PROKIDNEY CORP. 10-K

10-K UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 FORM 10-K (Mark One) ☒ ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the fiscal year ended December 31 , 2025 OR ☐ TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 FOR THE TRANSITION PERIOD FROM TO Commission File Number 001-40560 ProKidney Corp. (Exact name of Registrant as specified in its Charter) Delaware 98-1586514 (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization) (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) 2000 Frontis Plaza Blvd ., Suite 250 Winston-Salem , NC 27103 (Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code) Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: ( 336 ) 999-7019 Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: Title of each class Trading Symbol(s) Name of each exchange on which registered Class A common stock, $0.0001 par value per share PROK The Nasdaq Stock Market 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. Large accelerated filer ☐ Accelerated filer ☐ Non-accelerated filer ☒ Smaller reporting company ☒ Emerging growth company ☒ 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. ☐ If securities are registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act, indicate by check mark whether the financial statements of the registrant included in the filing reflect the correction of an error to previously issued financial statements. ☐ Indicate by check mark whether any of those error corrections are restatements that required a recovery analysis of incentive-based compensation received by any of the registrant’s executive officers during the relevant recovery period pursuant to §240.10D-1(b). ☐ 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 the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates of the Registrant, based on the closing price of the common stock on The Nasdaq Stock Market on June 30, 2025, was $ 58,869,984 . As of March 17, 2026, there were 141,942,905 shares of Class A common stock, par value $0.0001 per share and 159,973,180 shares of Class B common stock, par value $0.0001 per share, outstanding. Auditor Firm Id: 42 Auditor Name: Ernst & Young LLP Auditor Location: Atlanta, Georgia, United States Table of Contents Page PART I Item 1. Business 4 Item 1A. Risk Factors 33 Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments 85 Item 1C. Cybersecurity 85 Item 2. Properties 86 Item 3. Legal Proceedings 86 Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures 86 PART II Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities 86 Item 6. Reserved 87 Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations 87 Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk 93 Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data 93 Item 9. Changes in and Disagreements With Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure 93 Item 9A. Controls and Procedures 93 Item 9B. Other Information 94 Item 9C. Disclosure Regarding Foreign Jurisdictions That Prevent Inspections 94 PART III Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance 95 Item 11. Executive Compensation 95 Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters 95 Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence 95 Item 14. Principal Accounting Fees and Services 95 PART IV Item 15. Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules 96 Item 16 Form 10-K Summary 98 i Effective July 1, 2025 (the “Domestication Date”), the Company completed a domestication process through which it changed its jurisdiction of incorporation from the Cayman Islands to the State of Delaware (the “Domestication”). ProKidney Corp., the Cayman Islands exempted company (“ProKidney Cayman”) deregistered as an exempted company in the Cayman Islands pursuant to Sections 206 and 207 of the Companies Act (as amended) of the Cayman Islands (the “Companies Act”), and domesticated and continued its existence as a corporation incorporated in the State of Delaware (“ProKidney Delaware”) pursuant to Section 388 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the “DGCL”), effective as of the Domestication Date. In this Annual Report on Form 10-K, the terms “we”, “us”, “our”, the “Company” and “ProKidney” (i) for periods prior to the Domestication Date, refer to ProKidney Cayman and its consolidated subsidiaries and (ii) for periods at or after the Domestication Date, refer to ProKidney Delaware and its consolidated subsidiaries. Similarly, throughout this Annual report, unless otherwise noted, references to common stock refer to “ordinary shares” before the Domestication and “common stock” subsequent to the Domestication. For a description of our equity securities following the Domestication, refer to the “Description of the Registrant’s Capital Stock” filed as Exhibit 4.1 hereto. CAUTIONARY NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS The following discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations should be read in conjunction with our financial statements and related notes that appear elsewhere in this report. In addition to historical financial information, the following discussion contains forward-looking statements that reflect our plans, estimates, assumptions and beliefs. Our actual results could differ materially from those discussed in the forward-looking statements. Factors that could cause or contribute to these differences include those discussed below and elsewhere in this report under “Part I—Item 1A, Risk Factors.” Forward-looking statements include information concerning our possible or assumed future results of operations, business strategies and operations, financing plans, potential growth opportunities, potential market opportunities, potential results of our drug development efforts or trials, and the effects of competition. Forward-looking statements include all statements that are not historical facts and can be identified by terms such as “anticipates,” “believes,” “could,” “seeks,” “estimates,” “expects,” “intends,” “may,” “plans,” “potential,” “predicts,” “projects,” “should,” “will,” “would” or similar expressions and the negatives of those terms. Given these uncertainties, you should not place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements. Also, forward-looking statements represent our management’s plans, estimates, assumptions and beliefs only as of the date of this report. Except as required by law, we assume no obligation to update these forward-looking statements publicly or to update the reasons actual results could differ materially from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements, even if new information becomes available in the future. 