Candel Therapeutics, Inc. - Annual Report: 2021 (Form 10-K)

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021

OR

Commission File Number 001-40629

t

CANDEL THERAPEUTICS, INC.

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its Charter)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (617) 916-5445

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None

Indicate by check mark if the Registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. YES ☐ No ☒

Indicate by check mark if the Registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Act. Yes ☐ No ☒

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant: (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes ☒ NO ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to submit such files). Yes ☒ NO ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company,” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed a report on and attestation to its management’s assessment of the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting under Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (15 U.S.C. 7262(b)) by the registered public accounting firm that prepared or issued its audit report. ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). YES ☐ NO ☒

The aggregate market value of voting stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant on December 31, 2021, based on the closing price of $7.82 for shares of the registrant’s common stock as reported by the Nasdaq Global Market, was approximately $106.5 million. The registrant has elected to use December 31, 2021 as the calculation date because on June 30, 2021 (the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter), the registrant was a privately held company. This calculation does not reflect a determination that certain persons are affiliates of the registrant for any other purposes.

The number of shares of registrant’s Common Stock outstanding as of March 15, 2022 was 28,691,088.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Table of Contents

i

Forward-Looking Statements

This Annual Report on Form 10-K, or Annual Report, contains forward-looking statements. We intend such forward-looking statements to be covered by the safe harbor provisions for forward-looking statements contained in Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. All statements other than statements of historical facts contained in this Annual Report, including statements regarding our future results of operations and financial position, business strategy, product candidates, clinical development plans and expectations, prospective products, product approvals, research and development costs, timing and likelihood of success, and plans and objectives of management for future operations and results, are forward-looking statements. These statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other important factors that may cause our actual results, performance or achievements to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements.

In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by terms such as “may,” “will,” “should,” “expect,” “plan,” “anticipate,” “could,” “intend,” “target,” “project,” “contemplate,” “believe,” “estimate,” “predict,” “potential” or “continue” or the negative of these terms or other similar expressions. The forward-looking statements in this Annual Report are only predictions. We have based these forward-looking statements 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 important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements, including the risks, uncertainties and assumptions described under the sections in this Annual Report titled “Risk Factors” and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.” These forward-looking statements are subject to numerous risks, including, without limitation, the following:

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

1

statements as predictions of future events. The events and circumstances reflected in our forward-looking statements may not occur, and actual results could differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements. Moreover, 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. As a result of these factors, we cannot assure you that the forward-looking statements in this Annual Report will prove to be accurate. 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.

You should read this Annual Report and the documents that we reference in this Annual Report completely and with the understanding that our actual future results may be materially different from what we expect. We qualify that all of our forward-looking statements by these cautionary statements.

All references to "Candel", "we", "us", "our", or the "Company" mean Candel Therapeutics, Inc. and its subsidiaries.

Summary of the Material and Other Risks Associated with Our Business

Our business is subject to numerous risks and uncertainties, including those described in Part II Item 1A. “Risk Factors” in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. You should carefully consider these risks and uncertainties when investing in our common stock. The principal risks and uncertainties affecting our business include the following:

2

3

PART I

Item 1. Business.

Overview

We are a late clinical stage biopharmaceutical company focused on helping patients fight cancer with oncolytic viral immunotherapies. Our engineered viruses are designed to induce immunogenic death through direct viral-mediated cytotoxicity in cancer cells, thus releasing tumor neo-antigens and creating a pro-inflammatory microenvironment at the site of injection. Our approach combines an in-depth knowledge of viral immunotherapy with extensive clinical experience across a wide range of indications. Based on the broad range of data that we have generated from our preclinical models and clinical trials using our approach, we have observed what we believe to be systemic immune response against locally injected tumors and their distant metastases. We have established two oncolytic viral immunotherapy platforms based on novel, genetically modified adenovirus and herpes simplex virus (HSV) constructs. In our clinical results to date from CAN-2409, our lead product candidate from our adenovirus platform, and CAN-3110, our lead product candidate from our HSV platform, we have observed that these candidates may have the potential to address significant unmet patient need and improve clinical outcomes in novel indications across broader patient populations.

In non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), we have observed monotherapy activity of CAN-2409 in a Phase 1 biomarker focused window of opportunity trial. In 2020, we initiated a Phase 2 clinical trial evaluating CAN-2409 in combination with PD-(L)1 checkpoint inhibitors for patients with inadequate response to PD-(L)1 checkpoint inhibitors. This open label trial is targeting enrollment of approximately 96 patients with stage III/IV NSCLC in three separate cohorts. The cohorts are defined based on response to checkpoint inhibitors at the time of enrollment. Patients will continue treatment with their initial checkpoint inhibitor and CAN-2409 will be added to their regimen. The primary efficacy endpoint for this trial is response rate measured by response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST) and we expect to report safety and initial clinical activity in the second quarter of 2022.

We are also evaluating CAN-2409 in newly diagnosed high-grade glioma. The FDA has granted CAN-2409 fast track designation for use in this setting in combination with standard of care surgery and chemoradiation. We intend to initiate a potential registrational Phase 3 trial in this indication in the middle of 2022.

Our most advanced product candidate, CAN-2409, is an off-the-shelf adenovirus product candidate (intended to be available as needed via prescription) combined with the prodrug valacyclovir that has generated promising clinical activity across a range of solid tumor indications, including our lead indication of prostate cancer. We are currently conducting, as part of our most advanced CAN-2409 program, a Phase 3 clinical trial in the United States under a Special Protocol Assessment, or SPA, with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for CAN-2409 in patients with newly diagnosed localized prostate cancer who have an intermediate- or high-risk for progression. We completed enrollment for this trial in September 2021 and we expect a final data readout in 2024.

In addition, we are advancing development of our HSV platform product candidates for solid tumor indications. Our lead HSV product candidate, CAN-3110, is currently in an ongoing investigator-initiated Phase 1 clinical trial in our initial target indication of recurrent high-grade glioma, and we reported additional biomarker results in November 2021. We are also designing novel candidates based on our HSV platform for the treatment of solid tumors.

Our oncolytic viral immunotherapy approach utilizes intratumoral administration of genetically engineered viruses to selectively induce tumor cell death and elicit an innate and adaptive anti-tumor immune response. Local delivery enables us to achieve these effects while aiming to minimize systemic toxicity. The immune cells induced by these viral immunotherapies are believed to target patients’ specific tumor antigens, potentially improving responses in immunologically “hot” tumors while at the same time infiltrating the tumor microenvironment, transforming non-inflamed “cold” tumors with limited immune response into “hot” tumors. In our data from our clinical studies in patients with cancer, we have observed increases in the expression of immune checkpoints PD-1, PD-L1 and CTLA-4 following treatment with CAN-2409 supporting the evaluation of combinations with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) such as anti-PD-(L)1 that, typically, are only efficacious in patients with immunologically “hot” tumors. While our product candidates are administered directly into the tumor, we have observed systemic immune response in our preclinical studies and clinical trials that may indicate the potential of CAN-2409 and CAN-3110 to induce systemic immune response against distal, uninjected tumors, also known as an “abscopal” effect.

We believe oncolytic viral immunotherapy is among the most promising cancer treatment modalities today. Treatment with oncolytic viral immunotherapy has already been clinically validated through talimogene laherparepvec (Imlygic, Amgen), the first FDA-approved intratumoral oncolytic virus. Our goal is to further improve patient outcomes from oncolytic viral immunotherapies by selecting the optimal vector, specific transgenes and clinical indications for each

4

tumor type while optimizing product candidate attributes, such as high-titer formulation, intratumoral administration, and storage conditions that could potentially lower logistical barriers for patients and clinicians.

Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic

In March 2020, the World Health Organization declared the outbreak of the novel coronavirus, or COVID-19, a global pandemic, or the COVID-19 pandemic, which continues to spread throughout the United States and worldwide. The ultimate extent of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on our business, financial condition and results of operations is highly uncertain and will depend on future developments that cannot be predicted, including new information that may emerge concerning the severity of COVID-19 and actions taken by government authorities and businesses to contain or prevent the further spread of COVID-19. For instance, a recurrence or continuation of COVID-19 cases, including new variants, could cause a more widespread or severe impact on commercial activity depending on where infection rates are highest. If we or any of the third parties with whom we engage were to experience any additional shutdowns or other prolonged business disruptions as a result of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, our ability to conduct our business in the manner and on the timelines presently planned could be materially or negatively affected, which could have a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We have been carefully monitoring the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on our business and have taken important steps to help ensure the safety of our employees and their families and to reduce the spread of COVID-19. We have established a flexible work policy for all employees under which we encourage all of our employees to work from the office or home as they feel appropriate. Those employees performing or supporting business-critical operations, such as certain members of our laboratory and facilities staff are working on site on a daily basis. For those employees, who come to work at our facility, we have implemented stringent safety measures designed to comply with applicable federal, state and local guidelines instituted in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. We have also maintained efficient communication with our partners and clinical sites during the COVID-19 pandemic. We have taken these precautionary steps while maintaining business continuity so that we can continue to make progress on our programs. While we have experienced delays in enrollment and site closures at certain of our third-party clinical trial sites, these delays have not had a material impact on our development timelines for our product candidates. We will continue to monitor developments as we address the disruptions and uncertainties relating to the COVID-19 pandemic. See the “Risk Factors” section for a discussion of the potential adverse impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our Pipeline

We have an advanced pipeline comprised of seven clinical trials based on our two lead product candidates, CAN-2409 and CAN-3110. In addition, we own exclusive development and commercial rights for our product candidates in major territories including the United States, Europe and Asia.

Our pipeline is set forth below:

5

CAN-2409, formerly known as gene mediated cytotoxic immunotherapy, or GMCI, is our most advanced product candidate. It is a replication deficient adenovirus that has been genetically modified to encode the enzyme thymidine kinase. This enzyme activates an orally administered prodrug, valacyclovir, a widely available, generally well-tolerated antiviral at the site of the tumor, generating a powerful patient-specific anti-tumor immune response. We believe there are three key aspects of the mechanism of action. First, the direct, cellular killing activity is based on the transformation of valacyclovir into a toxic nucleotide analogue that disrupts DNA synthesis and repair. This phenomenon occurs preferentially in actively dividing cancer cells, thereby providing tumor specificity. This DNA repair inhibition is also hypothesized to be the mechanistic explanation behind the encouraging pre-clinical and clinical activity of CAN-2409 in combination with radiotherapy, a treatment known to cause DNA breaks requiring repair for continued cellular survival. Second, adenoviral capsid proteins themselves also directly trigger an immunologic response through the establishment of a proinflammatory tumor microenvironment, releasing important cytokines such as GM-CSF and IL-6. We believe this contributes to the potent activation of the patient’s own immune system that plays a critical role in the CAN-2409 mechanism of action. Finally, the localized death of tumor cells releases numerous antigens that can be recognized by the patient’s own immune system, thereby training the immune system to target and destroy similar cancer cells that have spread to other sites in the body.

CAN-2409 has been administered to over 700 patients with cancer to date, over 500 of whom are in ongoing, placebo-controlled randomized trials. In total, we have conducted more than 10 clinical trials with CAN-2409 in a range of solid tumor indications. We have seen encouraging clinical activity and a favorable tolerability profile with CAN-2409 in both monotherapy and combination settings with radiotherapy, immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy, androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), chemotherapy and surgery. Based on the totality of our clinical data generated to date, we are currently pursuing indications in lung, pancreatic, brain, and prostate cancer, which we believe all have great potential to address unmet need.

In NSCLC, we have observed monotherapy activity of CAN-2409 in a Phase 1 biomarker focused, window of opportunity trial. In 2020, we initiated a Phase 2 clinical trial evaluating CAN-2409 in combination with PD-(L)1 checkpoint inhibitors for patients with inadequate response to PD-(L)1 checkpoint inhibitors. This open label trial is targeting enrollment of approximately 96 patients with stage III/IV NSCLC in three separate cohorts. The cohorts are defined based on response to checkpoint inhibitors at the time of enrollment. Cohort 1 addresses patients with stable disease. Cohort 2 enrolls patients with progressive disease after at least 18 weeks of checkpoint treatment. Cohort 3 enrolls patients whose tumors are refractory to checkpoint therapy, with progressive disease observed at their first evaluation. Patients will continue treatment with their initial checkpoint inhibitor and CAN-2409 will be added to their regimen. The primary efficacy endpoint for this trial is response rate measured by RECIST, and we expect to report safety and initial clinical activity in the second quarter of 2022.

We have also completed a Phase 1b/2 clinical trial evaluating CAN-2409 in patients with high-grade glioma. Our results demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in overall survival of approximately 3.6 months over standard of care alone (17.1 months versus 13.5 months, p=0.0417) in the overall trial population of high-grade glioma. Additionally, in a pre-specified subgroup of patients diagnosed with glioblastoma who underwent gross total surgical resection, a procedure consisting of the removal of more than 95% of the tumor, an improvement of overall survival of approximately 8.8 months over standard of care alone was demonstrated (25.1 months versus 16.3 months, p=0.0120). We are currently planning a Phase 3 trial in this indication and anticipate commencement in the middle of 2022. CAN-2409 has also received Fast Track designation for use in combination with standard of care surgery and chemoradiation to improve overall survival in adults with newly diagnosed glioblastoma. We have also received Orphan drug designation for the use of CAN-2409 for treatment of malignant brain tumors, including high-grade glioma. In addition, we have established a clinical collaboration with both Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (BMS) and the Adult Brain Tumor Consortium (ABTC), a National Cancer Institute funded cooperative group of leading brain cancer centers that facilitates the execution of novel, early-stage trials at some of the leading brain cancer treatment centers. This collaboration has provided support for our ongoing Phase 1 clinical trial in high-grade glioma patients, testing the combination of CAN-2409 and nivolumab (Opdivo, BMS). We anticipate reporting safety and initial efficacy data from this trial by the end of 2022.

We are conducting a Phase 3 clinical trial with CAN-2409 under agreement with the FDA through the SPA process in newly diagnosed localized prostate cancer in intermediate- and certain high-risk patients in combination with the standard of care that comprises radiotherapy and optional ADT. Our SPA provides FDA concurrence that our key endpoints and specific critical elements of our trial design are adequate to support a future marketing application if, among other things, we achieve the primary endpoint in the trial. The clinical trial is randomized, triple-blinded and placebo-controlled. It targeted enrollment of approximately 700 patients and was fully enrolled in September 2021 with final data readout anticipated in 2024. We have also received Fast Track designation by the FDA for the development of CAN-2409 for the treatment of localized, primary prostate cancer in combination with radiotherapy to improve the local control rate, decrease recurrence and improve disease-free survival. We expect that if the trial is successful and if we obtain FDA approval, CAN-2409 could be the first new FDA approved pharmacologic treatment available in over 30

6

years as a first line therapeutic for the over 100,000 patients who are newly diagnosed with localized prostate cancer each year in the United States.

We have also completed enrollment for a Phase 2 clinical trial with CAN-2409 as monotherapy in newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients under active surveillance. This trial has recruited 187 patients with low-, intermediate- and certain high-risk localized prostate cancer. We expect to announce top line data in 2023. We believe that this trial, if successful, could position CAN-2409 as a first line monotherapy treatment of patients with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer, thereby meaningfully expanding the addressable patient population.

Our second oncolytic viral immunotherapy platform is based on a novel, next generation, genetically modified HSV that induces tumor specific oncolysis. The HSV platform enables generation of both replication-competent and replication-deficient viral product candidates as well as capacity to clone, in the vector, up to five transgenes that will allow us to optimize our virus profile for different tumor settings. CAN-3110, our first HSV product candidate, has been engineered for enhanced specificity and tumor cell killing, while minimizing toxicity on healthy tissue. CAN-3110 was formerly known as rQNestin34.5v.2. An investigator-initiated Phase 1 clinical trial is ongoing with CAN-3110 in our initial target indication of recurrent high-grade glioma and we reported additional biomarker results in November 2021. Based on the molecular targeting of CAN-3110, we believe that it could be evaluated in an expanded range of indications in the future, such as other neurologic tumors, melanoma, gastrointestinal stromal tumors, thyroid tumors and breast cancer. In addition, we are pursuing novel solid tumor discovery programs based on our HSV platform.

Corporate History and Our Team and Investors

We were incorporated in Delaware in June 2003 as Advantagene, Inc. (Advantagene). Advantagene was built on a strong scientific foundation and developed CAN-2409 over years of research and development. In December 2019, Advantagene acquired substantially all the assets of Periphagen and in September 2020, licensed CAN-3110 from MGB. Following the combination of Advantagene with the HSV discovery platform assets acquired from Periphagen, a company focused on engineering HSV as a gene therapy vector, we formally changed our name to Candel Therapeutics, Inc. in December 2020.

We were founded and are now led by a team of renowned drug developers, oncolytic viral immunotherapy experts, oncologists, immunologists and biotech business leaders.

We believe in the power of collective intelligence when tackling important challenges. We have therefore sought to involve external perspectives through the formation of our Research Advisory Board that includes eminent immunologists, drug development and oncology experts. Members of the Research Advisory Board are selected based on their ability to contribute meaningful viewpoints to Candel’s internal scientific, clinical and strategic discussions in

7

which they directly participate. There is no fixed term of service for Research Advisory Board members. Some Research Advisory Board members are compensated as described below.

The current members of our Research Advisory Board are as follows:

Dr. Benz is also a member of our Board of Directors.

Our Strengths

We believe our experience and capabilities in oncolytic viral immunotherapy will bring significant benefit to cancer patients who are underserved by the current standard of care, particularly in prostate and brain cancer. We believe our key strengths are:

8

Our Strategy

Our goal is to develop best-in-class oncolytic viral immunotherapies to transform the lives of cancer patients. We plan to develop and commercialize our two lead product candidates, CAN-2409 and CAN-3110, for the treatment of a broad range of solid tumor indications, while continuing to build our pipeline through our discovery platform. Key elements of our strategy include the following:

9

Our Market Opportunities in Localized Prostate Cancer, Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer and High-Grade Glioma

The three indications where we have the most advanced clinical trials are localized prostate cancer, non-small cell lung cancer, and high-grade glioma. These types of cancer present substantial market opportunities.

Prostate cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death among men in the United States. The prostate cancer therapy market is estimated to be approximately $9.9 billion in 2019 growing to over $16.1 billion by 2026. Although most deaths occur in patients with later stage metastatic disease, the majority of prostate cancer patients roughly 150,000 annually in the United States are initially diagnosed in the early stage of disease. Standard of care in this early, localized setting, leaves substantial need unaddressed. The primary interventions are surgery, radiotherapy and androgen deprivation therapy, also known as chemical castration. These treatments have high incidence of potentially life altering side effects, including incontinence and erectile dysfunction. There is therefore a significant unmet need for a novel treatment able to forestall or prevent progression to later stages of disease without the burdensome side effects associated with the current standard of care.

In recent years, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), specifically PD-1 directed agents, have transformed the treatment paradigm of NSCLC and become a backbone therapy for this indication. Over a half dozen immune checkpoint inhibitor products have been approved in a number of cancer indications, and there are numerous other related drug candidates in preclinical and clinical development. Global sales for ICIs in 2019 were approximately $23 billion with NSCLC, accounting for between 50% and 55% of overall sales. The commercial opportunity in NSCLC is significant. Drug treated patient populations in the US for 2020 are estimated at 75,160; 47,920 and 21,990 in first-, second- and third-line treatment, respectively. ICI use in NSCLC has become standard of care with approximately 49% of first-line patients in the United States being treated with an ICI alone or in combination with other agents.

Glioblastoma is the most common form of brain cancer, comprising approximately 90% of high-grade gliomas, and has an extremely poor prognosis. Fewer than 10% of patients survive longer than 5 years, with a median overall survival of less than 15 months. The primary standard of care treatments are surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy. None of these treatments offer the potential of a cure, with nearly all patients eventually succumbing to their cancer. While the annual number of drug-treatable patients with glioblastoma in the United States is approximately 16,000, limited treatment options and the substantial unmet need present a significant market opportunity. One illustrative example is the agent temozolomide, which demonstrated improvement in median overall survival of less than three months compared to standard of care, yet still generated peak annual revenue of over $1 billion.

Our Approach

Conventional cancer therapies (chemotherapy, radiotherapy and surgery) often do not eradicate 100% of the tumor cells, which often leads to tumor progression or recurrence. Deep and durable responses, therefore, are still elusive for many cancer patients. Traditionally, surgery and/or radiotherapy are used for local tumor debulking whereas chemotherapeutic agents target systemic eradication of tumor cells. These treatment modalities, however, are often limited by toxicity.

Immunotherapy is a relatively new treatment modality that has expanded the anti-cancer treatment paradigm. FDA-approved immunotherapies include cytokines, cell therapies and antibodies, including checkpoint inhibitors. Much focus has been placed on harnessing the effector T cell arm of the immune system for tumor specific immunity. Adoptive T cell therapy has shown positive results but with limited activity in solid tumors, and is not scalable for widespread use. Vaccine approaches range in complexity from peptide antigens to autologous or allogeneic tumor cell products. The advantage of the single antigen approaches is that they can be easily manufactured and produced, however, they have the fundamental disadvantage of being potentially irrelevant for a patient’s specific tumor or immune system or easily bypassed by resistant clones. Cellular vaccines are not easily scalable and allogeneic vaccines may not bear the relevant antigens expressed by a patient’s tumor. Immune checkpoint inhibitors, or ICI, such as anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 antibodies, have transformed the treatment paradigm for different cancer indications. However, only approximately 15 to 40% of patients overall respond to such treatment.

We are focused on the development of oncolytic viral immunotherapy approaches, which are based on an extensive history of research. Originally, the mechanism of action of those agents was believed to be based only on the ability of the virus to induce cancer cell lysis and to resolve tumors. Later, it was demonstrated that viral immunotherapy may induce immunogenic cell death. This effect may be enhanced by the pro-inflammatory effects of the viral capsid proteins. With the dramatic emergence of ICIs and immunotherapy as a core treatment modality, the importance of the immunostimulatory aspect of viral-mediated approaches became more widely evident. The currently understood

10

generalized mechanism of action of oncolytic viral immunotherapies is unique in combining both an anti-tumor cytotoxic component and an immune-stimulatory component. Together, these modalities lead to an “in-situ vaccination” effect against the injected tumor followed by an effect on uninjected distant metastases.

Pairing this therapeutic approach with ICI treatment is based on a strong mechanistic rationale and has shown promise in experimental models of cancer. It has been observed that tumors that are least responsive to ICI are commonly characterized by low levels of lymphocytic infiltration and low or no PD-L1 expression levels; they are referred to as “cold” tumors. One of our areas of focus is the conversion of immunologically suppressed “cold” tumors into immunologically active “hot” tumors, thereby increasing their responsiveness to ICI.

Specific aspects of the mechanism of action of viral immunotherapy include the following:

Direct anti-tumor cytotoxic activity. Tumor specific viral mediated oncolysis is achieved by both precise delivery of the engineered virus to the tumor as well as the virus’ ability to selectively replicate within a cancer cell. Various approaches have been applied in different programs to increase the specificity and potency of viral toxicity aimed at tumor cells, including genetic modifications and use of prodrugs.

Broad stimulation of anti-tumor immunity. The immunogenic cell death driven by oncolysis results in a potent local and systemic immune stimulation with the increased expression of proinflammatory cytokines, chemokines and adhesion molecules. This, in turn, promotes the activation of both the innate and adaptive arms of the immune system in the presence of highly immunogenic viral components. This broad response commonly includes recruitment and activation of antigen-presenting cells and effector immune cells to the site of the tumor.

Priming of the immune system against tumor antigens. The lysis of cancer cells leads to the exposure of tumor-specific antigens. This early effect, combined with intratumoral immune cell infiltration and activation, leads to antigen presentation and initiation of a local adaptive immune response targeted against a set of tumor antigens expressed by the patient’s cancer cells.

Development of a systemic immune memory response. Viral immunotherapy induces the development of a long-lasting systemic immune surveillance against the antigens associated with the injected tumor, and consequently, tumor antigens expressed at metastatic sites. This, leads to a cytotoxic immune response against the distant tumor cells, also known as an abscopal effect.

Desirable clinical properties. Viral immunotherapy has attributes that are important for a cancer therapeutic. The agents are off-the-shelf, and while they have been shown to stimulate immune responses in certain patients, there is no requirement to modify them for each patient, unlike other cellular therapy approaches. The first viral immunotherapy (Imlygic, Amgen) was approved by the FDA in 2015, providing support that additional agents in this class may have similar potential. Furthermore, safety data shown in the clinical trials and the ultimate approval of Imlygic, supports the ability to combine viral immunotherapy with other agents due to the potential for fewer overlapping side effects.

Our Product Candidates: Two platforms and two clinical candidates to address diverse clinical needs

Our two platforms, one based on adenovirus and the other based on HSV, provide different and complementary sets of attributes, which allows us to utilize the product candidate that is best suited for a particular clinical application.

Key attributes across our oncolytic viral immunotherapy platforms include:

Key attributes of our Adenoviral platform include:

11

Key Attributes of our HSV platform include:

Our Lead Product Candidate: CAN-2409

We believe the adenovirus-based CAN-2409 has advantageous properties that differentiate from other viral immunotherapies. Namely, CAN-2409:

CAN-2409 (international non-proprietary name: aglatimagene besadenovec) is an adenovirus-based replication-deficient engineered gene construct encoding the thymidine kinase gene derived from the herpes simplex virus. It is injected directly into the tumor or target tissue. Localized injection is intended to minimize systemic toxicities associated with systemic intravenous administration, eliminating the requirement for complex immune evasion or tumor-specific targeting mechanisms, and focuses the immune response locally against the tumor, while also activating the desired systemic anti-tumoral response. The adenoviral construct is used as a vector to transport the thymidine kinase gene into the tumor cells at the site of injection. Thymidine kinase converts generic, FDA-approved anti-herpes drugs, such as ganciclovir, acyclovir and valacyclovir, which we use as prodrugs, into a toxic nucleotide analogue. These agents are widely available, inexpensive and are generally well-tolerated. Cells transduced with thymidine kinase gene undergo immunogenic cell death after exposure to these systemically administered prodrugs.

12

The prodrug-derived cytotoxic nucleotide analogs are designed to inhibit DNA replication and repair, leading to the death of multiplying tumor cells, and in particular of cells undergoing repair from radiation or chemotherapy damage. This oncolytic activity is immunogenic and exposes tumor antigens that can elicit a further tumor-specific immune response. Additionally, the virus itself stimulates a marked immune response.

CAN-2409: Mechanism of action - local immune activation

Key pro-inflammatory cytokines such as GM-CSF and IL-6 as well as chemokines, adhesion molecules and costimulatory molecules are locally upregulated, resulting in an inflamed (hot) tumor microenvironment, able to further enhance T cell activation.

This local effect provides a strong mechanistic rationale for the combination of oncolytic viral immunotherapy with T cell checkpoint inhibitors such as PD-1 or PD-L1 targeting antibodies. ICI agents work by unmasking the inhibitory signals provided by PD-L1 ligands on tumor cells when bound to PD-1 receptors on T cells. By blocking this suppressive signal pharmacologically, it has been demonstrated that T cells can be unleashed to attack cancer cells and that profound clinical benefit can be achieved, but this benefit accrues only to a minority of patients. It has been hypothesized that treatment results can be significantly improved by optimizing recognition of the specific tumor antigens by the patient’s adaptive immune system using oncolytic viral immunotherapy combined with the non-specific stimulation of T cells induced by ICI treatment. It appears that a duality of signals is required: releasing the checkpoint inhibition as described earlier, coupled with the provision of a positive, stimulatory signal to T cells. The efficient presentation of tumor specific antigens by MHC class I molecules to the immune system provides just such a specific, stimulatory signal. Oncolytic viral immunotherapies have been shown to facilitate such cross presentation of tumor antigens and are therefore an attractive complement to PD-1 or PD-L1 checkpoint blockade.

The immune system is highly dynamic, with continuous trafficking of different populations of immune cells throughout the body. One outcome of this is that when T cells are locally activated against tumor-specific antigens, they can act systemically to drive an efficient immune response at sites distant from the original tumor, as is illustrated schematically in the figure above. This abscopal effect may explain the significant effects observed at distant, uninjected sites demonstrated in experimental model of cancers. Abscopal effect has been shown with CAN-2409 in a mouse model of prostate cancer. The model employed RM-1, a syngeneic prostate cell line, that was implanted both in the flanks of the mice as well as systemic, via a tail vein injection to mimic metastatic disease, resulting in the emergence of lung tumor nodules. After intratumor treatment of the flank tumor masses with either CAN-2409 and systemic prodrug, alone or in combination with radiotherapy, we observed a beneficial response in both injected and uninjected metastatic tumor. Use

13

of CAN-2409 resulted in a 38% mean reduction in tumor volume and, in the combination arm, a reduction of 61% in tumor volume. Notably, the number of lung nodules was reduced from 20.5 in the control arm and 22.4 in the mice that received radiotherapy to 13.0 in the CAN-2409 arm, to 6.6 when CAN-2409 was combined with radiotherapy.

CAN-2409 treatment teaches the immune system how to fight cancer in injected tumor and uninjected metastases

The activity of CAN-2409 treatment has been shown to be dependent on CD8+ T cell involvement in mouse studies that evaluated permutations of CAN-2409 treatment and T cell depletion. In the figure below, experimental data show that in mice bearing AKR flank xenografts that were treated with CAN-2409 and prodrug, significant tumor growth inhibition was observed. In contrast, mice treated with the prodrug and a negative control vector showed significantly less tumor growth inhibition, providing evidence that the specific adenoviral construct of CAN-2409 is a key factor in anti-tumor activity. Moreover, when two additional arms were treated as just described but with the addition of an antibody that depleted CD8+ T cells, very little tumor growth inhibition was observed. This supports the contention that the activity of CAN-2409 treatment is directly dependent on CD8+ T cells. Furthermore, T cells from mice that were successfully treated with CAN-2409 and prodrug were shown to be sufficient to inhibit tumor growth when mixed with AKR tumor model cells and implanted subcutaneously in mouse flanks. This activity was not observed with T cells from untreated mice, from mice that were treated with a control vector that lacked the thymidine kinase gene, or when the AKR tumor cells were xenografted alone. These data are consistent with a T cell dependent mechanism of action of CAN-2409.

14

CAN-2409 Mechanism of action – T cell dependent anti-tumor activity

CAN-2409 Mechanism of action – Response to CAN-2409 treatment is

transferable via CD8+ T cells in mouse models of cancer

15

CAN-3110 and the HSV platform technology

CAN-3110 is a modified HSV with specific properties that can be leveraged in diverse clinical indications. Namely, CAN-3110:

CAN-3110 is an engineered oncolytic HSV where the expression of ICP34.5, the gene responsible for viral replication, has been placed under the control of a tumor-specific Nestin promoter. This modification of the viral genome enables us to maintain the function of ICP34.5, an HSV protein that allows virus replication even in the presence of a suppressive interferon response, under a strict control and only in tumor cells.

ICP34.5 is often deleted in other HSV oncolytic viruses that may be less tumor selective with an intent of achieving favorable safety profile, but this often results in weak viruses characterized by poor replication ability and an ability to generate limited immune response.

Nestin is a cytoskeletal protein that is overexpressed in glioma cells, but it is absent in the healthy adult brain. In CAN-3110, ICP34.5 expression is controlled by the Nestin promotor enabling viral replication selectively in tumor cells. This replication-competent HSV construct provides tumor-specific cytolytic activity in animal models, while sparing healthy cells. As set forth below, data with a tool analogue of CAN-3110 in a mouse model of glioma has shown survival benefit over control vectors when the agent is administered to mice at both early and late stages of tumor growth, even after tumor implantation has led to neuropathology.

CAN-3110: HSV “Nestin 34.5” construct

16

Shown Survival Benefit after rQNestin (CAN-3110 tool compound) treatment in mouse model of high-grade glioma

Our technology platform enables rapid HSV vector engineering and generation of new therapeutic candidates. Our platform allows rapid and precise modifications to the virus including the insertion of high cargo capacity DNA cargo cassettes, generation of both replication incompetent and competent agents, and other attributes which provide the opportunity to optimally design HSV technologies for specific therapeutic applications in oncolytic and immunotherapeutic indications. Our team has produced and released HSV vectors for multiple human clinical trials. Our HSV discovery platform allows us to feed and fill our pipeline, building on our vast experience in developing oncolytic viral immunotherapies.

Intratumoral administration

Both CAN-2409 and CAN-3110 are intentionally administered intratumorally. We believe that directly injecting these oncolytic viral immunotherapies into a patient’s cancerous tissue helps to optimize the benefit/risk for these agents to be highly immunostimulatory at the site of the tumor, whereas systemically administered agents would need to avoid detection by the body’s immune surveillance mechanisms to avoid rapid destruction before getting to the target tumor. Intratumoral administration is straightforward and feasible in the indications that we have selected. The first FDA approved oncolytic virus, Imlygic, is intratumorally administered. Although approved, this agent has had modest commercial success, with annual peak worldwide sales under $100M. These commercial results can be explained by a variety of factors. First, Imlygic treatment missed the endpoint of improved survival. Second, at the time of Imlygic’s approval, other successful treatments became available, such as immune check point inhibitors, and BRAF/MEK inhibitors. Third, Imlygic requires -70°C storage, which necessitates specialized and expensive equipment. CAN-2409, in contrast, is stable at 4°C, which is compatible with inexpensive storage refrigerators. In summary, CAN-2409 injection is aligned with clinical practice, can be stored at regular refrigerator temperatures, and cost of goods are expected to be low.

Our CAN-2409 Programs

Localized Prostate Cancer

Prostate cancer is the second leading cause of cancer deaths in men in the United States, representing a high level of medical burden and unmet need. Approximately 200,000 men in the United States are diagnosed with prostate cancer annually, with more than 30,000 deaths each year. As shown in the chart below, of the approximately 150,000 men in the United States who were diagnosed in 2020 before their prostate cancer had metastasized, roughly 105,000 are considered intermediate- or high-risk of progression and approximately 45,000 are considered to be low-risk. For the intermediate- and high-risk patients, the standard of care is radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy often in conjunction with androgen deprivation therapy or chemical castration. Weighing the balance between therapeutic efficacy and side effects linked to therapy, about 10% of the intermediate-risk patients, and approximately 40% of the low-risk patients decide, in consultation with their physicians, to adopt a close monitoring approach known as active surveillance that involves periodic imaging, biomarker evaluation and biopsies.

17

CAN-2409 current target patient populations in localized prostate cancer

To our knowledge, the only FDA-approved pharmacologic intervention indicated for newly diagnosed localized prostate cancer is chemical castration therapy, also known as ADT. Standard of care for localized disease is primarily surgery, radiotherapy and/or ADT. Because ADT has a potentially severe side effect profile, including impotence, hot flashes, mood changes, depression and others, these hormone treatments are reserved only for those patients that present the highest risk of localized or metastatic prostate cancer. Similarly, surgical prostatectomy can often cause urinary dysfunction and sexual dysfunction that can last years and sometimes be permanent. Approximately one-third of men with normal baseline function will report some increase in urinary symptoms and urgency after prostatectomy and the majority of men will experience some erectile dysfunction after treatment with either surgery or radiation.

As a result of PSA screening programs, a majority of patients are diagnosed at early stages of disease with low grade, low volume, asymptomatic prostate cancer. Current screening methods are inadequate to definitively identify which patients are most likely to progress. As a result of these side effects, there is a large desire to delay or prevent the need for radical treatment. As a result, many men with prostate cancer meeting the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for low-risk prostate cancer choose not to be treated and to undergo an intense monitoring program, known as Active Surveillance (AS), as their preferred initial course of treatment. However, within 10 years of diagnosis, between 21 and 38% of men will have developed progressive cancer and require invasive treatments. It has been reported that 21 and 41% of patients initially under AS convert to active treatment based on progression of their disease within two and five years, and approximately 17% of men undergoing AS choose to move to active treatments within 10 years of diagnosis, even in the absence of any evidence of progression, underscoring the level of concern around progression and the significant unmet need in this early line of treatment.

We believe CAN-2409 provides a significant commercial opportunity for therapeutic use in the newly diagnosed, localized prostate cancer patient population, with the goal of reducing progression or recurrence of disease without significant toxicities and with a product that can be administered at outpatient facilities.

Clinical Experience with CAN-2409 for Prostate Cancer

We have completed multiple Phase 1 clinical trials in non-metastatic prostate cancer using CAN-2409 as monotherapy and in combination with standard of care. The results of these trials provide evidence to support CAN-2409 immune activation, dosing levels and schedules as well as a favorable tolerability profile. We have administered CAN-2409 to over 700 patients with localized prostate cancer to date, of which approximately 500 are in currently ongoing, placebo-controlled randomized trials.

Monotherapy Activity

We have observed what we believe to be a clinical response with CAN-2409 as monotherapy in our Phase 1 trials. These responses have been observed in patients with prostate cancer, including patients with newly diagnosed, localized disease, as well as those whose cancer was progressing even after radiotherapy.

In newly diagnosed patients with localized prostate cancer, analysis of biopsies following monotherapy CAN-2409 treatment revealed change in glandular architecture, necrosis and increased immune cell infiltration as compared to baseline biopsy. We observed in treated samples a 4-fold increase in the number of CD8 positive T cells and a 3-fold increase in the number of CD68+ macrophages, demonstrating immune response to CAN-2409.

18

Induction of CD8+ tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in Phase 1/2 prostate cancer trial

In another of our Phase 1 trials, patients whose prostate cancer had progressed following radiotherapy and that presented a persistently rising PSA level, were treated with CAN-2409 as monotherapy using six dose levels, ranging from 1x108–1x1011 viral particles. In 27 of the 36 patients recruited, a decrease in PSA levels was observed following a single cycle of CAN-2409, as measured by the best PSA decrease in serial assessments within the first 3 months after treatment. PSA, while an imperfect biomarker for prostate cancer, is still widely employed for patient management in conjunction with biopsy, as rising PSA levels, and in particular PSA doubling time are associated with disease progression. In that same trial, we observed that the PSA doubling time improved significantly (p=0.0271) from 15.9 months at baseline to 42.5 months after a single cycle of CAN-2409 administration, in this treatment resistant patient population. A subset of the patients in this trial also received second or third injection courses of CAN-2409. In the majority of those patients, a decrease from pre-administration PSA levels was again observed upon repeated injection. This dynamic is illustrated below in the inset PSA graph of “patient 19” in this trial. The orange datapoints represent PSA levels immediately prior to CAN-2409 administration. After a first dose, the patient’s PSA level dropped below baseline levels for over 10 months, at which point serial increases were observed, as expected in recurrent prostate cancer. Upon a second injection course of CAN-2409, a sequential drop in PSA was again induced, indicating potentially repeated CAN-2409 activity even in recurrent disease subsequent to an initial response.

19

Phase 1 trial of CAN-2409 monotherapy in prostate cancer - Best response to first injection (n=36)

Use of CAN-2409 in combination therapy

Because of the increasing prevalence of combination therapy for cancer patients, the ability to combine novel agents with standard of care treatments without overlapping toxicity is of increasing importance. We believe that the favorable tolerability profile of CAN-2409 demonstrated in our clinical trials is encouraging for our current and future development plans, in combination with other agents but also as a monotherapy in lower risk patient populations that are not willing to undergo more aggressive forms of treatment. The safety data from our Phase 2 clinical trial in prostate cancer patients treated with CAN-2409 in combination with standard of care are summarized in the table below. Of note is the absence of reported grade 4 treatment related adverse events and only single-patient incidence of grade 3 treatment related adverse events. It was anticipated that flu-like symptoms would be evident, because CAN-2409 is an adenoviral gene construct known to induce a systemic immune response. Greater than 50% of patients reported fever and/or chills often associated with viral immune activation. These symptoms, which generally manifested early and transiently, often occurred on the evening of the intratumoral administration of CAN-2409 and resolved by the following morning. The rates of the gastrointestinal adverse events are consistent with those typically reported by patients undergoing radiotherapy, which is a component of standard of care in this population.

Phase 2 prostate cancer safety data for prostate cancer patients treated with CAN-2409 in combination with standard of care

Our Phase 2 trial data informed our agreement with the FDA under the SPA for our ongoing Phase 3 clinical trial. In our Phase 2 clinical trial, we observed that intermediate-risk patients who received CAN-2409 in combination with radiotherapy had failure rates that were 75% lower than those reported in four other contemporaneous trials of similar

20

patient populations as shown in the table below, although this is limited because we have not conducted head-to-head studies. Where these other clinical trials reported freedom from failure rates of between 75-79%, corresponding to cumulative recurrence rates of 21-25%, CAN-2409 resulted in a 5% recurrence rate in patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. The median follow-up for the clinical trial of CAN-2409 was 5.7 years. Similarly, results in this clinical trial also demonstrated reduced recurrence rates in the low- and high-risk patients enrolled when compared to these other trials. Furthermore, a pathological complete response (pCR) was observed in 93% of the biopsies available at 2yrs (37%-73% in control populations). In this trial, low-risk patients achieved a PSA of < 2ng/ml in 77% of CAN-2409 treated patients versus 58% in control populations. The schema for this trial is shown below.

Completed phase 2 clinical trial of CAN-2409 combined with radiotherapy +/- androgen deprivation therapy

Freedom from failure in varying risk populations of localized prostate cancer

These were not head-to-head studies, which limits the ability to compare results.

The endpoint used in our Phase 2 trial is freedom from failure (FFF), defined by the period of time between treatment and the occurrence of a clinical or biochemical failure. Under the SPA agreement, we have selected disease-free survival (DFS) as the endpoint for our Phase 3 clinical trial. The DFS definition requires an objective detection of tumor progression. This largely overlaps with FFF as it is often triggered by detection of an increased PSA levels (i.e., biochemical failure). We have also reanalyzed our Phase 2 data using DFS parameters, supporting the implementation of DFS as endpoint in our Phase 3 trial.

21

Our Potentially Registrational Phase 3 Clinical Trial for Localized Prostate Cancer

We are developing CAN-2409 as a potential therapeutic option that avoids the long-term severe side effects of hormone therapy or surgical interventions. Based on the data from our clinical trials to date, we believe that CAN-2409 has the potential, if approved, to be the first product candidate approved for patients with localized prostate cancer in over 30 years. We are currently conducting a potentially registrational Phase 3 trial for CAN-2409, with agreement, under an SPA with the FDA for a single pivotal trial in newly diagnosed localized prostate cancer in intermediate and high-risk patients in combination with the standard of care, radiotherapy.

The clinical trial is targeting evaluating of over 700 patients, who are randomized 2:1. Patients will receive three investigational treatment courses of CAN-2409, each consisting of four concurrent injections of transrectal ultrasound guided administration of CAN-2409 followed by a course of oral valacyclovir. As illustrated schematically below, the first injection course is given at least 15 days but not more than 8 weeks before starting radiation. The second injection course is given 0-3 days prior to radiotherapy. The third and final injection course is delivered 15-22 days after the second injections. A fixed dose of valacyclovir is given for 14 days after each injection course. Standard of care external beam radiotherapy will be administered to patients throughout the course of the trial with optional ADT as determined by the treating physician.

Dosing scheme for CAN-2409 Phase 3 prostate cancer trial

Trial inclusion criteria are based on patients with localized prostate cancer meeting the NCCN criteria of intermediate-risk or patients presenting only one NCCN high-risk feature. NCCN intermediate-risk is defined as having at least one of the following: prostate serum antigen (PSA) of 10-20 ng/ml, Gleason Score of 7, and is staged T2b-T2c via the TNM staging system. Patients may also exhibit one high-risk characteristic that may consist of a PSA of 20+ ng/ml, a Gleason Score of 8-10, or a cancer that is up to stage T3a, but not more than one of these high-risk factors.

The SPA agreement specifically defines agreement with the FDA on the statistical design and power of the phase 3 trial, as well as the specifics of the primary endpoint definition. The SPA states that the study is adequately designed to provide the necessary data that, depending on the outcome, could support a biologics license application submission. The SPA does note the general point for all SPAs, that BLA filability and approvability are review issues and that a BLA approval will depend on the quality of actual clinical trial data, the robustness of the effect on the stated primary endpoint, the impact on the secondary endpoints, a favorable assessment of the study conduct, and analysis of safety information and other supportive data. We have approximately 50 active clinical sites for this clinical trial, and have enrolled over 700 patients, with enrollment completed in September 2021.

The primary endpoint for the clinical trial is DFS. Final results are expected in 2024. This trial has been designed to have 90% power, a hazard ratio of 0.5 and an alpha of 0.05. We are assuming a 15% improvement in the active arm (CAN-2409) as compared to placebo in the rate of events measured according to the DFS definition provided above.

22

A schema of this trial is set forth below.

