section 351(a) Exchange, the Domestication Merger could be a taxable event for certain former U.S. Holders of Intec Israel ordinary shares.

Subject to the limitations and qualifications described in “The Merger - Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Consequences of the Domestication Merger and the Merger,” described in the registration statement on Form S-4, as amended (File No. 333-255389), filed by us with the SEC, or the Form S-4, including the application of the passive foreign investment company, or PFIC rules, the Domestication Merger is intended to qualify, taken together with the Merger, as a Section 351(a) Exchange. Nonetheless, certain former U.S. Holders of Intec Israel’s ordinary shares are likely to be taxed under the PFIC rules of the Code because of the likelihood that Intec Israel is classified as a PFIC.

General Risk Factors

Unfavorable global economic or geopolitical conditions could adversely affect our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Our results of operations could be adversely affected by general conditions in the global economy and in the global financial markets. In recent years, the U.S. and global markets have experienced significant volatility and disruptions in capital and credit markets, as well as fluctuations in commodity prices, driven by persistent inflationary pressures, elevated interest rates, and ongoing geopolitical tensions. In addition to the continuing conflict between Russia and Ukraine, the recent Israel-U.S. military actions in Iran and attacks in nearby Middle Eastern countries, and heightened tensions in the South China Sea, have further contributed to global market uncertainty and supply chain challenges. A severe or prolonged economic downturn, low employment levels, health insurance coverage, wages could result in a variety of risks to our business, including, our ability to raise additional capital when needed on acceptable terms, if at all. A severe or prolonged economic downturn, such as the current macroeconomic environment, could result in a variety of risks to our business, including, our ability to raise additional capital when needed on acceptable terms, if at all. A weak or declining economy could also strain our suppliers of raw materials used to manufacture our product candidates for our clinical trials, possibly resulting in supply disruption. Furthermore, our stock price may decline due in part to the volatility of the stock market and any general economic downturn.

Changes in tax law and regulations could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

New income, sales, use or other tax laws, statutes, rules, regulations or ordinances could be enacted at any time, which could affect the tax treatment of any of our future earnings. Further, existing tax laws, statutes, rules, regulations or ordinances could be interpreted, changed, modified or applied adversely to us. Generally, future changes in applicable tax laws and regulations, or their interpretation and application, potentially with retroactive effect, could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. We are unable to predict whether such changes will occur and, if so, the ultimate impact on our business. 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.

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments.

We do not have any unresolved comments issued by the SEC staff.

Item 1C. Cybersecurity

Cybersecurity Risk Management and Strategy

We, through our third party service provider that manages our information technology systems and networks, have developed and implemented a cybersecurity risk management program intended to protect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of our critical systems and information. Our cybersecurity risk management program includes a cybersecurity incident response plan.

We have not identified risks from known cybersecurity threats, that have materially affected or are reasonably likely to materially affect us, including our operations, business strategy, results of operations, or financial condition. See Item 1A. “Risk Factors - Our Risks Related to Our Business - Our business and operations may suffer in the event of information technology system failures, cyberattacks or deficiencies in our cybersecurity.”

Cybersecurity Governance

Our Board considers cybersecurity risk as part of its risk oversight function and oversees our cybersecurity and other information technology risks and management’s implementation of our cybersecurity risk management program.

Our Board receives periodic reports from management on our cybersecurity risks. In addition, management updates the Board and the Audit Committee, as necessary, regarding any material cybersecurity incidents, as well as any incidents with lesser impact potential.

Our management team, including our Chief Operating Officer, is responsible for assessing and managing our material risks from cybersecurity threats. Our Chief Operating Officer has primary responsibility for our overall cybersecurity risk management program and supervises our retained provider of IT services and external cybersecurity consultants. Our Chief Operating Officer has experience supervising and managing company security and privacy departments.

Our management team supervises efforts to prevent, detect, mitigate, and remediate cybersecurity risks and incidents through various means, which may include briefings from external security personnel; threat intelligence and other information obtained from governmental, public or private sources, including external consultants engaged by us; and alerts and reports produced by security tools deployed in the IT environment.