Ongoing Phase 3 clinical trial of CAN-2409 in newly diagnosed, intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer

Phase 2 Clinical Trial for Active Surveillance

Clinical results to date suggest that CAN-2409 as monotherapy may reduce the rates of biochemical failure for patients with localized prostate cancer. In the AS setting, we will assess whether CAN-2409 has the potential to delay or prevent tumor progression to a later stage that demands radical treatment.

The Phase 2 clinical trial is a randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled study evaluating 187 patients with localized prostate cancer undergoing AS. The trial completed enrollment in June 2019. Patients in this clinical trial were randomized 2:1, active to placebo. Patients randomized to the active arm received two investigational treatment courses of CAN-2409. The primary endpoint will assess patients’ risk of progression employing validated endpoints. We expect top line data from this clinical trial to be available in 2023. A schema of this trial is set forth below.

Fully accrued ongoing Phase 2 clinical trial of CAN-2409 in patients with prostate cancer being managed by active surveillance

High-Grade Glioma

Glioblastoma, the most common form of high-grade glioma, is a relatively rare cancer with first-line drug treated prevalent population in the United States of approximately 16,113 patients. In second- and third-line population, this number drops to 11,642 and 6,548, respectively. Fewer than 10% of patients survive more than five years past their

23

initial diagnosis. The median survival is under 15 months with the current standard of care. Treatment in the upfront setting is surgical resection, if possible, coupled with temozolomide and/or radiotherapy. Over half of patients are candidates for maximal surgical resection and a portion succeed, achieving removal of all visible tumor mass. This outcome is known as gross total resection. Few pharmaceutical treatment options exist for patients with high-grade glioma, with the last significant FDA approval over a decade ago. Avastin was approved in 2009, specifically for patients with recurrent glioblastoma, and approval was granted despite the absence of a survival benefit in the registrational studies. Temozolomide was approved over 20 years ago, in 1999, with no new agent significantly supplanting its use since then, further underscoring the profound unmet medical need in this condition. In the registrational clinical trials, temozolomide use only demonstrated 2.5-month overall survival benefit, yet still saw global annual sales of over $1 billion at its peak in 2010, shortly before generic products entered the market. The prognosis for glioblastoma that has recurred is even more dire. Patients have scarce treatment options. Current standard of care mainly consists of repeating first line treatment approaches or participating in a clinical trial of investigational agents. Median survival in the recurrent setting is approximately six months.

CAN-2409 for High-Grade Glioma

In our Phase 1b/2 clinical trial in newly diagnosed patients with high-grade gliomas, including the difficult-to-treat glioblastoma, CAN-2409 demonstrated a statistically significant increase in patient survival when combined with current standard of care over the current standard of care alone (surgery, radiation and temozolomide). The trial compared the overall survival of 48 enrolled patients treated at 4 clinical sites with CAN-2409 plus standard of care against a matched controlled set of 134 patients enrolled at MGB who received only standard of care. The results demonstrated that the median overall survival of patients receiving standard of care alone was 13.5 months while patients receiving CAN-2409 plus standard of care was 17.1 months (p=0.0417) (left panel in the figure below). Importantly, a pre-planned analysis on a subset of patients treated surgically with gross total resection (>95% of tumor removed) during surgery (18 patients compared to 44 in the control arm), demonstrated a median overall survival of 25.1 months in the CAN-2409 arm versus 16.3 months in the standard of care group, with approximately a 50% improvement (p=0.0120) (right panel in the figure below). In this patient population, after three years, one in three patients was alive in the CAN-2409 arm compared to 1 in 20 patients in the standard of care group. At the end of the study, three of the patients who received CAN-2409 were alive without progression after 43, 62.1 and 88.5 months.

Completed Phase 1b/2 clinical trial of CAN-2409 combined with standard of care in high-grade glioma

24

Overall survival of CAN-2409 combined with standard of care in high-grade glioma

In our Phase 1/2 trials in high-grade glioma, CAN-2409 was generally well tolerated, with the majority of treatment-related adverse events being grade 1 or 2, and few reports of grade 3 or 4 events.

Treatment related adverse events from the Phase 1/2 trial in high-grade glioma

We are planning a potentially registrational Phase 3 clinical trial in patients with untreated high-grade glioma. The current trial design for this Phase 3 is planned to enroll patients with glioblastoma (WHO Grade IV) intended to undergo gross total resection and standard of care chemoradiation. The primary efficacy endpoint will be overall survival, powered to 90% with a hazard ratio of 0.65 and a type I error assumption of 2.5. We anticipate the trial to commence in the middle of 2022.

25

CAN-2409 Checkpoint Combination Therapy for High-Grade Glioma

Based on the clinical outcomes in glioma patients treated with CAN-2409 and the biomarker evidence for CAN-2409-mediated immune stimulation, we performed preclinical studies to examine whether CAN-2409 treatment of high-grade glioma would be enhanced if combined with immune checkpoint inhibitors to increase antitumor T cell responses. Use of either an anti-PD-1 antibody or CAN-2409 alone resulted in 30%-50% long-term survival in a murine glioma model. This percentage increased to 88% when CAN-2409 and anti-PD-1 were administered together. Analysis of infiltrating T cells indicated that CAN-2409 increases the activation of tumor-infiltrating CD8+ T cells, suggesting that the activity of this combination is due to a complementary biological mechanism of the two treatment modalities.

A Phase 1 clinical trial for patients with newly diagnosed high-grade glioma examining the combination of CAN-2409 and anti-PD-1 nivolumab (Opdivo, BMS) in collaboration with BMS and ABTC has now completed enrollment. This is the first clinical trial to evaluate the combination of CAN-2409 and nivolumab in high-grade glioma patients. Combining CAN-2409 with an ICI such as anti-PD-1 may enhance anti-tumor T cell activation and expansion, with the potential for better clinical outcome.

Ongoing Phase 1 clinical trial of CAN-2409 with Opdivo in high-grade glioma

Oncolytic Viral Immunotherapy in High-Grade Glioma

Oncolytic viral immunotherapy is a description of a therapeutic modality that encompasses multiple different constructs and divergent pharmacologic strategies. Some other viral approaches in high-grade glioma have previously failed, notably the investigational oncolytic viral immunotherapy agent Toca 511 that was evaluated in a Phase 2/3 trial in glioblastoma conducted by the company Tocagen. In the case of Toca 511, we believe the similarities to CAN-2409 in glioblastoma are very limited. Toca 511 was a retroviral construct that used a different transgene, was paired with a different prodrug, and had a different development program. There are significant differences between the programs. Of note, serotype 5 adenoviral gene constructs like CAN-2409 have been demonstrated to be highly immunogenic, whereas retroviruses are less immunogenic and therefore less likely to induce a strong innate immune response. Critically, in the single arm Phase 1 trial of Toca 511 in glioblastoma, the data from the investigational agent was compared to a non-concurrently treated external control group that was poorly matched to the demographics of the investigational cohort. For example, 74% of patients in the Toca 511 cohort had a Karnofsky performance score greater than 90, whereas only 51% of patients in the comparator group had such good clinical baseline status. The result was a (false) positive comparison in the Phase 1 trial in favor of the Toca 511 treated group. Further complicating interpretation of the Phase 2/3 trial, patients received only a median of two courses of prodrug commencing 6 weeks after virus dosing. With such significant differences between programs and in the conduct of clinical trials, we believe that such failures of other oncolytic viral immunotherapies in high-grade glioma and other indications have limited bearing on the probability of success of our planned Phase 3 trial of CAN-2409 in glioblastoma.

Lung Cancer (NSCLC)

In recent years, immune checkpoint inhibitors specifically PD-1 directed agents have transformed the treatment paradigm of NSCLC and become a backbone therapy for this indication. To date, seven immune checkpoint inhibitor products have been approved in a number of cancer indications, and there are numerous other related drug candidates in preclinical and clinical development. Global sales for ICIs in 2019 were approximately $23 billion with NSCLC, accounting for between 50 and 55% of overall sales. The commercial opportunity in NSCLC is significant. Drug treated patient populations in the US for 2020 are estimated at 75,160; 47,920 and 21,990 in first-, second- and third-line treatment, respectively. ICI use in NSCLC has become standard of care with approximately 49% of first-line patients in the US being treated with an ICI alone or in combination with other agents. Nonetheless, the median overall survival is approximately 22 months.

26

To assess the potential for CAN-2409 to trigger immune activation and produce a “hot” tumor phenotype, we designed and completed a clinical trial in patients with surgically resectable lung cancer. In this Phase 1 trial, dose escalation of intratumoral neoadjuvant CAN-2409 was followed by tumor resection three weeks later. The specific goal was to obtain biological data to better understand the impact of CAN-2409 on the tumor microenvironment, with a specific focus on intratumoral CD8+ T cell activation and function while assessing effects on the systemic immune response. The effects of CAN-2409 were evaluated by comparing post-injection specimens to an internal control consisting of each patient’s own pre-treatment needle biopsy and blood samples, and an external cohort of matched patients who underwent standard surgical resection without CAN-2409. The results showed evidence of significant intratumoral and systemic immune activation. Selected analyses are set forth in the chart below. Analysis of peripheral blood mononuclear cells, both before and after CAN-2409 administration, demonstrate a significant increase in expression of proliferation and activation markers including HLA-DR, CD38 and Ki67 three weeks after CAN-2409 initiation. Other relevant findings in this clinical trial included an increase in some markers of T cell activation such as PD-1 and CTLA-4, which are targets of immune checkpoint inhibitors that have been approved for use in NSCLC.

CAN-2409 stimulated local and systemic T cell response in patients with NSCLC

In our NSCLC Phase 1 clinical trial, two patients experienced grade 3 dehydration with renal insufficiency, two patients presented grade 3 urinary retention and six patients were observed to have a grade 4 low lymphocyte count. Of significant interest, one patient, a 70 year old male with a 14.8cm stage IIIA sarcomatoid carcinoma, exhibited a nearly 50% decrease in tumor volume at 3 weeks after CAN-2409 monotherapy treatment. Scans from this patient are shown below. Collectively, these results lead us to believe that CAN-2409 could provide an opportunity to improve ICI response rates in patients with NSCLC by eliciting additional immune activation in lung cancer patients.

27

Monotherapy activity of CAN-2409 in NSCLC

CAN-2409 and Checkpoint Combination Phase 2 Clinical Trial for NSCLC in Patients with Inadequate Response to ICI

We have initiated a Phase 2 clinical trial in NSCLC patients with inadequate response to ICI that will enroll patients receiving standard of care immune checkpoint inhibitors (plus chemotherapy if indicated) across three cohorts in combination with two courses of CAN-2409 plus ICI. We believe there is an opportunity to utilize CAN-2409 immune activation to improve ICI response rates with a short-term readout.

Our open label Phase 2 trial will enroll 96 patients and we expect initial safety data, translational biomarkers and efficacy data to be presented in the second quarter of 2022. The trial schema is set forth below.

Ongoing Phase 2 trial of CAN-2409 plus ICI and standard of care chemotherapy for stage III/IV NSCLC Patients

28

Additional Solid Tumor Opportunity

Pancreatic Cancer

We are currently conducting an exploratory Phase 2 clinical trial for CAN-2409 in pancreatic cancer, with enrollment ongoing. We anticipate presenting interim data in 2023. In a previous Phase 1b trial, patients with pancreatic cancer treated with CAN-2409 in addition to standard of care demonstrated a greater survival duration over the expected survival of the patients treated with the existing standard of care alone in a comparison to historical trial results. Furthermore, in a number of patients where pre- and post-treatment tumor biopsies were available, a statistically significant increase in the number of CD8+ tumor infiltrating lymphocytes was observed. In addition, the study concluded that CAN-2409 was generally well-tolerated in combination with standard of care.

CAN-2409 induced of CD8+ tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes

Other Cancer Indications

In addition to patients with prostate, brain, lung and pancreatic cancer, CAN-2409 has been dosed in small early-stage exploratory clinical trials in patients with ovarian cancer, malignant pleural effusion, pediatric brain cancer and retinoblastoma, supporting the tolerability profile described above.

Our CAN-3110 Program: Recurrent Glioma

Our first HSV-based product candidate, CAN-3110, is now in an investigator-initiated Phase 1 clinical trial in recurrent glioblastoma. This clinical trial is assessing CAN-3110 and is an open-label, single center, dose-escalation clinical trial. The primary endpoint of this clinical trial is to analyze the safety of CAN-3110 use, in patients with recurrent high-grade glioma. No dose-limiting toxicities were observed in doses ranging from 1x106 to 1x1010 PFU in half-log increments. 30 patients have been treated in the initial dose escalation phase and 12 additional patients had been dosed in a dose expansion phase as of April 30, 2021.

Immunohistologic studies showed persistent presence of HSV antigen and infiltration by CD8+ cytotoxic tumor infiltrating lymphocytes post treatment, providing support for the expected mechanism of action of CAN-3110.

29

Oncolytic HSV infection and CD8+ T cell infiltration after CAN-3110 treatment in patients with recurrent high-grade glioma

We are particularly encouraged by the clinical course of a patient who received CAN-3110 as a monotherapy upon recurrence of glioblastoma. The patient was diagnosed with multicentric glioblastoma and initially treated with standard of care surgical resection followed by temozolomide and radiotherapy. The patient later recurred with two lesions visualized on MRI. One, in the frontal region, was at the site of the initially resected mass and is labelled “Secondary lesion” in the MRI images below. The second, larger mass was a new lesion and is labeled as “Injected lesion” in the MRI images below. The patient received CAN-3110 via stereotactic administration into the injected lesion. At day 56 post-injection, there was a visible decrease in the volume of both masses. By day 112 post-injection, the volume of both masses was further reduced and the patient was able to go back to work. The patient eventually developed a third tumor and, following a stroke secondary to a diagnostic procedure, refused further treatment, dying approximately 15 months after participation in the trial. We find this to be an encouraging case report because of the unusually favorable disease course experienced by this patient in absence of concurrent therapies. Additionally, we have observed a median overall survival of 11.7 months in our Phase 1 trial in the first 30 patients as of the cutoff date of April 21, 2021. Given the median overall survival of 6-9 months in historical clinical trials of other investigational agents in patients with recurrent high grade glioma, we believe this is encouraging evidence of clinical activity. We received additional data from this open-label trial in November 2021 and will continue to assess CAN-3110 in this clinical trial.

Ongoing Phase 1 clinical trial of CAN-3110 in patients with recurrent high-grade glioma

30

MRI images of patient from Phase 1 high-grade glioma trial of CAN-3110 with abscopal effect

Clinical effect on injected and uninjected lesions.

56 YOM, IDH wild-type, MGMT partially methylated, right frontal mesial lesion initially treated with gross total resection, chemoradiation. Recurrences at two sites.

This trial is complementary to our work in the first line treatment setting of high-grade glioma with CAN-2409, a non-replicating viral construct. We believe that with the larger tumor burden frequently observed in the recurrent setting and more infrequent use of surgery in this population, a replication competent viral construct such as CAN-3110 may be a more appropriate approach.

Collaborations and Other Transactions

We are a party to a number of license and collaboration agreements under which we license patents, patent applications and other intellectual property to and from third parties. These licenses impose various diligence and financial payment obligations on us. We expect to continue to enter into these types of license agreements in the future. We consider the following license and collaboration agreements to be material to our business:

Periphagen. On December 9, 2019, we entered into a series of agreements, including an exclusive license agreement, a novation agreement, an equipment purchase agreement and an intellectual property assignment agreement, collectively the Periphagen Agreements, with Periphagen, whereby we acquired certain assets and licensed certain rights (including specified patent rights and know-how, or the Licensed IP Rights) of Periphagen, primarily consisting of exclusive rights to their technology platform and a portfolio of pre-clinical, development stage virus vectors, as well as certain physical property and equipment. The primary classes of assets are HSV-derived assets expressing neurotrophin-3 (or NT-3 Assets) and other HSV-derived assets (Gene Transfer Neuro-Assets). Under the license agreement, Periphagen granted us a worldwide exclusive license with the right to grant sublicenses through multiple tiers under the Licensed IP Rights to conduct research and to develop, make, have made, use, have used, offer for sale, have sold, export and import products incorporating the Licensed IP Rights in all fields of use except the treatment, diagnosis, and prevention of nononcologic skin diseases and conditions (including use as an aesthetic).

31

In addition, pursuant to the Periphagen Agreements, we undertook certain commitments and obligations, including the assumption of Periphagen’s outstanding loan in the principal amount of $1,000,000 with Diamyd Medical, AB. The promissory note has a contractual interest rate of 2% compounded annually, with the outstanding balance and accrued interest due upon maturity in November 2027, with no interim installments.

In consideration for the licenses under the Periphagen Agreements, we paid Periphagen $811,000 upon signing and agreed to make the following royalty and other payments:

If we are required to pay royalties to a third party on any product covered under the Periphagen Agreements, we may credit such royalty payments against the royalties owed to Periphagen in the applicable country, up to a percentage reduction in the mid-2nd decile.

The exclusive license agreement with Periphagen, or the Periphagen License Agreement, requires us to use commercially reasonable efforts to complete a human proof of concept clinical trial of an NT-3 Asset, which includes certain specified clinical milestones. If we fail to use such efforts, subject to dispute and escalation provisions in the Periphagen License Agreement, then we may submit a specified payment in lieu of satisfying such obligations. If we fail to do so, Periphagen may terminate the Periphagen License Agreement for material breach.

The Periphagen License Agreement expires on the later of December 9, 2069 or the end of the Royalty Term. Upon expiration, we will have a fully paid-up, non-exclusive license to make, use, sell, offer for sale and import any products that incorporate the Licensed IP Rights. The Royalty Term means, on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis, the period starting on the first commercial sale of such product in such country and concluding on the later of (i) expiration of patent coverage under the Licensed IP Rights or regulatory exclusivity for such product in such country; or (ii) the date that a certain amount of generic competition exists in such country, provided that no Royalty Term shall exceed 30 years.

The Periphagen License Agreement may be terminated (i) by us for convenience upon 90 days’ prior written notice to Periphagen, (ii) by Periphagen if we remain in breach of the Periphagen Agreement following a cure period to remedy the breach or (iii) by Periphagen if we become bankrupt, file for bankruptcy or otherwise become insolvent or are placed in receivership.

MGB. On January 20, 2018, we entered into an exclusive option agreement, or the Option Agreement, with MGB. Pursuant to the Option Agreement, we obtained the exclusive right from MGB to negotiate an exclusive worldwide, royalty-bearing license to develop and commercialize products covered by certain MGB patents, including those patents covering CAN-3110, in the field of gene therapy and oncolytic vector therapy for the treatment or prevention of cancerous tumors in humans or animals, as such field is further detailed in the Option Agreement, or the Licensed Field. In consideration for MGB’s granting of the exclusive option, we paid MGB a non-refundable fee of $40,000.

Under the Option Agreement, we were required to use reasonable efforts to enter into a clinical trial agreement with MGB. We entered into such clinical trial agreement with MGB, or the MGB Clinical Trial Agreement, on June 19, 2018. Under the MGB Clinical Trial Agreement, we have committed to remitting up to $750,000 for the performance of a specified Phase 1 clinical trial by MGB pursuant to a protocol summary contained in the Option Agreement.

32

On September 15, 2020, we exercised our option and entered into an exclusive patent license agreement with MGB, or the MGB License Agreement. Under the MGB License Agreement, MGB granted to us (a) an exclusive, royalty-bearing license under certain of MGB’s patents to make, have made, use, have used, sell and have sold certain products covered by such licensed patents, or the Licensed Products and otherwise practice processes covered by such licensed patents, or Licensed Processes; and (b) a non-exclusive, royalty-bearing license under certain other of MGB’s patents to make, have made, use, have used, sell and have sold Licensed Products, but not to sell or have sold Licensed Processes. The foregoing rights are sublicensable, subject to sublicensing terms set forth in the MGB License Agreement. In connection with executing the MGB License Agreement, we paid a license issue fee of $100,000. We also agreed to reimburse MGB for all reasonable fees and expenses MGB had incurred and will incur for the preparation, filing, prosecution and maintenance of the licensed patent rights, in an amount equal to $141,268.

Under the MGB License Agreement, we are required to use commercially reasonable efforts to develop and make available to the public Licensed Products in the Licensed Field, which efforts include certain milestones detailed in the MGB License Agreement.

Under the MGB License Agreement, prior to the first commercial sale of the Licensed Products, we are required to pay MGB an annual license fee beginning on the fourth anniversary of the effective date. Following the first commercial sale of the Licensed Products, we are required to pay MGB an annual minimum royalty, which amount may be credited against earned royalties starting in the fourth year following the first commercial sale.

In addition to such annual license fee and royalty obligations, the MGB License Agreement contains cumulative milestone payments for up to a maximum amount of $39,000,000, upon the achievement of various clinical, commercial and sales milestones of clinical and commercial development and sales, certain of which milestones apply to development and sale of any Licensed Product as a monotherapy and certain of which milestones apply to development and sale of any Licensed Product in combination with another therapy modality for the treatment of solid tumors.

We are required to pay royalties to MGB upon first commercial sale of the Licensed Products, which are paid at an increasing rate as net sales increase, ranging from low single digits to high single digits. We also agreed to pay a single digit royalty rate on net sales of any products developed using certain MGB know-how but which is not covered by the licensed patent rights, or derived products.

We may reduce our royalty obligations to MGB on any product (but not derived products) by an agreed-upon percentage if we are required to pay a royalty to a third party to avoid patent infringement claims in respect of our development and commercialization of Licensed Products. The royalty rate paid to MGB may not fall below a pre-specified percentage for the sale of any product and another percentage for the sale of any derived product.

Our obligation to pay royalties to MGB expires on a country-by-country basis on the latest of (i) the date upon which there ceases to be a valid claim of patent rights as further detailed in the MGB License Agreement in such country, (ii) expiration of statutory or regulatory exclusivity in such country and (iii) 10 years after the first commercial sale.

The MGB License Agreement also requires us to pay a percentage of any non-royalty income attributable to the sublicense, including (i) 2nd decile rates if such sublicense occurs prior to dosing the first patient in a Phase 2 trial, (ii) 1st decile rates if such sublicense occurs after dosing the first patient in a Phase 2 trial but before approval of a BLA by the FDA (or the equivalent approval and regulatory body in another major market country) and (iii) single digit rates if such sublicense occurs after approval of a BLA by the FDA (or the equivalent approval and regulatory body in another major market country).

The MGB License Agreement expires on the latest of (i) the 10th anniversary of the first commercial sale in the last country which has a commercial sale, (ii) the date on which all relevant issued patents and filed patent applications have expired or been abandoned and (iii) upon the expiration of market exclusivity on the applicable product.

The MGB License Agreement may be terminated by MGB (i) if we fail to pay any amounts owed under the terms of the agreement within a specified cure period, (ii) if we fail to maintain insurance in accordance with the MGB License Agreement, (iii) if we file for bankruptcy, or (iv) if we remain in default of the MGB License Agreement for non-financial reasons following a specified cure period to remedy the breach. The MGB License Agreement may be terminated by us for convenience upon 90 days’ prior written notice.

Ventagen. On March 1, 2014, we entered into an exclusive license agreement, or the Ventagen Agreement, with Ventagen, LLC, or Ventagen. The Ventagen Agreement provides Ventagen an exclusive license, with rights to

33

grant sublicenses (subject to certain terms and conditions) under any worldwide patent rights and know-how owned or controlled by us during the term of the Ventagen Agreement which cover applicable technology utilizing the delivery method of the herpes derived TK protein to tumors or other tissues via a viral vector (as further specified therein), to research, use, have used, import, have imported, export, have exported, offer for sale, have sold, sell, distribute and market certain products for the prevention or treatment of cancer in humans and any use in animals (or the Field of Use), or the Licensed Products, for commercial sale and distribution within Mexico, Belize, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Panama, Colombia and Bolivia (or the Territory).

Under the Ventagen Agreement, Ventagen agreed to use commercially reasonable efforts to develop and commercialize Licensed Products in the Territory in the Field of Use.

Ventagen agreed to pay us $1,000,000 for research and development, which we received in 2014 and 2015, and agreed to pay us a fixed future milestone payment of $2,500,000 upon Ventagen’s achievement of a specified amount of sales of a Licensed Product, which is subject to certain reductions for our direct cost over a specified threshold.

Ventagen also agreed to purchase all of its clinical and commercial supply of Licensed Products from us required for clinical or commercial purposes at a price of cost plus a specified increase of the wholesale price of the Licensed Products, subject to a minimum and maximum price, through the end of the Royalty Term, which is defined as the period commencing on the effective date of the Ventagen Agreement and ending on a country-by-country basis on the later of (i) the last expiration date of the patent rights covering a Licensed Product, (ii) twelve years from the receipt of marketing authorization of the Licensed Product in the applicable country, or (iii) the date a generic version of a Licensed Product that is manufactured, owned or controlled by a third party is granted a market authorization. If we are unable or unwilling to manufacture supply under the terms of the Ventagen Agreement, Ventagen has the right to manufacture its own supply and will be required to pay to us a fixed fee per dose sold by Ventagen, its affiliates, agents, sublicensee or end users. We have also agreed to provide certain services to Ventagen related to Ventagen’s development plan.

The Ventagen Agreement expires on the date of the expiration of the final Royalty Term in all countries in the Territory. The Ventagen Agreement may be terminated (i) by Ventagen at will upon 30 days’ prior written notice to us, (ii) by us subject to a specified notice period if Ventagen files for bankruptcy or becomes insolvent or (iii) by us if Ventagen remains in material breach of the Ventagen Agreement following notice and a cure period to remedy the breach. Ventagen retains an irrevocable, perpetual, paid up, royalty-free license, with rights of sublicense to use, have used, lease, import and export, offer to sell, sell, have sold, product, distribute and market Licensed Products in each country in the Territory after the expiration of the Royalty Term in such country.

Certain of our current shareholders own 49.5% of the voting stock of Ventagen, but we do not hold any management position or run the day-to-day operations of Ventagen. See “Certain Relationships and Related Person Transactions.”

Competition

The development and commercialization of new product candidates is highly competitive. We face competition from major pharmaceutical, specialty pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies among others with respect to CAN-2409 and CAN-3110 and will face similar competition with respect to any product candidates that we may seek to develop or commercialize in the future. We compete in pharmaceutical, biotechnology and other related markets that develop immune-oncology therapies for the treatment of cancer. There are other companies working to develop viral immunotherapies for the treatment of cancer including divisions of large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies of various sizes. The large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies that have commercialized and/or are developing immuno-oncology treatments for cancer include AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead Sciences, Merck & Co., Novartis, Pfizer and Genentech.

Some of the products and therapies developed by our competitors are based on scientific approaches that are the same as or similar to our approach, including with respect to the use of viral immunotherapy with adenovirus and HSV. Other competitive products and therapies are based on entirely different approaches. We are aware that Oncorus, Inc., Replimune Group, Inc., Amgen Inc., Astellas Pharma, Inc, Istari Oncology Inc, Orca Therapeutics, B.V., CG Oncology, Inc, ImmVira Co., Ltd., IconOVir Bio, Inc., and FerGene, Inc., among others, are developing viral immunotherapies that may have utility for the treatment of indications that we are targeting. Potential competitors also include academic institutions, government agencies and other public and private research organizations that conduct research, seek patent protection and establish collaborative arrangements for research, development, manufacturing and commercialization.

Many of the companies we compete against or may compete against in the future have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials,

34

obtaining regulatory approvals and marketing approved drugs than we do. Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries may result in concentration of even more resources among a smaller number of our competitors. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel, in establishing clinical trial sites and enrolling subjects for our clinical trials and in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs.

We could see a reduction or elimination of our commercial opportunity if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, or are more convenient or are less expensive than any products that we or our collaborators may develop. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or foreign regulatory approval for their products more rapidly 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. The key competitive factors affecting the success of all our product candidates, if approved, are likely to be their efficacy, safety, convenience and price, if required, the level of biosimilar or generic competition and the availability of reimbursement from government and other third-party payors.

Commercialization

We intend to retain significant development and commercial rights to our product candidates and, if marketing approval is obtained, to commercialize our product candidates on our own, or potentially with a partner, in the United States and other regions. We currently have no sales, marketing or commercial product distribution capabilities and have no experience as a company commercializing products. We intend to build the necessary infrastructure and capabilities over time for the United States, and potentially other regions, following further advancement of our product candidates. Clinical data, the size of the addressable patient population, the size of the commercial infrastructure and manufacturing needs may all influence or alter our commercialization plans.

Manufacturing

We have established an operations leadership team with extensive experience in manufacturing biologics based on viruses, including oncolytic products and gene therapy products, and in the construction, validation, approval and operation of facilities designed to manufacture biologics. We have received proposals from and are evaluating third-party contract manufacturing organizations for commercial-scale manufacturing of our CAN-2409 product candidates. We are also currently evaluating various options for the clinical scale manufacture of our CAN-3110 product candidate, including the development of clinical-scale manufacturing capabilities in our facility in Needham, Massachusetts.

Intellectual Property

We have obtained Orphan drug designation for CAN-2409 for the treatment of glioblastoma, which makes the product candidate eligible for a period of orphan drug exclusivity, if approved in this indication, under certain conditions.

We believe that approval of our CAN-2409 and CAN-3110 product candidates under a BLA may result in 12 years of data exclusivity in the United States under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, or collectively the ACA, 10 years of market exclusivity in Europe and significant durations in other markets, which would be complementary to any relevant patent exclusivity.

Through licensing and developing our own portfolio, we have rights to one issued composition of matter patent in the United States that relates to CAN-3110, which expires in 2036 and is exclusively licensed to us. We also own a patent issued in the United States that relates to a method of use of CAN-2409 in combination with other agents that expires in 2034. There are also multiple patent applications in the United States and foreign countries, that are fully or partially owned by us or are exclusively licensed to us by the inventor owners.

Government Regulation

In the United States, biological products are subject to regulation under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) and licensure under the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act), and other federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations. The FD&C Act and corresponding regulations govern, among other things, the research, development, clinical trial, testing, manufacturing, quality control, approval, safety, efficacy, labeling, packaging, storage, record keeping, distribution, reporting, marketing, promotion, export and import, advertising, post-approval monitoring, and post-approval reporting involving biological products. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources and we may not be able to obtain the required regulatory approvals.

Further, even if we obtain the required regulatory approvals for our products, pharmaceutical companies are subject to myriad federal, state, and foreign healthcare laws, rules, and regulations governing all aspects of our operations, including, but not limited to, our relationships with healthcare professionals, healthcare institutions, distributors of our products, and sales and marketing personnel; governmental and other third-party payor coverage and reimbursement of our products; and data privacy and security. Such laws, rules, and regulations are complex, continuously evolving, and,

35

in many cases, have not been subject to extensive interpretation by applicable regulatory agencies or the courts. We are required to invest significant time and financial resources in policies, procedures, processes, and systems to ensure compliance with these laws, rules, and regulations, and our failure to do so may result in the imposition of substantial monetary or other penalties by federal or state regulatory agencies, give rise to reputational harm, or otherwise have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.

United States biological products development process

The process required by the FDA before a biological product candidate may be licensed for marketing in the United States generally involves the following:

Pre-clinical Studies and the IND Process

Before testing any biological product candidate in humans, the product candidate enters the preclinical testing stage. Preclinical tests, also referred to as nonclinical studies, include laboratory evaluations of the product’s biological characteristics, chemistry, toxicity and formulation, as well as animal studies to assess the potential safety and activity of the product candidate. The conduct of the preclinical tests must comply with federal regulations and requirements including GLPs.

Prior to commencing an initial clinical trial in humans with a product candidate in the United States, an IND must be submitted to the FDA and the FDA must allow the IND to proceed. An IND is an exemption from the FD&C Act that allows an unapproved product candidate to be shipped in interstate commerce for use in an investigational clinical trial and a request for FDA allowance that such investigational product may be administered to humans in connection with such trial. Such authorization must be secured prior to interstate shipment and administration. In support of a request for an IND, the clinical trial sponsor must submit the results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature and a proposed clinical protocol, to the FDA as part of the IND. An IND must become effective before human clinical trials may begin. Once submitted, the IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA places the IND on a full or partial clinical hold within that 30-day time period. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial or part of the study can begin. Submission of an IND therefore may or may not result in FDA authorization to begin a clinical trial. The FDA also may impose clinical holds on a sponsor’s IND at any time before or during clinical trials due to, among other considerations, unreasonable or significant safety concerns, inability to assess safety concerns, lack of qualified investigators, a misleading or materially incomplete investigator brochure, study design deficiencies, interference with the conduct or completion of a study designed to be adequate and well-controlled for the same or another investigational product, insufficient quantities of investigational product, lack of effectiveness, or non-compliance. If the FDA imposes a clinical hold, studies may not recommence without FDA authorization and then only under terms authorized by the FDA.

36

Clinical Trials

Clinical trials involve the administration of the biological product candidate to healthy volunteers or patients under the supervision of qualified investigators, generally physicians not employed by or under control of the trial sponsor. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the clinical trial, dosing procedures, subject selection and exclusion criteria, and the parameters and criteria to be used to monitor subject safety, including stopping rules that assure a clinical trial will be stopped if certain adverse events should occur. Each protocol and any amendments to the protocol must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. Clinical trials must be conducted and monitored in accordance with the FDA’s regulations comprising the GCP requirements, including the requirement that all research subjects provide informed consent. An IRB representing each institution participating in the clinical trial must review and approve the plan for any clinical trial before it commences at that institution, and the IRB must conduct continuing review and reapprove the trial at least annually. The IRB must review and approve, among other things, the trial protocol and informed consent information to be provided to trial subjects. An IRB must operate in compliance with FDA regulations. An IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution, or an institution it represents, if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the product candidate has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients.

Some trials are overseen by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the trial sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board or committee, or DSMB. This group provides authorization as to whether or not a trial may move forward at designated check points based on access that only the group maintains to available data from the trial and may recommend halting the clinical trial if it determines that there is an unacceptable safety risk for subjects or other grounds, such as no demonstration of efficacy.

Certain information about certain clinical trials must also be submitted within specific timeframes to the NIH for public dissemination on its ClinicalTrials.gov website.

Clinical trials typically are conducted in three sequential phases that may overlap or be combined:

In March 2022, the FDA released a final guidance entitled “Expansion Cohorts: Use in First-In-Human Clinical Trials to Expedite Development of Oncology Drugs and Biologics,” which outlines how developers can utilize an adaptive trial design commonly referred to as a seamless trial design in early stages of oncology biological product development (i.e., the first-in-human clinical trial) to compress the traditional three phases of trials into one continuous trial called an expansion cohort trial. Information to support the design of individual expansion cohorts are included in IND applications and assessed by FDA. Expansion cohort trials can potentially bring efficiency to biological product development and reduce developmental costs and time.

In some cases, the FDA may require, or companies may voluntarily pursue, additional clinical trials after a product is approved to gain more information about the product. These post-approval clinical trials, sometimes referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials, may also be made a condition to approval of the BLA. Failure to exhibit due diligence with regard to conducting required Phase 4 clinical trials could result in withdrawal of approval for products.

Concurrent with clinical trials, companies usually complete additional animal studies and also must develop additional information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the biological product as well as finalize a process for manufacturing the product in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. To help reduce the risk of the introduction of adventitious agents with use of biological products, the Public Health Service Act, or PHS Act, emphasizes the importance of manufacturing control for products whose attributes cannot be precisely defined. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the product candidate and, among

37

other things, the sponsor must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality, potency and purity of the final biological product. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the biological product candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life.

Both the FDA and the EMA provide expedited pathways for the development of biological product candidates for treatment of rare diseases, particularly life threatening diseases with high unmet medical need. Such biological product candidates may be eligible to proceed to registration following a single clinical trial in a limited patient population, sometimes referred to as a Phase 1/2 trial, but which may be deemed a pivotal or registrational trial following review of the trial’s design and primary endpoints by the applicable regulatory agencies. Determination of the requirements to be deemed a pivotal or registrational trial is subject to the applicable regulatory authority’s scientific judgement and these requirements may differ in the United States and the European Union.

During all phases of clinical development, regulatory agencies require extensive monitoring and auditing of all clinical activities, clinical data, and clinical trial investigators. Annual progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials must be submitted to the FDA. Written IND safety reports must be promptly submitted to the FDA and the investigators for serious and unexpected adverse events, any findings from other studies, tests in laboratory animals or in vitro testing that suggest a significant risk for human subjects, or any clinically important increase in the rate of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure. The sponsor must submit an IND safety report within 15 calendar days after the sponsor determines that the information qualifies for reporting. The sponsor also must notify the FDA of any unexpected fatal or life-threatening suspected adverse reaction within seven calendar days after the sponsor’s initial receipt of the information.

Regulatory authorities, the IRB or the sponsor may suspend a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the subjects are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk or that the trial is unlikely to meet its stated objectives. Some trials also include oversight by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the clinical trial sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board, which provides authorization for whether or not a trial may move forward at designated check points based on access to certain data from the trial and may halt the clinical trial if it determines that there is an unacceptable safety risk for subjects or other grounds, such as no demonstration of efficacy.

U.S. review and approval processes

Assuming successful the 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 a BLA requesting approval to market the product for one or more indications. The BLA must include results of product development, laboratory and animal studies, human clinical trials, information on the manufacture and composition of the product, proposed labeling and other relevant information. The testing and approval processes require substantial time and effort and there can be no assurance that the FDA will accept the BLA for filing and, even if filed, that any approval will be granted on a timely basis, if at all.

Within 60 days following submission of the application, the FDA reviews a BLA submitted to determine if it is substantially complete before the FDA accepts it for filing. The FDA may refuse to file any BLA that it deems incomplete or not properly reviewable at the time of submission and may request additional information. In this event, the BLA must be resubmitted with the additional information. The resubmitted application also is subject to review to determine if it is substantially complete before the FDA accepts it for filing. In most cases, the submission of a BLA is subject to a substantial application user fee, although the fee may be waived under certain circumstances. Under the performance goals and policies implemented by the FDA under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or PDUFA, for original BLAs, the FDA targets ten months from the filing date in which to complete its initial review of a standard application and respond to the applicant, and six months from the filing date for an application with priority review. The FDA does not always meet its PDUFA goal dates, and the review process is often significantly extended by FDA requests for additional information or clarification. This review typically takes twelve months from the date the BLA is submitted to the FDA because the FDA has approximately two months to make a “filing” decision. The review process and the PDUFA goal date may be extended by three months if the FDA requests or the BLA sponsor otherwise provides additional information or clarification regarding information already provided in the submission within the last three months before the PDUFA goal date.

Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth substantive review of the BLA. The FDA reviews the BLA to determine, among other things, whether the proposed product is safe, pure and potent for its intended use and whether the product is being manufactured in accordance with cGMP to ensure its continued safety, purity and purity. The FDA may refer applications for novel biological products or biological products that present difficult or novel questions of safety or efficacy to an advisory committee, typically a panel that includes clinicians and other experts, for review, evaluation and a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions. During the biological product approval process, the FDA also will determine whether a

38

Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, is necessary to assure the safe use of the biological product. If the FDA concludes a REMS is needed, the sponsor of the BLA must submit a proposed REMS; the FDA will not approve the BLA without a REMS, if required.

Before approving a BLA, the FDA typically will inspect the facilities at which the product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve the product unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. Additionally, before approving a BLA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure that the clinical trials were conducted in compliance with IND trial requirements and GCP requirements. To assure cGMP and GCP compliance, an applicant must incur significant expenditure of time, money and effort in the areas of training, record keeping, production and quality control.

Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act, or PREA, a BLA or supplement to a BLA for a novel product (e.g., new active ingredient, new indication, etc.) must contain data to assess the safety and effectiveness of the biological product 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 FDA may grant deferrals for submission of data or full or partial waivers. Unless otherwise required by regulation, PREA does not apply to any biological product for an indication for which orphan designation has been granted.

After the FDA evaluates a 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. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the product with specific prescribing information for specific indications. A Complete Response letter will describe all of the deficiencies that the FDA has identified in the BLA, except that where the FDA determines that the data supporting the application are inadequate to support approval, the FDA may issue the Complete Response letter without first conducting required inspections, testing submitted product lots, and/or reviewing proposed labeling. In issuing the Complete Response letter, the FDA may recommend actions that the applicant might take to place the BLA in condition for approval, including requests for additional information or clarification. The FDA may delay or refuse approval of a BLA if applicable regulatory criteria are not satisfied, require additional testing or information and/or require post-marketing testing and surveillance to monitor safety or efficacy of a product.

If a product receives regulatory approval, the approval may be significantly limited to specific diseases and dosages or the indications for use may otherwise be limited, including to subpopulations of patients, which could restrict the commercial value of the product. Further, the FDA may require that certain contraindications, warnings, precautions or interactions be included in the product labeling. The FDA may impose restrictions and conditions on product distribution, prescribing, or dispensing in the form of a REMS, or otherwise limit the scope of any approval. The FDA also may condition approval on, among other things, changes to proposed labeling or the development of adequate controls and specifications. Once approved, the FDA may withdraw the product approval if compliance with pre- and post-marketing requirements is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the marketplace. The FDA may require one or more Phase 4 post-market trials 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 trials. In addition, new government requirements, including those resulting from new legislation, may be established, or the FDA’s policies may change, which could impact the timeline for regulatory approval or otherwise impact ongoing development programs.

Orphan product designation

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

Orphan product designation entitles a party to financial incentives such as opportunities for grant funding towards clinical trial costs, tax advantages and user-fee waivers. If a product that has orphan product designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for a particular active ingredient 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, including a full BLA, to market the same biologic for the same indication for seven years, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan product exclusivity. Competitors, however, may receive approval of different products for the indication for which the orphan product has exclusivity or obtain approval for the same product but for a different indication for which the orphan product has exclusivity. Orphan

39

product exclusivity also could block the approval of one of our products for seven years if a competitor obtains approval of the same biological product as defined by the FDA or if a product candidate is determined to be contained within the competitor’s product for the same indication or disease. If a biological product designated as an orphan product receives marketing approval for an indication broader than what is designated, it may not be entitled to orphan product exclusivity. In addition, orphan drug exclusive marketing rights in the United States may be lost if the FDA later determines that the request for designation was materially defective or, as noted above, if the second applicant demonstrates that its product is clinically superior to the approved product with orphan exclusivity or the manufacturer of the approved product is unable to assure sufficient quantities of the product to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition. Orphan drug status in the European Union has similar, but not identical, benefits.

Expedited development and review programs

The FDA has various programs, including fast track designation, breakthrough therapy designation, accelerated approval and priority review, that are intended to expedite or simplify the process for the development and FDA review of drugs and biologics that are intended for the treatment of serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions. To be eligible for fast track designation, new drugs and biological product candidates must be 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 and the specific indication for which it is being studied. The sponsor of a new drug or biologic may request the FDA to designate the drug or biologic as a fast track product at any time during the clinical development of the product. One benefit of fast track designation, for example, is that the FDA may consider for review sections of the marketing application on a rolling basis before the complete application is submitted if certain conditions are satisfied, including an agreement with the FDA on the proposed schedule for submission of portions of the application and the payment of applicable user fees before the FDA may initiate a review.

Under the FDA’s breakthrough therapy program, a sponsor may seek FDA designation of its product candidate as a breakthrough therapy if the product candidate is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs or biologics, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that it may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. Breakthrough therapy designation comes with all of the benefits of fast track designation. The FDA may take other actions appropriate to expedite the development and review of the product candidate, including holding meetings with the sponsor and providing timely advice to, and interactive communication with, the sponsor regarding the development program.

A product candidate is eligible for priority review if it treats a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and, if approved, would provide a significant improvement in the safety or effectiveness of the treatment, diagnosis or prevention of a serious disease or condition. The FDA will attempt to direct additional resources to the evaluation of an application for a new drug or biological product designated for priority review in an effort to facilitate the review. Under priority review, the FDA’s goal is to review an application in six months once it is filed, compared to ten months for a standard review. Priority review designation does not change the scientific/medical standard for approval or the quality of evidence necessary to support approval.

Additionally, a product candidate may be eligible for accelerated approval. Drug or biological products studied for their safety and effectiveness in treating serious or life-threatening illnesses and that provide meaningful therapeutic benefit over existing treatments may receive accelerated approval, which means that they may be approved on the basis of adequate and well-controlled clinical trials establishing that the product has an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict a clinical benefit, or on the basis of an effect on an intermediate clinical endpoint other than survival or irreversible morbidity or mortality, that is reasonably likely to predict 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 approval, the FDA generally requires that a sponsor of a drug or biological product receiving accelerated approval perform adequate and well-controlled post-marketing clinical trials to verify the clinical benefit in relationship to the surrogate endpoint or ultimate outcome in relationship to the clinical benefit. In addition, for products being considered for accelerated approval, the FDA generally requires, unless otherwise informed by the agency, that all advertising and promotional materials, intended for dissemination or publication within 120 days of marketing approval be submitted to the agency for review during the pre-approval review period. The FDA may withdraw approval of a drug or indication approved under accelerated approval if, for example, the confirmatory trial fails to verify the predicted clinical benefit of the product.

Post-approval requirements

Rigorous and extensive FDA regulation of biological products continues after approval, particularly with respect to cGMP requirements, as well as requirements relating to record keeping, reporting of adverse experiences, periodic reporting, product sampling and distribution, and advertising and promotion of the product. Manufacturers of products are required to comply with applicable requirements in the cGMP regulations, including quality control and quality assurance and maintenance of records and documentation. Other post-approval requirements applicable to biological

40

products, include reporting of cGMP deviations that may affect the identity, potency, purity and overall safety of a distributed product, record keeping requirements, reporting of adverse effects, reporting updated safety and efficacy information, and complying with electronic record and signature requirements. After a BLA is approved, the product also may be subject to official lot release. As part of the manufacturing process, the manufacturer is required to perform certain tests on each lot of the product before it is released for distribution. If the product is subject to official release by the FDA, the manufacturer submits samples of each lot of product to the FDA together with a release protocol showing a summary of the history of manufacture of the lot and the results of all of the manufacturer’s tests performed on the lot. The FDA also may perform certain confirmatory tests on lots of some products, such as viral vaccines, before releasing the lots for distribution by the manufacturer. In addition, the FDA conducts laboratory research related to the regulatory standards on the safety, purity, potency, and effectiveness of biological products.

Manufacturers must comply with the FDA’s advertising and promotion requirements, such as those related to direct-to-consumer advertising, the prohibition on promoting products for uses or in patient populations that are not described in the product’s approved labeling (known as “off-label use”), industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities, and promotional activities involving the internet. Discovery of previously unknown problems or the failure to comply with the applicable regulatory requirements may result in restrictions on the marketing of a product or withdrawal of the product from the market as well as possible civil or criminal sanctions. Failure to comply with the applicable U.S. requirements at any time during the product development process, approval process or after approval, may subject an applicant or manufacturer to administrative or judicial civil or criminal sanctions and adverse publicity. FDA sanctions could include refusal to approve pending applications, withdrawal of an approval, clinical holds, warning or untitled letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, product detentions or refusal to permit the import or export of the product, restrictions on the marketing or manufacturing of the product, injunctions, fines, refusals of government contracts, mandated corrective advertising or communications with doctors or other stakeholders, debarment, restitution, disgorgement of profits, or civil or criminal penalties. Any agency or judicial enforcement action could have a material adverse effect on us.

Biological product manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved biological products 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 ongoing regulatory requirements, including cGMPs, which impose certain procedural and documentation requirements on sponsors and their contract manufacturing organizations, or CMOs. Manufacturers and other parties involved in the drug supply chain for prescription drug and biological products must also comply with product tracking and tracing requirements and for notifying the FDA of counterfeit, diverted, stolen and intentionally adulterated products or products that are otherwise unfit for distribution in the United States.. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money, and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain cGMP compliance. Discovery of problems with a product after approval may result in restrictions on a product, manufacturer, or holder of an approved BLA, including withdrawal of the product from the market. In addition, changes to the manufacturing process or facility generally require prior FDA approval before being implemented and other types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications and additional labeling claims, are also subject to further FDA review and approval.

U.S. patent term restoration and marketing exclusivity

Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of the FDA approval of a biological product, some of a sponsor’s U.S. patents may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Hatch-Waxman Amendments. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments permit a patent restoration term of up to five years as compensation for patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review process. However, patent term restoration cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the product’s approval date. The patent term restoration period is generally one-half the time between the effective date of an IND and the submission date of a BLA plus the time between the submission date of a BLA and the approval of that application. Only one patent applicable to an approved biological product is eligible for the extension and the application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent. In addition, a patent can only be extended once and only for a single product. The United States Patent and trademark Office, or USPTO, in consultation with the FDA, reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension or restoration. In the future, we may intend to apply for restoration of patent term for one of our patents, if and as applicable, to add patent life beyond its current expiration date, depending on the expected length of the clinical trials and other factors involved in the filing of the relevant BLA.

A biological product can obtain pediatric market exclusivity in the U.S. Pediatric exclusivity, if granted, adds six months to existing exclusivity periods, including some regulatory exclusivity periods tied to patent terms. This six-month exclusivity, which runs from the end of other 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.

The ACA includes a subtitle called the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, or BPCIA, which created an abbreviated approval pathway for biological products shown to be biosimilar to, or interchangeable with, an FDA-licensed reference biological product. This amendment to the PHS Act attempts to minimize duplicative testing.

41

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, can be shown through analytical studies, animal studies, and a clinical trial or trials. 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 and, for products administered multiple times, the biologic and the reference biologic may be switched after one has been previously administered without increasing safety risks or risks of diminished efficacy relative to exclusive use of the reference biologic. However, complexities associated with the larger, and often more complex, structure of biological products, as well as the process by which such products are manufactured, pose significant hurdles to implementation that are still being worked out by the FDA.

FDA will not accept an application for a biosimilar or interchangeable product based on the reference biological product until four years after the date of first licensure of the reference product, and FDA will not approve an application for a biosimilar or interchangeable product based on the reference biological product until 12 years after the date of first licensure of the reference product. “First licensure” typically means the initial date the particular product at issue was licensed in the United States. Date of first licensure does not include the date of licensure of (and a new period of exclusivity is not available for) a biological product if the licensure is for a supplement for the biological product or for a subsequent application by the same sponsor or manufacturer of the biological product (or licensor, predecessor in interest, or other related entity) for a change (not including a modification to the structure of the biological product) that results in a new indication, route of administration, dosing schedule, dosage form, delivery system, delivery device or strength, or for a modification to the structure of the biological product that does not result in a change in safety, purity, or potency. The BPCIA is complex and continues to be interpreted and implemented by the FDA. In addition, government proposals have sought to reduce the 12-year reference product exclusivity period. Other aspects of the BPCIA, some of which may impact the BPCIA exclusivity provisions, have also been the subject of recent litigation. As a result, the ultimate implementation and impact of the BPCIA is subject to significant uncertainty.

United States regulation of companion diagnostics

Our product candidates may require use of an in vitro diagnostic to identify appropriate patient populations. These diagnostics, often referred to as companion diagnostics, are regulated as medical devices. In the United States, the FD&C Act and its implementing regulations and other federal and state statutes and regulations govern, among other things, medical device design and development, preclinical and clinical testing, premarket clearance or approval, registration and listing, manufacturing, labeling, storage, advertising and promotion, sales and distribution, export and import and post-market surveillance. Unless an exemption applies, companion diagnostic tests require marketing clearance or approval from the FDA prior to commercial distribution. The two primary types of FDA marketing authorization applicable to a medical device are premarket notification, also called 510(k) clearance, and premarket approval, or PMA approval.

If use of companion diagnostic is essential to safe and effective use of a drug or biological product, then the FDA generally will require approval or clearance of the diagnostic contemporaneously with the approval of the therapeutic product. On August 6, 2014, the FDA issued a final guidance document addressing the development and approval process for “In Vitro Companion Diagnostic Devices.” According to the guidance, for novel candidates such as our product candidates, a companion diagnostic device and its corresponding drug or biological candidate should be approved or cleared contemporaneously by FDA for the use indicated in the therapeutic product labeling. The guidance also explains that a companion diagnostic device used to make treatment decisions in clinical trials of a biologic product candidate generally will be considered an investigational device, unless it is employed for an intended use for which the device is already approved or cleared. If used to make critical treatment decisions, such as patient selection, the diagnostic device generally will be considered a significant risk device under the FDA’s Investigational Device Exemption, or IDE, regulations. Thus, the sponsor of the diagnostic device will be required to comply with the IDE regulations. According to the guidance, if a diagnostic device and a drug are to be studied together to support their respective approvals, both products can be studied in the same investigational study, if the study meets both the requirements of the IDE regulations and the IND regulations. The guidance provides that depending on the details of the study plan and subjects, a sponsor may seek to submit an IND alone, or both an IND and an IDE. In July 2016, the FDA issued a draft guidance document intended to further assist sponsors of therapeutic products and sponsors of in vitro companion diagnostic devices on issues related to co-development of these products.

The FDA generally requires companion diagnostics intended to select the patients who will respond to cancer treatment to obtain approval of a PMA for that diagnostic contemporaneously with approval of the therapeutic. The review of these in vitro companion diagnostics in conjunction with the review of therapeutic candidates such as those we are developing involves coordination of review by the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research and by the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health. The PMA process, including the gathering of clinical and pre-clinical data and the submission to and review by the FDA, can take several years or longer. It involves a rigorous premarket review during which the applicant must prepare and provide the FDA with reasonable assurance of the device’s safety and effectiveness and information about the device and its components regarding, among other things, device design, manufacturing and labeling. PMA applications are also subject to an application fee.

42

PMAs for certain devices must generally include the results from extensive pre-clinical and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to establish the safety and effectiveness of the device for each indication for which FDA approval is sought. In particular, for a diagnostic, the applicant must demonstrate that the diagnostic produces reproducible results when the same sample is tested multiple times by multiple users at multiple laboratories. In addition, as part of the PMA review, the FDA will typically inspect the manufacturer’s facilities for compliance with the Quality System Regulation, or QSR, which imposes elaborate testing, control, documentation and other quality assurance requirements.

If the FDA evaluations of both the PMA application and the manufacturing facilities are favorable, the FDA will either issue an approval letter or a not-approvable letter, which usually contains a number of conditions that must be met in order to secure the final approval of the PMA, such as changes in labeling, or specific additional information, such as submission of final labeling, in order to secure final approval of the PMA. If the FDA concludes that the applicable criteria have been met, the FDA will issue a PMA for the approved indications, which can be more limited than those originally sought by the applicant. The PMA can include post-approval conditions that the FDA believes necessary to ensure the safety and effectiveness of the device, including, among other things, restrictions on labeling, promotion, sale and distribution.

If the FDA’s evaluation of the PMA or manufacturing facilities is not favorable, the FDA will issue an order denying approval of the PMA or issue a not approvable order. A not approvable letter will outline the deficiencies in the application and, where practical, will identify what is necessary to make the PMA approvable. The FDA may also determine that additional clinical trials are necessary, in which case the PMA approval may be delayed for several months or years while the trials are conducted and then the data submitted in an amendment to the PMA. Once granted, PMA approval may be withdrawn by the FDA if compliance with post approval requirements, conditions of approval or other regulatory standards is not maintained or problems are identified following initial marketing. PMA approval is not guaranteed, and the FDA may ultimately respond to a PMA submission with a not approvable determination based on deficiencies in the application and require additional clinical trial or other data that may be expensive and time-consuming to generate and that can substantially delay approval.

After a device is placed on the market, it remains subject to significant regulatory requirements. Medical devices may be marketed only for the uses and indications for which they are cleared or approved. Device manufacturers must also establish registration and device listings with the FDA. A medical device manufacturer’s manufacturing processes and those of its suppliers are required to comply with the applicable portions of the QSR, which cover the methods and documentation of the design, testing, production, processes, controls, quality assurance, labeling, packaging and shipping of medical devices. Domestic facility records and manufacturing processes are subject to periodic unscheduled inspections by the FDA. The FDA also may inspect foreign facilities that export products to the United States.

Additional regulation

In addition to the foregoing, state and federal laws regarding environmental protection and hazardous substances, including the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Resource Conservancy and Recovery Act and the Toxic Substances Control Act, affect our business. These and other laws govern our use, handling and disposal of various biological, chemical and radioactive substances used in, and wastes generated by, our operations. If our operations result in contamination of the environment or expose individuals to hazardous substances, we could be liable for damages and governmental fines.

Government regulation outside of the United States

In addition to regulations in the United States, we are subject to a variety of regulations in other jurisdictions governing, among other things, research and development, clinical trials, testing, manufacturing, safety, efficacy, labeling, packaging, storage, record keeping, distribution, reporting, advertising and other promotional practices involving biological products as well as authorization and approval of our products. Because biologically sourced raw materials are subject to unique contamination risks, their use may be restricted in some countries.

The requirements and process governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary from country to country. In all cases, the clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with GCP and the applicable regulatory requirements and the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki. If we fail to comply with applicable foreign regulatory requirements, we may be subject to, among other things, fines, suspension of clinical trials, suspension or withdrawal of regulatory approvals, product recalls, seizure of products, operating restrictions and criminal prosecution.

Clinical trials regulation

Whether or not we obtain FDA approval for a product, we must obtain the requisite approvals from regulatory authorities in foreign countries prior to the commencement of clinical trials or marketing of the product in those countries. Certain countries outside of the United States have a similar process that requires the submission of a clinical trial application much like the IND prior to the commencement of human clinical trials. In the European Union, for example, a CTA must be submitted for each clinical trial to each country’s national competent authority, or NCA, and at least one independent ethics committee, or EC, much like the FDA and an IRB, respectively. Once the CTA is approved in accordance with a

43

country’s requirements, the corresponding clinical trial may proceed. Under the current regime (the EU Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC and corresponding national laws), all suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions to the investigated drug that occur during the clinical trial have to be reported to the NCA and ECs of the EU Member State where they occurred.

In April 2014, the EU adopted a new Clinical Trials Regulation (EU) No 536/2014, which is set to replace the current Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC. It will overhaul the current system of approvals for clinical trials in the EU. Specifically, the new Regulation, which will be directly applicable in all Member States (meaning that no national implementing legislation in each EU Member State is required), aims at simplifying and streamlining the approval of clinical trials in the EU. For instance, the new Regulation provides for a streamlined application procedure via a single entry point and strictly defined deadlines for the assessment of clinical trial applications. It is expected that the new Regulation will come into effect following confirmation of full functionality of the Clinical Trials Information System, the centralized EU portal and database for clinical trials foreseen by the new Regulation, through an independent audit, which is currently expected to occur in December 2021.

European Union drug review and approval

In the European Economic Area, or EEA, medicinal products can only be commercialized after obtaining a marketing authorization. To obtain regulatory approval of a medicinal product in the EEA, we must submit a marketing authorization application, or MAA. A centralized marketing authorization is issued by the European Commission through the centralized procedure, based on the opinion of the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use, or CHMP, of the EMA, and is valid throughout the EEA. The centralized procedure is mandatory for certain types of products, such as biotechnology medicinal products, orphan medicinal products, advanced-therapy medicinal products such as (gene-therapy, somatic cell-therapy or tissue-engineered medicines), and medicinal products containing a new active substance indicated for the treatment of HIV, AIDS, cancer, neurodegenerative disorders, diabetes, auto-immune and other immune dysfunctions, and viral diseases. The centralized procedure is optional for products containing a new active substance not yet authorized in the EEA, or for products that constitute a significant therapeutic, scientific or technical innovation or which are in the interest of public health in the EEA.

Under the centralized procedure the maximum timeframe for the evaluation of a MAA by the EMA is 210 days, excluding clock stops, when additional written or oral information is to be provided by the applicant in response to questions asked by the CHMP. Clock stops may extend the timeframe of evaluation of a MAA considerably beyond 210 days. Where the CHMP gives a positive opinion, it provides the opinion together with supporting documentation to the European Commission, who make the final decision to grant a marketing authorization, which is issued within 67 days of receipt of the EMA’s recommendation. Accelerated assessment might be granted by the CHMP in exceptional cases, when a medicinal product is expected to be of major public health interest, particularly from the point of view of therapeutic innovation. The timeframe for the evaluation of a MAA under the accelerated assessment procedure is 150 days, excluding clock stops, but it is possible that the CHMP may revert to the standard time limit for the centralized procedure if it determines that the application is no longer appropriate to conduct an accelerated assessment.

The application used to submit the BLA in the United States is similar to that required in the European Union, although there may be certain specific requirements, for example those set out in Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007 on Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products, covering gene therapy, somatic cell therapy and tissue-engineered medicinal products.

Now that the UK (which comprises Great Britain and Northern Ireland) has left the European Union, Great Britain will no longer be covered by centralized marketing authorizations (under the Northern Irish Protocol, centralized marketing authorizations will continue to be recognized in Northern Ireland). All medicinal products with a current centralized marketing authorization were automatically converted to Great Britain marketing authorizations on January, 1 2021. For a period of two years from January 1, 2021, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, or MHRA, the UK medicines regulator, may rely on a decision taken by the European Commission on the approval of a new marketing authorization in the centralized procedure, in order to more quickly grant a new Great Britain marketing authorization. A separate application will, however, still be required.

Data and market exclusivity

In the EEA, upon receiving marketing authorization, innovative medicinal products generally receive eight years of data exclusivity and an additional two years of market exclusivity. If granted, data exclusivity prevents generic or biosimilar applicants from referencing the innovator’s pre-clinical and clinical trial data contained in the dossier of the reference product when applying for a generic or biosimilar marketing authorization in the EEA, during a period of eight years from the date on which the reference product was first authorized in the EEA. During the additional two-year period of market exclusivity, a generic or biosimilar marketing authorization application can be submitted, and the innovator’s data may be referenced, but no generic or biosimilar product can be marketed until the expiration of the market exclusivity. The overall ten-year period will be extended to a maximum of eleven years if, during the first eight years of those ten years, the marketing authorization holder obtains an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications which, during the scientific evaluation prior to authorization, is held to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with existing

44

therapies. There is no guarantee that a product will be considered by the EMA to be an innovative medicinal product, and products may not qualify for data exclusivity. Even if a product is considered to be an innovative medicinal product so that the innovator gains the prescribed period of data exclusivity, another company may market another version of the product if such company obtained a marketing authorization based on a MAA with a completely independent data package of pharmaceutical tests, preclinical tests and clinical trials.

Orphan drug designation and exclusivity

Products receiving orphan designation in the EEA can receive ten years of market exclusivity, during which time no “similar medicinal product” may be placed on the market. A “similar medicinal product” is defined as a medicinal product containing a similar active substance or substances as contained in an authorized orphan medicinal product, and which is intended for the same therapeutic indication. An orphan product can also obtain an additional two years of market exclusivity in the European Union where an agreed Pediatric Investigation Plan for pediatric studies has been complied with. No extension to any supplementary protection certificate can be granted on the basis of pediatric studies for orphan indications.

The criteria for designating an “orphan medicinal product” in the EEA are similar in principle to those in the United States. Under Article 3 of Regulation (EC) 141/2000, a medicinal product may be designated as orphan if it meets the following criteria: (1) it is intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition; (2) either (a) such condition affects no more than five (5) in ten thousand (10,000) persons in the EEA when the application is made, or (b) it is unlikely that the product, without the benefits derived from orphan status, would generate sufficient return in the European Union to justify the necessary investment in its development; and (3) there exists no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment of such condition authorized for marketing in the EEA, or if such a method exists, the product will be of significant benefit to those affected by the condition, as defined in Regulation (EC) 847/2000. Orphan medicinal products are eligible for financial incentives such as reduction of fees or fee waivers and are, upon grant of a marketing authorization, entitled to ten years of market exclusivity for the approved therapeutic indication. The application for orphan drug designation must be submitted before the application for marketing authorization. The applicant will receive a fee reduction for the MAA if the orphan drug designation has been granted, but not if the designation is still pending at the time the marketing authorization is submitted. Orphan drug designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process.

The 10-year market exclusivity may be reduced to six years if, at the end of the fifth year, it is established that the product no longer meets the criteria for orphan designation, for example, if the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify maintenance of market exclusivity. Additionally, marketing authorization may be granted to a similar medicinal product for the same indication at any time if:

Pediatric development

In the EEA, companies developing a new medicinal product must agree upon a Pediatric Investigation Plan, or PIP, with the EMA’s pediatric committee, or PDCO, and must conduct pediatric clinical trials in accordance with that PIP, unless a waiver applies (e.g., because the relevant disease or condition occurs only in adults). The PIP sets out the timing and measures proposed to generate data to support a pediatric indication of the drug for which marketing authorization is being sought. The marketing authorization application for the product must include the results of pediatric clinical trials conducted in accordance with the PIP, unless a waiver applies, or a deferral has been granted by the PDCO of the obligation to implement some or all of the measures of the PIP until there are sufficient data to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of the product in adults, in which case the pediatric clinical trials must be completed at a later date. Products that are granted a marketing authorization with the results of the pediatric clinical trials conducted in accordance with the PIP are eligible for a six month extension of the protection under a supplementary protection certificate (if any is in effect at the time of approval) even where the trial results are negative. In the case of orphan medicinal products, a two year extension of the orphan market exclusivity may be available. This pediatric reward is subject to specific conditions and is not automatically available when data in compliance with the PIP are developed and submitted.

Post-approval controls

Following approval, the holder of the marketing authorization is required to comply with a range of requirements applicable to the manufacturing, marketing, promotion and sale of the medicinal product. These include the following:

45

Brexit and the Regulatory Framework in the United Kingdom

In June 2016, the electorate in the UK voted in favor of leaving the European Union (commonly referred to as “Brexit”). Thereafter, in March 2017, the country formally notified the European Union of its intention to withdraw pursuant to Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. The UK formally left the European Union on January 31, 2020. A transition period began on February 1, 2020, during which European Union pharmaceutical law remained applicable to the UK, however this ended on December 31, 2020. On December 24, 2020, the UK and European Union entered into a Trade and Cooperation Agreement. The agreement sets out certain procedures for approval and recognition of medical products in each jurisdiction. Since the regulatory framework in the UK covering the quality, safety and efficacy of pharmaceutical products, clinical trials, marketing authorization, commercial sales and distribution of pharmaceutical products is derived from EU Directives and Regulations, Brexit could materially impact the future regulatory regime which applies to products and the approval of product candidates in the UK, as the UK legislation now has the potential to diverge from EU legislation. It remains to be seen how Brexit will impact regulatory requirements for product candidates and products in the UK in the long-term. The MHRA has recently published detailed guidance for industry and organizations to follow from January 1, 2021 now the transition period is over, which will be updated as the UK’s regulatory position on medicinal products evolves over time.

Health Reform

In the United States, there have been and continue to be a number of legislative initiatives to contain healthcare costs. For example, in March 2010, the ACA was passed, which substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers, and continues to significantly impact the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. The ACA, among other things, subjects biological products to potential competition by lower-cost biosimilars, addresses a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for drugs that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted or injected, increases the minimum Medicaid rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program extends the rebate program to individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations, establishes annual fees and taxes on manufacturers of certain branded prescription drugs, and creates a new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program, in which manufacturers must agree to offer 70% point-of-sale discounts off negotiated prices of applicable brand drugs to eligible beneficiaries during their coverage gap period, as a condition to coverage under Medicare Part D for the manufacturer’s outpatient drugs.

Since its enactment, there have been judicial, Congressional and executive challenges to certain aspects of the ACA. 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 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 other healthcare reform measures of the Biden administration or other efforts, if any, to challenge, repeal or replace the ACA will impact our business.

Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA was enacted:

46

Moreover, payment methodologies may be subject to changes in healthcare legislation and regulatory initiatives which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare products and services and result in reduced demand for certain pharmaceutical products or additional pricing pressures.

Additionally, there has been increasing legislative and enforcement interest in the United States with respect to specialty drug pricing practices. Specifically, there have been several recent U.S. presidential executive orders, congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, reduce the cost of prescription drugs under Medicare, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs.

At the federal level, President Biden signed an Executive Order on July 9, 2021 affirming the administration’s policy to (i) support legislative reforms that would lower the prices of prescription drug and biologics, including by allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices, by imposing inflation caps, and, by supporting the development and market entry of lower-cost generic drugs and biosimilars; and (ii) support the enactment of a public health insurance option. Among other things, the Executive Order also directs the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, to provide a report on actions to combat excessive pricing of prescription drugs, enhance the domestic drug supply chain, reduce the price that the Federal government pays for drugs, and address price gouging in the industry; and directs the FDA to work with states and Indian Tribes that propose to develop section 804 Importation Programs in accordance with the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, and the FDA’s implementing regulations. FDA released such implementing regulations on September 24, 2020, which went into effect on November 30, 2020, providing guidance for states to build and submit importation plans for drugs from Canada. On September 25, 2020, CMS stated drugs imported by states under this rule will not be eligible for federal rebates under Section 1927 of the Social Security Act and manufacturers would not report these drugs for “best price” or Average Manufacturer Price purposes. Since these drugs are not considered covered outpatient drugs, CMS further stated it will not publish a National Average Drug Acquisition Cost for these drugs. If implemented, importation of drugs from Canada may materially and adversely affect the price we receive for any of our product candidates. Further, on November 20, 2020 CMS issued an Interim Final Rule implementing the Most Favored Nation, or MFN, Model under which Medicare Part B reimbursement rates would have been be calculated for certain drugs and biologicals based on the lowest price drug manufacturers receive in Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries with a similar gross domestic product per capita. However, on December 29, 2021 CMS rescinded the Most Favored Nations rule. Additionally, on November 30, 2020, HHS published a regulation removing safe harbor protection for price reductions from pharmaceutical manufacturers to plan sponsors under Part D, either directly or through pharmacy benefit managers, unless the price reduction is required by law. The rule also creates a new safe harbor for price reductions reflected at the point-of-sale, as well as a safe harbor for certain fixed fee arrangements between pharmacy benefit managers and manufacturers. Pursuant to court order, the removal and addition of the aforementioned safe harbors were delayed and recent legislation imposed a moratorium on implementation of the rule until January 1, 2026. Although a number of these and other proposed measures may require authorization through additional legislation to

47

become effective, and the Biden administration may reverse or otherwise change these measures, both the Biden administration and Congress have indicated that they will continue to seek new legislative measures to control drug costs.

At the state level, legislatures have increasingly passed legislation and implemented 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. 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 our drugs or put pressure on our drug pricing, which could negatively affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Legally mandated price controls on payment amounts by third-party payors or other restrictions could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations 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 our drugs or put pressure on our drug pricing, which could negatively affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Further, it is possible that additional governmental action is taken in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Coverage and Reimbursement

In the United States and markets in other countries, patients who are prescribed treatments for their conditions and providers performing the prescribed services generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the associated healthcare costs. Thus, even if a product candidate is approved, sales of the product will depend, in part, on the extent to which third-party payors, including government health programs in the United States such as Medicare and Medicaid, commercial health insurers and managed care organizations, provide coverage, and establish adequate reimbursement levels for, the product. In the United States, the principal decisions about reimbursement for new medicines are typically made by CMS, an agency within HHS. CMS decides whether and to what extent a new medicine will be covered and reimbursed under Medicare and private payors tend to follow CMS to a substantial degree. No uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for drug products exists among third-party payors. Therefore, coverage and reimbursement for drug products can differ significantly from payor to payor. The process for determining whether a third-party payor will provide coverage for a product may be separate from the process for setting the price or reimbursement rate that the payor will pay for the product once coverage is approved. Third-party payors are increasingly challenging the prices charged, examining the medical necessity, reviewing the cost-effectiveness of medical products and services and imposing controls to manage costs. Coverage and reimbursement by a third-party payor may depend upon several factors, including the third-party payor’s determination that use of a product is:

Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific products on an approved list, also known as a formulary, which might not include all of the approved products for a particular indication.

In order to secure coverage and reimbursement for any product that might be approved for sale, a company may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of the product, which will require additional expenditure above and beyond the costs required to obtain FDA or other comparable regulatory approvals. Additionally, companies may also need to provide discounts to purchasers, private health plans or government healthcare programs. Nonetheless, product candidates may not be considered medically necessary or cost effective. A decision by a third-party payor not to cover a product could reduce physician utilization once the product is approved and have a material adverse effect on sales, our operations and financial condition. Additionally, a third-party payor’s decision to provide coverage for a product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Further, one payor’s determination to provide coverage for a product does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage and reimbursement for the product, and the level of coverage and reimbursement can differ significantly from payor to payor.

The containment of healthcare costs has become a priority of federal, state and foreign governments, and the prices of products have been a focus in this effort. Governments have shown significant interest in implementing cost-containment programs, including price controls, restrictions on 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 a company’s revenue generated from the sale of

48

any approved products. Coverage policies and third-party payor reimbursement rates may change at any time. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for one or more products for which a company or its collaborators receive regulatory approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future.

Other Healthcare Laws and Compliance Requirements

Healthcare providers, physicians, and third-party payors will play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of any products for which we obtain marketing approval. Our business operations and any current or future arrangements with third-party payors, healthcare providers and physicians may expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations that may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we develop, market, sell and distribute any drugs for which we obtain marketing approval. In the United States, these laws include, without limitation, state and federal anti-kickback, false claims, physician transparency, and patient data privacy and security laws and regulations, including but not limited to those described below.

49

The scope and enforcement of each of these laws is uncertain and subject to rapid change in the current environment of healthcare reform. Federal and state enforcement bodies have recently increased their scrutiny of interactions between healthcare companies and healthcare providers, which has led to a number of investigations, prosecutions, convictions and settlements in the healthcare industry. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices do 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 related governmental regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, imprisonment, disgorgement, exclusion from government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, reputational harm, additional oversight and reporting obligations if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or similar settlement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations. If any of the physicians or other healthcare providers or entities with whom we expect to do business are found to not be in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to similar actions, penalties and sanctions. Ensuring business arrangements comply with applicable healthcare laws, as well as responding to possible investigations by government authorities, can be time- and resource-consuming and can divert a company’s attention from its business.

Employees and Human Capital Resources

As of March 15, 2022, we had 65 employees. Of these employees, 49 perform research and development functions. None of our employees are represented by a labor union and we believe we maintain good relations with our employees.

Our human capital resources objectives include, as applicable, identifying, recruiting, retaining, incentivizing and integrating our existing and new employees, advisors and consultants. The principal purposes of our equity and cash incentive plans are to attract, retain and reward personnel through the granting of stock-based and cash-based compensation awards, in order to increase stockholder value and the success of our company by motivating such individuals to perform to the best of their abilities and achieve our objectives.

Legal proceedings

From time to time, we may become involved in litigation or other legal proceedings. We are not currently a party to any litigation or legal proceedings that, in the opinion of our management, are probable to have a material adverse effect on our business. Regardless of outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects because of defense and settlement costs, diversion of management resources and other factors.

Corporate Information

We were incorporated in Delaware in June 2003. On November 30, 2020, the Company changed its name to Candel Therapeutics, Inc. Our principal executive offices are located at 117 Kendrick Street, Suite 450, Needham, Massachusetts 02494. Our telephone number is (617) 916-5445 and our e-mail address is investors@candeltx.com. Our Internet website address is www.candeltx.com. Our Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K, including exhibits, proxy and information statements and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Sections 13(a), 14, and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, are available through the “Investors” portion of our website free of charge as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it to, the Securities and Exchange Commission, or

50

SEC. Information on our website is not part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K or any of our other securities filings unless specifically incorporated herein by reference. In addition, our filings with the SEC may be accessed through the SEC’s Interactive Data Electronic Applications system at www.sec.gov. All statements made in any of our securities filings, including all forward-looking statements or information, are made as of the date of the document in which the statement is included, and we do not assume or undertake any obligation to update any of those statements or documents unless we are required to do so by law.

Our code of conduct, corporate governance guidelines and the charters of our Audit Committee, Compensation Committee and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee are available through the “Corporate Governance” portion of our website.

51

Item 1A. Risk Factors.

Our future operating results could differ materially from the results described in this Annual Report on Form 10-K due to the risks and uncertainties described below. You should consider carefully the following information about risks below in evaluating our business. If any of the following risks actually occur, our business, financial conditions, results of operations and future growth prospects would likely be materially and adversely affected. Additional risks and uncertainties not presently known to us or that we currently deem immaterial also may impair our business operations in these circumstances, the market price of our common stock would likely decline. In addition, we cannot assure investors that our assumptions and expectations will prove to be correct. Important factors could cause our actual results to differ materially from those indicated or implied by forward-looking statements. See “Forward-Looking Statements” for a discussion of some of the forward-looking statements that are qualified by these risk factors. Factors that could cause or contribute to such differences include those factors discussed below.

Risks Related to Our Business, Financial Position and Capital Requirements

We are a biopharmaceutical company with a limited operating history and have not generated any revenue to date from product sales.

Biopharmaceutical product development is a highly speculative undertaking and involves a substantial degree of risk. We were incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware in June 2003. Since inception, we have focused substantially all of our efforts and financial resources on raising capital and developing our initial product candidates. To date, we have financed our operations primarily through the issuance and sale of our convertible preferred stock to outside investors in private equity financings and from the proceeds of the IPO. From our inception through December 31, 2021, we raised an aggregate of $145.2 million of gross proceeds from such transactions. As of December 31, 2021, our cash and cash equivalents were $82.6 million. We have incurred net losses in each year since our inception, and we had an accumulated deficit of $80.3 million as of December 31, 2021. For the years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020, we reported net losses of $36.1 million and $17.7 million, respectively. We have no products approved for commercial sale and therefore have never generated any revenue from product sales, and we do not expect to do so in the foreseeable future. We have not obtained regulatory approvals for any of our product candidates, and even if our clinical development efforts result in positive data, our product candidates may not receive regulatory approval or be successfully introduced and marketed at prices that would permit us to operate profitably. We expect to continue to incur significant expenses and operating losses over the next several years and for the foreseeable future. Our prior losses, combined with expected future losses, have had and will continue to have an adverse effect on our stockholders’ deficit and working capital.

We have incurred significant operating losses since our inception and anticipate that we will incur continued losses for the foreseeable future.

Substantially all of our operating losses have resulted from costs incurred in connection with our research and development programs and from general and administrative costs associated with our operations. We expect our research and development expenses to significantly increase in connection with the commencement and continuation of clinical trials of our product candidates. In addition, if we obtain marketing approval for our product candidates, we will incur significant sales, marketing and manufacturing expenses. We will incur additional costs associated with operating as a public company. As a result, we expect to continue to incur significant and increasing operating losses for the foreseeable future. Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with developing pharmaceutical products, we are unable to predict the extent of any future losses or when we will become profitable, if at all. Even if we do become profitable, we may not be able to sustain or increase our profitability on a quarterly or annual basis.

The amount of our future losses is uncertain, and our quarterly and annual operating results may fluctuate significantly or may fall below the expectations of investors or securities analysts, each of which may cause our stock price to fluctuate or decline.

52

The cumulative effects of these factors could result in large fluctuations and unpredictability in our quarterly and annual operating results. As a result, comparing our operating results on a period-to-period basis may not be meaningful. This variability and unpredictability could also result in our failing to meet the expectations of industry or financial analysts or investors for any period. If our revenue or operating results fall below the expectations of analysts or investors or below any forecasts we may provide to the market, or if the forecasts we provide to the market are below the expectations of analysts or investors, the price of our common stock could decline substantially. Such a stock price decline could occur even when we have met any previously publicly stated guidance we may provide.

We have no products approved for commercial sale and have not generated any revenue from product sales.

Our ability to become profitable depends upon our ability to generate revenue. To date, we have not generated any revenue from our product candidates, and we do not expect to generate any revenue from the sale of products in the near future. We do not expect to generate significant revenue unless and until we obtain marketing approval of, and begin to sell, one or more of our product candidates. Our ability to generate revenue depends on a number of factors, including, but not limited to, our ability to:

If we do not achieve one or more of these factors in a timely manner or at all, we could experience significant delays or an inability to successfully commercialize our product candidates, which would materially harm our business. If we do not receive regulatory approvals for our product candidates, we may not be able to continue our operations.

We will need to raise substantial additional funding. If we are unable to raise capital when needed, we would be forced to delay, reduce or eliminate some of our product development programs or commercialization efforts.

The development of pharmaceutical products is capital-intensive. We are currently advancing our product candidates through clinical development across a number of potential indications. We are currently conducting a Phase 3 clinical trial for CAN-2409 in newly diagnosed localized prostate cancer in intermediate and high-risk patients for which we completed enrollment in September of 2021 and expect to receive final data readout in 2024. Our second program

53

using CAN-2409 is for the treatment of a type of brain cancer called high grade glioma. We intend to initiate a potentially registrational Phase 3 trial in this indication in the middle of 2022. Our third program using CAN-2409 is for the treatment of NSCLC. We have an ongoing Phase 2 trial with initial clinical data expected in the second quarter of 2022, and if the trial is positive, may warrant the initiation of a potentially registrational Phase 3 trial. Consequently, we expect our expenses to significantly increase in connection with our ongoing activities, particularly as we continue our ongoing clinical trials or initiate future trials and pursue the research and development of, and seek marketing approval for, our product candidates. In addition, depending on the status of regulatory approval or, if we obtain marketing approval for any of our product candidates, we expect to incur significant commercialization expenses related to product sales, marketing, manufacturing and distribution. We may also need to raise additional funds sooner if we choose to pursue additional indications and/or geographies for our product candidates or otherwise expand more rapidly than we presently anticipate. Furthermore, we expect to incur additional costs associated with operating as a public company. Accordingly, we will need to obtain substantial additional funding in connection with our continuing operations. If we are unable to raise capital when needed or on attractive terms, we would be forced to delay, reduce or eliminate certain of our research and development programs or future commercialization efforts, and may be unable to expand our operations or otherwise capitalize on our business opportunities, as desired, which could materially affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We expect that our existing cash and cash equivalents will be sufficient to fund our operations into the fourth quarter of 2023. However, our future capital requirements will depend on and could increase significantly as a result of many factors, including:

Identifying potential product candidates and conducting preclinical development testing and clinical trials is a time-consuming, expensive and uncertain process that takes years to complete, and we may never generate the necessary data or results required to obtain marketing approval and achieve product sales. In addition, our product candidates, if approved, may not achieve commercial success. Our commercial revenues, if any, will be derived from sales of products that we do not expect to be commercially available for many years, if at all. Accordingly, we will need to continue to rely on additional financing to achieve our business objectives.

54

Any additional fundraising efforts may divert our management from their day-to-day activities, which may adversely affect our ability to develop and commercialize our product candidates. Disruptions in the financial markets in general, and more recently due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, have made equity and debt financing more difficult to obtain, and may have a material adverse effect on our ability to meet our fundraising needs. We cannot guarantee that future financing will be available in sufficient amounts or on terms acceptable to us, if at all. Moreover, the terms of any financing may adversely affect the holdings or the rights of our stockholders and the issuance of additional securities, whether equity or debt, by us, or the possibility of such issuance, may cause the market price of our shares to decline. The sale of additional equity or convertible securities would dilute all of our stockholders. The incurrence of indebtedness would result in increased fixed payment obligations and we may be required to agree to certain restrictive covenants, such as limitations on our ability to incur additional debt, limitations on our ability to acquire, sell or license intellectual property rights and other operating restrictions that could adversely impact our ability to conduct our business. We could also be required to seek funds through arrangements with collaborators or otherwise at an earlier stage than otherwise would be desirable and we may be required to relinquish rights to some of our technologies or product candidates or otherwise agree to terms unfavorable to us, any of which may have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results and prospects.

If we are unable to obtain funding on a timely basis, we may be required to significantly curtail, delay or discontinue one or more of our research or development programs or the commercialization of any product candidate or be unable to expand our operations or otherwise capitalize on our business opportunities, as desired, which could materially affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We have incurred indebtedness, and we may incur additional indebtedness, which could adversely affect our financial condition.

On February 24, 2022, we entered into a loan and security agreement (the SVB Loan Agreement) with Silicon Valley Bank, as lender (SVB), pursuant to which SVB has agreed to provide term loans to us in an aggregate principal amount of up to $25.0 million. Our indebtedness could have important consequences to our stockholders. For example, it:

Any of the above-listed factors could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows. The SVB Loan Agreement also contains certain covenants, including limitations on, among other things, additional indebtedness, making certain dispositions , paying dividends in certain circumstances, and making certain acquisitions and investments. Any failure to comply with the terms, covenants and conditions of the SVB Loan Agreement may limit our ability to draw upon additional tranches of term loans and may result in an event of default under such agreement, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

Risks Related to Product Development

Our business is dependent on the success of our lead product candidate, CAN-2409, as well as CAN-3110 and any other product candidates that we advance into the clinic. All of our product candidates will require additional development before we may be able to seek regulatory approval for and launch a product commercially.

We currently have no products that are approved for commercial sale and may never be able to develop marketable products. We expect that a substantial portion of our efforts and expenditures over the next several years will be devoted to our CAN-2409 program, which is currently our lead product candidate. We are currently conducting, as part of our most advanced CAN-2409 program, a Phase 3 clinical trial under an SPA for CAN-2409 in patients with newly diagnosed localized prostate cancer who have an intermediate or high-risk for progression. We completed enrollment for this trial in September 2021 and expect to receive a final data readout in 2024. We are also conducting a Phase 2 clinical trial of CAN-2409 in patients with NSCLC in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors. We expect initial clinical data from this trial in the second quarter of 2022. We are also evaluating CAN-2409 in high-grade glioma and intend to initiate a potentially registrational Phase 3 trial in this indication in the middle of 2022. Additionally, we have an ongoing investigator-initiated Phase 1 clinical trial for CAN-3110, our most advanced product candidate from our HSV platform, in our initial target indication of recurrent high-grade glioma and reported additional biomarker results in November of 2021. If CAN-2409 encounters safety or efficacy issues, development delays, regulatory issues or other problems, our development plans and business would be significantly harmed. We can provide no assurance that CAN-2409, CAN-3110 or any other product candidates we develop will receive regulatory approval or be successfully

55

commercialized even if we receive regulatory approval. If we were required to discontinue development of CAN-2409 or CAN-3110, or if CAN-2409 or CAN-3110 do not receive regulatory approval or fail to achieve significant market acceptance, we would be delayed by many years in our ability to achieve profitability, if ever.

Furthermore, even if we obtain regulatory approval for CAN-2409, CAN-3110 or any other product candidates we develop, we will still need to develop a commercial infrastructure, build out our manufacturing capabilities or develop relationships with collaborators to commercialize, establish a commercially viable pricing structure and obtain coverage and adequate reimbursement from third-party payors, including government healthcare programs. If we, or any future collaborators, are unable to successfully commercialize CAN-2409, CAN-3110 or any other product candidates we develop, we may not be able to generate sufficient revenue to continue our business.

Our preclinical studies and clinical trials may fail to demonstrate adequately the safety and efficacy of any of our product candidates, which would prevent or delay development, regulatory approval, and commercialization.

Before obtaining regulatory approvals for the commercial sale of our product candidates, including CAN-2409, CAN-3110 or any other product candidates we develop, we must demonstrate the safety and efficacy of our product candidates for use in each target indication through lengthy, complex, and expensive preclinical studies and clinical trials. Failure can occur at any time during the preclinical study and clinical trial processes and there is a high risk of failure, so we may never succeed in developing marketable products. Any preclinical studies or clinical trials that we may conduct may not demonstrate the safety and efficacy necessary to obtain regulatory approval to market any of our product candidates. If the results of our ongoing or future preclinical studies and clinical trials are inconclusive with respect to the safety and efficacy of our product candidates, if we do not meet the clinical endpoints with statistical and clinically meaningful significance, or if there are safety concerns associated with our product candidates, we may be prevented or delayed in obtaining marketing approval for such product candidates. In some instances, there can be significant variability in safety or efficacy results between different preclinical studies and clinical trials of the same product candidate due to numerous factors, including changes in trial procedures set forth in protocols, differences in the size and type of the patient populations, changes in and adherence to the clinical trial protocols and the rate of dropout among clinical trial participants. While we are currently in Phase 3 clinical trials for CAN-2409 and are in early stages of clinical development for CAN-3110, it is likely, as is the case with many oncology therapies, that there may be side effects associated with their use. Results of our trials could reveal a high and unacceptable severity and prevalence of side effects. In such an event, our trials could be suspended or terminated, and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities could order us to cease further development of or deny approval of our product candidates for any or all targeted indications. Treatment-related side effects could also affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled patients to complete the trial or result in potential product liability claims. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly.

Further, our product candidates have caused undesirable side effects in clinical trials related to on-target toxicity such as fever, chills and muscle aches and other flu-like symptoms that occurred across our trials. Patients recruited in our trials experienced the following grade 3 and grade 4 related side effects. In our prostate cancer Phase 2 clinical trial, one patient presented a grade 3 genitourinary toxicity, and one patient presented with a transient grade 3 ALT elevation without clinical significance. In our high-grade glioma Phase 1b/2 clinical trial, patients experienced the following adverse events: one patient presented with grade 4 hemiparesis and grade 3 worsening of speech impairment; one patient presented with grade 3 insomnia; one patient experienced grade 3 headache; one patient experienced grade 3 wound complications; one patient experienced grade 4 motor-neuropathy symptoms/signs; seven patients experienced grade 3 transient lymphopenia; and three patients experienced grade 3 AST/ALT alterations. In our NSCLC Phase 1 clinical trial, two patients experienced grade 3 dehydration with renal insufficiency, two patients presented grade 3 urinary retention and six patients were observed to have a grade 4 low lymphocyte count. In our pancreatic cancer Phase 1 clinical trial, two patients displayed a grade 3 worsening of abdominal pain and one patient presented grade 3 dehydration with increased creatinine, three patients experienced grade 3 or 4 increased ALT/AST, three patients experienced grade 3 or 4 increased bilirubin, three patients experienced grade 3 or 4 increased lipase and two patients experienced grade 3 or 4 low lymphocyte count. If on-target toxicity is observed at unacceptable levels, or if our product candidates have characteristics that are unexpected, we may need to 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. In addition, our product candidates could cause undesirable side effects that we have not observed yet to date. Many compounds that initially showed promise in early stage testing for treating cancer have later been found to cause side effects that prevented further development of the compound. In addition to our ongoing clinical trials of CAN-2409 and CAN-3110, patients have been, and may continue to be, treated with CAN-2409 and/or CAN-3110 under an expanded access or “compassionate use” program. To the extent the experiences of patients being treated in this program are inconsistent with or less favorable than the results of our ongoing or planned company-sponsored trials with CAN-2409 and/or CAN-3110, it may negatively affect perceptions of CAN-2409 and/or CAN-3110, our other product candidates, or our business. In addition, the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require us to obtain and submit additional clinical data due to these

56

inconsistent or unfavorable results, which could delay clinical development or marketing approval of CAN-2409 and/or CAN-3110 or potentially our other product candidates.

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

From time to time, we may publish interim, top line or preliminary data from our clinical trials. We may decide to conduct an interim analysis of the data after a certain number or percentage of patients have been enrolled, or after only a part of the full follow-up period but before completion of the trial. Similarly, we may report top line or preliminary results of primary and key secondary endpoints before the final trial results are completed. Preliminary, top line and interim data from our clinical trials may change as more patient data or analyses become available. Preliminary, top line or interim data from our clinical trials are not necessarily predictive of final results and are subject to the risk that one or more of the clinical outcomes may materially change as patient enrollment continues, more patient data become available and we issue our final clinical trial report. These data also remain subject to audit and verification procedures that may result in the final data being materially different from the preliminary data we previously published. As a result, preliminary, interim and top line data should be viewed with caution until the final data are available. Material adverse changes in the final data compared to the interim data could significantly harm our business prospects.

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.

If the interim, topline, or preliminary data that we report differ from more complete results, or if others, including regulatory authorities, disagree with the conclusions reached, our ability to obtain marketing authorization for, and commercialize, our product candidates may be harmed, which could harm our business, operating results, prospects or financial condition.

Results of earlier studies and trials of our product candidates may not be predictive of future trial results.

Success in preclinical studies and early clinical trials does not ensure that later clinical trials will be successful. Product candidates in later stages of clinical trials may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy traits despite having progressed through preclinical studies and initial clinical trials. As we commence new clinical trials and continue our ongoing clinical trials, issues may arise that could suspend or terminate such clinical trials. A number of companies in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries have suffered significant setbacks in clinical trials, even after positive results in earlier preclinical studies or clinical trials. These setbacks have been caused by, among other things, preclinical findings made while clinical trials were underway and safety or efficacy observations made in clinical trials, including previously unreported adverse events. Notwithstanding any potential promising results in earlier studies and trials, we cannot be certain that we will not face similar setbacks. In addition, the results of our preclinical animal studies, including our oncology mouse studies and animal studies, may not be predictive of the results of outcomes in human clinical trials. For example, our oncology product candidates that are in preclinical development may demonstrate different chemical and biological properties in patients than they do in laboratory animal studies or may interact with human biological systems in unforeseen or harmful ways.

Additionally, some of past, ongoing and planned clinical trials utilize an “open-label” study design including our NSCLC trial in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors. An “open-label” clinical trial is one where both the patient and investigator know whether the patient is receiving the investigational product candidate or either an existing approved drug or placebo. Most typically, open-label clinical trials test only the investigational product candidate and sometimes may do so at different dose levels. Open-label clinical trials are subject to various limitations that may exaggerate any therapeutic effect, as patients in open-label clinical trials are aware when they are receiving treatment. Open-label clinical trials may be subject to a “patient bias” where patients perceive their symptoms to have improved merely due to their awareness of receiving an experimental treatment. Moreover, patients selected for early clinical studies often include the most severe sufferers and their symptoms may have improved notwithstanding the new treatment. In addition, open-label clinical trials may be subject to an “investigator bias” where those assessing and reviewing the physiological outcomes of the clinical trials are aware of which patients have received treatment and may interpret the information of the treated group more favorably given this knowledge. The results from an open-label trial may not be predictive of future clinical trial results with any of our product candidates for which we include an open-label clinical trials when studied in a controlled environment with a placebo or active control.

57

Our product candidates are based on a novel approach to the treatment of cancer, which makes it difficult to predict the time and cost of product candidate development and subsequently obtaining regulatory approval, if at all.

We have concentrated all of our research and development efforts on our CAN-2409 and CAN-3110 product candidates, and our future success depends on the successful development of these therapeutic approaches. In particular, CAN-2409 utilizes adenoviruses to activate the innate and adaptive immune system. To our knowledge, there are no FDA-approved products for the treatment of cancer that utilize the adenovirus.

We expect the novel nature of our product candidates to create further challenges in obtaining regulatory approval. Few viral immunotherapies have been approved globally or by the FDA to date. While the first viral immunotherapy, talimogene laherparepvec (Imlygic, Amgen), has received FDA approval, regulatory agencies have reviewed relatively few viral immunotherapy product candidates such as CAN-2409 and CAN-3110. This may lengthen the regulatory review process, increase our development costs and delay or prevent commercialization of our product candidates. Further, any viral immunotherapies that are approved may be subject to extensive post-approval regulatory requirements, including requirements pertaining to manufacturing, distribution and promotion. We may need to devote significant time and resources to compliance with these requirements.

The FDA may also require a panel of experts, referred to as an Advisory Committee, to deliberate on the adequacy of the safety and efficacy data to support licensure. The opinion of the Advisory Committee, although not binding, may have a significant impact on our ability to obtain licensure of the product candidates based on the completed clinical trials, as the FDA often adheres to the Advisory Committee’s recommendations. Accordingly, the regulatory approval pathway for our product candidates may be uncertain, complex, expensive and lengthy, and approval may not be obtained.

In addition, our product candidates are live, gene-modified viruses for which the FDA, the EMA and other comparable foreign regulatory authorities and other public health authorities, such as the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention and hospitals involved in clinical studies, have established additional safety and contagion rules and procedures, which could establish additional hurdles for the development, manufacture or use of our vectors. These hurdles may lead to delays in the conduct of clinical trials or in obtaining regulatory approvals for further development, manufacturing or commercialization of our product candidates. We may also experience delays in transferring our process to commercial partners, which may prevent us from completing our clinical trials or commercializing our product candidates on a timely or profitable basis, if at all.

Furthermore, there has been limited historical clinical trial experience for the development of products that utilize the adenovirus. Moreover, the design and conduct of our clinical trials differs from the design and conduct of previously conducted clinical trials in this area. In particular, regulatory authorities in the United States and in other jurisdictions, including Europe, have not issued definitive guidance as to how to measure and demonstrate efficacy in newly diagnosed localized prostate cancer in intermediate- to high-risk patients in combination with the standard of care. As a result, there is substantial risk that the design or outcomes of our clinical trials will not be satisfactory to support marketing approval. For example, the endpoint in our Phase 3 clinical trial with CAN-2409 is a disease-free survival (DFS) endpoint with final results expected 24 months after last patient treated, which has not been utilized in prior trials and may not be accepted by regulators as a basis for approval despite the existence of the SPA. Even if this type of novel endpoint is accepted as a basis for approval in the United States, we cannot be certain that regulators outside of the United States will accept such endpoints or will not require us to conduct additional validation studies to support the suitability of such endpoints for approval in these jurisdictions.

We are developing, and in the future may develop, other product candidates, in combination with other therapies, which exposes us to additional risks related to any prodrugs or any agents used in combination with our product candidates.

Our CAN-2409 product candidate is being developed to be used in combination with the prodrug valacyclovir, which is a small molecule drug marketed for treatment of genital herpes. In the future, we may develop other product candidates to be used with one or more currently approved other therapies. Even if any product candidate we develop were to receive marketing approval or be commercialized for use in combination with other existing therapies, we would continue to be subject to the risks that the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities could revoke approval of the therapy used in combination with our product candidate or that safety, efficacy, manufacturing or supply issues could arise with these existing therapies. Combination therapies are commonly used for the treatment of cancer, and we would be subject to similar risks if we develop any of our product candidates for use in combination with other drugs or for indications other than cancer. This could result in our own products being removed from the market or being less successful commercially.

If the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities revoke their approval of these other drugs or revoke their approval of, or if safety, efficacy, manufacturing or supply issues arise with, the drugs we choose to evaluate in combination with any product candidate we develop, we may be unable to obtain approval.

58

We may also evaluate our future product candidates in combination with one or more other cancer therapies that have not yet been approved for marketing by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. We will not be able to market any product candidate we develop in combination with any such unapproved cancer therapies that do not ultimately obtain marketing approval. In addition, unapproved therapies face the same risks described with respect to our product candidates currently in development and clinical trials, including the potential for serious adverse effects, delays in their clinical trials and lack of FDA approval.

Negative developments in the field of immuno-oncology and, in particular, oncolytic viral immunotherapy, could damage public perception of any of our product candidates and negatively affect our business.

The commercial success of adenovirus- or oHSV-based product candidates will depend in part on public acceptance of the use of immuno-oncology, and, in particular, oncolytic viral immunotherapy. Adverse events in clinical trials of CAN-2409, CAN-3110 or any other adenovirus- or oHSV-based product candidates which we may develop, or in clinical trials of others developing similar products and the resulting publicity, as well as any other negative developments in the field of immuno-oncology that may occur in the future, including in connection with competitor therapies, could result in a decrease in demand for any adenovirus- or oHSV-based product candidates that we may develop. These events could also result in the suspension, discontinuation, or clinical hold of or modification to our clinical trials. If public perception is influenced by claims that the use of oncolytic immunotherapies is unsafe, whether related to our therapies or those of our competitors, our product candidates may not be accepted by the general public or the medical community and potential clinical trial subjects may be discouraged from enrolling in our clinical trials. In addition, responses by national or state governments to negative public perception may result in new legislation or regulations that could limit our ability to develop or commercialize any product candidates, obtain or maintain regulatory approval or otherwise achieve profitability. More restrictive statutory regimes, government regulations or negative public opinion would have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, prospects and results of operations and may delay or impair the development and commercialization of our product candidates or demand for any products we may develop. As a result, we may not be able to continue or may be delayed in conducting our development programs.

Our product candidates consist of modified viruses. Adverse developments in clinical trials of other immunotherapy products based on viruses, like oncolytic viruses, may result in a disproportionately negative effect for our technologies as compared to other products in the field of infectious disease and immuno-oncology that are not based on viruses. Future negative developments in the biopharmaceutical industry could also result in greater governmental regulation, stricter labeling requirements and potential regulatory delays in the testing or approvals of our products. Any increased scrutiny could delay or increase the costs of obtaining marketing approval for our product candidates.

Difficulty in enrolling patients could delay or prevent clinical trials of our product candidates, and ultimately delay or prevent regulatory approval.

Identifying and qualifying patients to participate in clinical trials of our product candidates is critical to our success. The timing of completion of our clinical trials depends in part on the speed at which we can recruit patients to participate in testing our product candidates, and we may experience delays in our clinical trials if we encounter difficulties in enrollment. 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 as required by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, or as needed to provide appropriate statistical power for a given trial. In particular, because we are focused on patients with brain cancer for the development of CAN-2409 and CAN-3110 our ability to enroll eligible patients may be limited or enrollment may be slower than we anticipate due to the small eligible patient population. In addition, our ability to enroll patients may be significantly delayed by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and we are unable to predict the full extent and scope of such delays.

In addition to the potentially small target populations for our planned clinical trials, particularly in brain cancer, the eligibility criteria will further limit the pool of available trial participants as we will require that patients have specific characteristics, such as a certain severity or stage of disease progression, to include them in a trial. Additionally, the process of finding eligible patients may prove costly. We also may not be able to identify, recruit, and enroll a sufficient number of patients to complete our clinical trials because of the perceived risks and benefits of the product candidate under evaluation, the availability and efficacy of competing therapies and clinical trials, the proximity and availability of clinical trial sites for prospective patients, the availability of genetic sequencing information for patient tumors so that we can identify patients with the targeted genetic mutations, and the patient referral practices of physicians. If patients are unwilling to participate in our studies for any reason, the timeline for recruiting patients, conducting studies, and obtaining regulatory approval of potential products may be delayed.

The enrollment of patients further depends on many factors, including:

59

In addition, our clinical trials will compete with other clinical trials for product candidates that are in the same therapeutic areas as our product candidates, and this competition will reduce the number and types of patients available to us because some patients who might have opted to enroll in our clinical trials may instead opt to enroll in a clinical trial being conducted by one of our competitors. Since the number of qualified clinical investigators is limited, we expect to conduct some of our clinical trials at the same clinical trial sites that some of our competitors use, which will reduce the number of patients who are available for our clinical trials at such clinical trial sites. Moreover, because certain of our product candidates represent a departure from more commonly used methods for cancer treatment and because certain of our product candidates have not been tested in humans before, potential patients and their doctors may be inclined to use conventional therapies, such as chemotherapy, rather than enroll patients in any future clinical trial of our product candidates.

If we experience delays in the completion of, or termination of, any clinical trial of our product candidates, the commercial prospects of our product candidates will be harmed, and our ability to generate product revenue from any of these product candidates could be delayed or prevented.

Even if we receive marketing approval for our current or future product candidates, our current or future product candidates may not achieve broad market acceptance, which would limit the revenue that we generate from their sales.

The commercial success of our current or future product candidates, if approved by the FDA or other applicable regulatory authorities, will depend upon the awareness and acceptance of our current or future product candidates among the medical community, including physicians, patients and healthcare payors. Market acceptance of our current or future product candidates, if approved, will depend on a number of factors, including, among others:

If our current or future product candidates are approved but do not achieve an adequate level of acceptance by patients, physicians and payors, we may not generate sufficient revenue from our current or future product candidates to become or remain profitable. Before granting reimbursement approval, healthcare payors may require us to demonstrate that our current or future product candidates, in addition to treating these target indications, also provide

60

incremental health benefits to patients. Our efforts to educate the medical community, patient organizations and third-party payors about the benefits of our current or future product candidates may require significant resources and may never be successful.

We face substantial competition, which may result in others discovering, developing or commercializing product candidates before or more successfully than we do.

The development and commercialization of new product candidates is highly competitive. We face competition from major pharmaceutical, specialty pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies among others with respect to CAN-2409 and CAN-3110 and will face similar competition with respect to any product candidates that we may seek to develop or commercialize in the future. We compete in pharmaceutical, biotechnology and other related markets that develop immune-oncology therapies for the treatment of cancer. There are other companies working to develop viral immunotherapies for the treatment of cancer including divisions of large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies of various sizes. The large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies that have commercialized and/or are developing immuno-oncology treatments for cancer include AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead Sciences, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer and Roche/Genentech.

Some of the products and therapies developed by our competitors are based on scientific approaches that are the same as or similar to our approach, including with respect to the use of viral immunotherapy with adenovirus and HSV. Other competitive products and therapies are based on entirely different approaches. We are aware that Oncorus, Replimune, Amgen, Immavir, Fergene and IconOVir, among others, are developing viral immunotherapies that may have utility for the treatment of indications that we are targeting. Potential competitors also include academic institutions, government agencies and other public and private research organizations that conduct research, seek patent protection and establish collaborative arrangements for research, development, manufacturing and commercialization.

Many of the companies we compete against or may compete against in the future have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals and marketing approved drugs than we do. Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries may result in concentration of even more resources among a smaller number of our competitors. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel, in establishing clinical trial sites and enrolling subjects for our clinical trials and in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs.

We could see a reduction or elimination of our commercial opportunity if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, or are more convenient or are less expensive than any products that we or our collaborators may develop. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or foreign regulatory approval for their products more rapidly 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. The key competitive factors affecting the success of all our product candidates, if approved, are likely to be their efficacy, safety, convenience and price, if required, the level of biosimilar or generic competition and the availability of reimbursement from government and other third-party payors.

Risks Related to Government Regulation and Commercialization of Our Product Candidates

The regulatory approval processes of the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities are lengthy, time-consuming and inherently unpredictable. If we are not able to obtain, or experience delays in obtaining, required regulatory approvals, we will not be able to commercialize CAN-2409, CAN-3110 and future product candidates as expected, and our ability to generate revenue may be materially impaired.

The time required to obtain approval by the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities is unpredictable but typically takes many years following the commencement of clinical trials and depends upon numerous factors, including the substantial discretion of the regulatory authorities. In addition, approval policies, regulations, or the type and amount of clinical data necessary to gain approval may change during the course of a product candidate’s clinical development and may vary among jurisdictions. These regulatory requirements may require us to amend our clinical trial protocols, including to comply with the protocols of any applicable SPA we receive from the FDA; conduct additional preclinical studies or clinical trials that may require regulatory or independent institutional review board, or IRB, approval; or otherwise cause delays in obtaining approval or rejection of an application. Any delay in obtaining or failure to obtain required approvals could materially adversely affect our ability to generate revenue from the particular product candidate, which may materially harm our business, financial condition, results of operations, stock price and prospects.

Regulatory authorities have substantial discretion in the approval process and may refuse to accept any application or may decide that our data are insufficient for approval and require additional preclinical, clinical or other studies. In addition, varying interpretations of the data obtained from preclinical and clinical testing could delay, limit or prevent marketing approval of a product candidate. The number and types of preclinical studies and clinical trials that will be required for regulatory approval also varies depending on the product candidate, the disease or condition that the

61

product candidate is designed to address, and the regulations applicable to any particular product candidate. Approval policies, regulations or the type and amount of clinical data necessary to gain approval may change during the course of a product candidate’s clinical development and may vary among jurisdictions, and there may be varying interpretations of data obtained from preclinical studies or clinical trials, any of which may cause delays or limitations in the approval or a decision not to approve an application. It is possible that CAN-2409, CAN-3110 and future product candidates will never obtain the appropriate regulatory approvals necessary for us to commence product sales.

If we experience delays in obtaining approval, if we fail to obtain regulatory approval of CAN-2409, CAN-3110 or any future product candidate or if the label for a product candidate does not include the labeling claims necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of that product candidate, the commercial prospects for such product candidate may be harmed and our ability to generate revenues from that product candidate may be materially impaired.

CAN-2409, CAN-3110 or future product candidates may cause undesirable side effects or have other properties that could delay or prevent their regulatory approval, limit the commercial profile of an approved label, or result in significant negative consequences following marketing approval, if any. Serious adverse events or undesirable side effects caused by CAN-2409, CAN-3110 and future product candidates could cause us, IRBs, and other reviewing entities or regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay, or halt clinical trials and could result in a more restrictive label or the delay or denial of regulatory approval by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. For example, if concerns are raised regarding the safety of a new therapeutic as a result of undesirable side effects identified during clinical or preclinical testing, the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authority may order us to cease further development, decline to approve the product candidate or issue a letter requesting additional data or information prior to making a final decision regarding whether or not to approve the product candidate. The FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, or IRBs and other reviewing entities, may also require, or we may voluntarily develop, strategies for managing adverse events during clinical development, which could include restrictions on our enrollment criteria, the use of stopping criteria, adjustments to a study’s design, or the monitoring of safety data by a data monitoring committee, among other strategies. For example, patients enrolled in our ongoing clinical trials of CAN-2409 and CAN-3110 have experienced mild to moderate adverse events, consisting mainly of flu-like symptoms and injection site reactions. In response to these adverse events, we have implemented prophylactic measures, including intravenous fluids, antiemetics and antipyretics. The FDA’s or a comparable foreign regulatory authority’s requests for additional data or information could also result in substantial delays in the approval of CAN-2409, CAN-3110 and future product candidates.

Further, clinical trials by their nature utilize a sample of the potential patient population. With a limited number of patients and limited duration of exposure, rare and severe side effects of a product candidate may only be uncovered when a significantly larger number of patients are exposed to the product candidate or when patients are exposed for a longer period of time.

Undesirable side effects caused by CAN-2409, CAN-3110 or any future product candidates could also result in denial of regulatory approval by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities for any or all targeted indications or the inclusion of unfavorable information in our product labeling, such as limitations on the indicated uses for which the products may be marketed or distributed, a label with significant safety warnings, including boxed warnings, contraindications, and precautions, a label without statements necessary or desirable for successful commercialization, or may result in requirements for costly post-marketing testing and surveillance, or other requirements, including the submission of a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy or REMS, to monitor the safety or efficacy of the products, and in turn prevent us from commercializing and generating revenues from the sale of CAN-2409, CAN-3110 and future product candidates. Any such limitations or restrictions could similarly impact any supplemental marketing approvals we may obtain for CAN-2409 and CAN-3110. Undesirable side effects may limit the potential market for any approved products or could result in restrictions on manufacturing processes, the discontinuation of the sales and marketing of the product, or withdrawal of product approvals. We could also be sued and held liable for harm caused to patients, or become subject to fines, injunctions or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties.

If CAN-2409, CAN-3110 and future product candidates are associated with serious adverse events or undesirable side effects or have properties that are unexpected, we may need to abandon development or limit development of that product candidate to certain 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. The therapeutic-related side effects could affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled patients to complete the trial or result in potential product liability claims. Any of these occurrences may materially harm our business, financial condition, results of operations, stock price and prospects.

The FDA’s agreement to a Special Protocol Assessment with respect to the study design of our Phase 3 clinical trial of CAN-2409 in newly diagnosed localized prostate cancer in intermediate and high risk patients does not guarantee any particular outcome from regulatory review, including ultimate approval, and may not lead to a successful review or approval process.

62

We have obtained agreement from the FDA on the design and size of our Phase 3 clinical trial of CAN-2409 in newly diagnosed localized prostate cancer in intermediate- and high-risk patients in combination with the standard of care through an SPA. The FDA’s SPA process is designed to facilitate the FDA’s review and approval of drugs and biologics by allowing the FDA to evaluate the proposed design and size of certain clinical or animal studies, including clinical trials that are intended to form the primary basis for determining a product candidate’s efficacy. Upon specific request by a clinical trial sponsor, the FDA will evaluate the protocol and respond to a sponsor’s questions regarding protocol design and scientific and regulatory requirements. The FDA aims to complete SPA reviews within 45 days of receipt of the request. The FDA ultimately assesses whether specific elements of the protocol design of the trial, such as entry criteria, dose selection, endpoints and/or planned analyses, are acceptable to support regulatory approval of the product with respect to the effectiveness of the indication studied. All exchanges between the FDA and the sponsor regarding an SPA must be clearly documented in an SPA letter or the minutes of a meeting between the sponsor and the FDA.

Although the FDA may agree to an SPA, an SPA agreement does not guarantee approval of a product. Even if the FDA agrees to the design, execution, and analysis proposed in protocols reviewed under the SPA process, the FDA may revoke or alter its agreement in certain circumstances. In particular, an SPA agreement is not binding on the FDA if public health concerns emerge that were unrecognized at the time of the SPA agreement, other new scientific concerns regarding product safety or efficacy arise, the sponsor company fails to comply with the agreed upon trial protocols, or the relevant data, assumptions or information provided by the sponsor in a request for the SPA change or are found to be false or omit relevant facts. While we have obtained an SPA agreement for our Phase 3 clinical trial, we have subsequently made minor amendments to the protocol and have not obtained an SPA amendment in connection with the amended protocol.

In addition, even after an SPA agreement is finalized, the SPA agreement may be modified, and such modification will be deemed binding on the FDA review division, except under the circumstances described above, if the FDA and the sponsor agree in writing to modify the protocol. Generally, such modification is intended to improve the study. The FDA retains significant latitude and discretion in interpreting the terms of the SPA agreement and the data and results from any study that is the subject of the SPA agreement.

Moreover, if the FDA revokes or alters its agreement under the SPA, or interprets the data collected from the clinical trial differently than we do, the FDA may not deem the data sufficient to support an application for regulatory approval of CAN-2409 in prostate cancer.

We have obtained orphan drug designation for CAN-2409 for use in combination with an anti-herpectic prodrug for treatment of malignant brain tumors; however, we may be unable to maintain this designation or obtain orphan drug designation for our other product candidates, and we may not be able to realize the benefits of such designation, including potential marketing exclusivity of our product candidates, if approved.

As part of our business strategy, we sought and have received orphan drug designation for CAN-2409 for use in combination with an anti-herpectic prodrug for treatment of malignant brain tumors; however, we may not be able to maintain this status. We may also seek additional orphan drug designations for CAN-2409 and for certain of our future product candidates, and we may be unsuccessful in obtaining such designations. Regulatory authorities in some jurisdictions, including the United States and other major markets, may designate drugs and biologics intended to treat conditions or diseases affecting relatively small patient populations as orphan drugs. Under the Orphan Drug Act of 1983, the FDA may designate a product candidate as an orphan drug if it is intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally defined as having a patient population of fewer than 200,000 individuals annually in the United States, or a patient population greater than 200,000 in the United States where there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing the drug will be recovered from sales in the United States. Orphan drug designation entitles a party to financial incentives such as opportunities for grant funding towards clinical trial costs, tax advantages and user-fee waivers.

Similarly, in Europe, the European Commission grants orphan drug designation after receiving the opinion of the EMA Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products on an orphan drug designation application. Orphan drug designation is intended to promote the development of drugs that are intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of life-threatening or chronically debilitating conditions affecting not more than 5 in 10,000 persons in Europe and for which no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention, or treatment has been authorized (or the product would be a significant benefit to those affected). Additionally, designation is granted for drugs intended for the diagnosis, prevention, or treatment of a life-threatening, seriously debilitating or serious and chronic condition and when, without incentives, it is unlikely that sales of the drug in Europe would be sufficient to justify the necessary investment in developing the drug. In Europe, orphan drug designation entitles a party to a number of incentives, such as protocol assistance and scientific advice specifically for designated orphan medicines, and potential fee reductions depending on the status of the sponsor.

63

Generally, if a product candidate with an orphan drug designation receives the first marketing approval for the indication for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to a period of marketing exclusivity, which precludes the FDA or EMA from approving another marketing application for a product that constitutes the same drug treating the same indication for that marketing exclusivity period, except in limited circumstances. The applicable period is seven years in the United States and ten years in Europe. The European exclusivity period can be reduced to six years if a drug or biologic no longer meets the criteria for orphan drug designation or if the drug or biologic is sufficiently profitable such that market exclusivity is no longer justified. Orphan drug exclusivity may be revoked if any regulatory agency determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient quantity of the product to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition.

Even though we have obtained orphan drug designation for CAN-2409 for use in combination with an anti-herpectic prodrug for treatment of malignant brain tumors, and even if we are able to obtain orphan drug exclusivity for a future product candidate, that exclusivity may not effectively protect the relevant product candidate from competition because different therapies can be approved for the same condition and the same therapies can be approved for different conditions but used off-label for the orphan disease. Even after an orphan drug is approved, the FDA may subsequently approve another product for the same condition if the FDA concludes that the latter product is not the same product or is clinically superior to the protected orphan drug because it is shown to be safer or more effective, or makes a major contribution to patient care. In addition, a designated orphan drug may not receive orphan drug exclusivity if it is approved for a use that is broader than the orphan indication for which it was designated. Moreover, orphan drug exclusive marketing rights in the United States may be lost if the FDA later determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient quantity of the drug to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition. Orphan drug designation neither shortens the development time or regulatory review time of a drug nor gives the drug any advantage in the regulatory review or approval process. While we have obtained orphan drug designation for CAN-2409 for use in combination with an anti-herpectic prodrug for treatment of malignant brain tumors, we may not be able to maintain such designation; and while we may seek orphan drug designation for applicable indications for any future product candidates, we may never receive such designations. Even though we have received such designation for CAN-2409, and may receive further such designations in the future, there is no guarantee that we will enjoy the benefits of those designations. In addition, the FDA may reevaluate the Orphan Drug Act and its regulations and policies. We do not know if, when, or how the FDA may change the orphan drug regulations and policies in the future, and it is uncertain how any changes might affect our business. Depending on what changes the FDA may make to its orphan drug regulations and policies, our business could be adversely impacted.

A Fast Track designation by the FDA, even though granted for CAN-2409, or if received for any other future product candidates, may not lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process, and does not increase the likelihood that our product candidates will receive marketing approval.

If a drug or biologic is intended for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening condition and the product demonstrates the potential to address unmet medical needs for this condition, the product sponsor may apply for FDA Fast Track designation for a particular indication. We have been granted Fast Track designation for the use of CAN-2409 for the treatment of localized, primary prostate cancer in combination with radiation therapy to improve the local control rate, as well as for CAN-2409 in combination with standard of care surgery and chemoradiation to improve survival in adults with newly diagnosed high grade glioma decrease recurrence and improve disease-free survival and may seek Fast Track designation for CAN-3110 or certain of our future product candidates. However, there is no assurance that the FDA will grant this status to CAN-3110 or any of our proposed product candidates. Marketing applications filed by sponsors of products in Fast Track development may qualify for priority review under the policies and procedures offered by the FDA, but the Fast Track designation does not assure any such qualification or ultimate marketing approval by the FDA. The FDA has broad discretion whether or not to grant Fast Track designation, so even if we believe a particular product candidate is eligible for this designation, there can be no assurance that the FDA would decide to grant it. Even though we have received Fast Track designation for CAN-2409 or if we do receive Fast Track designation for CAN-3110 or any other of our future product candidates, we may not experience a faster development process, review or approval compared to conventional FDA procedures, and receiving a Fast Track designation does not provide assurance of ultimate FDA approval. In addition, the FDA may withdraw Fast Track designation if it believes that the designation is no longer supported by data from our clinical development program. In addition, the FDA may withdraw any Fast Track designation at any time.

A Breakthrough Therapy designation by the FDA, even if granted for any of our product candidates, may not lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process and it does not increase the likelihood that our product candidates will receive marketing approval.

We may seek Breakthrough Therapy designation for some or all of our future product candidates. A Breakthrough Therapy is defined as a drug or biologic that is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs or biologics, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug or biologic may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints. Sponsors of product candidates that have been designated as Breakthrough Therapies are eligible to

64

receive more intensive FDA guidance on developing an efficient drug development program, an organizational commitment involving senior managers, and eligibility for rolling review and priority review. Drugs and biologics designated as Breakthrough Therapies by the FDA may also be eligible for other expedited approval programs, including accelerated approval.

Designation as a Breakthrough Therapy is within the discretion of the FDA. Accordingly, even if we believe one of our product candidates meets the criteria for designation as a Breakthrough Therapy, the FDA may disagree and instead determine not to make such designation. In any event, the receipt of a Breakthrough Therapy designation for a product candidate may not result in a faster development process, review or approval compared to product candidates developed and considered for approval that have not received Breakthrough Designation and does not assure ultimate approval by the FDA. In addition, even if one or more of our product candidates qualify as Breakthrough Therapies, the FDA may later decide that the product no longer meets the conditions for qualification. Thus, even though we may seek Breakthrough Therapy designation for CAN-2409, CAN-3110 or some or all of our future product candidates for the treatment of various cancers, there can be no assurance that we will receive breakthrough therapy designation.

Accelerated approval by the FDA, even if granted for certain of our current or future product candidates, may not lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process and it does not increase the likelihood that our product candidates will receive marketing approval.

We may seek approval of certain of our current or future product candidates using the FDA’s accelerated approval pathway. A product may be eligible for accelerated approval if it treats a serious or life-threatening condition, generally provides a meaningful advantage over available therapies, and demonstrates an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. As a condition of approval, the FDA may require that a sponsor of a product receiving accelerated approval perform adequate and well-controlled post-marketing clinical trials. These confirmatory trials must be completed with due diligence by the sponsor. 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. Even if we do receive accelerated approval, we may not experience a faster development or regulatory review or approval process, and receiving accelerated approval does not provide assurance of ultimate full FDA approval.

Even if our development efforts are successful, we may not obtain regulatory approval of CAN-2409, CAN-3110 or any future product candidates in the United States or other jurisdictions, which would prevent us from commercializing CAN-2409, CAN-3110 and future product candidates. Even if we obtain regulatory approval for CAN-2409, CAN-3110 and future product candidates, any such approval may be subject to limitations, including with respect to the approved indications or patient populations, which could impair our ability to successfully commercialize CAN-2409, CAN-3110 or any future product candidates.

We are not permitted to market or promote or sell CAN-2409, CAN-3110 or any future product candidates before we receive regulatory approval from the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, and we may never receive such regulatory approval. Securing marketing approval requires the submission of extensive preclinical and clinical data and supporting information to regulatory authorities for each therapeutic indication to establish the product candidate’s safety and efficacy for that indication. Securing marketing approval also requires the submission of information about the product manufacturing process to, and inspection of manufacturing facilities and clinical trial sites by, the regulatory authorities. If we do not receive approval from the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities for any of CAN-2409, CAN-3110 and future product candidates, we will not be able to commercialize such product candidates in the United States or in other jurisdictions. If significant delays in obtaining approval for and commercializing CAN-2409, CAN-3110 and future product candidates occur in any jurisdictions, our business, financial condition, results of operations, stock price and prospects will be materially harmed. Even if CAN-2409, CAN-3110 and future product candidates are approved, they may:

We have not previously submitted a Biologics License Application, or BLA, to the FDA, or a similar marketing application to comparable foreign regulatory authorities, for CAN-2409, CAN-3110 or any product candidate, and we can provide no assurance that we will ultimately be successful in obtaining regulatory approval for claims that are necessary or desirable for successful marketing, if at all.

Changes in product candidate manufacturing or formulation may result in additional costs or delay.

As product candidates are developed through preclinical studies to later-stage clinical trials towards approval and commercialization, it is common that various aspects of the development program, such as manufacturing methods and formulation, are altered along the way in an effort to optimize processes and results. Any of these changes could cause

65

CAN-2409, CAN-3110 or any future product candidates to perform differently and affect the results of planned clinical trials or other future clinical trials conducted with the altered materials. Changes in third-party manufacturers and manufacturing processes may also require additional testing, or notification to, or approval by the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority. Such changes could be further delayed due to development of clinical scale manufacturing operations in our new facility and commercial scale manufacturing at third-party manufacturers. This could delay completion of clinical trials, require the conduct of bridging clinical trials or studies, require the repetition of one or more clinical trials, increase clinical trial costs, delay approval of CAN-2409, CAN-3110 and future product candidates and jeopardize our ability to commence product sales and generate revenue.

Inadequate funding for the FDA, the SEC and other government agencies could hinder their ability to hire and retain key leadership and other personnel, prevent new products and services from being developed or commercialized in a timely manner or otherwise prevent those agencies from performing normal business functions on which the operation of our business may rely, which could negatively impact our business.

The ability of the FDA to review and approve new products can be affected by a variety of factors, including government budget and funding levels, ability to hire and retain key personnel and accept the payment of user fees, and statutory, regulatory, and policy changes. Average review times at the agency have fluctuated in recent years as a result. In addition, government funding of the SEC and other government agencies on which our operations may rely, including those that fund research and development activities, is subject to the political process, which is inherently fluid and unpredictable.

Disruptions at the FDA and other agencies may also slow the time necessary for new product candidates 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 and the SEC, have had to furlough critical FDA, SEC and other government employees and stop critical activities. If a prolonged government shutdown occurs, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. Further, future government shutdowns could impact our ability to access the public markets and obtain necessary capital in order to properly capitalize and continue our operations.

Separately, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, since March, 2020 when foreign and domestic inspections of facilities were largely placed on hold, the FDA has been working to resume routine surveillance, bioresearch monitoring and pre-approval inspections on a prioritized basis. Since April 2021, the FDA has conducted limited inspections and employed remote interactive evaluations, using risk management methods, to meet user fee commitments and goal dates. Ongoing travel restrictions and other uncertainties continue to impact oversight operations both domestic and abroad and it is unclear when standard operational levels will resume. The FDA is continuing to complete mission-critical work, prioritize other higher-tiered inspectional needs (e.g., for-cause inspections), and carry out surveillance inspections using risk-based approaches for evaluating public health. Additionally, as of May 26, 2021, the FDA noted it was continuing to ensure timely reviews of applications for medical products during the COVID-19 pandemic in line with its user fee performance goals and conducting mission critical domestic and foreign inspections to ensure compliance of manufacturing facilities with FDA quality standards. However, the FDA may not be able to continue its current pace and approval timelines could be extended, including where a pre-approval inspection or an inspection of clinical sites is required, and due to the COVID-19 pandemic and related travel restrictions FDA is unable to complete such required inspections during the review period. Should FDA determine that an inspection is necessary for approval and an inspection cannot be completed during the review cycle due to restrictions on travel, and the FDA does not determine a remote interactive evaluation to be adequate, the agency has stated that it generally intends to issue, depending on the circumstances, a complete response letter or defer action on the application until an inspection can be completed. During the COVID-19 public health emergency, a number of companies announced receipt of complete response letters due to the FDA’s inability to complete required inspections for their applications. Regulatory authorities outside the United States may adopt similar restrictions or other policy measures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and may experience delays in their regulatory activities. If a prolonged government shutdown or other disruption occurs, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. Future shutdowns or other disruptions could also affect other government agencies such as the SEC, which may also impact our business by delaying review of our public filings, to the extent such review is necessary, and our ability to access the public markets.

Even if CAN-2409, CAN-3110 or any future product candidates receive regulatory approval, we will be subject to ongoing obligations and continued regulatory review, which may result in significant additional expense and limit how we manufacture and market our products.

Any product candidate for which we may obtain marketing approval will be subject to extensive and ongoing requirements of and review by the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities, including requirements related to the manufacturing processes, post-approval clinical data, labeling, packaging, distribution, adverse event reporting, storage, recordkeeping, export, import, advertising, marketing, and promotional activities for such product. These requirements further include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information, including manufacturing

66

deviations and reports, registration and listing requirements, the payment of annual fees, continued compliance with current good manufacturing practice, or cGMP, requirements relating to manufacturing, quality control, quality assurance, and corresponding maintenance of records and documents, and good clinical practices, or GCPs, for any clinical trials that we conduct post-approval.

The FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities will continue to closely monitor the safety profile of any product even after approval. If the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities become aware of new safety information after approval of any of CAN-2409, CAN-3110 and future product candidates, they may withdraw approval, issue public safety alerts, require labeling changes or establishment of a REMS or similar strategy, impose significant restrictions on a product’s indicated uses or marketing, or impose ongoing requirements for potentially costly post-approval studies or post-market surveillance. Any such restrictions could limit sales of the product.

We and any of our suppliers or collaborators, including our CMOs, could be subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA to monitor and ensure compliance with cGMPs and other FDA regulatory requirements. Manufacturers and manufacturers’ facilities are required to comply with extensive FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authority requirements, including ensuring that quality control and manufacturing procedures conform to cGMP regulations and applicable product tracking and tracing requirements. Application holders must further notify the FDA, and depending on the nature of the change, obtain FDA pre-approval for product and manufacturing changes.

In addition, later discovery of previously unknown adverse events or that the product is less effective than previously thought or other problems with any products, manufacturers or manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements both before and after approval, may yield various negative results, including:

Any of these events could prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of any particular product or could substantially increase the costs and expenses of commercializing such product, which in turn could delay or prevent us from generating significant revenues from its marketing and sale. Any of these events could further have other material and adverse effects on our operations and business and could adversely impact our business, financial condition, results of operations, stock price and prospects.

67

Further, the FDA’s policies or those of comparable foreign regulatory authorities may change and could impose extensive and ongoing regulatory requirements and obligations on any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval. 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 lose any marketing approval that we may have obtained and be subject to regulatory enforcement action, which would adversely affect our business, prospects and ability to achieve or sustain profitability.

Regulatory approval by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities is limited to those specific indications and conditions for which approval has been granted, and we may be subject to substantial fines, criminal penalties, injunctions or other enforcement actions if we are determined to be promoting the use of our products for unapproved or “off-label” uses, or in a manner inconsistent with the approved labeling, resulting in damage to our reputation and business.

We must comply with requirements concerning advertising and promotion for any product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. Promotional communications with respect to therapeutics are subject to a variety of legal and regulatory restrictions and continuing review by the FDA, Department of Justice, HHS's Office of Inspector General, state attorneys general, members of Congress and the public. When the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities issue regulatory approval for a product candidate, the regulatory approval is limited to those specific uses and indications for which a product is approved. If we are not able to obtain FDA approval for desired uses or indications for CAN-2409, CAN-3110 and future product candidates, we may not market or promote them for those indications and uses, referred to as off-label uses, and our business, financial condition, results of operations, stock price and prospects will be materially harmed. We also must sufficiently substantiate any claims that we make for any products, including claims comparing those products to other companies’ products, and must abide by the FDA’s strict requirements regarding the content of promotion and advertising.

Physicians may choose to prescribe products 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. Regulatory authorities in the United States generally do not restrict or regulate the behavior of physicians in their choice of treatment within the practice of medicine. Regulatory authorities do, however, restrict communications by biopharmaceutical companies concerning off-label use.

If we are found to have impermissibly promoted any of CAN-2409, CAN-3110 and future product candidates, we may become subject to significant liability and government fines. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations regarding product promotion, particularly those prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted a product may be subject to significant sanctions. The federal government has levied large civil and criminal fines against companies for alleged improper promotion 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. In the United States, engaging in the impermissible promotion of any products, following approval, for off-label uses can also subject us to false claims and other litigation under federal and state statutes. These include fraud and abuse and consumer protection laws, which can lead to civil and criminal penalties and fines, agreements with governmental authorities that materially restrict the manner in which we promote or distribute therapeutic products and conduct our business. These restrictions could include corporate integrity agreements, suspension or exclusion from participation in federal and state healthcare programs, and suspension and debarment from government contracts and refusal of orders under existing government contracts. These False Claims Act lawsuits against manufacturers of drugs and biologics have increased significantly in volume and breadth, leading to several substantial civil and criminal settlements pertaining to certain sales practices and promoting off-label uses. In addition, False Claims Act lawsuits may expose manufacturers to follow-on claims by private payers based on fraudulent marketing practices. This growth in litigation has increased the risk that a biopharmaceutical company will have to defend a false claim action, pay settlement fines or restitution, as well as criminal and civil penalties, agree to comply with burdensome reporting and compliance obligations, and be excluded from Medicare, Medicaid, or other federal and state healthcare programs. If we do not lawfully promote our approved products, if any, we may become subject to such litigation and, if we do not successfully defend against such actions, those actions may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, stock price and prospects.

In the United States, the promotion of biopharmaceutical products is subject to additional FDA requirements and restrictions on promotional statements. If, after CAN-2409, CAN-3110 or any future product candidates obtains marketing approval, the FDA determines that our promotional activities violate its regulations and policies pertaining to product promotion, it could request that we modify our promotional materials or subject us to regulatory or other enforcement actions, including issuance of warning letters or untitled letters, suspension or withdrawal of an approved product from the market, requests for recalls, payment of civil fines, disgorgement of money, imposition of operating restrictions, injunctions or criminal prosecution, and other enforcement actions. Similarly, industry codes in foreign jurisdictions may prohibit companies from engaging in certain promotional activities, and regulatory agencies in various

68

countries may enforce violations of such codes with civil penalties. If we become subject to regulatory and enforcement actions, our business, financial condition, results of operations, stock price and prospects will be materially harmed.

We may not be able to file INDs or IND amendments to commence additional clinical trials on the timelines we expect, and even if we are able to, the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory may not permit us to proceed.

The FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require us to file separate INDs for additional clinical trials we plan to conduct with our current lead product candidates, CAN-2409 and CAN-3110. We may not be able to file any additional INDs required for our current product candidates and any future product candidates on the timelines we expect. For example, we may experience manufacturing delays or other delays with IND-enabling studies, including due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on suppliers, study sites or third-party contractors and vendors on whom we depend. We may also experience delays if we are unable to access earlier data from inactive or withdrawn INDs. Moreover, we cannot be sure that submission of an IND will result in the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities allowing further clinical trials to begin, or that, once begun, issues will not arise that suspend or terminate clinical trials. Additionally, even if such regulatory authorities agree with the design and implementation of the clinical trials set forth in an IND, we cannot guarantee that such regulatory authorities will not change their requirements in the future. These considerations also apply to new clinical trials we may submit as amendments to existing INDs or to a new IND. Any failure to file INDs on the expected timelines to obtain regulatory approvals for our trials may prevent us from completing our clinical trials or commercializing our products on a timely basis, if at all. There are similar risks related to the review and authorization of our protocols and amendments by comparable foreign regulatory authorities.

If approved, our investigational products regulated as biologics may face competition from biosimilars approved through an abbreviated regulatory pathway.

The ACA includes a subtitle called the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, or BPCIA, which created an abbreviated approval pathway for biologic products that are biosimilar to or interchangeable with an FDA-licensed reference biologic 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 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 the other company’s product. The law is complex and is still being interpreted and implemented by the FDA. As a result, its ultimate impact, implementation and meaning are subject to uncertainty.

We believe that any of our product candidates approved as a biologic product under a BLA should qualify for the 12-year period of exclusivity. However, there is a risk that this exclusivity could be shortened or unavailable due to congressional action, a designation that approval of one of our candidates does not constitute "first licensure" or otherwise, or that the FDA will not consider our investigational medicines to be reference products for competing products, potentially creating the opportunity for generic competition sooner than anticipated. Other aspects of the BPCIA, some of which may impact the BPCIA exclusivity provisions, have also been the subject of recent litigation. Moreover, the extent to which a biosimilar, once licensed, will be substituted for any one of our reference products in a way that is similar to traditional generic substitution for non-biologic products is not yet clear, and will depend on a number of marketplace and regulatory factors that are still developing.

If competitors are able to obtain marketing approval for biosimilars referencing our products, our products may become subject to competition from such biosimilars, with the attendant competitive pressure and consequences.

The size of the potential market for our product candidates is difficult to estimate and, if any of our assumptions are inaccurate, the actual markets for our product candidates may be smaller than our estimates.

Our current and future target patient populations are based on our beliefs and estimates regarding the incidence or prevalence of certain types of the indications that may be addressable by our product candidates, which is derived from a variety of sources, including scientific literature and surveys of clinics. Our projections may prove to be incorrect and the number of potential patients may turn out to be lower than expected. The total addressable market opportunity for our product candidates will ultimately depend upon a number of factors including the diagnosis and treatment criteria included in the final label, if approved for sale in specified indications, acceptance by the medical community, patient access, the success of competing therapies and product pricing and reimbursement. Further, the market opportunity for viral immunotherapies is hard to estimate given that it is an emerging field with few globally or FDA-approved therapies, none of which have yet to enjoy broad market acceptance. Even if we obtain significant market share for our product candidates, because the potential target populations could be small, we may never achieve profitability without obtaining regulatory approval for additional indications.

Healthcare reform measures may have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

69

The United States and many foreign jurisdictions have enacted or proposed legislative and regulatory changes affecting the healthcare system that could prevent or delay marketing approval of our current or future product candidates or any future product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities and affect our ability to profitably sell a product for which we obtain marketing approval. Among policy-makers and payers in the United States and elsewhere, there is significant interest in promoting changes in healthcare systems with the stated goals of containing healthcare costs, improving quality and/or expanding access to healthcare. In the United States, the pharmaceutical industry has been a particular focus of these efforts and has been significantly affected by major legislative initiatives. There have been, and likely will continue to be, legislative and regulatory proposals at the federal and state levels directed at broadening the availability of healthcare and containing or lowering the cost of healthcare. See section entitled “Business – Health Reform.” We cannot predict the initiatives that may be adopted in the future.

The continuing efforts of the government, insurance companies, managed care organizations and other payers of healthcare services to contain or reduce costs of healthcare may adversely affect:

Legislative and regulatory proposals have been made to expand post-approval requirements and restrict sales and promotional activities for pharmaceutical and biologic products. We cannot be sure whether additional legislative changes will be enacted, or whether FDA regulations, guidance or interpretations will be changed, or what the impact of such changes on the marketing approvals of our product candidates, if any, may be. In addition, increased scrutiny by Congress of the FDA’s approval process may significantly delay or prevent marketing approval, as well as subject us to more stringent product labeling and post-marketing testing and other requirements.

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 product candidates. There has been increasing legislative and enforcement interest in the United States with respect to specialty drug pricing practices. Specifically, there have been several recent U.S. Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, reduce the cost of prescription drugs under Medicare, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs.

We expect that the healthcare reform measures that have been adopted and may be adopted in the future, may result in more rigorous coverage criteria and in additional downward pressure on the price that we receive for any approved product and could seriously harm our future revenues. 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 our products.

If, in the future, we are unable to establish sales and marketing and patient support capabilities or enter into agreements with third parties to sell and market our current or future product candidates, we may not be successful in commercializing our current or future product candidates if and when they are approved, and we may not be able to generate any revenue.

We do not currently have a sales or marketing infrastructure and have limited experience in the sales, marketing, patient support or distribution of products. To achieve commercial success for any approved product candidate for which we retain sales and marketing responsibilities, we must build our sales, marketing, patient support, managerial and other non-technical capabilities or make arrangements with third parties to perform these services. In the future, we may choose to build a focused sales and marketing infrastructure to sell, or participate in sales activities with our collaborators for, some of our current or future product candidates if and when they are approved.

There are risks involved with both establishing our own sales and marketing and patient support capabilities and entering into arrangements with third parties to perform these services. For example, recruiting and training a sales force is expensive and time consuming and could delay any drug launch. If the commercial launch of a product candidate for which we recruit a sales force and establish marketing capabilities is delayed or does not occur for any reason, we would have prematurely or unnecessarily incurred these commercialization expenses. This may be costly, and our investment would be lost if we cannot retain or reposition our sales and marketing personnel.

Factors that may inhibit our efforts to commercialize our current or future product candidates on our own include:

70

If we enter into arrangements with third parties to perform sales, marketing, patient support and distribution services, our drug revenues or the profitability of these drug revenues to us are likely to be lower than if we were to market and sell any current or future product candidates that we develop ourselves. In addition, we may not be successful in entering into arrangements with third parties to sell and market our current or future product candidates or may be unable to do so on terms that are favorable to us. We likely will have little control over such third parties, and any of them may fail to devote the necessary resources and attention to sell and market our current or future product candidates effectively. If we do not establish sales and marketing capabilities successfully, either on our own or in collaboration with third parties, we will not be successful in commercializing our current or future product candidates. Further, our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects will be materially adversely affected.

If any product candidate for which we receive regulatory approval does not achieve broad market acceptance among physicians, patients, healthcare payors, and the medical community, the revenues that we generate from its sales will be limited.

Even if our product candidates receive regulatory approval, they may not gain market acceptance among physicians, patients, healthcare payors, and others in the medical community. Commercial success also will depend, in large part, on the coverage and reimbursement of our product candidates by third-party payors, including private insurance providers and government payors. The degree of market acceptance of any approved product would depend on a number of factors, including:

Our ability to successfully launch and secure market acceptance of our late-stage pipeline candidate, CAN-2409 (if approved), may be impacted by the evolving COVID-19 pandemic, although we are currently unable to predict or quantify any such potential impact with any degree of certainty. If the spread of COVID-19 and the social distancing measures taken by various governments continue, any commercial launch we may undertake may be hindered by various factors, including challenges in hiring the employees necessary to support commercialization; delays in demand due to impacts on the healthcare system and overall economy; delays in coverage decisions from Medicare and third-party payors; restrictions on our personal interactions with physicians, hospitals, payors, and other customers; interruptions or delays in our commercial supply chain; and increases in the number of uninsured or underinsured patients.

If any product candidate is approved but does not achieve an adequate level of acceptance by physicians, hospitals, healthcare payors and patients, we may not generate sufficient revenue from these products and we may not become profitable, which would have a material adverse effect on our business.

If we fail to develop additional product candidates, our commercial opportunity could be limited.

We expect initially to develop our lead product candidates, CAN-2409 and CAN-3110. A key part of our strategy, however, is to pursue clinical development of additional product candidates. Developing, obtaining marketing approval for, and commercializing additional product candidates will require substantial additional funding beyond the net proceeds of the IPO and will be subject to the risks of failure inherent in medical product development. We cannot assure you that we will be able to successfully advance any of these additional product candidates through the development process.

71

Even if we obtain approval from the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities to market additional product candidates for the treatment of solid tumors, we cannot assure you that any such product candidates will be successfully commercialized, widely accepted in the marketplace, or more effective than other commercially available alternatives. If we are unable to successfully develop and commercialize additional product candidates our commercial opportunity may be limited and our business, financial condition, results of operations, stock price and prospects may be materially harmed.

Our relationships with customers and third-party payors will be subject to applicable anti-kickback, fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations, which could expose us to criminal sanctions, civil penalties, exclusion from government healthcare programs, contractual damages, reputational harm and diminished profits and future earnings.

Although we do not currently have any drugs on the market, if we begin commercializing our current or future product candidates, we will be subject to additional healthcare statutory and regulatory requirements and enforcement by the federal government and the states and foreign governments in which we conduct our business. Healthcare providers, physicians and third-party payors play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of any current or future product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. Our future arrangements with third-party payors and customers may expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations that may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we market, sell and distribute our current or future product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. See section entitled "Business - Other Healthcare Laws and Compliance Requirements".

Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of the statutory exceptions and safe harbors available, it is possible that some of our business activities could be subject to challenge and may not comply under one or more of such laws, regulations and guidance. Law enforcement authorities are increasingly focused on enforcing fraud and abuse laws, and it is possible that some of our practices may be challenged under these laws. Ensuring that our future business arrangements with third parties comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations could involve substantial costs. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices do 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, including anticipated activities to be conducted by our sales team, were to be 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 civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, exclusion from government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, as well as additional reporting obligations and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or other agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our financial results.

We may face potential liability if we obtain identifiable patient health information from clinical trials sponsored by us.

Most healthcare providers, including certain research institutions from which we may obtain patient health information, are subject to privacy and security regulations promulgated under HIPAA, as amended by the HITECH. We are not currently classified as a covered entity or business associate under HIPAA and thus are not directly subject to its requirements or penalties. However, any person may be prosecuted under HIPAA’s criminal provisions either directly or under aiding-and-abetting or conspiracy principles. Consequently, depending on the facts and circumstances, we could face substantial criminal penalties if we knowingly receive individually identifiable health information from a HIPAA-covered healthcare provider or research institution that has not satisfied HIPAA’s requirements for disclosure of individually identifiable health information. In addition, in the future, we may maintain sensitive personally identifiable information, including health information, that we receive throughout the clinical trial process, in the course of our research collaborations, and directly from individuals (or their healthcare providers) who may enroll in patient assistance programs if we choose to implement such programs. As such, we may be subject to state laws requiring notification of affected individuals and state regulators in the event of a breach of personal information, which is a broader class of information than the health information protected by HIPAA.

The EU General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR, also confers a private right of action on data subjects and consumer associations to lodge complaints with supervisory authorities, seek judicial remedies, and obtain compensation for damages resulting from violations of the GDPR. In addition, the GDPR includes restrictions on cross-border data transfers. The GDPR may increase our responsibility and liability in relation to personal data that we process where such processing is subject to the GDPR, and we may be required to put in place additional mechanisms to ensure compliance with the GDPR, including as implemented by individual countries. Compliance with the GDPR is a rigorous and time-intensive process that may increase our cost of doing business or require us to change our business practices, and despite those efforts, there is a risk that we may be subject to fines and penalties, litigation, and reputational harm in connection with our European activities. Further, the United Kingdom’s decision to leave the European Union, referred to as Brexit, has created uncertainty with regard to data protection regulation in the United

72

Kingdom. In particular, it is unclear how data transfers to and from the United Kingdom will be regulated now that the United Kingdom has left the European Union.

In addition, California recently enacted and has proposed companion regulations to the California Consumer Privacy Act, or CCPA, which went into effect January 1, 2020. The CCPA creates new individual privacy rights for California consumers (as defined in the law) and places increased privacy and security obligations on entities handling personal data of consumers or households. The CCPA requires covered companies to provide certain disclosures to consumers about its data collection, use and sharing practices, and to provide affected California residents with ways to opt-out of certain sales or transfers of personal information. As of March 28, 2020, the California State Attorney General has proposed varying versions of companion draft regulations which are not yet finalized. Despite the delay in adopting regulations, the California State Attorney General commenced enforcement actions against violators on July 1, 2020. While there are currently exceptions for protected health information that is subject to HIPAA and clinical trial regulations, as currently written, the CCPA may impact our business activities. On August 14, 2020, implementing regulations were finalized and became effective as of that date. While clinical trial data and information governed by HIPAA are currently exempt from the current version of the CCPA, other personal information may be applicable and possible changes to the CCPA may broaden its scope. We continue to monitor the impact the CCPA may have on our business activities.

Furthermore, certain health privacy laws, data breach notification laws, consumer protection laws and genetic testing laws may apply directly to our operations and/or those of our collaborators and may impose restrictions on our collection, use and dissemination of individuals’ health information. Patients about whom we or our collaborators may obtain health information, as well as the providers who may share this information with us, may have statutory or contractual rights that limit our ability to use and disclose the information. We may be required to expend significant capital and other resources to ensure ongoing compliance with applicable privacy and data security laws. Claims that we have violated individuals’ privacy rights or breached our contractual obligations, even if we are not found liable, could be expensive and time-consuming to defend and could result in adverse publicity that could harm our business.

If we or third-party contract research organizations, or CROs, or other contractors or consultants fail to comply with applicable federal, state/provincial or local regulatory requirements, we could be subject to a range of regulatory actions that could affect our or our contractors’ ability to develop and commercialize our therapeutic candidates and could harm or prevent sales of any affected therapeutics that we are able to commercialize, or could substantially increase the costs and expenses of developing, commercializing and marketing our therapeutics. Any threatened or actual government enforcement action could also generate adverse publicity and require that we devote substantial resources that could otherwise be used in other aspects of our business. Increasing use of social media could give rise to liability, breaches of data security or reputational damage.

Additionally, we are subject to other state and foreign equivalents of each of the healthcare laws described above, among others, some of which may be broader in scope and may apply regardless of the payor.

If we fail to comply with environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, we could become subject to fines or penalties or incur 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 and the handling, use, storage, treatment and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes. Our operations involve the use of hazardous and flammable materials, including chemicals and biological and radioactive materials. Our operations also produce hazardous waste products. We generally contract with third parties for the disposal of these materials and wastes. 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. We also could incur significant costs associated with civil or criminal fines and penalties.

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.

Risks Related to Employee Matters, Managing Growth and General Business Operations

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic may affect our ability to complete our ongoing clinical trials and initiate and complete other preclinical studies, planned clinical trials or future clinical trials, disrupt regulatory activities, disrupt our manufacturing and supply chain or have other adverse effects on our business and operations. In addition, this pandemic has caused substantial disruption in the financial markets and may adversely impact economies worldwide, both of which could result in adverse effects on our business, operations and ability to raise capital.

73

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has caused many governments to implement measures to slow the spread of COVID-19 through quarantines, travel restrictions, heightened border scrutiny and other measures. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and government measures taken in response have also had a significant impact, both directly and indirectly, on businesses and commerce, as worker shortages have occurred; supply chains have been disrupted; facilities and production have been suspended; and demand for certain goods and services, such as medical services and supplies, has spiked, while demand for other goods and services, such as travel, has fallen. The future progression of the COVID-19 pandemic and its effects on our business and operations are uncertain.

The extent to which COVID-19 impacts our operations or those of the third parties on which we rely will depend on many factors, which are highly uncertain and cannot be predicted with confidence, including the duration of the pandemic, any future variants of COVID-19, additional or modified government actions, new information that will emerge concerning the severity and impact of COVID-19, and the actions to contain the COVID-19 pandemic or address its impact in the short and long term. Additionally, the conduct of our clinical trials, preclinical studies and manufacturing activities is dependent upon the availability of clinical trial sites, CROs, contract development and manufacturing organization, or CDMOs, researchers and investigators, regulatory agency personnel and logistics providers, all of which may be adversely affected by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

Any negative impact that the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has on enrolling or retaining patients in our clinical trials, the ability of our suppliers to provide materials for our product candidates, or the regulatory review process could cause delays with respect to product development activities, which could materially and adversely affect our ability to obtain marketing approval for and to commercialize our product candidates, increase our operating expenses, affect our ability to raise additional capital, and have a material adverse effect on our financial results.

We cannot provide assurance that some factors from the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic will not further delay or otherwise adversely affect our clinical development, research, manufacturing and business operations activities, as well as our business generally, in the future.

We and the third-party manufacturers, CROs and academic collaborators that we engage have faced in the past and may face in the future disruptions that could affect our ability to initiate and complete preclinical studies or clinical trials, including disruptions in procuring items that are essential for our research and development activities, such as, for example, raw materials used in the manufacture of our product candidates, laboratory supplies for our preclinical studies and clinical trials, or animals that are used for preclinical testing, in each case, for which there may be shortages because of ongoing efforts to address the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, during the ongoing COVID-19, global supply chain disruptions have been seen, particularly with raw materials and supplies used in biopharmaceutical production. Three vaccines for COVID-19 have been granted Emergency Use Authorization by the FDA, and more may be authorized or approved in the future. The resultant demand for vaccines and potential for manufacturing facilities and materials to be commandeered under the Defense Production Act of 1950, or equivalent foreign legislation, may make it more difficult to obtain materials or manufacturing slots for the products needed for our clinical trials, which could lead to delays in these trials. Additionally, the response to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic may redirect resources with respect to regulatory and intellectual property matters in a way that would adversely impact our ability to pursue marketing approvals and protect our intellectual property. In addition, we may face impediments to regulatory meetings and potential approvals due to measures intended to limit in-person interactions.

In response to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and in accordance with direction from state and local governmental authorities, we have been carefully monitoring the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on our business and have taken important steps to help ensure the safety of our employees and their families and to reduce the spread of COVID-19. We have established a flexible work policy for our employees under which we encourage all of our employees to work from the office or from home as they feel appropriate. Those employees performing or supporting business-critical operations, such as members of our laboratory and facilities staff, are working on site at our facilities on a daily basis. For those employees who come to work at our facilities, we have implemented stringent safety measures designed to comply with applicable federal, state and local guidelines instituted in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. We have taken these precautionary steps while maintaining business continuity so that we can continue to progress our programs. In the event that governmental authorities were to impose new restrictions, our employees conducting research and development activities may not be able to access our laboratory space, and our core research activities may be significantly limited or curtailed, possibly for an extended period of time.

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to rapidly evolve, and its ultimate scope, duration and effects are unknown. The extent of the impact of the disruptions to our business, preclinical studies and clinical trials as a result of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic will depend on future developments, which are highly uncertain and cannot be predicted with confidence, such as the ultimate geographic spread of the disease, the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic, travel restrictions and actions to contain the COVID-19 pandemic, such as social distancing and quarantines or lock-downs in the United States and other countries, business closures or business disruptions and the effectiveness of actions taken in the United States and other countries to contain and treat the disease.

74

The COVID-19 pandemic has already caused significant disruptions in the financial markets, and may continue to cause such disruptions, which could adversely impact our ability to raise additional funds through public offerings or private placements and may also impact the volatility of our stock price and trading in our stock. Moreover, it is possible the pandemic will significantly impact economies worldwide, which could result in adverse effects on our business and operations. We cannot be certain what the overall impact of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic will be on our business and it has the potential to adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Our future success depends on our ability to retain key executives and to attract, retain and motivate qualified personnel.

We are highly dependent on the research and development, clinical, financial, operational and other business expertise of our executive officers, as well as the other principal members of our management, scientific and clinical teams. Although we have entered into employment agreements with our executive officers, each of them may terminate their employment with us at any time. We do not maintain “key person” insurance for any of our executives or other employees. Recruiting and retaining qualified scientific, clinical, manufacturing, accounting, legal and sales and marketing personnel will also be critical to our success.

The loss of the services of our executive officers or other key employees could impede the achievement of our research, development and commercialization objectives and seriously harm our ability to successfully implement our business strategy. Furthermore, replacing executive officers and key employees may be difficult and may take an extended period of time because of the limited number of individuals in our industry with the breadth of skills and experience required to successfully develop, gain marketing approval of and commercialize products. Competition to hire from this limited pool is intense, and we may be unable to hire, train, retain or motivate these key personnel on acceptable terms given the competition among numerous pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies for similar personnel. We also experience competition for the hiring of scientific and clinical personnel from universities and research institutions. In addition, we rely on consultants and advisors, including scientific and clinical advisors, to assist us in formulating our research and development and commercialization strategy. Our consultants and advisors may be employed by employers other than us and may have commitments under consulting or advisory contracts with other entities that may limit their availability to us. Our success as a public company also depends on implementing and maintaining internal controls and the accuracy and timeliness of our financial reporting. If we are unable to continue to attract and retain high quality personnel, our ability to pursue our growth strategy will be limited.

We expect to expand our development, manufacturing and regulatory capabilities and potentially implement sales, marketing and distribution capabilities, and as a result, we may encounter difficulties in managing our growth, which could disrupt our operations.

As we seek to advance our product candidates through clinical trials and commercialization, we will need to expand our development, regulatory, manufacturing, marketing and sales capabilities or contract with third parties to provide these capabilities. We expect to experience significant growth in the number of our employees and the scope of our operations, particularly in the areas of drug development, clinical, regulatory affairs and, if any product candidate receives marketing approval, sales, marketing and distribution. To manage our anticipated future growth, we must continue to implement and improve our managerial, operational and financial systems, expand our facilities and continue to recruit and train additional qualified personnel. Due to our limited financial resources and the limited experience of our management team in managing a company with such anticipated growth, we may not be able to effectively manage the expansion of our operations or recruit and train additional qualified personnel. The expansion of our operations may lead to significant costs and may divert our management and business development resources. Any inability to manage growth could delay the execution of our business plans or disrupt our operations.

The increasing use of social media platforms presents new risks and challenges.

Social media is increasingly being used to communicate about our clinical development programs and the diseases our therapeutics are being developed to treat, and we intend to utilize appropriate social media in connection with our commercialization efforts following approval of our product candidates, if any. Social media practices in the biotechnology and biopharmaceutical industry continue to evolve and regulations and regulatory guidance relating to such use are evolving and not always clear. This evolution creates uncertainty and risk of noncompliance with regulations applicable to our business, resulting in potential regulatory actions against us, along with the potential for litigation related to off-label marketing or other prohibited activities and heightened scrutiny by the FDA, the SEC and other regulators. For example, patients may use social media channels to comment on their experience in an ongoing blinded clinical trial or to report an alleged adverse event. If such disclosures occur, there is a risk that trial enrollment may be adversely impacted, that we may fail to monitor and comply with applicable adverse event reporting obligations or that we may not be able to defend our business or the public’s legitimate interests in the face of the political and market pressures generated by social media due to restrictions on what we may say about our product candidates. There is also a risk of inappropriate disclosure of sensitive information or negative or inaccurate posts or comments about us on any social networking website. In addition, we may encounter attacks on social media regarding our company, management, product candidates or products. If any of these events were to occur or we otherwise fail to comply with applicable regulations, we could incur liability, face regulatory actions or incur other harm to our business.

75

Our internal computer systems, or those of our third-party CROs that we may use in the future, or other contractors or consultants, may fail or suffer security breaches, which could result in a material disruption of our product candidates’ development programs.

Despite our implementation of security measures, our internal computer systems, and those of our CROs that we may use in the future, information technology suppliers and other contractors and consultants are vulnerable to damage from computer viruses, cyberattacks and other unauthorized access, natural disasters, terrorism, war, and telecommunication and electrical failures. If such an event were to occur and cause interruptions in our operations, it could result in a material disruption of our product candidate development programs. For example, the loss of clinical trial data from completed, ongoing or planned clinical trials could result in delays in our regulatory approval efforts and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data. To the extent that any disruption or security breach were to result in a loss of or damage to our data or applications, or inappropriate disclosure of personal, confidential or proprietary information, we could incur liability and the further development of any of our product candidates could be delayed.

Our operations or those of the third parties upon whom we depend might be affected by the occurrence of a natural disaster, pandemic, war or other catastrophic event.

We depend on our employees and consultants, CDMOs and CROs that we may use in the future, as well as regulatory agencies and other parties, for the continued operation of our business. While we maintain disaster recovery plans, they might not adequately protect us. Despite any precautions we take for natural disasters or other catastrophic events, these events, including terrorist attacks, pandemics, wars hurricanes, fire, floods and ice and snowstorms, could result in significant disruptions to our research and development, preclinical studies, clinical trials, and, ultimately, commercialization of our products. Long-term disruptions in the infrastructure caused by events, such as natural disasters, the outbreak of war, the escalation of hostilities and acts of terrorism or other “acts of God,” particularly involving cities in which we have offices, manufacturing or clinical trial sites, could adversely affect our businesses. For example, in late February 2022, Russian military forces launched significant military action against Ukraine, and sustained conflict and disruption in the region is likely. The impact to Ukraine, as well as actions taken by other countries, including new and stricter sanctions by Canada, the United Kingdom, the European Union, the United States and other countries and organizations against officials, individuals, regions, and industries in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus, and each country’s potential response to such sanctions, tensions, and military actions could have an adverse effect on the Company’s operations. These countries may impose further sanctions or other restrictive actions against governmental or other individuals or organizations in Russia or elsewhere. The effects of disruptive events could affect the global economy and financial and commodities markets in ways that cannot necessarily be foreseen at the present time. Although we carry business interruption insurance policies and typically have provisions in our contracts that protect us in certain events, our coverage might not respond or be adequate to compensate us for all losses that may occur. Any natural disaster or catastrophic event affecting us, our CDMOs or CROs, regulatory agencies or other parties with which we are engaged could have a significant negative impact on our operations and financial performance.

Our disclosure controls and procedures may not prevent or detect all errors or acts of fraud.

Upon completion of the IPO, we became subject to the periodic reporting requirements of the Exchange Act. We designed our disclosure controls and procedures to reasonably assure that information we must disclose in reports we file or submit under the Exchange Act is accumulated and communicated to management, and recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the rules and forms of the SEC. We believe that any disclosure controls and procedures or internal controls and procedures, no matter how well-conceived and operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the objectives of the control system are met. These inherent limitations include the realities that judgments in decision-making can be faulty, and that breakdowns can occur because of simple error or mistake. For example, our directors or executive officers could inadvertently fail to disclose a new relationship or arrangement causing us to fail to make a required related party transaction disclosure. Additionally, controls can be circumvented by the individual acts of some persons, by collusion of two or more people or by an unauthorized override of the controls. Accordingly, because of the inherent limitations in our control system, misstatements due to error or fraud may occur and not be detected.

We and our independent registered public accounting firm have identified material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting in conjunction with their audits of our financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020. If we are unable to remediate these material weakness, or if we identify additional material weaknesses in the future or otherwise fail to maintain an effective system of internal controls, we may not be able to accurately or timely report our financial condition or results of operations, which may adversely affect our business and the market price of our common stock.

In preparation of our consolidated financial statements, we and our independent registered public accounting firm identified material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over financial reporting, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of our annual or interim financial statements will not be prevented or detected on a timely basis.

76

The material weaknesses identified related to:

We have implemented, and are continuing to implement, measures designed to improve internal control over financial reporting to remediate the control deficiencies that led to the material weaknesses, including the following:

We cannot assure you that the measures we have taken to date, and actions we may take in the future, will be sufficient to remediate the control deficiencies that led to the material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting or that they will prevent or avoid potential future material weaknesses. In addition, neither our management nor an independent registered public accounting firm has performed an evaluation of our internal control over financial reporting in accordance with the provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act because no such evaluation has been required. Had we or our independent registered public accounting firm performed an evaluation of our internal control over financial reporting in accordance with the provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, additional material weaknesses may have been identified. If we are unable to successfully remediate our existing or any future material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting, or identify any additional material weaknesses in the future, or otherwise fail to maintain an effective system of internal controls, the accuracy and timing of our financial reporting may be adversely affected, we may be unable to maintain compliance with securities law requirements regarding timely filing of periodic reports in addition to applicable stock exchange listing requirements, investors may lose confidence in our financial reporting, and the market price of our common stock may decline as a result.

If we fail to maintain an effective system of internal control over financial reporting, we may not be able to accurately report our financial results or prevent fraud. As a result, stockholders could lose confidence in our financial and other public reporting, which would harm our business and the trading price of our common stock.

Effective internal control over financial reporting is necessary for us to provide reliable financial reports and, together with adequate disclosure controls and procedures, is designed to prevent fraud. Any failure to implement required new or improved controls, or difficulties encountered in their implementation could cause us to fail to meet our reporting obligations. In addition, any testing by us conducted in connection with Section 404, or any subsequent testing by our independent registered public accounting firm, may reveal deficiencies in our internal control over financial reporting that are deemed to be material weaknesses or that may require prospective or retroactive changes to our financial statements or identify other areas for further attention or improvement. Inferior internal controls could also cause investors to lose confidence in our reported financial information, which could harm our business and have a negative effect on the trading price of our stock.

We will be required to disclose changes made in our internal controls and procedures on a quarterly basis and our management will be required to assess the effectiveness of these controls annually. However, for as long as we are an EGC under the JOBS Act, our independent registered public accounting firm will not be required to attest to the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting pursuant to Section 404. We could be an EGC for up to five years. Our assessment of internal controls and procedures may not detect material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting. In addition to the material weaknesses described above, other material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting may go undetected and could lead to financial statement restatements and require us to incur the expense of remediation, which could have a negative effect on the trading price of our stock.

77

Risks Related to Legal and Compliance Matters

We face potential product liability exposure, and if successful claims are brought against us, we may incur substantial liability and have to limit the commercialization of any approved products and/or our product candidates.

The use of our product candidates in clinical trials, and the sale of any product for which we obtain regulatory approval, exposes us to the risk of product liability claims. We face inherent risk of product liability related to the testing of our product candidates in human clinical trials, including liability relating to the actions and negligence of our investigators, and will face an even greater risk if we commercially sell any product candidates that we may develop. For example, we may be sued if any product candidate we develop allegedly causes injury or is found to be otherwise unsuitable during clinical testing, manufacturing, marketing or sale. Any such product liability claims may include allegations of defects in manufacturing, defects in design, a failure to warn of dangers inherent in the product, negligence, strict liability or a breach of warranties. Claims could also be asserted under state consumer protection acts. Product liability claims might be brought against us by consumers, healthcare providers or others using, administering or selling our products. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against these claims, we will incur substantial liabilities or be required to limit commercialization of our product candidates. Even successful defense would require significant financial and management resources. Regardless of merit or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in:

We believe we have sufficient insurance coverage in place for our business operations. However, our insurance coverage may not reimburse us or may not be sufficient to reimburse us for any expenses or losses we may suffer. Moreover, insurance coverage is becoming increasingly expensive, and, in the future, we may not be able to maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost or in sufficient amounts to protect us against losses due to liability. We intend to expand our insurance coverage to include the sale of commercial products if we obtain FDA or comparable foreign regulatory approval for our product candidates in development, but we may be unable to obtain commercially reasonable product liability insurance for any products approved for marketing, or at all. Failure to obtain and retain sufficient product liability insurance at an acceptable cost could prevent or inhibit the commercialization of products we develop. On occasion, large judgments have been awarded in class action lawsuits based on therapeutics that had unanticipated side effects. A successful product liability claim or series of claims brought against us could cause our stock price to fall and, if judgments exceed our insurance coverage, could decrease our cash, and materially harm our business, financial condition, results of operations, stock price and prospects.

We are subject to the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and other anti-corruption laws, as well as import and export control laws, customs laws, sanctions laws and other laws governing our operations. If we fail to comply with these laws, we could be subject to civil or criminal penalties, other remedial measures, and legal expenses, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, stock price and prospects.

Our operations are subject to anti-corruption laws, including the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, or FCPA, and other anti-corruption laws that apply in countries where we do business. The FCPA and these other laws generally prohibit us and our employees and intermediaries from bribing, being bribed or making other prohibited payments to government officials or other persons to obtain or retain business or gain some other business advantage. We also may participate in collaborations and relationships with third parties whose actions, if non-compliant, could potentially subject us to liability under the FCPA or local anti-corruption laws. In addition, we cannot predict the nature, scope or effect of future regulatory requirements to which our international operations might be subject or the manner in which existing laws might be administered or interpreted.

We are also subject to other laws and regulations governing our international operations, including regulations administered by the government of the United States, including applicable import and export control regulations,

78

economic sanctions on countries and persons, anti-money laundering laws, customs requirements and currency exchange regulations, collectively referred to as the trade control laws.

We can provide no assurance that we will be completely effective in ensuring our compliance with all applicable anti-corruption laws or other legal requirements, including trade control laws. If we are not in compliance with applicable anti-corruption laws or trade control laws, we may be subject to criminal and civil penalties, disgorgement and other sanctions and remedial measures, and legal expenses, which could have an adverse impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations, stock price and prospects. Likewise, any investigation of any potential violations of these anti-corruption laws or trade control laws by United States or other authorities could also have an adverse impact on our reputation, our business, financial condition, results of operations, stock price and prospects.

If we fail to comply with federal and state healthcare laws, including fraud and abuse and health and other information privacy and security laws, we could face substantial penalties and our business, financial condition, results of operations, stock price and prospects will be materially harmed.

We are subject to many federal and state healthcare laws, such as the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, the federal civil and criminal False Claims Acts, the civil monetary penalties statute, the Medicaid Drug Rebate statute and other price reporting requirements, the Veterans Health Care Act of 1992, or VHCA HIPAA, the FCPA, the ACA and similar state laws. Even though we do not and will not control referrals of healthcare services or bill directly to Medicare, Medicaid or other third-party payors, certain federal and state healthcare laws, and regulations pertaining to fraud and abuse, reimbursement programs, government procurement, and patients’ rights are and will be applicable to our business. We would be subject to healthcare fraud and abuse and patient privacy regulation by both the federal government and the states and foreign jurisdictions in which we conduct our business. In the European Union, the data privacy laws are generally stricter than those which apply in the United States and include specific requirements for the collection of personal data of European Union persons or the transfer of personal data outside of the European Union to the United States to ensure that European Union standards of data privacy will be applied to such data.

If we or our operations, including our arrangements with physicians and other healthcare providers, some of whom receive share options or other financial interest in the business as compensation for services provided, are found to be in violation of any federal or state healthcare law, or any other governmental laws or regulations that apply to us, we may be subject to penalties, including civil, criminal, and administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, suspension and debarment from government contracts, and refusal of orders under existing government contracts, exclusion from participation in U.S. federal or state health care programs, corporate integrity agreements, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could materially adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our financial results. If any of the physicians or other healthcare providers or entities with whom we expect to do business is found not to be in compliance with applicable laws, it or they may be subject to criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including but not limited to, exclusions from participation in government healthcare programs, which could also materially affect our business.

Although an effective compliance program can mitigate the risk of investigation and prosecution for violations of these laws, the risks cannot be entirely eliminated. Moreover, achieving and sustaining compliance with applicable federal, state and foreign privacy, data protection, security, reimbursement, and fraud laws may prove costly. Any action against us for violation of these laws, even if we successfully defend against it, could cause us to incur significant legal expenses and divert our management’s attention from the operation of our business.

Changes in tax laws or in their implementation or interpretation may adversely affect our business and financial condition.

Recent changes in tax law may adversely affect our business or financial condition. On December 22, 2017, the U.S. government enacted the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, or TCJA, which significantly reformed the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or the Code. The TCJA, among other things, contains significant changes to corporate taxation, including reducing the corporate tax rate from a top marginal rate of 35% to a flat rate of 21%, limiting the tax deduction for net interest expense to 30% of adjusted taxable income (except for certain small businesses), limiting the deduction for NOLs arising in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017 to 80% of current year taxable income and elimination of NOL carrybacks for losses arising in taxable years ending after December 31, 2017 (though any such NOLs may be carried forward indefinitely), imposing a one-time taxation of offshore earnings at reduced rates regardless of whether they are repatriated, eliminating U.S. tax on foreign earnings (subject to certain important exceptions), allowing immediate deductions for certain new investments instead of deductions for depreciation expense over time, and modifying or repealing many business deductions and credits.

As part of Congress’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, or FFCR Act, was enacted on March 18, 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, or CARES Act, was enacted on March 27, 2020, and COVID relief provisions were included in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 or CAA, which was enacted on December 27, 2020. Both contain numerous tax provisions. In particular, the CARES Act retroactively and temporarily (for taxable years beginning before January 1, 2021) suspends application of the

79

80%-of-income limitation on the use of NOLs, which was enacted as part of the TCJA. It also provides that NOLs arising in any taxable year beginning after December 31, 2017, and before January 1, 2021 are generally eligible to be carried back up to five years. The CARES Act also temporarily (for taxable years beginning in 2019 or 2020) relaxes the limitation of the tax deductibility for net interest expense by increasing the limitation from 30% to 50% of adjusted taxable income.

Regulatory guidance under the TCJA, the FFCR Act, the CARES Act and the CAA is and continues to be forthcoming, and such guidance could ultimately increase or lessen their impact on our business and financial condition. It is also likely that Congress will enact additional legislation in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic, some of which could have an impact on us. In addition, it is uncertain if and to what extent various states will conform to the TCJA, the FFCR Act, the Cares Act, or the CAA. We urge prospective investors in our common stock to consult with their legal and tax advisors with respect to any recently enacted tax legislation, or proposed changes in law, and the potential tax consequences of investing in or holding our common stock.

Our ability to utilize our net operating loss carryforwards and certain other tax attributes may be limited.

Under Sections 382 and 383 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, if a corporation undergoes an “ownership change” (generally defined as a greater than 50% change (by value) in its equity ownership by 5% stockholders over a three-year period), the corporation’s ability to use its pre-change net operating loss carryforwards and other pre-change tax attributes to offset its post-change taxable income may be limited. As a result of our most recent private placements, the IPO, and other transactions that have occurred over the past three years, we may have experienced, an “ownership change.” We may also experience ownership changes in the future as a result of subsequent shifts in our stock ownership. As of December 31, 2021, we had U.S. federal and state net operating loss carryforwards of $8.8 million and $48.4 million, which begin to expire in 2027 and 2032, respectively. As of December 31, 2020, we had U.S. federal and state net operating loss carryforwards of $8.8 million and $27.6 million, which begin to expire in 2027 and 2032, respectively, and which could be limited if we experience an “ownership change.” The reduction of the corporate tax rate under the TCJA may cause a reduction in the economic benefit of our net operating loss carryforwards and other deferred tax assets available to us. Under the TCJA, federal net operating losses generated after December 31, 2017 will not be subject to expiration but will not be permitted to be carried back. In addition, under the TCJA, the amount of post-2017 net operating losses that we are permitted to deduct in any taxable year is limited to 80% of our taxable income in such year, where taxable income is determined without regard to the net operating loss deduction itself. Additionally, as of December 31, 2021, we had a U.S. federal net operating loss carryforward of $42.8 million which does not expire but is limited to an annual deduction equal to 80% of annual taxable income.

If third-party payors fail to provide adequate coverage, reimbursement and payment rates for our product candidates, or if health maintenance organizations or long-term care facilities choose to use therapies that are less expensive or considered a better value, our revenue and prospects for profitability will be limited.

In both domestic and foreign markets, sales of our products will depend in part upon the availability of coverage and reimbursement from third-party payors. Such third-party payors include government health programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, managed care providers, private health insurers, and other organizations. Coverage decisions may depend upon clinical and economic standards that disfavor new therapeutic products when more established or lower cost therapeutic alternatives are already available or subsequently become available, even if our products are alone in a class. If reimbursement is not available, or is available only to limited levels, our product candidates may be competitively disadvantaged, and we may not be able to successfully commercialize our product candidates. Even if coverage is provided, the approved reimbursement amount may not be high enough to allow us to establish or maintain a market share sufficient to realize a sufficient return on our or their investments. Alternatively, securing favorable reimbursement terms may require us to compromise pricing and prevent us from realizing an adequate margin over cost. See section entitled "Business - Coverage and Reimbursement.".

There is significant uncertainty related to third-party payor coverage and reimbursement of newly approved therapeutics. Marketing approvals, pricing, and reimbursement for new therapeutic products vary widely from country to country. Current and future legislation may significantly change the approval requirements in ways that could involve additional costs and cause delays in obtaining approvals. Some countries require approval of the sale price of a therapeutic before it can be marketed. In many countries, the pricing review period begins after marketing or product licensing approval is granted. In some foreign markets, prescription biopharmaceutical pricing remains subject to continuing governmental control even after initial approval is granted. As a result, we might obtain marketing approval for a product in a particular country, but then be subject to price regulations that delay commercial launch of the product, possibly for lengthy time periods, which may negatively impact the revenues we are able to generate from the sale of the product in that country. Adverse pricing limitations may hinder our ability to recoup our or their investment in one or more product candidates, even if our product candidates obtain marketing approval. Our ability to commercialize our product candidates will depend in part on the extent to which coverage and reimbursement for these products and related treatments will be available from government health administration authorities, private health insurers and other organizations. Regulatory authorities and third-party payors, such as private health insurers, and health maintenance organizations, decide which medications they will cover and establish reimbursement levels. The healthcare industry is

80

acutely focused on cost containment, both in the United States and elsewhere. Several third-party payors are requiring that companies provide them with predetermined discounts from list prices, are using preferred drug lists to leverage greater discounts in competitive classes, are disregarding therapeutic differentiators within classes, are challenging the prices charged for therapeutics, and are negotiating price concessions based on performance goals.

Third-party payors, whether foreign or domestic, or governmental or commercial, are developing increasingly sophisticated methods of controlling healthcare costs. In addition, in the United States, no uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for products exists among third-party payors. Therefore, coverage and reimbursement for products can differ significantly from payor to payor. Further, we believe that future coverage and reimbursement will likely be subject to increased restrictions both in the United States and in international markets. Third-party coverage and reimbursement for our products or product candidates for which we receive regulatory approval may not be available or adequate in either the United States or international markets, which could have a negative effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, stock price and prospects.

Assuming coverage is approved, the resulting reimbursement payment rates might not be adequate. If payors subject our product candidates to maximum payment amounts, or impose limitations that make it difficult to obtain reimbursement, providers may choose to use therapies which are less expensive when compared to our product candidates. Additionally, if payors require high copayments, beneficiaries may seek alternative therapies. We may need to conduct post-marketing studies in order to demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of any products to the satisfaction of hospitals, other target customers and their third-party payors. Such studies might require us to commit a significant amount of management time and financial and other resources. Our products might not ultimately be considered cost-effective. Adequate third-party coverage and reimbursement might not be available to enable us to maintain price levels sufficient to realize an appropriate return on investment in product development.

In addition, federal programs impose penalties on manufacturers of therapeutics in the form of mandatory additional rebates and/or discounts if commercial prices increase at a rate greater than the Consumer Price Index-Urban, and these rebates and/or discounts, which can be substantial, may impact our ability to raise commercial prices. A few states have also passed or are considering legislation intended to prevent significant price increases. Regulatory authorities and third-party payors have attempted to control costs by limiting coverage and the amount of reimbursement for particular medications, which could affect our ability to sell our product candidates profitably. These payors may not view our products, if any, as cost-effective, and coverage and reimbursement may not be available to our customers, or may not be sufficient to allow our products, if any, to be marketed on a competitive basis. Cost-control initiatives could cause us to decrease, discount, or rebate a portion of the price we, or they, might establish for products, which could result in lower than anticipated product revenues. If the realized prices for our products, if any, decrease or if governmental and other third-party payors do not provide adequate coverage or reimbursement, our prospects for revenue and profitability will suffer.

There may also be delays in obtaining coverage and reimbursement for newly approved therapeutics, and coverage may be more limited than the indications for which the product is approved by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. Such delays have made it increasingly common for manufacturers to provide newly approved drugs to patients experiencing coverage delays or disruption at no cost for a limited period in order to ensure that patients are able to access the drug. Moreover, eligibility for reimbursement does not imply that any therapeutic will be paid for in all cases or at a rate that covers our costs, including research, development, manufacture, sale, and distribution. Interim reimbursement levels for new therapeutics, if applicable, may also not be sufficient to cover our costs and may only be temporary. Reimbursement rates may vary, by way of example, according to the use of the product and the clinical setting in which it is used. Reimbursement rates may also be based on reimbursement levels already set for lower cost products or may be incorporated into existing payments for other services.

In addition, third-party payors are increasingly requiring higher levels of evidence of the benefits and clinical outcomes of new technologies, benchmarking against other therapies, seeking performance-based discounts, and challenging the prices charged. We cannot be sure that coverage will be available for any product candidate that we commercialize and, if available, that the reimbursement rates will be adequate. An inability to promptly obtain coverage and adequate payment rates from both government-funded and private payors for any of our product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval could have a material adverse effect on our operating results, our ability to raise capital needed to commercialize products and our overall financial condition.

We are subject to new legislation, regulatory proposals and healthcare payor initiatives that may increase our costs of compliance, and adversely affect our ability to market our products, obtain collaborators and raise capital.

In the United States and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system that could prevent or delay marketing approval of our product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities and affect our ability to profitably sell any products for which we obtain marketing approval. We expect that current laws, as well as other healthcare reform measures that may be

81

adopted in the future, may result in more rigorous coverage criteria and in additional downward pressure on the price that we may receive for any approved products.

In particular, in 2010, the ACA was enacted, which, among other things, subjected biologic products to potential competition by lower-cost biosimilars; addressed a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for drugs that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted or injected; increased the minimum Medicaid rebates owed by most manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program; extended the Medicaid Drug Rebate program to utilization of prescriptions of individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations; subjected manufacturers to new annual fees and taxes for certain branded prescription drugs; created a new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program, in which manufacturers must agree to offer 50% (increased to 70% pursuant to the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, effective as of January 1, 2019) point-of-sale discounts off negotiated prices of applicable brand drugs to eligible beneficiaries during their coverage gap period, as a condition for the manufacturer’s outpatient drugs to be covered under Medicare Part D; and provided incentives to programs that increase the federal government’s comparative effectiveness research.

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

Legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted in 2010. These changes include, among other things, aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of up to 2% per fiscal year, which went effective on April 1, 2013, and, due to subsequent legislative amendments, will remain in effect through 2030 unless additional Congressional action is taken. Pursuant to the CARES Act, as well as subsequent legislation, these reductions have been suspended from May 1, 2020 through March 31, 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Proposed legislation, if passed, would extend this suspension until the end of the pandemic. In addition, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, among other things, further reduced Medicare payments to several providers and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. The Trump administration’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2021 included a $135 billion allowance to support legislative proposals seeking to reduce drug prices, increase competition, lower out-of-pocket drug costs for patients, and increase patient access to lower-cost generic and biosimilar drugs. On March 10, 2020, the Trump administration sent “principles” for drug pricing to Congress, calling for legislation that would, among other things, cap Medicare Part D beneficiary out-of-pocket pharmacy expenses, provide an option to cap Medicare Part D beneficiary monthly out-of-pocket expenses, and place limits on pharmaceutical price increases. Further, the Trump administration also previously released a “Blueprint” to lower drug prices and reduce out of pocket costs of drugs that contains additional proposals to increase manufacturer competition, increase the negotiating power of certain federal healthcare programs, incentivize manufacturers to lower the list price of their products and reduce the out of pocket costs of drug products paid by consumers. HHS has already started the process of soliciting feedback on some of these measures and, at the same time, is immediately implementing others under its existing authority. For example, in May 2019, CMS issued a final rule to allow Medicare Advantage Plans the option of using step therapy for Part B drugs beginning January 1, 2020. However, it is unclear whether the Biden administration will challenge, reverse, revoke or otherwise modify these executive and administrative actions after January 20, 2021. In addition, there have been several changes to the 340B drug pricing program, which imposes ceilings on prices that drug manufacturers can charge for medications sold to certain health care facilities. On December 27, 2018, the District Court for the District of Columbia invalidated a reimbursement formula change under the 340B drug pricing program, and CMS subsequently altered the fiscal year 2019 and 2018 reimbursement formula on specified covered outpatient drugs (SCODs). The court ruled this change was not an “adjustment” which was within the Secretary’s discretion to make but was instead a fundamental change in the reimbursement calculation. However, most recently, on July 31, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit overturned the district court’s decision and found that the changes were within the Secretary’s authority. On September 14, 2020, the plaintiffs-appellees filed a Petition for Rehearing En Banc (i.e., before the full court), but was denied on October 16, 2020. It is unclear how these developments could affect covered hospitals who might purchase our future products and affect the rates we may charge such facilities for our approved products in the future, if any.

On July 24, 2020 and September 13, 2020, former President Trump announced several executive orders related to prescription drug pricing that seek to implement several of the administration’s proposals. In response, the FDA released a final rule on September 24, 2020, which went into effect on November 30, 2020, providing guidance for

82

states to build and submit importation plans for drugs from Canada. Further, on November 20, 2020, CMS issued an Interim Final Rule implementing the Most Favored Nation, or MFN, Model under which Medicare Part B reimbursement rates will be calculated for certain drugs and biologicals based on the lowest price drug manufacturers receive in Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries with a similar gross domestic product per capita. The MFN Model regulations mandate participation by identified Part B providers and will apply in all U.S. states and territories for a seven-year period beginning January 1, 2021, and ending December 31, 2027. The Interim Final Rule has not been finalized and is subject to revision and challenge.

Additionally, on November 20, 2020, HHS finalized a regulation removing safe harbor protection for price reductions from pharmaceutical manufacturers to plan sponsors under Part D, either directly or through pharmacy benefit managers, unless the price reduction is required by law. The rule also creates a new safe harbor for price reductions reflected at the point-of-sale, as well as a safe harbor for certain fixed fee arrangements between pharmacy benefit managers and manufacturers. Although a number of these and other proposed measures may require authorization through additional legislation to become effective, and the Biden administration may reverse or otherwise change these measures, Congress has indicated that it will continue to seek new legislative measures to control drug costs.

At the state level, legislatures have increasingly passed legislation and implemented 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.

We expect that the ACA, as well as other federal and state healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future, may result in more rigorous coverage criteria, increased regulatory burdens and operating costs, decreased net revenue from our biopharmaceutical products, decreased potential returns from our development efforts, and additional downward pressure on the price that we receive for any approved product. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government healthcare 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 commercializing our products and being able to generate revenue, and we could be prevented from or significantly delayed in achieving profitability.

In addition, there have been a number of other legislative and regulatory proposals aimed at changing the biopharmaceutical industry. For instance, the Drug Quality and Security Act imposes obligations on manufacturers of biopharmaceutical products related to product tracking and tracing. Among the requirements of this legislation, manufacturers are required to provide certain information regarding the product to individuals and entities to which product ownership is transferred, will be required to label products with a product identifier, and are required keep certain records regarding the product. The transfer of information to subsequent product owners by manufacturers is also required to be done electronically. Manufacturers are also being required to verify that purchasers of the manufacturers’ products are appropriately licensed. Further, manufacturers have product investigation, quarantine, disposition, and FDA, other comparable foreign regulatory authorities, and trading partner notification responsibilities related to counterfeit, diverted, stolen, and intentionally adulterated products that would result in serious adverse health consequences of death to humans, as well as products that are the subject of fraudulent transactions or which are otherwise unfit for distribution such that they would be reasonably likely to result in serious health consequences or death.

Compliance with the federal track and trace requirements may increase our operational expenses and impose significant administrative burdens. As a result of these and other new proposals, we may determine to change our current manner of operation, provide additional benefits or change our contract arrangements, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, stock price and prospects.

Our employees, independent contractors, consultants, commercial partners, principal investigators, CROs or CMOs may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including noncompliance with regulatory standards and requirements and insider trading, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

We are exposed to the risk of employee fraud or other misconduct. Misconduct by employees, independent contractors, consultants, commercial partners, principal investigators, contract manufacturing organizations or CROs could include intentional, reckless, negligent, or unintentional failures to comply with FDA regulations, comply with applicable fraud and abuse laws, provide accurate information to the FDA, properly calculate pricing information required by federal programs, report financial information or data accurately or disclose unauthorized activities to us. This misconduct could also involve the improper use or misrepresentation of information obtained in the course of clinical trials, which could result in regulatory sanctions and serious harm to our reputation. It is not always possible to identify and deter this type of misconduct, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to be in compliance with such laws or regulations. Moreover, it is possible for a whistleblower to pursue a False Claims Act case against us even if the government considers the claim unmeritorious and declines to

83

intervene, which could require us to incur costs defending against such a claim. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations, stock price and prospects, including the imposition of significant fines or other sanctions.

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 hazardous and flammable materials, including chemicals and biological and radioactive materials. Our operations also produce hazardous waste products. We would 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. We also could incur significant costs associated with civil or criminal fines and penalties.

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.

Risks Related to Our Reliance on Third Parties

For certain product candidates, we depend, or will depend, on development and commercialization collaborators to develop and conduct clinical trials with, obtain regulatory approvals for, and if approved, market and sell product candidates. If such collaborators fail to perform as expected, the potential for us to generate future revenue from such product candidates would be significantly reduced and our business would be harmed.

For certain product candidates, we depend, or will depend, on our development and commercial collaborators to develop, conduct clinical trials of, and, if approved, commercialize product candidates. We have entered into a collaboration with Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, or BMS, and the Adult Brain Tumor Consortium, or ABTC, for a Phase 1b clinical trial in malignant glioma patients. We cannot provide assurance that our collaborators will be successful in or that they will devote sufficient resources to these collaborations. If our current or future collaboration and commercialization partners do not perform in the manner we expect or fail to fulfill their responsibilities in a timely manner, or at all, if our agreements with them terminate or if the quality or accuracy of the clinical data they obtain is compromised, the clinical development, regulatory approval and commercialization efforts related to their and our product candidates and products could be delayed or terminated and it could become necessary for us to assume the responsibility at our own expense for the clinical development of such product candidates. Moreover, our ability to generate revenues from these collaborations and product candidates will depend on such collaborators’ abilities to perform in the manner we expect or fulfill their responsibilities in a timely manner, and delays by collaborators, or caused by other collaboration contract obligations, may result in a delay of our ability to disclose data.

Our current collaborations and any future collaborations that we enter into are subject to numerous risks, including:

84

In addition, certain collaboration and commercialization agreements provide our collaborators with rights to terminate such agreements, which rights may or may not be subject to conditions, and which rights, if exercised, would adversely affect our product development efforts and could make it difficult for us to attract new collaborators. For example, our license agreement with MGB may be terminated by MGB for our failure to pay, our failure to maintain proper insurance in accordance with the agreement, if we file for bankruptcy or if we remain in default for non-financial reasons following a specified cure period to remedy the breach. In the event of the termination of any collaboration or commercialization agreement, we would likely be required to limit the size and scope of efforts for the development and commercialization of such product candidates or products; we would likely be required to seek additional financing to fund further development or identify alternative strategic collaborations; our potential to generate future revenue from royalties and milestone payments from such product candidates or products would be significantly reduced, delayed or eliminated; and it could have an adverse effect on our business and future growth prospects. Our rights to recover tangible and intangible assets and intellectual property rights needed to advance a product candidate or product after termination of a collaboration may be limited by contract, and we may not be able to advance a program post-termination.

As a result of the foregoing, our current and any future collaboration agreements may not lead to development or commercialization of our product candidates in the most efficient manner or at all. If a collaborator of ours were to be involved in a business combination, the continued pursuit and emphasis on our product development or commercialization program could be delayed, diminished or terminated. If one of our collaborators terminates its agreement with us, we may find it more difficult to attract new collaborators and our reputation in the business and financial communities could be adversely affected. Any failure to successfully develop or commercialize our product candidates pursuant to our current or any future collaboration agreements could have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

If conflicts arise with our development and commercialization collaborators or licensors, they may act in their own self-interest, which may be adverse to the interests of our company.

We may in the future experience disagreements with our development and commercialization collaborators or licensors. Conflicts may arise in our collaboration and license arrangements with third parties due to one or more of the following:

Conflicts with our development and commercialization collaborators or licensors could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition or results of operations and future growth prospects.

We rely on third parties, including independent clinical investigators and CROs to conduct and sponsor some of the clinical trials of our product candidates. Any failure by a third party to meet its obligations with respect to the clinical development of our product candidates may delay or impair our ability to obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates.

We have relied upon and plan to continue to rely upon third parties, including independent clinical investigators, academic partners, medical institutions, regulatory affairs consultants and third-party CROs, to conduct our preclinical studies and clinical trials, including in some instances sponsoring such clinical trials, and to engage with regulatory

85

authorities and monitor and manage data for our ongoing preclinical and clinical programs. While we have, or will have, agreements governing the activities of such third parties, we will control only certain aspects of their activities and have limited influence over their actual performance.

Any of these third parties may terminate their engagements with us under certain circumstances. We may not be able to enter into alternative arrangements or do so on commercially reasonable terms. In addition, there is a natural transition period when a new contract research organization begins work. As a result, delays would likely occur, which could negatively impact our ability to meet our expected clinical development timelines and harm our business, financial condition and prospects.

We remain responsible for ensuring that each of our preclinical studies and clinical trials is conducted in accordance with the applicable protocol and legal, regulatory and scientific standards, and our reliance on these third parties does not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities. We and our third-party contractors and CROs are required to comply with GCP requirements, which are regulations and guidelines enforced by the FDA, the Competent Authorities of the Member States of the EEA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities for all of our products in clinical development. Regulatory authorities enforce these GCP requirements through periodic inspections of trial sponsors, principal investigators and trial sites. If we fail to exercise adequate oversight over any of our academic partners or CROs or if we or any of our academic partners or CROs do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or obligations, fail to meet expected deadlines, or if the quality or accuracy of the clinical data they obtain is compromised due to the failure to adhere to our clinical protocols or regulatory requirements, or for any other reasons, the clinical data generated in our clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA, the EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require us to perform additional clinical trials before approving our marketing applications. We cannot assure you that upon a regulatory inspection of us, our academic partners or our CROs or other third parties performing services in connection with our clinical trials, such regulatory authority will determine that any of our clinical trials complies with GCP regulations. In addition, our clinical trials must be conducted with product produced under applicable cGMP regulations. Our failure to comply with these regulations may require us to repeat clinical trials, which would delay the regulatory approval process.

Furthermore, the third parties conducting clinical trials on our behalf are not our employees, and except for remedies available to us under our agreements with such contractors, we cannot control whether or not they devote sufficient time, skill and resources to our ongoing development programs. These contractors may also have relationships with other commercial entities, including our competitors, for whom they may also be conducting clinical trials or other drug development activities, which could impede their ability to devote appropriate time to our clinical programs. If these third parties, including clinical investigators, do not successfully carry out their contractual duties, meet expected deadlines or conduct our clinical trials in accordance with regulatory requirements or our stated protocols, we may not be able to obtain, or may be delayed in obtaining, marketing approvals for our product candidates. If that occurs, we will not be able to, or may be delayed in our efforts to, successfully commercialize our product candidates.

In addition, with respect to investigator-sponsored trials that are being or may be conducted, we do not control the design or conduct of these trials, and it is possible that the FDA or EMA will not view these investigator-sponsored trials as providing adequate support for future clinical trials or market approval, whether controlled by us or third parties, for any one or more reasons, including elements of the design or execution of the trials or safety concerns or other trial results. We expect that such arrangements will provide us certain information rights with respect to the investigator-sponsored trials, including the ability to obtain a license to obtain access to use and reference the data, including for our own regulatory submissions, resulting from the investigator-sponsored trials. However, we do not have control over the timing and reporting of the data from investigator-sponsored trials, nor do we own the data from the investigator-sponsored trials. If we are unable to confirm or replicate the results from the investigator-sponsored trials or if negative results are obtained, we would likely be further delayed or prevented from advancing further clinical development. Further, if investigators or institutions breach their obligations with respect to the clinical development of our product candidates, or if the data proves to be inadequate compared to the firsthand knowledge we might have gained had the investigator-sponsored trials been sponsored and conducted by us, then our ability to design and conduct any future clinical trials ourselves may be adversely affected. Additionally, the FDA or EMA may disagree with the sufficiency of our right of reference to the preclinical, manufacturing or clinical data generated by these investigator-sponsored trials, or our interpretation of preclinical, manufacturing or clinical data from these investigator-sponsored trials. If so, the FDA or EMA may require us to obtain and submit additional preclinical, manufacturing, or clinical data.

If the manufacturers upon which we may rely fail to produce our product candidates in the volumes that we require on a timely basis, or fail to comply with stringent regulations applicable to biopharmaceutical manufacturers, we may face delays in the development and commercialization of, or be unable to meet demand for, our product candidates and may lose potential revenues.

We also expect to develop commercial scale manufacturing at third-party manufacturers for our product candidate CAN-2409. We may develop clinical manufacturing capabilities at our facility in Needham, Massachusetts for our product candidate CAN-3110 and we may also develop clinical scale manufacturing for CAN-3110 at third-party manufacturers.

86

There can be no assurance that our supply of clinical product will not be limited, interrupted, or of satisfactory quality or continue to be available at acceptable prices. In particular, any replacement of our CMOs could require significant effort and expertise because there may be a limited number of qualified replacements. Any delays in obtaining adequate supplies of our product candidates that meet the necessary quality standards, including delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, may delay our development or commercialization.

We may not succeed in our efforts to establish manufacturing relationships or other alternative arrangements for any of our product candidates or programs. Our product candidates may compete with other products and product candidates for access to manufacturing facilities. There are a limited number of manufacturers that operate under cGMP regulations and that are both capable of manufacturing and filling our viral product for us and willing to do so. If our existing third-party manufacturers, or the third parties that we engage in the future, should cease to work with us, we likely would experience delays in obtaining sufficient quantities of our product candidates for us to meet commercial demand or to advance our clinical trials while we identify and qualify replacement suppliers. If for any reason we are unable to obtain adequate supplies of our product candidates or the therapeutic substances used to manufacture them, it will be more difficult for us to develop our product candidates and compete effectively. Further, even if we do establish such collaborations or arrangements, our third-party manufacturers may breach, terminate, or not renew these agreements.

Any problems or delays we experience in preparing for commercial scale manufacturing of a product candidate or component may result in a delay in product development timelines and FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authority approval of the product candidate or may impair our ability to manufacture commercial quantities or such quantities at an acceptable cost and quality, which could result in the delay, prevention, or impairment of clinical development and commercialization of our product candidates and may materially harm our business, financial condition, results of operations, stock price and prospects.

The manufacture of biopharmaceutical products requires significant expertise and capital investment, including the development of advanced manufacturing techniques and process controls. Manufacturers of therapeutics often encounter difficulties in production, particularly in scaling up initial production. These problems include difficulties with production costs and yields, quality control, including stability of the product candidate and quality assurance testing, shortages of qualified personnel or key raw materials, and compliance with strictly enforced federal, state, and foreign regulations. Our CMOs may not perform as agreed. If our manufacturers were to encounter these or other difficulties, our ability to provide product candidates to patients in our clinical trials could be jeopardized.

CMOs of our product candidates may be unable to comply with our specifications, applicable cGMP requirements or other FDA, state or foreign regulatory requirements. Poor control of production processes can lead to the introduction of adventitious agents or other contaminants, or to inadvertent changes in the properties or stability of a product candidate that may not be detectable in final product testing. If our CMOs cannot successfully manufacture material that conforms to our specifications and the strict regulatory requirements of the FDA or other regulatory authorities, they will not be able to secure or maintain regulatory approval for their manufacturing facilities. Any such deviations may also require remedial measures that may be costly and/or time consuming for us or a third party to implement and that may include the temporary or permanent suspension of a clinical trial or the temporary or permanent closure of a facility. Any such remedial measures imposed upon us or third parties with whom we contract could materially harm our business. Any delays in obtaining products or product candidates that comply with the applicable regulatory requirements may result in delays to clinical trials, product approvals, and commercialization. It may also require that we conduct additional studies.

While we are ultimately responsible for the manufacturing of our product candidates and therapeutic substances, other than through our contractual arrangements, we have little control over our manufacturers’ compliance with these regulations and standards. If the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority does not approve these facilities for the manufacture of our product candidates or if it withdraws any such approval in the future, we may need to find alternative manufacturing facilities, which would significantly impact our ability to develop, obtain regulatory approval for or market our product candidates, if approved. Any new manufacturers would need to either obtain or develop the necessary manufacturing know-how, and obtain the necessary equipment and materials, which may take substantial time and investment. We must also receive FDA approval for the use of any new manufacturers for commercial supply.

A failure to comply with the applicable regulatory requirements, including periodic regulatory inspections, may result in regulatory enforcement actions against our manufacturers or us (including fines and civil and criminal penalties, including imprisonment) suspension or restrictions of production, injunctions, delay or denial of product approval or supplements to approved products, clinical holds or termination of clinical trials, warning or untitled letters, regulatory authority communications warning the public about safety issues with the product candidate, refusal to permit the import or export of the products, product seizure, detention, or recall, operating restrictions, suits under the civil False Claims Act, corporate integrity agreements, consent decrees, withdrawal of product approval, environmental or safety incidents and other liabilities. If the safety of any quantities supplied is compromised due to our manufacturers’ failure to adhere

87

to applicable laws or for other reasons, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for or successfully commercialize our product candidates.

Any failure or refusal to supply our product candidates or components for our product candidates that we may develop could delay, prevent or impair our clinical development or commercialization efforts. Any change in our manufacturers could be costly because the commercial terms of any new arrangement could be less favorable and because the expenses relating to the transfer of necessary technology and processes could be significant.

Some of our product candidates are being and may be studied in third-party research and clinical trials sponsored by organizations or agencies other than us, or in investigator-initiated clinical trials, which means we will have minimal or no control over the conduct of such trials and which may adversely affect our ability to obtain marketing approval or certain regulatory exclusivities.

We have and may continue to supply and otherwise support third party research, including investigator-initiated clinical trials. Investigator-initiated clinical trials pose similar risks as those set forth elsewhere in this “Risk Factor” section relating to our internally-sponsored clinical trials, but because we are not be the sponsors of these trials, we have less control over the protocols, administration or conduct of these trials, including follow-up with patients and ongoing collection of data after treatment. Additionally, third party clinical research has been and may continue to be conducted with CAN-3110 and CAN-2409 which was not provided by us. The conduct or findings of these trials may have a negative impact on our development programs notwithstanding that we have little involvement or control over these trials. As a result, we are subject to additional risks associated with the way investigator-initiated trials are conducted. In particular, for trials in which we supply drug product, we may be named in lawsuits that would lead to increased costs associated with legal defense. Additional risks include difficulties or delays in communicating with investigators or administrators, procedural delays and other timing issues and difficulties or differences in interpreting data. Third-party investigators may design clinical trials with clinical endpoints that are more difficult to achieve, or in other ways that increase the risk of negative clinical trial results compared to clinical trials that we may design on our own. Negative results in investigator-initiated clinical trials could have a material adverse effect on our efforts to obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates and the public perception of our product candidates. As a result, our lack of control over the conduct and timing of and communications with the FDA and other regulatory authorities regarding investigator-sponsored trials may expose us to additional risks and uncertainties, many of which are outside our control, and the occurrence of which could adversely affect the commercial prospects for our product candidates. In addition, third parties that are investigating product candidates which have not been provided by us may seek and obtain regulatory approval of product candidates before we do, which may adversely affect our development strategy and eligibility for certain exclusivities for which we may otherwise be eligible.

We have completed and may in the future complete related party transactions that were not and may not be conducted on an arm’s length basis.

We have in the past and continue to be party to certain transactions with certain entities affiliated with Estuardo Aguilar-Cordova, our founder and former Chief Scientific Officer, and Laura Aguilar, our former Chief Medical Officer. For instance, we have entered into an exclusive license agreement with Ventagen, LLC (Ventagen), an entity owned in part (49.5%), though not managed, by Estuardo Aguilar-Cordova and Laura Aguilar, for the use of worldwide patent rights and know-how owned or controlled by us which cover applicable technology utilizing the delivery method of the herpes derived TK protein to tumors or other tissues via a viral vector.

In January 2008, we entered into an operating lease agreement with a term through December 31, 2022 with Ellka Holdings, LLC, or Ellka, for the space in which we operated in Auburndale, MA. In May 2016, we entered into a second lease agreement with Ellka for living space for employees, also in Auburndale, MA. We entered into a second lease for this space on July 26, 2018, which expired on July 31, 2019. Ellka was originally established in 2007 as an LLC for the purpose of acquiring and managing investment properties owned by Laura Aguilar and Estuardo Aguilar-Cordova and their children’s trusts. Ellka is owned and operated by Laura Aguilar and Estuardo Aguilar-Cordova and members of their immediate family. Although we believe that these transactions were conducted on an arm’s length basis, it is possible that the terms were less favorable to us than they might have been in a transaction with an unrelated party.

As of March 15, 2022, Estuardo Aguilar-Cordova and Laura Aguilar beneficially owned 6,339,579 shares of our common stock, or approximately 22.0% of our total outstanding capital stock as of such date. Accordingly, they will continue to have significant influence over all business decisions, including with respect to such matters as amendments to our charter, other fundamental corporate transactions, such as mergers, asset sales, and the sale of the Company, and otherwise will be able to influence our business and affairs. In connection with the IPO, we adopted a written related-person transactions policy that sets forth our policies and procedures regarding the identification, review, consideration and oversight of related-person transactions.

Our reliance on third parties requires us to share our trade secrets, which increases the possibility that a competitor will discover them or that our trade secrets will be misappropriated or disclosed.

Because we rely on third parties to manufacture our product candidates, and because we collaborate with various organizations and academic institutions on the development of our product candidates, we must, at times, share trade

88

secrets with them. We seek to protect our proprietary technology in part by entering into confidentiality agreements and, if applicable, material transfer agreements, collaborative research agreements, consulting agreements or other similar agreements with our collaborators, advisors, employees and consultants prior to beginning research or disclosing proprietary information. These agreements typically limit the rights of the third parties to use or disclose our confidential information, such as trade secrets.

Despite the contractual provisions employed when working with third parties, the need to share trade secrets and other confidential information increases the risk that such trade secrets become known by our competitors, are inadvertently incorporated into the technology of others, or are disclosed or used in violation of these agreements. Given that our proprietary position is based, in part, on our know-how and trade secrets, a competitor’s discovery of our trade secrets or other unauthorized use or disclosure would impair our competitive position and may have a material adverse effect on our business.

In addition, these agreements typically restrict the ability of our collaborators, advisors, employees and consultants to publish data potentially relating to our trade secrets. Our academic collaborators typically have rights to publish data, provided that we are notified in advance and may delay publication for a specified time in order to secure our intellectual property rights arising from the collaboration. In other cases, publication rights are controlled exclusively by us, although in some cases we may share these rights with other parties. Despite our efforts to protect our trade secrets, our competitors may discover our trade secrets, either through breach of these agreements, independent development or publication of information including our trade secrets in cases where we do not have proprietary or otherwise protected rights at the time of publication. A competitor’s discovery of our trade secrets would impair our competitive position and have an adverse impact on our business.

Risks Related to Intellectual Property

Our rights to develop and commercialize certain of our product candidates are subject and may in the future be subject, in part, to the terms and conditions of licenses granted to us by third parties. If we fail to comply with our obligations under our current or future intellectual property license agreements or otherwise experience disruptions to our business relationships with our current or any future licensors, we could lose intellectual property rights that are important to our business.

We are and expect to continue to be reliant upon third-party licensors for certain patent and other intellectual property rights that are important or necessary to the development of some of our technology and product candidates. For example, we rely on licenses from MGB and Periphagen to certain patent rights. These license agreements impose, and we expect that any future license agreement will impose, specified diligence, milestone payment, royalty, commercialization, development and other obligations on us and require us to meet development timelines, or to exercise diligent or commercially reasonable efforts to develop and commercialize licensed products, in order to maintain the licenses. For more information on the terms of these license agreements, see “Business—Intellectual Property—License Agreements.”

Furthermore, our licensors have, or may in the future have, the right to terminate a license if we materially breach the agreement and fail to cure such breach within a specified period or in the event we undergo certain bankruptcy events. In spite of our best efforts, our current or any future licensors might conclude that we have materially breached our license agreements and might therefore terminate the license agreements. If our license agreements are terminated, we may lose our rights to develop and commercialize certain of our product candidates and technology, lose patent protection, experience significant delays in the development and commercialization of certain of our product candidates and technology, and incur liability for damages. If these in-licenses are terminated, or if the underlying intellectual property fails to provide the intended exclusivity, our competitors or other third parties could have the freedom to seek regulatory approval of, and to market, products and technologies identical or competitive to ours and we may be required to cease our development and commercialization of certain of our product candidates and technology. In addition, we may seek to obtain additional licenses from our licensors and, in connection with obtaining such licenses, we may agree to amend our existing licenses in a manner that may be more favorable to the licensors, including by agreeing to terms that could enable third parties, including our competitors, to receive licenses to a portion of the intellectual property that is subject to our existing licenses and to compete with any product candidates we may develop and our technology. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Disputes may arise regarding intellectual property subject to a licensing agreement, including:

89

In addition, our license agreements are, and future license agreements are likely to be, complex, and certain provisions in such agreements may be susceptible to multiple interpretations. The resolution of any contract interpretation disagreement that may arise could narrow what we believe to be the scope of our rights to the relevant intellectual property or technology, or increase what we believe to be our diligence, development, regulatory, commercialization, financial or other obligations under the relevant agreement. In addition, if disputes over intellectual property that we have licensed or any other dispute related to our license agreements prevent or impair our ability to maintain our current license agreements on commercially acceptable terms, we may be unable to successfully develop and commercialize the affected product candidates and technology. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

License agreements we may enter into in the future may be non-exclusive. Accordingly, third parties may also obtain non-exclusive licenses from such licensors with respect to the intellectual property licensed to us under such license agreements. Accordingly, these license agreements may not provide us with exclusive rights to use such licensed patent and other intellectual property rights, or may not provide us with exclusive rights to use such patent and other intellectual property rights in all relevant fields of use and in all territories in which we may wish to develop or commercialize our technology and any product candidates we may develop in the future.

Moreover, some of our in-licensed patent and other intellectual property rights may in the future be subject to third-party interests such as co-ownership. If we are unable to obtain an exclusive license to such third-party co-owners’ interest, in such patent and other intellectual property rights, such third-party co-owners may be able to license their rights to other third parties, including our competitors, and our competitors could market competing products and technology. We or our licensors may need the cooperation of any such co-owners of our licensed patent and other intellectual property rights in order to enforce them against third parties, and such cooperation may not be provided to us or our licensors.

Additionally, we may not have complete control over the preparation, filing, prosecution, maintenance, enforcement and defense of patents and patent applications that we license from third parties. It is possible that our licensors’ filing, prosecution and maintenance of the licensed patents and patent applications, enforcement of patents against infringers or defense of such patents against challenges of validity or claims of enforceability may be less vigorous than if we had conducted them ourselves, and accordingly, we cannot be certain that these patents and patent applications will be prepared, filed, prosecuted, maintained, enforced and defended in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business. If our licensors fail to file, prosecute, maintain, enforce and defend such patents and patent applications, or lose rights to those patents or patent applications, the rights we have licensed may be reduced or eliminated, our right to develop and commercialize any of our technology and any product candidates we may develop that are the subject of such licensed rights could be adversely affected and we may not be able to prevent competitors or other third parties from making, using and selling competing products.

Furthermore, our owned and in-licensed patent rights may be subject to a reservation of rights by one or more third parties. When new technologies are developed with government funding, in order to secure ownership of patent rights related to the technologies, the recipient of such funding is required to comply with certain government regulations, including timely disclosing the inventions claimed in such patent rights to the U.S. government and timely electing title to such inventions. A failure to meet these obligations may lead to a loss of rights or the unenforceability of relevant patents or patent applications.

Our success depends in part on our ability to protect our intellectual property. It is difficult and costly to protect our proprietary rights and technology, and we may not be able to ensure their protection.

Our business will depend in large part on obtaining and maintaining patent, trademark and trade secret protection of our proprietary technologies and our product candidates, their respective components, synthetic intermediates, formulations, combination therapies, methods used to manufacture them and methods of treatment, as well as successfully defending these patents against third-party challenges. Our ability to stop unauthorized third parties from making, using, selling, offering to sell or importing our product candidates is dependent upon the extent to which we have rights under valid and enforceable patents that cover these activities and whether a court would issue an injunctive remedy. If we are unable to secure and maintain patent protection for any product or technology we develop, or if the scope of the patent protection secured is not sufficiently broad, our competitors could develop and commercialize products and technology similar or identical to ours, and our ability to commercialize any product candidates we may develop may be adversely affected.

90

The patenting process is expensive and time-consuming, and we may not be able to file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner. In addition, we may not pursue, obtain, or maintain patent protection in all relevant markets. It is also possible that we will fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development output before it is too late to obtain patent protection. Moreover, in some circumstances, we may not have the right to control the preparation, filing and prosecution of patent applications, or to maintain the patents, covering technology that we license from or license to third parties and are reliant on our licensors or licensees.

The strength of patents in the biotechnology and biopharmaceutical field involves complex legal and scientific questions and can be uncertain. The patent applications that we own or in-license may fail to result in issued patents with claims that cover our product candidates or uses thereof in the United States or in other foreign countries. Even if the patents do successfully issue, third parties may challenge the validity, enforceability or scope thereof, which may result in such patents being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable. Furthermore, even if they are unchallenged, our patents and patent applications may not adequately protect our technology, including our product candidates, or prevent others from designing around our claims. If the breadth or strength of protection provided by the patent applications and patents we hold with respect to our product candidates is threatened, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to develop, and threaten our ability to commercialize, our product candidates. Further, if we encounter delays in our clinical trials, the period of time during which we could market our product candidates under patent protection would be reduced.

We cannot be certain that we were the first to file any patent application related to our technology and directed to our product candidates, and, if we were not, we may be precluded from obtaining patent protection for our technology, including our product candidates.

We cannot be certain that we are the first to invent the inventions covered by pending patent applications and patents, and, if we are not, we may be subject to priority disputes. Furthermore, for United States applications in which all claims are entitled to a priority date before March 16, 2013, an interference proceeding can be provoked by a third-party or instituted by the USPTO to determine who was the first to invent any of the subject matter covered by the patent claims of our applications and patents. Similarly, for United States applications in which at least one claim is not entitled to a priority date before March 16, 2013, derivation proceedings can be instituted to determine whether the subject matter of a patent claim was derived from a prior inventor’s disclosure.

We may be required to disclaim part or all of the term of certain patents or all of the term of certain patent applications. There may be prior art of which we are not aware that may affect the validity or enforceability of a patent or patent application claim. There also may be prior art of which we are aware, but which we do not believe affects the validity or enforceability of a claim, which may, nonetheless, ultimately be found to affect the validity or enforceability of a claim. No assurance can be given that if challenged, our patents would be declared by a court to be valid or enforceable or that even if found valid and enforceable, would adequately protect our product candidates, or would be found by a court to be infringed by a competitor’s technology or product. We may analyze patents or patent applications of our competitors that we believe are relevant to our activities, and consider that we are free to operate in relation to our product candidates, but our competitors may achieve issued claims, including in patents we consider to be unrelated, which block our efforts or may potentially result in our product candidates or our activities infringing such claims. The possibility exists that others will develop products which have the same effect as our products on an independent basis which do not infringe our patents or other intellectual property rights, or will design around the claims of patents that may issue that cover our products.

Patent reform legislation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents. Under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or America Invents Act, enacted in 2013, the United States moved from a “first to invent” to a “first-to-file” system. Under a “first-to-file” system, assuming the other requirements for patentability are met, the first inventor to file a patent application generally will be entitled to a patent on the invention regardless of whether another inventor had made the invention earlier. The America Invents Act includes a number of other significant changes to U.S. patent law, including provisions that affect the way patent applications are prosecuted, redefine prior art and establish a new post-grant review system. The effects of these changes are unclear as the USPTO continues to develop new regulations and procedures in connection with the America Invents Act. In addition, the patent positions of companies in the development and commercialization of biopharmaceuticals are particularly uncertain. Recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings have narrowed the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances and weakened the rights of patent owners in certain situations. This combination of events has created uncertainty with respect to the validity and enforceability of patents, once obtained. Depending on future actions by the U.S. Congress, the federal courts, and the USPTO, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and have a material adverse effect on our existing patent portfolio and our ability to protect and enforce our intellectual property in the future.

91

The degree of future protection for our proprietary rights is uncertain because legal means afford only limited protection and may not adequately protect our rights or permit us to gain or keep our competitive advantage. For example:

We may enter into license or other collaboration agreements in the future that may impose certain obligations on us. If we fail to comply with our obligations under such future agreements with third parties, we could lose license rights that may be important to our future business.

In connection with our efforts to expand our pipeline of product candidates, we may enter into certain licenses or other collaboration agreements in the future pertaining to the in-license of rights to additional candidates. Such agreements may impose various diligence, milestone payment, royalty, insurance or other obligations on us. If we fail to comply with these obligations, our licensor or collaboration partners may have the right to terminate the relevant agreement, in which event we would not be able to develop or market the products covered by such licensed intellectual property.

Moreover, disputes may arise regarding intellectual property subject to a licensing agreement, including:

92

In addition, the agreements under which we currently license intellectual property or technology from third parties are complex, and certain provisions in such agreements may be susceptible to multiple interpretations. The resolution of any contract interpretation disagreement that may arise could narrow what we believe to be the scope of our rights to the relevant intellectual property or technology, or increase what we believe to be our financial or other obligations under the relevant agreement, either of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects. Moreover, if disputes over intellectual property that we have licensed prevent or impair our ability to maintain our current licensing arrangements on commercially acceptable terms, we may be unable to successfully develop and commercialize the affected product candidates, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial conditions, results of operations, and prospects.

In addition, we may have limited control over the maintenance and prosecution of these in-licensed patents and patent applications, or any other intellectual property that may be related to our in-licensed intellectual property. For example, we cannot be certain that such activities by any future licensors have been or will be conducted in compliance with applicable laws and regulations or will result in valid and enforceable patents and other intellectual property rights. We have limited control over the manner in which our licensors initiate an infringement proceeding against a third-party infringer of the intellectual property rights, or defend certain of the intellectual property that is licensed to us. It is possible that the licensors’ infringement proceeding or defense activities may be less vigorous than had we conducted them ourselves.

If we are unable to protect the confidentiality of our trade secrets, our business and competitive position would be harmed.

In addition to patent protection, we rely heavily upon know-how and trade secret protection, as well as non-disclosure agreements and invention assignment agreements with our employees, consultants and third-parties, to protect our confidential and proprietary information, especially where we do not believe patent protection is appropriate or obtainable. In addition to contractual measures, we try to protect the confidential nature of our proprietary information using physical and technological security measures. Such measures may not, for example, in the case of misappropriation of a trade secret by an employee or third-party with authorized access, provide adequate protection for our proprietary information. Our security measures may not prevent an employee or consultant from misappropriating our trade secrets and providing them to a competitor, and recourse we take against such misconduct may not provide an adequate remedy to protect our interests fully. Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret can be difficult, expensive, and time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, trade secrets may be independently developed by others in a manner that could prevent legal recourse by us. For example, our clinical development strategy includes the testing of live tissue samples, and our techniques for preserving and testing these samples are proprietary and confidential. If one or more third parties obtain or are otherwise able to replicate these techniques, an important feature and differentiator of our clinical development strategy will become available to potential competitors. If any of our confidential or proprietary information, such as our trade secrets, were to be disclosed or misappropriated, or if any such information was independently developed by a competitor, our competitive position could be harmed.

In addition, courts outside the United States are sometimes less willing to protect trade secrets. If we choose to go to court to stop a third-party from using any of our trade secrets, we may incur substantial costs. These lawsuits may consume our time and other resources even if we are successful. Although we take steps to protect our proprietary information and trade secrets, including through contractual means with our employees and consultants, third parties may independently develop substantially equivalent proprietary information and techniques or otherwise gain access to our trade secrets or disclose our technology.

Thus, we may not be able to meaningfully protect our trade secrets. It is our policy to require our employees, consultants, outside scientific collaborators, sponsored researchers and other advisors to execute confidentiality agreements upon the commencement of employment or consulting relationships with us. These agreements provide that all confidential information concerning our business or financial affairs developed or made known to the individual or entity during the course of the party’s relationship with us is to be kept confidential and not disclosed to third parties except in specific circumstances. In the case of employees, the agreements provide that all inventions conceived by the individual, and which are related to our current or planned business or research and development or made during normal working hours, on our premises or using our equipment or proprietary information, are our exclusive property. In addition, we take other appropriate precautions, such as physical and technological security measures, to guard against misappropriation of our proprietary technology by third parties. We have also adopted policies and conduct training that provides guidance on our expectations, and our advice for best practices, in protecting our trade secrets.

Third-party claims of intellectual property infringement may prevent or delay our product discovery and development efforts.

Our commercial success depends in part on our ability to develop, manufacture, market and sell our product candidates and use our proprietary technologies without infringing the proprietary rights of third parties. There is a substantial amount of litigation involving patents and other intellectual property rights in the biotechnology and biopharmaceutical

93

industries, as well as administrative proceedings for challenging patents, including interference, derivation, inter partes review, post grant review, and reexamination proceedings before the USPTO or oppositions and other comparable proceedings in foreign jurisdictions. We may be exposed to, or threatened with, future litigation by third parties having patent or other intellectual property rights alleging that our product candidates and/or proprietary technologies infringe their intellectual property rights. Numerous U.S. and foreign issued patents and pending patent applications, which are owned by third parties, exist in the fields in which we are developing our product candidates. As the biotechnology and biopharmaceutical industries expand and more patents are issued, the risk increases that our product candidates may give rise to claims of infringement of the patent rights of others. Moreover, it is not always clear to industry participants, including us, which patents cover various types of drugs, products or their methods of use or manufacture. Thus, because of the large number of patents issued and patent applications filed in our fields, there may be a risk that third parties may allege they have patent rights encompassing our product candidates, technologies or methods.

If a third-party claims that we infringe its intellectual property rights, we may face a number of issues, including, but not limited to:

Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of complex patent litigation more effectively than we can because they have substantially greater resources. 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 or could otherwise have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation or administrative proceedings, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure.

Our collaborators may assert ownership or commercial rights to inventions they develop from research we support or that we develop from our use of the tissue samples or other biological materials, which they provide to us, or otherwise arising from the collaboration.

We collaborate with several institutions, universities, medical centers, physicians and researchers in scientific matters and expect to continue to enter into additional collaboration agreements. In certain cases, we do not have written agreements with these collaborators, or the written agreements we have do not cover intellectual property rights. Also, we rely on numerous third parties to provide us with tissue samples and biological materials that we use to conduct our research activities and develop our product candidates. If we cannot successfully negotiate sufficient ownership and commercial rights to any inventions that result from our use of a third-party collaborator’s materials, or if disputes arise with respect to the intellectual property developed with the use of a collaborator’s samples, or data developed in a collaborator’s study, we may be limited in our ability to capitalize on the market potential of these inventions or developments.

Third parties may assert that we are employing their proprietary technology without authorization.

There may be third-party patents of which we are currently unaware with claims to compositions of matter, materials, formulations, methods of manufacture or methods for treatment that encompass the composition, use or manufacture of our product candidates. There may be currently pending patent applications of which we are currently unaware which may later result in issued patents that our product candidates or their use or manufacture may infringe. In addition, third parties may obtain patents in the future and claim that use of our technologies infringes upon these patents. If any third-party patent were held by a court of competent jurisdiction to cover our product candidates, intermediates used in the manufacture of our product candidates or our materials generally, aspects of our formulations or methods of use, the holders of any such patent may be able to block our ability to develop and commercialize the product candidate unless we obtained a license or until such patent expires or is finally determined to be held invalid or unenforceable. In either

94

case, such a license may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all. If we are unable to obtain a necessary license to a third-party patent on commercially reasonable terms, or at all, our ability to commercialize our product candidates may be impaired or delayed, which could in turn significantly harm our business. Even if we obtain a license, it may be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors access to the same technologies licensed to us. In addition, if the breadth or strength of protection provided by our patents and patent applications is threatened, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to license, develop or commercialize current or future product candidates.

Parties making claims against us may seek and obtain injunctive or other equitable relief, which could effectively block our ability to further develop and commercialize our product candidates. Defense of these claims, regardless of their merit, would involve substantial litigation expense and would be a substantial diversion of employee resources from our business. In the event of a successful claim of infringement against us, we may have to pay substantial damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees for willful infringement, obtain one or more licenses from third parties, pay royalties or redesign our infringing products, which may be impossible or require substantial time and monetary expenditure. We cannot predict whether any such license would be available at all or whether it would be available on commercially reasonable terms. Furthermore, even in the absence of litigation, we may need to obtain licenses from third parties to advance our research or allow commercialization of our product candidates. We may fail to obtain any of these licenses at a reasonable cost or on reasonable terms, if at all. In that event, we would be unable to further develop and commercialize our product candidates, which could harm our business significantly.

Third parties may assert that our employees or consultants have wrongfully used or disclosed confidential information, misappropriated trade secrets, or are in breach of non-competition or non-solicitation agreements with our competitors.

As is common in the biotechnology and biopharmaceutical industries, we employ individuals who were previously employed at universities or other biotechnology or biopharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. Although no claims against us are currently pending, and although we try to ensure that our employees and consultants do not use the proprietary information or know-how of others in their work for us, we may be subject to claims that we or our employees, consultants or independent contractors have inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed intellectual property, including trade secrets or other proprietary information, of a former employer or other third parties. We may also be subject to claims that we caused an employee to breach the terms of their non-competition or non-solicitation agreement, or that we or these individuals have, inadvertently or otherwise, used or disclosed the alleged trade secrets or other proprietary information of a former employer or competitor or other party. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation or other legal proceedings relating to intellectual property claims may cause us to incur significant expenses, and could distract our technical and management personnel from their normal responsibilities. In addition, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments, and, if securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a substantial adverse effect on the price of our common stock. This type of litigation or proceeding could substantially increase our operating losses and reduce our resources available for development activities. We may not have sufficient financial or other resources to adequately conduct such litigation or proceedings. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of such litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their substantially greater financial resources. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other intellectual property related proceedings could adversely affect our ability to compete in the marketplace.

We may not be successful in obtaining or maintaining necessary rights to develop any future product candidates on acceptable terms.

Because our programs may involve additional product candidates that may require the use of proprietary rights held by third parties, the growth of our business may depend in part on our ability to acquire, in-license or use these proprietary rights.

Our product candidates may also require specific formulations to work effectively and efficiently and these rights may be held by others. We may develop products containing our compounds and pre-existing biopharmaceutical compounds. We may be unable to acquire or in-license any compositions, methods of use, processes or other third-party intellectual property rights from third parties that we identify as necessary or important to our business operations. We may fail to obtain any of these licenses at a reasonable cost or on reasonable terms, if at all, which would harm our business. We may need to cease use of the compositions or methods covered by such third-party intellectual property rights, and may need to seek to develop alternative approaches that do not infringe on such intellectual property rights which may entail additional costs and development delays, even if we were able to develop such alternatives, which may not be feasible. 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. In that event, we may be required to expend significant time and resources to develop or license replacement technology.

95

Additionally, we sometimes collaborate with academic institutions to accelerate our preclinical research or development under written agreements with these institutions. In certain cases, these institutions provide us with an option to negotiate a license to any of the institution’s rights in technology resulting from the collaboration. Regardless of such 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 do so, the institution may offer the intellectual property rights to others, potentially blocking our ability to pursue our program. If we are unable to successfully obtain rights to required third-party intellectual property or to maintain the existing intellectual property rights we have, we may have to abandon development of such program and our business and financial condition could suffer.

The licensing and acquisition of third-party intellectual property rights is a competitive area, and companies, which may be more established, or have greater resources than we do, may also be pursuing strategies to license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights that we may consider necessary or attractive in order to commercialize our product candidates. More established companies may have a competitive advantage over us due to their size, cash resources and greater clinical development and commercialization capabilities. There can be no assurance that we will be able to successfully complete such negotiations and ultimately acquire the rights to the intellectual property surrounding the additional product candidates that we may seek to acquire.

We may be involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce our patents or the patents of our licensors, which could be expensive, time-consuming and unsuccessful.

Competitors may infringe our patents or the patents of our current or future licensors. To counter infringement or unauthorized use, we may be required to file infringement claims, which can be expensive and time-consuming. In addition, in an infringement proceeding, a court may decide that one or more of our patents is not valid or is unenforceable, or may refuse to stop the other party from using the technology at issue on the grounds that our patents do not cover the technology in question or for other reasons. An adverse result in any litigation or defense proceedings could put one or more of our patents at risk of being invalidated, held unenforceable, or interpreted narrowly and could put our patent applications at risk of not issuing. Defense of these claims, regardless of their merit, would involve substantial litigation expense and would be a substantial diversion of employee resources from our business.

We may choose to challenge the patentability of claims in a third-party’s U.S. patent by requesting that the USPTO review the patent claims in an ex-parte re-examination, inter partes review or post-grant review proceedings. These proceedings are expensive and may consume our time or other resources. We may choose to challenge a third-party’s patent in patent opposition proceedings in the European Patent Office, or EPO, or other foreign patent office. The costs of these opposition proceedings could be substantial, and may consume our time or other resources. If we fail to obtain a favorable result at the USPTO, EPO or other patent office then we may be exposed to litigation by a third-party alleging that the patent may be infringed by our product candidates or proprietary technologies.

In addition, because some patent applications in the United States may be maintained in secrecy until the patents are issued, patent applications in the United States and many foreign jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing, and publications in the scientific literature often lag behind actual discoveries, we cannot be certain that others have not filed patent applications for technology covered by our owned and in-licensed issued patents or our pending applications, or that we or, if applicable, a licensor were the first to invent the technology. Our competitors may have filed, and may in the future file, patent applications covering our products or technology similar to ours. Any such patent application may have priority over our owned and in-licensed patent applications or patents, which could require us to obtain rights to issued patents covering such technologies. If another party has filed a U.S. patent application on inventions similar to those owned by or in-licensed to us, we or, in the case of in-licensed technology, the licensor may have to participate in an interference or derivation proceeding declared by the USPTO to determine priority of invention in the United States. If we or one of our licensors is a party to an interference or derivation proceeding involving a U.S. patent application on inventions owned by or in-licensed to us, we may incur substantial costs, divert management’s time and expend other resources, even if we are successful.

Interference or derivation proceedings provoked by third parties or brought by us or declared by the USPTO may be necessary to determine the priority of inventions with respect to our patents or patent applications or those of our licensors. An unfavorable outcome could result in a loss of our current patent rights and could require us to cease using the related technology or to attempt to license rights to it from the prevailing party. Our business could be harmed if the prevailing party does not offer us a license on commercially reasonable terms or at all, or if a non-exclusive license is offered and our competitors gain access to the same technology. Litigation or interference proceedings may result in a decision adverse to our interests and, even if we are successful, may result in substantial costs and distract our management and other employees. We may not be able to prevent, alone or with our licensors, misappropriation of our trade secrets or confidential information, particularly in countries where the laws may not protect those rights as fully as in the United States.

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 this type of litigation.

96

In addition, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments. If securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a substantial adverse effect on the price of our common stock.

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

Periodic maintenance fees on any issued patent are due to be paid to the USPTO and foreign patent agencies in several stages over the lifetime of the patent. The USPTO and various foreign governmental patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other provisions during the patent application process and following the issuance of a patent. While an inadvertent lapse can in many cases be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules, 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. Noncompliance events that could result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application include, but are not limited to, failure to respond to official actions within prescribed time limits, non-payment of fees and failure to properly legalize and submit formal documents. In certain circumstances, even inadvertent noncompliance events may permanently and irrevocably jeopardize patent rights. In such an event, our competitors might be able to enter the market, which would have a material adverse effect on our business.

Any patents, if issued patents covering our product candidates could be found invalid or unenforceable if challenged in court or the USPTO.

If we or one of our licensors initiate legal proceedings against a third-party to enforce a patent covering one of our product candidates, the defendant could counterclaim that the patent covering our product candidate, as applicable, is invalid and/or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity and/or unenforceability are commonplace, and there are numerous grounds upon which a third-party can assert invalidity or unenforceability of a patent. Third parties may also raise similar claims before administrative bodies in the United States or abroad, even outside the context of litigation. Such mechanisms include re-examination, inter partes review, post grant review, and equivalent proceedings in foreign jurisdictions (e.g., opposition proceedings). Such proceedings could result in revocation or amendment to our patents in such a way that they no longer cover our product candidates. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. With respect to the validity question, for example, we cannot be certain that there is no invalidating prior art, of which we, our patent counsel and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution. If a defendant were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity and/or unenforceability, or if we are otherwise unable to adequately protect our rights, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection on our product candidates. Such a loss of patent protection could have a material adverse impact on our business and our ability to commercialize or license our technology and product candidates.

Likewise, our current licensed patents covering our companion technologies, licensed from MGB and from Periphagen are expected to expire in 2036 and in 2069, respectively, without taking into account any possible patent term adjustments or extensions. Our earliest patents may expire before, or soon after, our first product achieves marketing approval in the United States or foreign jurisdictions. Upon the expiration of our current patents, we may lose the right to exclude others from practicing these inventions. The expiration of these patents could also have a similar material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects. We own pending patent applications covering our proprietary technologies or our product candidates that if issued as patents are expected to expire from 2037 through 2040, without taking into account any possible patent term adjustments or extensions. However, we cannot be assured that the USPTO or relevant foreign patent offices will grant any of these patent applications.

We have limited foreign intellectual property rights and may not be able to protect our intellectual property rights throughout the world.

We have limited intellectual property rights outside the United States. Filing, prosecuting and defending patents on product candidates in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and our intellectual property rights in some countries outside the United States can be less extensive than those in the United States. In addition, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as federal and state laws in the United States. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in all countries outside the United States, or from selling or importing products made using our inventions in and into the United States or other jurisdictions. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to develop their own products and, further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we have patent protection but where enforcement is not as strong as that in the United States. These products may compete with our products in jurisdictions where we do not have any issued patents and our 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

97

enforcement of, and may require a compulsory license to, patents, trade secrets and other intellectual property protection, particularly those relating to biopharmaceutical products, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patents or marketing of competing products against third parties in violation of our proprietary rights generally. The initiation of proceedings by third parties to challenge the scope or validity of our patent rights in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial cost and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business. Proceedings to enforce our patent rights in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, could put our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and our patent applications at risk of not issuing and could provoke third parties to assert claims against us. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce our intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop or license.

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. 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. Various extensions such as patent term adjustments and/or extensions, may be available, but the life of a patent, and the protection it affords, is limited. Even if patents covering our product candidates are obtained, once the patent life has expired, we may be open to competition from competitive products. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting such candidates might expire before or shortly after such candidates are commercialized. As a result, our owned and licensed patent portfolio may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing products similar or identical to ours.

If we do not obtain patent term extension and data exclusivity for any product candidates we may develop, our business may be materially harmed.

Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of any FDA marketing approval of any product candidates we may develop, one or more of our U.S. patents may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Action of 1984 Hatch-Waxman Amendments. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments permit a patent extension term of up to five years as compensation for patent term lost during the FDA regulatory review process. A patent term extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval, only one patent may be extended and only those claims covering the approved drug, a method for using it, or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. However, we may not be granted an extension because of, for example, failing to exercise due diligence during the testing phase or regulatory review process, failing to apply within applicable deadlines, failing to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents, or otherwise failing to satisfy applicable requirements. Moreover, the applicable time period or the scope of patent protection afforded could be less than we request. If we are unable to obtain patent term extension or the term of any such extension is less than we request, our competitors may obtain approval of competing products following our patent expiration, and our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects could be materially harmed.

If our trademarks and trade names are not adequately protected, then we may not be able to build name recognition in our markets of interest and our business may be adversely affected.

Our trademarks or trade names may be challenged, infringed, circumvented or declared generic or determined to be infringing on other marks. We may not be able to protect our rights to these trademarks and trade names or may be forced to stop using these names, which we need for name recognition by potential partners or customers in our markets of interest. If we are unable to establish name recognition based on our trademarks and trade names, we may not be able to compete effectively and our business may be adversely affected.

Risks Related to Our Common Stock

The price of our common stock may be volatile and fluctuate substantially, which could result in substantial losses to stockholders.

Our stock price is likely to be volatile. The stock market in general and the market for biopharmaceutical companies in particular have experienced extreme volatility that has often been unrelated to the operating performance of particular companies. As a result of this volatility, you may not be able to sell your common stock at or above the price at which it was purchased. The market price for our common stock may be influenced by many factors, including:

98

In addition, the trading prices for our and other biopharmaceutical companies’ stock have been highly volatile as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result, we may face difficulties raising capital through sales of our common stock and any such sales may be on unfavorable terms. The COVID-19 outbreak continues to rapidly evolve. The extent to which the outbreak further impacts our business, including our preclinical studies and clinical trials, results of operations and financial condition will depend on future developments which are highly uncertain and cannot be predicted with confidence. Such factors include, but are not limited to, the duration of the outbreak, the impact of variants, travel restrictions, quarantines, shelter-in-place orders and social distancing, business closures or business disruptions, the adoption and effectiveness of vaccines and vaccine distribution efforts, and the effectiveness of other actions taken in the United States and other countries to contain and treat the disease.

Raising additional capital through the sale of a substantial number of shares of our common stock, or the perception that substantial sales might occur, may cause dilution to our stockholders and could cause our stock price to decline and could restrict our operations or require us to relinquish rights to our technologies or current or future 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 private and public equity offerings, debt financings, collaborations, strategic alliances and marketing, distribution or licensing arrangements. We do not currently have any committed external source of funds. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of common stock or securities convertible or exchangeable into common stock, your ownership interest will be diluted, and the terms of these securities may include liquidation or other preferences that may materially adversely affect your rights as a common stockholder. Debt financing, if available, would increase our fixed payment obligations and may involve agreements that include covenants limiting or restricting our ability to take specific actions, such as incurring additional debt, acquiring, selling or licensing intellectual property rights, making capital expenditures, declaring dividends, or other operating restrictions that could adversely impact our ability to conduct our business. We could also be required to meet certain milestones in connection with debt financing and the failure to achieve such milestones by certain dates may force us to relinquish rights to some of our technologies or product candidates or otherwise agree to terms unfavorable to us which could have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results and prospects.

If we raise funds through additional collaborations, strategic alliances or marketing, distribution or licensing arrangements with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our intellectual property, future revenue streams, research programs or current or future product candidates or to grant licenses on terms that may not be favorable to us. If we are unable to raise additional funds through equity or debt financings when needed, we may be required to delay, scale back or discontinue the development and commercialization of one or more of our product candidates, delay our pursuit of potential in-licenses or acquisitions or grant rights to develop and market current or future product candidates that we would otherwise prefer to develop and market ourselves.

We are an “emerging growth company” as defined in the JOBS Act and a “smaller reporting company” as defined in the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, and will be able to avail ourselves of reduced disclosure requirements applicable to emerging growth companies and smaller reporting companies, which could make our common stock less attractive to investors and adversely affect the market price of our common stock.

We are an “emerging growth company,” as defined in the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 2012, or the JOBS Act. We will remain an emerging growth company until the earlier of (i) the last day of the fiscal year in which we have

99

total annual gross revenues of $1.07 billion or more; (ii) December 26, 2026; (iii) the date on which we have issued more than $1 billion in nonconvertible debt during the previous three years; or (iv) the date on which we are deemed to be a large accelerated filer under the rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission, which means the market value of our common stock that is held by non-affiliates exceeds $700 million as of the prior June 30th. For so long as we remain an emerging growth company, we are permitted and intend to rely on exemptions from certain disclosure requirements that are applicable to other public companies that are not emerging growth companies. These exemptions include:

We may choose to take advantage of some, but not all, of the available exemptions. We have taken advantage of reduced reporting burdens in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. In particular, we have provided only two years of audited financial statements and have not included all of the executive compensation information that would be required if we were not an emerging growth company. We cannot predict whether investors will find our common stock less attractive if we 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 price may be more volatile.

In addition, the JOBS Act provides that an emerging growth company can take advantage of an extended transition period for complying with new or revised accounting standards. This allows an emerging growth company to delay the adoption of certain accounting standards until those standards would otherwise apply to private companies. We have elected to use the extended transition period for new or revised accounting standards during the period in which we remain an emerging growth company; however, we may adopt certain new or revised accounting standards early.

We are also a “smaller reporting company” as defined in the Exchange Act. We may continue to be a smaller reporting company even after we no longer qualify an emerging growth company. We may take advantage of certain of the scaled disclosures available to smaller reporting companies until the fiscal year following the determination that our voting and non-voting common stock held by non-affiliates is more than $250 million measured on the last business day of our second fiscal quarter, or our annual revenues are more than $100 million during the most recently completed fiscal year and our voting and non-voting common stock held by non-affiliates is more than $700 million measured on the last business day of our second fiscal quarter.

Although we are still evaluating the JOBS Act, we currently intend to take advantage of some, but not all, of the reduced regulatory and reporting requirements that will be available to us so long as we qualify as an “emerging growth company” and “smaller reporting company.” We have elected to avail ourselves of this exemption and, therefore, we are not subject to the same new or revised accounting standards as other public companies that are not emerging growth companies or smaller reporting company. As a result, changes in rules of U.S. GAAP or their interpretation, the adoption of new guidance or the application of existing guidance to changes in our business could significantly affect our financial position and results of operations. In addition, our independent registered public accounting firm will not be required to provide an attestation report on the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting so long as we qualify as an “emerging growth company,” which may increase the risk that material weaknesses or significant deficiencies in our internal control over financial reporting go undetected. Likewise, so long as we qualify as a “smaller reporting company” or an “emerging growth company,” we may elect not to provide you with certain information, including certain financial information and certain information regarding compensation of our executive officers, that we would otherwise have been required to provide in filings we make with the SEC, which may make it more difficult for investors and securities analysts to evaluate our company. We cannot predict if 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 price may be more volatile and may decline.

100

We will incur increased costs as a result of operating as a public company, and our management will be required to devote substantial time to new compliance initiatives and corporate governance practices.

As a public company, and particularly after we are no longer an “emerging growth company,” we incur significant legal, accounting and other expenses that we did not incur as a private company. We are subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, which will require, among other things, that we file with the SEC annual, quarterly and current reports with respect to our business and financial condition. In addition, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and rules subsequently implemented by the SEC and Nasdaq have imposed various requirements on public companies, including establishment and maintenance of effective disclosure and financial controls and corporate governance practices. Our management and other personnel will need to devote a substantial amount of time to these compliance initiatives. Further, in July 2010, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, or the Dodd-Frank Act, was enacted. There are significant corporate governance and executive compensation related provisions in the Dodd-Frank Act that require the SEC to adopt additional rules and regulations in these areas, such as “say on pay” and proxy access. Emerging growth companies may implement many of these requirements over a longer period and up to five years from the pricing of an initial public offering. We intend to take advantage of these extended transition periods but cannot guarantee that we will not be required to implement these requirements sooner than budgeted or planned and thereby incur unexpected expenses. Stockholder activism, the current political environment and the current high level of government intervention and regulatory reform may lead to substantial new regulations and disclosure obligations, which may lead to additional compliance costs and impact the manner in which we operate our business in ways we cannot currently anticipate.

We expect the rules and regulations applicable to public companies to substantially increase our legal and financial compliance costs and to make some activities more time-consuming and costly. If these requirements divert the attention of our management and personnel from other business concerns, they could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. The increased costs will decrease our net income or increase our net loss and may require us to reduce costs in other areas of our business or increase the prices of our products or services. For example, we expect these rules and regulations to make it more difficult and more expensive for us to maintain director and officer liability insurance. We cannot predict or estimate the amount or timing of additional costs we may incur to respond to these requirements. The impact of these requirements could also make it more difficult for us to attract and retain qualified persons to serve on our board of directors, our board committees or as executive officers.

Pursuant to Section 404, we are required to furnish a report by our management on our internal control over financial reporting, including an attestation report on internal control over financial reporting issued by our independent registered public accounting firm. However, while we remain an emerging growth 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. To achieve compliance with Section 404 within the prescribed period, we will be engaged in a process to document and evaluate our internal control over financial reporting, which is both costly and challenging. In this regard, we will need to continue to dedicate internal resources, potentially engage outside consultants and adopt a detailed work plan to assess and document the adequacy of internal control over financial reporting, continue steps to improve control processes as appropriate, validate through testing that controls are functioning as documented and implement a continuous reporting and improvement process for internal control over financial reporting. Despite our efforts, there is a risk that neither we nor our independent registered public accounting firm will be able to conclude within the prescribed timeframe that our internal control over financial reporting is effective as required by Section 404. This could result in an adverse reaction in the financial markets due to a loss of confidence in the reliability of our financial statements. In additional, if we are not able to continue to meet these requirements, we may not be able to remain listed on Nasdaq.

Sales of a substantial number of shares of our common stock by our existing stockholders in the public market could cause our stock price to fall.

If our existing stockholders sell, or indicate an intention to sell, substantial amounts of our common stock in the public market, the trading price of our common stock could decline. As of March 15, 2022, we have outstanding a total of 28,691,088 shares of common stock.

In addition, shares of common stock that are reserved for future issuance under our 2021 Plan and our 2021 Employee Stock Purchase Plan will become eligible for sale in the public market to the extent permitted by the provisions of various vesting schedules, Rule 144 and Rule 701 under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Act. If these additional shares of common stock are sold, or if it is perceived that they will be sold, in the public market, the trading price of our common stock could decline.

The holders of 8,884,661 shares of our common stock are entitled to rights with respect to the registration of their shares under the Securities Act. Registration of these shares under the Securities Act would result in such shares becoming freely tradable without restriction under the Securities Act, except for shares held by affiliates, as defined in Rule 144 under the Securities Act. Any sales of securities by these stockholders could have a material adverse effect on the trading price of our common stock.

101

Because we do not anticipate paying any cash dividends on our capital stock in the foreseeable future, capital appreciation, if any, will be your sole source of gain.

We have never declared or paid cash dividends on our capital stock. We currently intend to retain all of our future earnings, if any, to finance the growth and development of our business. In addition, the terms of any future debt agreements may preclude us from paying dividends. As a result, capital appreciation, if any, of our common stock will be your sole source of gain for the foreseeable future.

Our executive officers, directors, principal stockholders and their affiliates exercise significant influence over our company, which will limit your ability to influence corporate matters and could delay or prevent a change in corporate control.

The existing holdings of our executive officers, directors, principal stockholders and their affiliates represent beneficial ownership, in the aggregate, of approximately 59.7% of our outstanding common stock with Estuardo Aguilar-Cordova and Laura Aguilar (together, both directly and indirectly) beneficially owning approximately 22.0% of our outstanding common stock, and with entities and persons affiliated with PBM Capital beneficially owning approximately 29.3% of our outstanding common stock. In addition, Diem Nguyen, who is a member of our Board of Directors, is currently Chief Executive Officer of Xalud Therapeutics, Inc., which is majority-owned by PBM Capital. As a result, these stockholders, if they act together, will be able to influence our management and affairs and the outcome of matters submitted to our stockholders for approval, including the election of directors and any merger, consolidation or sale of all or substantially all of our assets. The concentration of voting power among these stockholders may have an adverse effect on the price of our common stock. In addition, this concentration of ownership might adversely affect the market price of our common stock by

Anti-takeover provisions under our charter documents and Delaware law could delay or prevent a change of control, which could limit the market price of our common stock and may prevent or frustrate attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove our current management.

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws contain provisions that could delay or prevent a change of control of our company or changes in our board of directors that our stockholders might consider favorable. Some of these provisions include:

In addition, because we are incorporated in Delaware, we are governed by the provisions of Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporate Law, which may prohibit certain business combinations with stockholders owning 15% or more of our outstanding voting stock. These anti-takeover provisions and other provisions in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws could make it more difficult for stockholders or potential acquirers to obtain control of our board of directors or initiate actions that are opposed by the then-current board of directors and could also delay or impede a merger, tender offer, or proxy contest involving our company. These provisions could also discourage proxy contests and make it more difficult for you and other stockholders to elect directors of your choosing or cause us to take other corporate actions you desire. Any delay or prevention of a change of control transaction or changes in our board of directors could cause the market price of our common stock to decline.

102

Our bylaws designate certain courts as the sole and exclusive forum for certain types of actions and proceedings that may be initiated by our stockholders, which could limit our stockholders’ ability to obtain a favorable judicial forum for disputes with us or our directors, officers, or employees.

Our bylaws provide that, unless we consent in writing to an alternative forum, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware will be the sole and exclusive forum for any state law claim for (i) any derivative action or proceeding brought on our behalf, (ii) any action asserting a claim of breach of fiduciary duty owed by any of our directors, officers, and employees to us or our stockholders, (iii) any action asserting a claim arising pursuant to any provision of the Delaware General Corporation Law, our amended and restated certificate of incorporation or our amended and restated bylaws or (iv) any action asserting a claim that is governed by the internal affairs doctrine, in each case subject to the Court of Chancery having personal jurisdiction over the indispensable parties named as defendants therein, or the Delaware Forum Provision. The Delaware Forum Provision does not apply to any causes of action arising under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act. Our amended and restated bylaws further provide that, unless we consent in writing to the selection of an alternative forum, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts shall be the sole and exclusive forum for resolving any complaint asserting a cause of action arising under the Securities Act, or the Federal Forum Provision, as our principal office is located in Needham, Massachusetts. In addition, our amended and restated bylaws provide that any person or entity purchasing or otherwise acquiring any interest in shares of our common stock is deemed to have notice of and consented to the foregoing provisions; provided, however, that stockholders cannot and will not be deemed to have waived our compliance with the federal securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder.

The Delaware Forum Provision and the Federal Forum Provision in our amended and restated bylaws may impose additional litigation costs on stockholders in pursuing any such claims, particularly if the stockholders do not reside in or near the State of Delaware or the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Additionally, the forum selection clauses in our amended and restated bylaws may limit our stockholders’ ability to bring a claim in a forum that they find favorable for disputes with us or our directors, officers or employees, which may discourage such lawsuits against us and our directors, officers and employees even though an action, if successful, might benefit our stockholders. In addition, while the Delaware Supreme Court ruled in March 2020 that federal forum selection provisions purporting to require claims under the Securities Act be brought in federal court were “facially valid” under Delaware law, there is uncertainty as to whether other courts will enforce our Federal Forum Provision. If the Federal Forum Provision is found to be unenforceable, we may incur additional costs associated with resolving such matters. The Federal Forum Provision may also impose additional litigation costs on stockholders who assert that the provision is not enforceable or invalid. The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware and the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts may also reach different judgments or results than would other courts, including courts where a stockholder considering an action may be located or would otherwise choose to bring the action, and such judgments may be more or less favorable to us than our stockholders.

If securities analysts do not publish research or reports about our business or if they publish negative evaluations of our stock, the price of our stock could decline.

The trading market for our common stock relies in part on the research and reports that industry or financial analysts publish about us or our business. We may never obtain research coverage by industry or financial analysts. If no or few analysts commence coverage of us, the trading price of our stock would likely decrease. Even if we do obtain analyst coverage, if one or more of the analysts covering our business downgrade their evaluations of our stock, the price of our stock could decline. If one or more of these analysts cease to cover our stock, we could lose visibility in the market for our stock, which in turn could cause our stock price to decline.

We may be subject to securities litigation, which is expensive and could divert management's attention.

The market price of our common stock may be volatile. The stock market in general, and Nasdaq and biopharmaceutical companies in particular, have experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have often been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of these companies. In particular, the trading prices for pharmaceutical, biopharmaceutical and biotechnology companies have been highly volatile as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. In the past, companies that have experienced volatility in the market price of their stock have been subject to securities class action litigation. We may be the target of this type of litigation in the future. Securities litigation against us could result in substantial costs and divert our management’s attention from other business concerns, which could seriously harm our business.

The number of shares of our common stock outstanding may increase substantially as a result of our November 2018 issuance of warrants to purchase up to an aggregate of 7,344,968 shares of common stock.

In connection with the November 13, 2018 issuance of Series B Preferred Stock, we issued warrants to purchase 3,672,484 shares of common stock for $6.81 per share to a purchaser of our Series B Preferred Stock which were immediately and remain fully exercisable upon issuance, or the Unconditional Series B Warrants. We also issued warrants for the purchase of up to an additional 3,672,484 shares of common for $6.81 per share, or the Conditional Series B Warrants. As amended on July 14, 2021, each of the Unconditional Series B Warrants and Conditional Series B Warrants expire in November 2025. The Conditional Series B Warrants are only exercisable in the event that we

103

achieve certain financial conditions as follows: 918,121 shares vest upon (1) a financing event effected through the sale of our equity securities to third parties resulting in at least $20,000,000 in gross proceeds, or a Financing Event, with a per share price of $12.47, or (2) an average market price (determined over a consecutive 10-day period) of $12.47 per share; an additional 918,121 shares vest upon (1) a Financing Event with a price per share of $13.20, or (2) an average market price (determined over a consecutive 10-day period) of, $13.20 per share; an additional 918,121 shares vest upon (1) a Financing Event with a per share price of $13.94, or (2) an average market price (determined over a consecutive 10-day period) of, $13.94 per share; and an additional 918,121 shares vest upon (1) a Financing Event with a per share price of $14.68, or (2) an average market price (determined over a consecutive 10-day period) of, $14.68 per share. The Unconditional Series B Warrants contain provisions allowing for cash and on a cashless exercise basis. The Conditional Series B Warrants are only exercisable in connection with the first to occur of (i) a sale of the Company, which did not result from the consummation of the IPO, or (ii) the Conditional Series B Warrants’ expiration in November 2025. The Conditional Series B Warrants contain provisions allowing for cash and on a cashless exercise basis in connection with a sale event, and only on a cashless exercise basis in connection with the Conditional Series B Warrants’ expiration in November 2025. The exercise of these warrants in full, assuming vesting in full of the Conditional Series B Warrants and no net exercise, would result in an additional 7,344,968 shares of common stock outstanding, resulting in substantial dilution to shareholders who hold our common stock. In addition, if the holders of these warrants, including PBM Capital, were to exercise such warrants in full, these holders could then have significant influence over the outcome of any shareholder vote, including the election of directors and the approval of mergers or other business combination transactions.

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments.

None.

Item 2. Properties.

Our principal office is located at 117 Kendrick St, Suite 450, Needham, Massachusetts 02494, where we lease approximately 15,000 square feet of office and laboratory space. We lease this space under a lease that terminates on August 31, 2026.

Item 3. Legal Proceedings.

From time to time, we may become involved in litigation or other legal proceedings. We are not currently a party to any litigation or legal proceedings that, in the opinion of our management, are probable to have a material adverse effect on our business. Regardless of outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects because of defense and settlement costs, diversion of management resources and other factors.

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures.

Not Applicable.

104

PART II

Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities.

Market Information

Our common stock is traded under the symbol “CADL” on the Nasdaq Global Market and has been publicly traded since July 27, 2021. Prior to this time, there was no public market for our common stock.

On March 15, 2022, there were approximately 219 registered holders of record of our common stock. The actual number of stockholders is greater than this number of record holders, and includes stockholders who are beneficial owners, but whose shares are held in street name by brokers and other nominees. The number of holders of record also does not include stockholders whose shares may be held in trust by other entities.

Dividend Policy

We have never declared or paid any dividends on our capital stock. We currently intend to retain all available funds and any future earnings, if any, to fund the development and expansion of our business and we do not anticipate paying any cash dividends in the foreseeable future. Any future determination to pay dividends will be made at the discretion of our board of directors. Investors should not purchase our common stock with the expectation of receiving cash dividends.

Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds

Recent Sales of Unregistered Equity Securities

During the period covered by this Annual Report on Form 10-K, we have issued the following securities which were not registered under the Securities Act:

From January 2021 through July 2021, we issued stock options to purchase an aggregate of 661,111 shares of our common stock, with a weighted average exercise price of $5.72, to our employees, directors and consultants pursuant to our 2015 and 2021 Stock Incentive Plan. These securities were issued under Section 4(a)(2) and Rule 701 of the Securities Act in transactions not involving a public offering.

During the year ended December 31, 2021, we issued 75,946 shares of common stock upon the exercise of warrants to purchase common stock which were issued as part of a previous financing. The warrants were all exercised for cash at a price of $5.67 per share. These securities were issued under Section 4(a)(2) of the Securities Act in transactions not involving a public offering.

Use of Proceeds

In July 2021, we issued and sold 9,000,000 shares of our common stock in our IPO at a public offering price of $8.00 per share. In August 2021, we issued and sold 887,994 common shares at $8.00 a share as a partial exercise of the underwriters’ option to purchase additional shares. The offer and sale of all the shares in the IPO were registered under the Securities Act pursuant to a registration statement on Form S-1 (File No. 333-257444), as amended, which was declared effective by the SEC on July 26, 2021.

The $71.3 million in net proceeds we received from the IPO have been invested in cash and cash equivalents. There has been no material change in the expected use of the net proceeds from our IPO as described in our final prospectus, dated July 26, 2021, filed with the SEC pursuant to Rule 424(b) relating to our registration statement on Form S-1 on July 28, 2021.

Purchases of Equity Securities by the Issuer and Affiliated Purchasers

None.

Item 6. Reserved.

105

Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.

You should read the following discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations together with our consolidated financial statements and the related notes and other financial information included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Some of the information contained in this discussion and analysis contains forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. You should review the section titled “Risk factors” in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for a discussion of important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from the results described below.

Overview

We are a late clinical stage biopharmaceutical company focused on helping patients fight cancer with oncolytic viral immunotherapies. Our engineered viruses are designed to induce immunogenic death through direct viral-mediated cytotoxicity in cancer cells, thus releasing tumor neo-antigens and creating a pro-inflammatory microenvironment at the site of injection. Our approach combines an in-depth knowledge of viral immunotherapy with extensive clinical experience across a wide range of indications. Based on the broad range of data that we have generated from our preclinical models and clinical trials using our approach, we have observed what we believe to be systemic immune response against locally injected tumors and their distant metastases. We have established two oncolytic viral immunotherapy platforms based on novel, genetically modified adenovirus and herpes simplex virus (HSV) constructs. In our clinical results to date from CAN-2409, our lead product from our adenovirus platform, and CAN-3110, our lead product candidate from our HSV platform, we have observed that these candidates may have the potential to address significant unmet patient need and improve clinical outcomes in novel indications across broader patient populations.

Since our formation, we have devoted substantially all our resources to developing our oncolytic viral immunotherapy and our adenovirus platform, conducting research and development activities, including product candidate development, recruiting skilled personnel, establishing our intellectual property portfolio, raising capital and providing general and administrative support for these operations. We have financed our operations primarily through proceeds from the sale of convertible notes, common stock and our convertible preferred stock. As of December 31, 2021, we have raised approximately $160.6 million through a combination of convertible notes, common stock, convertible preferred stock financings, and government grants.

We were incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware in June 2003. Our principal executive office is located at 117 Kendrick St, Suite 450, Needham, Massachusetts 02494. On November 30, 2020, we formally changed our name to Candel Therapeutics, Inc., previously Advantagene, Inc. Since our formation, we have incurred significant operating losses and have not generated any revenue from the sale of products. Our ability to generate any product revenue or product revenue sufficient to achieve profitability will depend on the successful development and eventual commercialization of one or more of our product candidates. Our net losses were $36.1 million, $17.7 million for the years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020, respectively. As of December 31, 2021, we had an accumulated deficit of $80.3 million.

We will not generate revenue from product sales unless and until we successfully complete clinical development, obtain regulatory approval for, and successfully commercialize our product candidates. The lengthy process of securing marketing approvals for new drugs requires the expenditure of substantial resources. Any significant delay or failure to obtain regulatory approvals would materially adversely affect our product candidates development efforts and our business overall. In addition, if we obtain regulatory approval for any of our product candidates, we expect to incur significant expenses related to developing our commercialization capability to support product sales, marketing, manufacturing and distribution activities. In addition, following the closing of this offering, we expect to incur significant additional costs associated with operating as a public company. We anticipate that our expenses will increase significantly as we:

106

As a result of these anticipated expenditures, we will need substantial additional funding to support our continuing operations and pursue our growth strategy. Until such time, if ever, as we can generate significant revenue from product sales, we expect to finance our cash needs through a combination of public or private equity or debt financings and other sources, which may include collaborations, strategic alliances and licensing arrangements with third parties. We may be unable to raise additional funds or enter into such other agreements or arrangements when needed on favorable terms, or at all. Our inability to raise capital as and when needed would have a negative impact on our financial condition and our ability to pursue our business strategy. We cannot assure you that we will ever generate sufficient revenue to achieve profitability.

Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with the development of therapeutics, we are unable to predict the timing or amount of increased expenses or when or if we will be able to achieve or maintain profitability. Even if we can generate revenue from product sales, we may not become profitable. If we fail to become profitable or are unable to sustain profitability on a continuing basis, then we may be required to raise additional capital on terms that are unfavorable to us or we may be unable to continue our operations at planned levels and be forced to reduce or terminate our operations.

Collaborations

We are a party to a number of license and collaboration agreements under which we license patents, patent applications and other intellectual property to and from third parties.

Periphagen. On December 9, 2019, we entered into a series of agreements, including an exclusive license agreement, a novation agreement, an equipment purchase agreement and an intellectual property assignment agreement, collectively the Periphagen Agreements, with Periphagen, whereby we acquired certain assets and licensed certain rights (including specified patent rights and know-how, or the Licensed IP Rights) of Periphagen, primarily consisting of exclusive rights to their technology platform and a portfolio of pre-clinical, development stage virus vectors. The primary classes of assets are HSV-derived assets expressing neurotrophin-3 (or NT-3 Assets) and other HSV-derived assets (Gene Transfer Neuro-Assets). Under the license agreement, Periphagen granted us a worldwide exclusive license with the right to grant sublicenses through multiple tiers under the Licensed IP Rights to conduct research and to develop, make, have made, use, have used, offer for sale, have sold, export and import products incorporating the Licensed IP Rights in all fields of use except the treatment, diagnosis, and prevention of nononcologic skin diseases and conditions (including use as an aesthetic).

MGB. On January 20, 2018, we entered into an exclusive option agreement, or the Option Agreement, with MGB. Pursuant to the Option Agreement, we obtained the exclusive right from MGB to negotiate a world-wide, royalty-bearing license to develop and commercialize products covered by certain MGB patents, including those patents covering CAN-3110, in the field of gene therapy and oncolytic vector therapy for the treatment or prevention of cancerous tumors in humans or animals, as such field is further detailed in the Option Agreement, or the Licensed Field. In consideration for MGB’s granting of the exclusive option, we paid MGB a non-refundable fee of $40,000.

Under the Option Agreement, we were required to use reasonable efforts to enter into a clinical trial agreement with MGB. We entered into such clinical trial agreement with MGB, or the MGB Clinical Trial Agreement, on June 19, 2018. Under the MGB Clinical Trial Agreement, we have committed to remitting financial support for the performance of a specified Phase 1 clinical trial by MGB pursuant to a protocol summary contained in the Option Agreement.

On September 15, 2020, we exercised our option and entered into an exclusive patent license agreement with MGB, or the MGB License Agreement. Under the MGB License Agreement, MGB granted to us (a) an exclusive, royalty-bearing license under certain of MGB’s patents to make, have made, use, have used, sell and have sold certain products covered by such licensed patents, or the Licensed Products and otherwise practice processes covered by such licensed patents, or Licensed Processes; and (b) a non-exclusive, royalty-bearing license under certain other of MGB’s patents to make, have made, use, have used, sell and have sold Licensed Products, but not to sell or have sold Licensed Processes. The foregoing rights are sublicensable, subject to sublicensing terms set forth in the MGB License Agreement. In connection with executing the MGB License Agreement, we paid a license issue fee and also agreed to reimburse MGB for all reasonable fees and expenses MGB had incurred and will incur for the preparation, filing, prosecution and maintenance of the licensed patent rights.

Ventagen. On March 1, 2014, we entered into an exclusive license agreement, or the Ventagen Agreement, with Ventagen, a related party. The Ventagen Agreement provides Ventagen an exclusive license, with rights to grant

107

sublicense (subject to certain terms and conditions) under any worldwide patent rights and know-how owned or controlled by us during the term of the Ventagen Agreement which cover applicable technology utilizing the delivery method of the herpes derived TK protein to tumors or other tissues via a viral vector (as further specified therein), to research, use, have used, import, have imported, export, have exported, offer for sale, have sold, sell, distribute and market certain products for the prevention or treatment of cancer in humans and any use in animals (or the Field of Use), or the Licensed Products, for commercial sale and distribution within Mexico, Belize, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Panama, Colombia and Bolivia. Ventagen is 49.5% owned by certain of our shareholders.

As of December 31, 2021, we had cash and cash equivalents of $82.6 million. On February 24, 2022, we entered into a loan and security agreement (the Loan Agreement) with a bank pursuant to which the bank has agreed to provide term loans to the Company in an aggregate principal amount of up to $25.0 million. We borrowed $20.0 million upon entering into the Loan Agreement. We believe the existing cash and cash equivalents on hand as of December 31, 2021 plus the proceeds under the Loan Agreement will enable us to fund our operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements into the fourth quarter of 2023. We have based this estimate on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and we could exhaust our available capital resources sooner than we expect. See “Liquidity and capital resources.”

Components of our results of operations

Revenue

To date, we have not generated any revenue from product sales and do not expect to generate any revenue from sales of products in the foreseeable future. We are recognizing as research and development service revenue $1.0 million that we received in 2014 and 2015 from Ventagen for an exclusive license to develop products for commercial sale and development within certain countries. The $1.0 million is being recognized as revenue over the period during which we provide services under the license agreement.

Operating expenses

Our operating expenses since inception have consisted solely of research and development costs and general and administrative costs.

Research and development expenses

Research and development expenses consist primarily of costs incurred for our product development activities for our two primary drug candidates, CAN-2409 and CAN-3110. We expense research and development costs as incurred. These include the following:

We expect that our research and development expenses will continue to increase substantially for the foreseeable future and will comprise a larger percentage of our total expenses as we complete our clinical trials and commence additional clinical trials, continue to discover and develop additional product candidates and develop and scale our manufacturing capabilities. Product candidates in later stages of clinical development generally have higher development costs than those in earlier stages of clinical development, primarily due to increased scale and duration of later stage clinical trials.

We cannot determine with certainty the duration and costs of future clinical trials of CAN-2409 and CAN-3110 or any other product candidate we may develop or if, when, or to what extent we will generate revenue from the commercialization and sale of any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval. At this time, we cannot accurately estimate or know the nature, timing and costs of the efforts that will be necessary to complete the clinical development of, or obtain regulatory approval for, any of our current or future product candidates. The duration, costs,

108

and timing of clinical trials and development of CAN-2409 and CAN-3110 and any other product candidate we may develop will depend on a variety of factors, including:

A change in the outcome of any of these variables with respect to the development of a product candidate could significantly change the costs and timing associated with the development of that product candidate. We may never succeed in obtaining regulatory approval for any of our product candidates.

General and administrative expenses

General and administrative expenses consist primarily of salaries and other related costs, including stock-based compensation, for personnel in our executive, finance, business development, and administrative functions. General and administrative expenses also include legal fees relating to intellectual property and corporate matters; professional fees for accounting, auditing, tax and consulting services; insurance costs including directors and officers insurance; travel expenses; and facility-related expenses, which include direct depreciation costs and expenses for rent and maintenance of facilities, and other operating costs that are not specifically attributable to research and development activities.

We expect that our general and administrative expenses will increase in the future as we increase our personnel headcount to support our continued clinical development and manufacturing activities and to meet the requirements of a public company. We expect to incur increased expenses associated with being a public company, including costs of accounting, audit, legal, regulatory, and tax-related services associated with maintaining compliance with exchange listing and Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC, requirements; director and officer insurance costs; and investor and public relations costs.

Grant income

Grant income consists of amounts received under a grant from the National Institute of Health for development of CAN-2409 for use as a therapy for pancreatic cancer.

109

Interest, dividend, and investment income

Interest, dividend and investment income consists of amounts earned on investment of cash equivalents and short-term investments.

Change in fair value of warrant liability

In connection with the November 13, 2018 issuance of Series B preferred stock we issued warrants to the purchasers of the Series B preferred stockholders, to purchase up to 7,344,982 shares of our common stock with an exercise price of $6.81 per share, and a warrant to the NC Incorporated Ohio Trust, an irrevocable trust funded by us, to purchase 162,740 shares of our common stock, $0.01 par value, at an exercise price of $1.46 per share, subject to adjustments as specified in the warrant agreement. Certain of those warrants are recorded as a liability on our balance sheet. The warrants recorded as a liability are remeasured to their fair value at each reporting date with changes in the fair value recognized as a component of other income (expense), net in the statements of operations and comprehensive loss. We will continue to recognize changes in the fair value of the warrant liability until the warrants are exercised, expire or qualify for equity classification. The fair value of the warrant liability is determined based on significant inputs not observable in the market. The fair value of the warrant liability uses various valuation methods, including the Monte Carlo method, the option-pricing method, probability-weighted expected return and the hybrid method, all of which incorporate assumptions and estimates, to value the common stock warrants. The hybrid method is often used when a company is expecting a liquidity event in the near future and is a combination of the option-pricing and probability-weighted expected return methods. Estimates and assumptions impacting the fair value measurement include the fair value per share of the underlying shares of common stock, risk-free interest rate, expected dividend yield, and the remaining contractual term of the warrants. Therefore, the fair value may not be appropriately captured by simple models.

Income taxes

Since our inception, we have generated cumulative federal and state net operating loss and research and development credit carryforwards for which we have not recorded any net tax benefit due to uncertainty around utilizing these tax attributes within their respective carryforward periods.

As of December 31, 2021, we had federal net operating loss carryforwards, or NOLs, of approximately $51.6 million and state NOLs of approximately $48.4 million which may be available to offset future taxable income. Our federal NOLs include $8.8 million available to reduce future taxable income through 2028 and approximately $42.8 million of NOLs that do not expire and are available to reduce future taxable income indefinitely. The state NOLs are available to offset future taxable income through 2032. As of December 31, 2021, we also had federal and state research and development tax credit carryforwards of $2.0 million and $1.1 million, respectively, which are available to offset federal and state tax liabilities through 2036 and 2028, respectively.

Realization of future tax benefits is dependent on many factors, including our ability to generate taxable income within the NOL period. Our management has evaluated the positive and negative evidence bearing upon the realizability of our deferred tax assets, which are comprised principally of net operating loss carryforwards and certain tax credits. Management has considered our history of cumulative net losses incurred since inception, as well as our lack of product revenue since inception, and has determined that it is more likely than not that we will not realize the benefits of its deferred tax assets. As a result, a full valuation allowance has been established at December 31, 2021.

NOL and tax credit carryforwards may become subject to an annual limitation in the event of certain cumulative changes in the ownership interest of significant shareholders over a three-year period in excess of 50%, as provided under Sections 382 and 383 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or the Code, as well as under similar state provisions. These ownership changes may limit the amount of NOLs that can be utilized annually to offset future taxable income. In general, an ownership change, as defined under Section 382 of the Code, or Section 382, results from transactions increasing the ownership of certain shareholders or public groups in the stock of a corporation by more than 50% over a three-year period. We have completed several financings and not yet determined if such a limitation would be placed against our NOL. We will make such a determination prior to the utilization of any NOL

110

Results of operations

The following table summarizes our results of operations for the years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020 (in thousands):

Comparison of the Years End December 31, 2021 and 2020

Revenue

We had research and development service revenue of $125,000 for each of the years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020. This represents the recognition as research and development service revenue of a portion of the $1.0 million that we received in 2014 and 2015 from Ventagen, a related party, which is being recognized over the period during which we provide the services.

Research and development expenses

The following table summarizes our research and development expenses for the years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020 (in thousands):

Research and development expenses for the year ended December 31, 2021 were $15.2 million, compared to $8.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2020 and consisted primarily of $8.9 million and $5.3 million, respectively, of employee-related costs, including $1.2 million and $847,000, respectively, of non-cash stock compensation expense, $3.8 million and $2.2 million, respectively, of clinical development costs related to our clinical trial sites and the cost of treating and following up on patients in our clinical trials, $746,000 and $0, respectively, of recruiting costs, $717,000 and $91,000, respectively, of depreciation and impairment charges on fixed assets, and $584,000 and $812,000, respectively, of facility and occupancy-related costs. The increase of $6.4 million in research and development expenses for the year ended December 31, 2021, was primarily due to an increase of $3.7 million in employee-related costs, an increase of $1.7 million in clinical development costs, 746,000 of search fees and costs to recruit research and development employees, and a $553,000 charge for the impairment of certain fixed assets. The decrease in occupancy cost is due to the termination of the lease on the Company’s lease on its prior facility at the end of 2020. The $3.7 million increase in employee-related costs was primarily due to the increase of $1.0 million in non-cash compensation expense and an increase in the research and development headcount.

111

General and administrative expenses

The following table summarizes our general and administrative expenses for the years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020 (in thousands):

General and administrative expenses were $10.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2021 compared to $5.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2020 and consisted primarily of $5.6 million and $2.7 million, respectively, of employee-related costs, including $1.7 million and $1.3 million, respectively, of non-cash stock compensation expense, $3.0 million and $2.0 million, respectively, of professional and consulting fees and $1.2 million and $27,000, respectively, of insurance costs. The increase of $5.5 million in general and administrative expenses was primarily due to an increase of $2.9 million in employee – related costs as we increased our general and administrative headcount to manage growth and operate a public company, including an increase of $477,000 in non-cash compensation expense, an increase of $968,000 in professional and consulting fees, and an increase of $1.2 million in insurance expense. Insurance expense due to the cost of directors and officers insurance upon completion of the IPO. The increase in professional and consulting fees is primarily due to an increase in fees paid to personnel search firms, public relations consultants, commercial market research firms and legal and accounting firms.

Grant income

Grant income was $1.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2021 compared to $624,000 for the year ended December 31, 2020. Grant represents amounts received under a grant from the National Institutes of Health for development of CAN-2409 for use as a therapy for pancreatic cancer and in 2021, grant income also includes $464,000 for the forgiveness of a Paycheck Protection Plan loan in April 2021. The National Institutes of Health grant for development of CAN-2409 for use as a therapy for pancreatic cancer has expired at the end of 2021.

Interest, dividend and investment (expense) income, net

Interest, dividend and investment (expense) income, net was ($53,000) for the year ended December 31, 2021 compared to $111,000 of interest, dividend and investment income, net for the year ended December 31, 2020 and represents the earnings on our cash equivalents and short-term investments net of interest expense on outstanding debt obligations. The decrease in interest, dividend, and investment income in 2021 is primarily due to a decrease in the yields earned on cash equivalents.

Change in fair value of warrant liability

The change in fair value of our warrant liability was an increase in value of $11.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2021 compared to an increase in value of $4.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2020. The increase is primarily driven by an increase in the underlying value of our stock price.

Liquidity and capital resources

Since our inception, we have not generated any revenue from product sales and have incurred significant operating losses. We expect to continue to incur significant expenses and operating losses for the foreseeable future as we advance the clinical development of our product candidates. We expect that our research and development and general and administrative costs will continue to increase significantly, including in connection with conducting clinical trials for our product candidates, developing our manufacturing capabilities which may include the cost of establishing a relationship with contract manufacturers to support commercial launch of our product candidate CAN-2409 and costs associated with equipping our laboratory and clinical manufacturing facility to support clinical trials and commercialization and providing general and administrative support for our operations, including the cost associated with operating as a public company. As a result, we will need additional capital to fund our operations, which we may obtain from additional equity or debt financings, collaborations, licensing arrangements or other sources.

We do not currently have any approved products and have never generated any revenue from product sales. We have financed our operations primarily through proceeds from government grants and proceeds from the sale of convertible notes, common stock, and our convertible preferred stock. As of December 31, 2021, we have raised approximately $160.6 million, including $15.4 million of government grants, $66.1 million from the sale of convertible preferred stock,

112

and $79.1 million from the sale of our common in our IPO. Our cash and cash equivalents totaled $82.6 million as of December 31, 2021. We had $560,000 of long-term debt as of December 31, 2021 with a maturity in November 2027.

On February 24, 2022, the Company entered into a loan and security agreement Loan Agreement with a bank pursuant to which the bank has agreed to provide term loans to the Company in an aggregate principal amount of up to $25.0 million. The Company borrowed $20.0 million upon entering into the Loan Agreement. The Company can borrow up to an additional aggregate principal amount not to exceed $5.0 million, at any time on or prior to December 31, 2022, following the Company having provided evidence to the bank of (a) achievement of positive Phase 2 clinical activity data from the Company’s CAN-2409 NSCLC clinical trial, (b) dosing of its first patient in its Phase 3 CAN-2409 high grade glioma clinical trial and (c) receipt on or prior to December 31, 2022, of net cash proceeds in an amount equal to at least $75.0 million from the issuance and sale of equity securities to investors acceptable to SVB. The term loans are secured by substantially all of the Company’s properties, rights and assets, except for its intellectual property, which is subject to a negative pledge under the Loan Agreement.

The term loans bear interest at a floating rate per annum equal to the greater of (A) 5.75% and (B) the prime rate (as published in the money rates section of The Wall Street Journal) plus 2.50%. The Company is required to make monthly interest payments, and commencing on February 1, 2024, 24 consecutive installments of principal plus monthly payments of accrued interest. Upon repayment in full of the term loans, the Company will be required to pay a final payment fee equal to 4.50% of the original principal amount of any funded term loan being repaid.

The Loan Agreement permits voluntary prepayment of all, but not less than all, of the SVB Term Loans, subject to a prepayment premium of 1% to 3% based upon the timing of the prepayment.

Cash flows

The following table summarizes our sources and uses of cash for the periods presented (in thousands):

Cash flows for the years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020

Operating activities

Net cash used in operating activities for the year ended December 31, 2021 was $22.2 million, primarily consisting of a net loss of $36.1 million as we incurred expenses associated with our clinical programs, we increased our headcount and had costs associated with being a public company in the second half of the year. In addition, we had non-cash charges of $14.8 million for the change in the fair value of the warrant liability, stock-based compensation expense, and impairment and depreciation of fixed assets. Net cash used in operating activities was also impacted by $876,000 in changes in operating assets and liabilities, primarily driven by an increase of $669,000 in accounts payable, $410,000 in deferred rent, $297,000 in accrued expenses, which were offset by an increase of $2.2 million in prepaids and other long term assets.

Net cash used in operating activities for the year ended December 31, 2020 was $9.1 million, primarily consisting of a net loss of $17.7 million as we incurred expenses associated with our clinical programs and we increased our headcount. In addition, we had non-cash charges of $6.8 million for the change in the fair value of the warrant liability, stock-based compensation expense and depreciation and amortization. Net cash used in operating activities was also impacted by $1.8 million in changes in operating assets and liabilities, primarily driven by an increase of $1.5 million in accrued expenses, $289,000 in accounts payable.

Investing activities

Net cash used in investing activities for the year ended December 31, 2021 was $1.8 million, which was attributable to the use of $1.8 million for purchases of fixed assets.

Net cash provided by investing activities for the year ended December 31, 2020 was $38.5 million, which was attributable to a net sale of $39.9 million in available-for-sale securities and the use of $1.5 million for purchases of fixed assets.

113

Financing activities

Net cash provided by financing activities for the year ended December 31, 2021 was $71.8 million consisting of $71.3 million in net proceeds from our IPO and $465,000 in proceeds received from warrant and option exercises.

Net cash provided by financing activities for the year ended December 31, 2020 was $490,000 consisting of $460,000 received under the Paycheck Protection Program and $30,000 of proceeds from exercise of stock options.

Funding requirements

We expect our operating expenses to increase substantially in the future in connection with our ongoing activities, particularly as we advance CAN-2409 and CAN-3110 through research and development, clinical trials, develop our manufacturing capabilities and build our laboratory and clinical manufacturing facility, as we research and develop additional product candidates including preclinical activities and as we prepare for marketing approval and commercialization. We also expect to incur additional costs associated with operating as a public company.

Specifically, our costs and expenses will increase as we:

We believe that our existing cash and cash equivalents, including the receipt of $20.0 million on February 24, 2022 under the Loan Agreement with a bank, will enable us to fund our operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements into the fourth quarter of 2023. We have based this estimate on assumptions that may prove to be incorrect, and we could utilize our available capital resources sooner than we currently expect.

Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with the research, development, and commercialization of therapeutics, it is difficult to estimate with certainty the amount of our working capital requirements. Our future funding requirements will depend on many factors, including:

Until such time as we can generate significant revenue from product sales, if ever, we expect to finance our cash needs through a combination of public or private equity or debt financings and other sources, which may include collaborations strategic alliances and licensing arrangements with third parties. We do not have any committed external source of funds. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, your ownership interest may be diluted, and the terms of these securities may include liquidation or other preferences that could adversely affect your rights as a common stockholder. Debt financing and preferred equity financing, if available,

114

may involve agreements that include restrictive covenants limiting or restricting our ability to take specific actions, such as incurring additional debt, making capital expenditures or declaring dividends, that could adversely impact our ability to conduct our business. If we raise additional funds through other sources, such as collaboration agreements, strategic alliances, licensing arrangements or marketing and distribution arrangements, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our technologies, future revenue streams, product development, and research programs or product candidates, or grant licenses on terms that may not be favorable to us. If we are unable to raise additional funds when needed, we may be required to delay, limit, reduce, or terminate our product development or future commercialization efforts or grant rights to develop and market products or product candidates that we would otherwise prefer to develop and market ourselves.

Our primary contractual obligation is our facility lease which extends to August of 2026. The table below summarizes the contractual obligations that will become due as of December 31, 2021:

We also enter into contracts in the normal course of business with hospitals, clinics, universities, and other third parties for clinical trials and testing and with construction contractors and process developers for the construction of our manufacturing facility. These contracts do not contain minimum purchase commitments and are cancelable by us upon prior written notice. Payments due upon cancelation consist only of payments for services provided or expenses incurred, including noncancelable obligations of our service providers, up to the date of cancelation. These payments are not included in the table above as the amount and timing of such payments are not known.

Critical accounting estimates

Our management’s discussion and analysis of financial condition and results of operations is based on our financial statements, which have been prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP. The preparation of our financial statements and related disclosures requires us to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, costs and expenses, and the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities in our financial statements. These items are monitored and analyzed by us for changes in facts and circumstances, and material changes in these estimates could occur in the future. We base our estimates on historical experience, known trends and events, and on various other factors that we believe are reasonable under the circumstances, the results of which form the basis for making judgments about the carrying values of assets and liabilities that are not readily apparent from other sources. We evaluate our estimates and assumptions on an ongoing basis. Our actual results may materially differ from these estimates under different assumptions or conditions.

While our significant accounting policies are described in more detail in the notes to our consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, we believe that the following accounting policies are those most significant to the judgments and estimates used in the preparation of our consolidated financial statements.

Accrued Research and Development Expenses

As part of the process of preparing our financial statements, we are required to estimate our accrued research and development expenses. This process involves reviewing open contracts and purchase orders, communicating with our personnel to identify services that have been performed on our behalf, and estimating the level of service performed and the associated costs incurred for the services when we have not yet been invoiced or otherwise notified of the actual costs. Most of our service providers invoice us in arrears for services performed, on a pre-determined schedule or when contractual milestones are met; however, some require advance payments. We make estimates of our accrued expenses as of each balance sheet date in our financial statements based on facts and circumstances known to us at that time. We periodically confirm the accuracy of these estimates with the service providers and make adjustments, if necessary. Examples of estimated accrued research and development expenses include fees paid to the following:

115

Actual services performed may vary from our estimates, resulting in adjustments to research and development costs or inventories in future periods. Changes in these estimates that result in material changes to our accruals could materially affect our results of operations.

Determination of fair value of warrants

In connection with the Series B Convertible Preferred Stock issuance, the Company issued warrants to purchase shares of common stock of which certain warrants are shown as a liability on the balance sheet. The fair value of the warrant liability was determined based on significant inputs not observable in the market. The fair value of the warrant liability uses various valuation methods, including the Monte Carlo method, the option-pricing method, probability-weighted expected return and the hybrid method, all of which incorporate assumptions and estimates, to value the common stock warrants. The hybrid method is often used when a company is expecting a liquidity event in the near future and is a combination of the option-pricing and probability-weighted expected return methods. Estimates and assumptions impacting the fair value measurement include the fair value per share of the underlying shares of common stock prior to the IPO, risk-free interest rate, expected dividend yield, expected volatility of the price of the underlying preferred stock, and the remaining contractual term of the warrants. The most significant assumption in the model impacting the fair value of the common stock warrants is the fair value of the Company’s common stock as of each remeasurement date. Prior to the IPO, the Company determined the fair value per share of the underlying common stock by taking into consideration the most recent sales of preferred stock, results obtained from third-party valuations and additional factors that are deemed relevant.

Stock-based compensation

We measure stock options and other stock-based awards granted to our employees, directors, consultants, advisors based on the fair value on the date of the grant, awards, net of actual forfeitures, over the requisite service period, which is generally the vesting period of the respective award. For stock-based awards granted to non-employees, compensation expense is recognized over the vesting period which approximates the period over which services are rendered by such non-employees.

We estimate the fair value of each stock option grant on the date of grant using the Black-Scholes option-pricing model, which uses as inputs the fair value of our common stock and assumptions we make for the expected volatility of our common stock, the expected term of our stock options, the risk-free interest rate for a period that approximates the expected term of our stock options, and our expected dividend yield.

Determination of fair value of common stock

Prior to the IPO, there had been no public market for our common stock and as such, the estimated fair value of our common stock had been determined by our board of directors as of the date of each option grant, with input from management, taking into consideration our most recently available third-party valuations of common stock at the time of the grants, as well as our board of directors’ assessment of additional objective and subjective factors that it believed were relevant and which may have changed from the date of the most recent valuation through the date of the grant. Third-party valuations, or valuation reports, were performed in accordance with the guidance outlined in the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants’ Accounting and Valuation Guide, Valuation of Privately-Held-Company Equity Securities Issued as Compensation.

For the December 1, 2020, January 1, 2021, and June 15, 2021 third-party prepared valuation reports, a probability-weighted expected return method was used to determine the fair value of the common stock. The present value of the common stock under each of these three identified scenarios was weighted based on the probability of each scenario occurring to determine the value of the common stock. These third-party valuations resulted in a valuation of our common stock of $3.96, $4.97 and $6.64 per share as of December 1, 2020, January 1, 2021 and June 15, 2021, respectively.

In addition to considering the results of the valuation reports, our board of directors considered various objective and subjective factors to determine the fair value of our common stock as of each grant date, including:

116

The assumptions underlying these valuations were highly complex and subjective and represented management’s best estimates, which involved inherent uncertainties and the application of management’s judgment. As a result, if we had used different assumptions or estimates, the fair value of our common stock and our stock-based compensation expense could be materially different.

Subsequent to the IPO, a public trading market for our common stock has been established and it is no longer necessary for our board of directors to estimate the fair value of our common stock in connection with our accounting for granted stock options and other such awards we may grant, as the fair value of our common stock is determined based on the quoted market price of our common stock.

Recent accounting pronouncements

A description of recent accounting pronouncements that may potentially impact our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows is disclosed in Note 2 to our audited consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this Annual Report on form 10-K.

Emerging growth company status

In April 2012, the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 2012, or the JOBS Act, was enacted. Section 107 of the JOBS Act provides that an “emerging growth company,” or an EGC, can take advantage of the extended transition period provided in Section 7(a)(2)(B) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Act, for complying with new or revised accounting standards. Thus, an EGC can delay the adoption of certain accounting standards until those standards would otherwise apply to private companies. We have elected to use the extended transition period for new or revised accounting standards during the period in which we remain an emerging growth company; however, we may adopt certain new or revised accounting standards early.

We will remain an emerging growth company until the earliest to occur of: (1) the last day of the fiscal year in which we have more than $1.07 billion in annual revenue; (2) the date we qualify as a “large accelerated filer,” with at least $700.0 million of equity securities held by non-affiliates; (3) the date on which we have issued more than $1.0 billion in non-convertible debt securities during the prior three-year period; and (4) the last day of the fiscal year ending after the fifth anniversary of our initial public offering.

117

Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk.

We are exposed to market risks in the ordinary course of our business. These risks primarily include interest rate sensitivities. Our interest-earning assets consist of cash and cash equivalents, which are denominated in U.S. dollars. We had cash and cash equivalents of $82.6 million, or 92.6% of our total assets, as of December 31, 2021. Interest, dividend, and investment income earned on these assets was $24,000 for the year ended December 31, 2021. Our interest income is sensitive to changes in the general level of interest rates, primarily U.S. interest rates. Such interest-earning instruments carry a degree of interest rate risk; however, a change by 10% in interest rates would not have a material impact on our financial position or results of operations during the year ended December 31, 2021.

We are also exposed to interest rate risk with respect to the loan and security agreement what we entered into in February 2022 that bears a variable interest based on the Prime Rate.

We are not currently exposed to significant market risk related to changes in foreign currency exchange rates.

Inflation generally affects us by increasing our costs. We do not believe that inflation had a material effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations during the years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020.

Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.

Our consolidated financial statements, together with the report of our independent registered public accounting firm, appear beginning on page F-1 of this Annual Report for the year ended December 31, 2021.

118

Item 9. Changes in and Disagreements With Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure.

None

Item 9A. Controls and Procedures.

Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures

Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Rule 13a-15(f) under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended). We maintain “disclosure controls and procedures,” as defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, that are designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed in the reports that we file or submit under the Exchange Act is (1) recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the Securities and Exchange Commission’s rules and forms and (2) accumulated and communicated to our management, including our principal executive and principal financial officer, as appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure. Our management recognizes that any controls and procedures, no matter how well designed and operated, can provide only reasonable assurance of achieving their objectives and our management necessarily applies its judgment in evaluating the cost-benefit relationship of possible controls and procedures. Our disclosure controls and procedures are designed to provide reasonable assurance of achieving their control objectives.

Our management, with the participation of our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer (our principal executive officer and principal financial officer, respectively), evaluated the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures as of December 31, 2021. Based on the evaluation of our disclosure controls and procedures as of December 31, 2021, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that, as of such date, our disclosure controls and procedures were effective at the reasonable assurance level.

Internal Control Over Financial Reporting

In preparation of our financial statements to meet the requirements of our IPO, we determined that material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting existed during fiscal 2020 and remain unremediated as of December 31, 2021. A material weakness is a deficiency or combination of deficiencies in internal control over financial reporting, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of a company’s annual and interim financial statements will not be detected or prevented on a timely basis. The material weaknesses we identified are related to;

(1) the fact that we did not have sufficient finance and accounting staff with U.S. GAAP technical and accounting expertise to evaluate and account for significant transactions and oversee our third-party consultants. As a result we did not design and maintain formal accounting policies, processes and controls to analyze, account for and disclose certain complex transactions, which led to inappropriate accounting conclusions associated with stock compensation expenses.

(2) the fact that we lacked proper monitoring entity level controls and segregation of duties due to our small accounting staff.

Remediation Activities

Management has been actively engaged in remediating the above described material weaknesses. The following remedial actions have been taken during the year ended December 31, 2021;

(1) hiring an experienced Chief Financial Officer with experience serving as acting chief financial officer of a public company and serving as an audit partner at a major accounting firm and a Controller with experience working at a public company and as a manager at a major public accounting firm;

(2) strengthening supervisory reviews by our financial management, and

(3) expanding our accounting and finance team to add additional qualified accounting and finance resources, which may include augmenting our finance team with third-party consultants that possess the required expertise to assist management with their review.

The process of implementing an effective financial reporting system is a continuous effort that requires us to anticipate and react to changes in our business and the economic and regulatory environments and to expend significant resources to maintain a financial reporting system that is adequate to satisfy our reporting obligations. As we continue to evaluate and take actions to improve our internal control over financial reporting, we may take additional actions to address control deficiencies. This may include the hiring of additional qualified personnel and implementation of a new accounting system.

119

While progress has been made to enhance our internal control over financial reporting, we are still in the process of implementing these processes, procedures and controls. Additional time is required to complete implementation and to assess and ensure the sustainability of these procedures. We believe the above actions will be effective in remediating the material weaknesses described above and we will continue to devote significant time and attention to these remedial efforts. However, the material weaknesses cannot be considered remediated until the applicable remedial controls operate for a sufficient period of time and management has concluded that these controls are operating effectively.

Management’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting

This Annual Report does not include a report of management’s assessment regarding internal control over financial reporting or an attestation report of our independent registered public accounting firm due to a transition period established by rules of the SEC for newly public companies.

Changes in Internal Control Over Financial Reporting

The items described in “Remediation Activities” above are considered a change in our internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) of the Exchange Act) during the fourth quarter of 2021 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.

Item 9B. Other Information.

None.

Item 9C. Disclosure Regarding Foreign Jurisdictions that Prevent Inspection.

Not applicable.

120

PART III

Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance.

The following table sets forth information regarding our executive officers and directors as of the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

(1) Member of audit committee

(2) Member of compensation committee

(3) Member of nominating and corporate governance committee

Executive officers

Paul Peter Tak, M.D., Ph.D., FMedSci, has served as President and Chief Executive Officer of Candel since September 2020. He received his medical degree cum laude from the Free University in Amsterdam and was trained as an internist, rheumatologist and immunologist at Leiden University Medical Center, where he also received his Ph.D. He has been Clinical Associate Professor of Medicine at the University of California San Diego. Next, he served as Professor of Medicine and founding Chair of the Department of Clinical Immunology and Rheumatology at the Academic Medical Centre/University of Amsterdam (AMC). During this time, he founded Arthrogen b.v., a biotech company focused on gene therapy. He has published extensively in peer-reviewed journals and received numerous awards. He has been elected Fellow of the Academy of Medical Sciences (U.K.). At GlaxoSmithKline he served as Senior Vice President, Chief Immunology Officer, and Global Development Leader from 2011 to 2018. He oversaw the creation of a portfolio of new medicines for immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, cancer, infectious disease and pain, including anti-OSM antibody, anti-LAG3 antibody, ESM-BET inhibitor, RIP1 kinase inhibitor, anti-GM-CSF antibody, anti-CCL17 antibody, Benlysta sc, gepotidacin, molibresib (BET inhibitor), belantamab mafodotin (anti-BCMA antibody-drug conjugate), and NY-ESO1 SPEAR T cell therapy. He was the Chair of the Scientific Review Board, the governing body accountable for the scientific assessment of GSK’s R&D portfolio. From 2018 to 2020, Dr. Tak served as venture partner at Flagship Pioneering and also as President and CEO of Kintai Therapeutics, a start-up focused on enteric signaling networks, where he oversaw the creation of a portfolio of proprietary small molecules called precision enteric medicines for the treatment of obesity, neurological disease, and cancer. In addition, he has served as President and CEO of Tempero Pharmaceuticals, Board Member of Galvani Bioelectronics, ViiV Healthcare, Sitryx Therapeutics (co-founder), Omega Therapeutics, Levicept, and Citryll.

Francesca Barone, M.D., Ph.D., has been Candel's Chief Scientific Officer since February 2022 and previously served as our Vice President, Head of Research from November 2020 to February 2022. She joined Candel in November 2020 as Head of experimental medicine and discovery, overseeing the implementation of biological measures of outcome and biomarker studies in the clinical pipeline, and directing the design of Candel novel discovery platform. Before joining Candel, Dr. Barone served as VP and Head of Experimental Medicine at Kintai Therapeutics, Inc, a Flagship Pioneering, Inc. company, from May 2019 through its merger into Senda Biosciences, Inc. in November 2021. While serving in that position she was responsible both for preclinical development, leading the biology team while supporting the definition of the company clinical strategy in the areas of immune-oncology, metabolic disease and neuroinflammation. Prior to moving to industry, Dr. Barone served as Reader (Associate Professor) in Experimental Rheumatology at the University of Birmingham (UK). During her tenure she also served as Academic Director of Business Engagement for the College of Medical and Dental Sciences and Director of the laboratories for Immuno-phenotyping in the Institute of Translational Medicine. She has published extensively in peer-reviewed journals, was the recipient of two fellowship to support her research program and led efforts to establish collaborative alliances between

121

the University of Birmingham and world leader pharmacology industries. She received her medical degree cum laude from the University of Rome, Sapienza and was trained in the same university as Rheumatologist. She received her Ph.D. at Kings College, London.

Nathan Caffo, has been Candel’s Chief Business Officer since September 2020. From September 2018 to September 2020, he was CBO at ALX Oncology, an immuno-oncology company, where he played a central role in the company’s financing including series B and C and debt financings totaling $120 million, as well as the company’s $186 million initial public offering. He was also responsible for all strategic partnering activities. Prior to ALX Oncology, he was President and CEO of Presage Biosciences, an oncology company that developed the first intratumoral microdosing platform for evaluation of multiple oncology agents where he worked from April 2009 to August 2018. While at Presage he led the company’s partnering strategy, resulting in over $30 million in upfront cash. Mr. Caffo’s 26-year industry career has been focused on cancer therapeutics, personalized medicine, and applications of genomic technology. Mr. Caffo also led drug in-licensing at Perlegen Sciences, a genomic medicine spin-off of Affymetrix. Prior to that, he worked at Applied Biosystems (now Life Technologies) and its sister company Celera (now Quest Diagnostics) for 11 years in a number of technical and business roles, including managing the company’s genomics service business. Mr. Caffo has a B.S. in Microbiology from Pennsylvania State University.

John Canepa, has been Candel’s Chief Financial Officer since December 2020. Mr. Canepa has over 40 years of experience in the life science industry as an audit partner with a large international public accounting firm, and as a financial executive with public and private life science companies. Prior to joining Candel, he served as Senior Advisor, Acting CFO of Frequency Therapeutics from December 2018 until November 2020. During this time, Frequency completed several public and private financings, including its initial public offering in October 2019, and dramatically expanded its operations. Prior to joining Frequency, Mr. Canepa served as CFO of Agilis Biotherapeutics from December 2017 to August 2018 and was instrumental in its sale to PTC Therapeutics in August 2018. Prior to Agilis, he was COO and CFO of Asterand Bioscience from October 2012 to August 2017 and led its sale to a private equity group in 2017. Mr. Canepa began his career at Arthur Andersen & Co. and was with the firm for 23 years. He was a partner in the Boston office technology practice and the worldwide leader of the firm’s life science practice. Mr. Canepa received a B.A. in Economics from Denison University and a Master’s Degree in Finance from Michigan State University. John is a Trustee of Mount Auburn Hospital in Cambridge Massachusetts and is on the board of the Beth Israel Lahey Health network.

Susan Stewart, J.D., has served as Candel’s Chief Regulatory Officer since October 2020. Ms. Stewart has worked for more than 28 years in biopharmaceutical regulatory affairs, with significant experience devising innovative strategies for novel therapeutics, overseeing regulatory submissions at various stages of product development and leading interactions with global health authorities. As an independent consultant, she also serves as Chief Regulatory Officer at Kaleido Biosciences, and had served as senior vice president of regulatory affairs and quality at Kaleido Biosciences, senior vice president of regulatory affairs, quality, and compliance at Tokai Pharmaceuticals and vice president, regulatory affairs at Transmolecular. She also spent 13 years at Genzyme Corporation in regulatory and compliance roles, including serving as vice president, regulatory affairs after beginning her career with Abbott Laboratories. She received her J.D. from Concord Law School at Purdue University Global, her LL.M. from the Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University and her B.A. from the University of Massachusetts. She is a Fellow of the Regulatory Affairs Professionals Society (RAPS), a Director of the Board, and holds Regulatory Affairs Certifications (RAC) for both the United States and Europe.

Non-Employee Directors

Paul B. Manning has served as a member of Candel's board of directors since November 2018. Mr. Manning currently serves as the Chief Executive Officer of PBM Capital Group, LLC, or PBM Capital, a private equity investment firm in the business of investing in healthcare and life-science related companies, which he founded in 2010. Mr. Manning is a member of the board of directors of Liquidia Corporation (NASDAQ: LQDA) and Taysha Gene Therapies, Inc. (NASDAQ: TSHA), and he currently serves as Chairman of the board of directors of Verrica Pharmaceuticals Inc. (NASDAQ: VRCA) He previously served on the board of directors of Dova Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, from September 2016 to November 2019, and AveXis, Inc., a gene therapy company, from April 2014 to May 2018. Mr. Manning received a B.S. in microbiology from the University of Massachusetts. We believe Mr. Manning’s 30 years of managerial and operational experience in the healthcare industry and as an investor in healthcare related companies provides him with the appropriate set of skills to serve as a member of our board of directors.

Estuardo Aguilar-Cordova, M.D., Ph.D., has served as Candel's Founder and as Chief Scientific Officer from September 2020 to February 2022, and previously served as our Chief Executive Officer from 2002 until September 2020. He has more than 30 years of experience in the fields of biotherapeutics, cancer research and drug development, including serving as principal or co-investigator in more than 25 clinical trials ranging from Phase I to Phase III. Prior to starting Candel, Dr. Aguilar-Cordova held academic positions for nearly two decades. Most recently, he was deputy director of the Harvard Gene Therapy Initiative at Harvard Medical School in Boston and was a faculty member in Pediatrics, Hematology-Oncology at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston. He has served on numerous national oversight committees, including roles as chairman and member of the NIH Recombinant Advisory Committee (RAC), as a

122

consultant to the FDA Biological Response Modifiers Advisory Committee (BRMAC), and as a member of the Vaccine and Related Products Advisory Committee (VRPAC). Dr. Aguilar-Cordova has also held other appointments including president of the Latin American Gene Therapy Society. Dr. Aguilar-Cordova has published more than 80 peer-reviewed scientific publications and book chapters, is on the editorial board of various professional journals and is an inventor on several patent applications. Dr. Aguilar-Cordova has an undergraduate degree in Biology and Chemistry from California State University, Bakersfield, an M.D. Inf. from the University del Valle de Guatemala and a Ph.D. from the University of California, Davis.

Edward J. Benz, Jr., M.D., has served as a member of Candel's board of directors since September 2017. Dr. Benz is the President and CEO Emeritus of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and a member of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Board of Directors. Dr. Benz is an expert in blood disorders and is board certified in both hematology and internal medicine. He is an active clinical hematologist and a National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded researcher with a focus on the molecular basis and genetics around inherited blood disorders. From October 2000 until his retirement in October 2016, Dr. Benz served as President and CEO of Dana-Faber Cancer Institute and the Richard and Susan Smith Professor of Medicine and Professor of Genetics at Harvard Medical School. Prior to his role at Dana-Farber, Dr. Benz served as chairman for the Department of Medicine and Sir William Osler Professor of Medicine at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, as well as physician in chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital. Dr. Benz has also served as President of the American Society of Hematology, the Association of American Cancer Institutes, the American Society for Clinical Investigation, the American Clinical and Climatological Society, and the Friends of the National Institute of Nursing Research. Over the course of his career, Dr. Benz has authored more than 300 articles, books, reviews and abstracts and has received numerous awards. Dr. Benz serves on the board of directors of F-star Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: FSTX) and Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: DCPH), and also serves on the board of directors of Renovacor, Inc. (NYSE: RCOR) and serves on our Research Advisory Board. We believe Dr. Benz’s experience in the field of hematology and blood disorders provides him with the appropriate set of skills to serve as a member of our board of directors.

Chris Martell has served as a member of Candel's board of directors since November 2018. Chris Martell is the manager of GTAM1 2012 ADV LLC and an investor at Martell Capital. Previously, Chris was a Partner at PBM Capital in 2018. Prior to joining PBM Capital, Chris had an 18-year career at J.P. Morgan where he was a managing director in the Healthcare Investment Banking and Mergers and Acquisitions groups. He led the execution of a wide range of transactions including mergers and acquisitions, spin-offs and corporate separations, initial public offerings and equity and debt financings for Medical Device, Life Science Tool and Diagnostic, Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology companies. Chris graduated from Yale University with a B.A. in Ethics, Politics and Economics. We believe Mr. Martell’s broad financial and investment banking experience, financial and transactional expertise and acumen in mergers and acquisitions and complex financial transactions provides him with the appropriate set of skills to serve as a member of our board of directors.

Udi Meirav, Ph.D., has served as a member of Candel's board of directors since 2004. Dr. Meirav is CEO of Calibre Biometrics, Inc., a company developing and manufacturing wearable devices for respiratory measurements and metabolic tracking. He is also the President and Founder of Boston-based EnVerid, Inc., an energy-efficiency materials company, a role he has served in since 2010 and was previously the Chief Executive Officer of Luminus Devices, Inc., a manufacturer of high performance LEDs for solid state lighting. Dr. Meirav has served on numerous boards of directors of companies involved in IT, life sciences, semiconductors and solid state lighting. He has also worked with Stata Venture Partners, an early stage venture capital fund, and with Strategic Decisions Group, a premier consulting firm with focus on pharmaceuticals and biomedical technology. Dr. Meirav has a Ph.D. in Physics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a Bachelor of Science degree in Mathematics and Physics from Tel Aviv University. We believe Dr. Meirav’s multidisciplinary background with executive experience in technology and finance provides him with the appropriate set of skills to serve as a member of our board of directors.

Diem Nguyen, Ph.D., MBA, has served as a member of Candel's board of directors since July 2021. Dr. Nguyen is the Chief Executive Officer and member of the board of directors of Xalud Therapeutics, a private biotechnology company, which is majority-owned by PBM Capital. Previously, Dr. Nguyen was the Executive Vice President of PPD, a leading global clinical research organization providing drug development services, a position she held from April 2018 to April 2020. Since 2008, Dr. Nguyen has held various leadership roles at Pfizer Inc., last serving as Global President, Americas of Pfizer Essential Health from January 2017 to March 2018. Dr. Nguyen is a director at Verrica Pharmaceuticals Inc. (NASDAQ: VRCA) and Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. She received a B.A. in Chemistry with Specialization in Biochemistry and a Ph.D. in Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics from the University of Virginia, and an MBA in General Management from the University of Virginia’s Darden Graduate School of Business Administration. We believe that Dr. Nguyen’s managerial, commercial and medical experience in the pharmaceutical industry provides her with the appropriate set of skills to serve as a member of our board of directors.

Alan E. Smith, Ph.D., FRS, CBE, has served as a member of Candel's board of directors since October 2015. Dr. Smith is the former Senior Vice President (1989-2011) and Chief Scientific Officer of Genzyme Corporation, Cambridge, MA, a position he held from 1997 to 2011. Prior to its acquisition by Genzyme in 1989, Dr. Smith was the Vice President and

123

Scientific Director of Integrated Genetics, a Massachusetts start-up biotechnology company. Dr. Smith sits on the Scientific Advisory Board of Pharnext, a start-up genomics company in Paris, France, and he is on the Board of Directors of Arecor, a start-up biotechnology company in Cambridge UK. From 2014 to 2020, he was chairman of the Board of Cambridge in America, the representative body of the University and Colleges of Cambridge in North America, and from 2016 -2019, he was chairman of Native Plant Trust, the first plant conservation organization in the United States. Dr. Smith has published extensively on the genetic code and protein synthesis, tumour virology, cell biology and cystic fibrosis. He holds a B.A. from Christ’s College, Cambridge UK and a Ph.D. from the Laboratory of Molecular Biology, Cambridge, England. He is a fellow of the Royal Society of London and of Christ’s College. We believe Dr. Smith’s executive experience provides him with the appropriate set of skills to serve as a member of our board of directors.

Shaan C. Gandhi, M.D., D.Phil. has served as a member of Candel's board of directors since May 2020. Dr. Gandhi is a Director at Northpond Ventures, LLC (Northpond Ventures), a global science, medical and technology-focused venture capital firm, where he leads the firm’s work in biotechnologies. Previously, Dr. Gandhi was a Principal at the Longwood Fund from 2018 to 2020, where he created and invested in life sciences companies, including Pyxis Oncology, a cancer immunotherapy company focused on novel modulators of the tumor microenvironment, which he co-founded and served as President. He was an attending hospitalist at Massachusetts General Hospital from 2018 to 2019, where he also did his residency in internal medicine from 2015 to 2018. He serves on the boards of directors of two other public companies, DICE Therapeutics (NASDAQ: DICE) and Vigil Neuroscience (NASDAQ: VIGL), as well as the boards of various private companies, including CAMP4 Therapeutics, Garuda Therapeutics, Kyverna Therapeutics, Mestag Therapeutics, Parthenon Therapeutics, StrideBio, Teckro, and Totus Medicines. He holds an M.D. from Harvard Medical School; an M.B.A. from Harvard Business School, where he was a Baker Scholar; a D.Phil. in medical oncology from the University of Oxford, where he was a Rhodes Scholar; and a B.S. with honors in biochemistry from Case Western Reserve University. We believe that Dr. Gandhi’s financial, managerial and medical experience coupled with his substantial experience as an investor in emerging biotechnology companies provides him with the appropriate set of skills to serve as a member of the board of directors.

Family Relationships

There are no family relationships among any of our directors or executive officers.

Delinquent Section 16(a) Reports

Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act requires our directors, executive officers and beneficial owners of more than 10% of our equity securities to file reports of holdings and transactions in securities of the Company with the SEC.

Based solely on a review of on Forms 3, 4 and 5 and any amendments thereto filed electronically with the Securities and Exchange Commission with respect to the most recent fiscal year and written representations from the reporting persons, we believe all Section 16(a) filing requirements were satisfied in 2021 with the exception of the following filing: a Form 5 filing filed on February 14, 2022 by Diem Nguyen with respect to options granted by the Company in July 2021.

Code of Business Conduct and Ethics

Our board of directors has adopted a Code of Business Conduct and Ethics. The Code of Business Conduct and Ethics applies to all of our employees, officers (including our principal executive officer, principal financial officer, principal accounting officer or controller or persons performing similar functions), agents and representatives, including directors and consultants.

The full text of our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics is posted on our website at www.candeltx.com. We intend to disclose future amendments to certain provisions of our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics on our website. The inclusion of our website address in this Annual Report does not include or incorporate by reference the information on our website into this Annual Report, and you should not consider that information a part of this Annual Report.

Audit Committee

The members of our audit committee are Shaan C. Gandhi, M.D., D.Phil, Chris Martell, and Udi Meirav, Ph.D. Christopher Martell is the chair of the audit committee. Our board of directors has determined that all members of our audit committee will meet the requirements for financial literacy under the applicable rules and regulations of the SEC and the Nasdaq listing rules and that Christopher Martell is an “audit committee financial expert” (within the meaning of applicable SEC regulations). Each of the members of the audit committee are independent pursuant to applicable Nasdaq listing standards.

124

Recommendation of Director Nominees by Stockholders

There have been no material changes to the procedures by which our stockholders may recommend nominees to the board of directors.

Limitations on Liability and Indemnification

As permitted by Delaware law, provisions in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws limit or eliminate the personal liability of directors for a breach of their fiduciary duty of care as a director. The duty of care generally requires that, when acting on behalf of the corporation, a director exercise an informed business judgment based on all material information reasonably available to him or her. Consequently, a director will not be personally liable to us or our stockholders for monetary damages or breach of fiduciary duty as a director, except for liability for:

These limitations of liability do not limit or eliminate our rights or any stockholder’s rights to seek non-monetary relief, such as injunctive relief or rescission. These provisions will not alter a director’s liability under other laws, such as the federal securities laws or other state or federal laws. Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation also authorizes us to indemnify our officers, directors and other agents to the fullest extent permitted under Delaware law.

As permitted by Delaware law, our amended and restated bylaws provide that:

If Delaware law is amended to authorize corporate action further eliminating or limiting the personal liability of a director or officer, then the liability of our directors or officers will be so eliminated or limited to the fullest extent permitted by Delaware law, as so amended. Our amended and restated bylaws will also permit us to secure insurance on behalf of any officer, director, employee or other agent for any liability arising out of his or her actions in connection with their services to us, regardless of whether our bylaws permit such indemnification. We have obtained such insurance.

In addition to the indemnification that is provided for in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws, we have entered into indemnification agreements with each of our directors and executive officers, which may be broader than the specific indemnification provisions contained in the Delaware General Corporation Law. These indemnification agreements may require us, among other things, to indemnify our directors and executive officers for some expenses, including attorneys’ fees, expenses, judgments, fines and settlement amounts incurred by a director or executive officer in any action or proceeding arising out of his service as one of our directors or executive officers or any other company or enterprise to which the person provides services at our request. We believe that these provisions and agreements are necessary to attract and retain qualified individuals to serve as directors and executive officers.

This description of the indemnification provisions of our amended and restated certificate of incorporation, our amended and restated bylaws and our indemnification agreements is qualified in its entirety by reference to these documents, each of which is attached as an exhibit to this Annual Report.

Insofar as indemnification for liabilities arising under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the Securities Act), may be permitted to our directors, officers and controlling persons pursuant to the foregoing provisions, or otherwise, we have been advised that, in the opinion of the SEC, such indemnification is against public policy as expressed in the Securities Act, and is, therefore, unenforceable.

125

There is no pending litigation or proceeding naming any of our directors or officers as to which indemnification is being sought, nor are we aware of any pending or threatened litigation that may result in claims for indemnification by any director or officer.

Item 11. Executive Compensation.

Executive Compensation Overview

As an emerging growth company, we have opted to comply with the executive compensation disclosure rules applicable to “smaller reporting companies,” as such term is defined in the rules promulgated under the Securities Act. This section provides an overview of the compensation awarded to and earned by each individual who served as our principal executive officer at any time during our years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020 and to our next two most highly compensated executive officers in respect of their service to our company for our years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020. We refer to these individuals as our named executive officers. Our named executive officers are:

Our executive compensation program is based on a pay-for-performance philosophy. Compensation for our executive officers is composed primarily of the following main components: base salary, bonus and equity incentives in the form of stock options. Our executive officers, like all full-time employees, are eligible to participate in our health and welfare benefit plans. As we complete our transition from a private company to a publicly traded company, we intend to evaluate our compensation values and philosophy and compensation plans and arrangements as circumstances require. At a minimum, we expect to review executive compensation annually with input from a compensation consultant. As part of this review process, we expect the board of directors and the compensation committee to apply our values and philosophy, while considering the compensation levels needed to ensure our executive compensation program remains competitive. We will also review whether we are meeting our retention objectives and the potential cost of replacing a key employee.

Summary Compensation Table

The following table sets forth information regarding compensation awarded to and earned by our named executive officers for services rendered to us in all capacities during our years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020.