1 Summary of Principal Risk Factors Our business is subject to a number of risks, including risks that may prevent us from achieving our business objectives or may adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows, and prospects. These risks are discussed more fully in “Part I – Item 1A, Risk Factors” below and include, but are not limited to, risks related to: Our Financial Position and Need for Additional Capital • our ability to achieve or maintain profitability; • our ability to generate revenue in the absence of any products approved for sale; • our need for additional capital to continue the development and commercialization of our drug candidates; • the impact of raising additional capital to our stockholders and the rights of our drug candidates; Development of Renal Autologous Cell Therapy or rilparencel and Our Future Product Candidates • the potential failure of our clinical trials or our inability to receive regulatory approval for our product candidates; • competition with other products; • the impact of delays in the commencement, enrollment and completion of our clinical trials; • the potential for preliminary results and the results of early-stage trials to not be duplicated in later stage clinical trials; • the identification of unacceptable serious adverse side effects which are determined to be treatment related; • the effect of public opinion and regulatory scrutiny of cell-based therapies; • the impact of using our financial and human resources to pursue a particular research program for our product candidates and failing to capitalize on programs or product candidates that may be more profitable or for which there is a greater likelihood of success; Manufacturing of rilparencel and Our Future Product Candidates • our ability to manufacture rilparencel or other future product candidates to meet development or commercial needs; • our ability to effectively maintain and expand our own production capabilities; • our ability to secure commitments from third-party manufacturers; • the impact of manufacturing a personalized medicine that is patient-specific; • the impact of delays in the regulatory approval of the manufacturing process; • our ability to manage the highly complex supply chain process associated with a personalized cell-based therapy; • our dependence upon third parties to provide us with a sufficient supply of materials for use in our manufacturing process; • the impact of any changes made to the formulation or process used in the manufacturing of our products; • our ability to maintain our manufacturing facility in a state of compliance with global quality standards; Commercialization of rilparencel and Our Future Product Candidates • the acceptance of our product candidates in the market, if approved by the appropriate regulatory agencies; • our ability to establish sales and marketing capabilities or enter into agreements with third parties to sell and market our product candidates; • our assumptions of the addressable market for our product candidates may not be correct; • our ability to obtain approval to commercialize products within different jurisdictions; • the impact of off-label use of our product candidates; • competition with other products; • our ability to obtain coverage or reimbursement for rilparencel or our other product candidates; • our ability to obtain adequate pricing for our product candidates from patients and third-party private and public payors in amounts that are sufficient to allow us to achieve profitability; • the impact of product liability lawsuits; • our ability to comply with environmental, health, and safety laws and regulations; Our Reliance on Third Parties • the professional conduct of third parties we rely on to conduct, supervise and monitor certain of our clinical trials; • our reliance on third parties to provide materials for our research and development activities; • our ability to establish and maintain collaborative relationships to further the development of or commercialize our product candidates; 2 Legal and Regulatory Compliance Matters • the impact of healthcare laws and regulations on our relationships with healthcare professionals, principal investigators, consultants, customers (actual and potential) and third-party payors; • the impact of ongoing obligations and continued regulatory review for our drug candidates post-commercialization; • the impact of healthcare cost containment initiatives; • the impact of funding of the Food and Drug Administration (the “FDA”), the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) and other government agencies; • the impact of marketing and reimbursement regulations in other foreign jurisdictions; • the impact of global data privacy laws and regulations; • the impact of legal, political and economic uncertainty relating to our planned international operations; • the impact of U.S. and foreign trade laws; • the impact of potential competitive pecuniary interests held by our executive officers, directors, security holders and their respective affiliates; • the impact of our incorporation under the laws of the state of Delaware; Our Intellectual Property • our ability to continue to protect proprietary rights to our intellectual property; • the impact of obligations imposed by future license or collaboration arrangements; • the unauthorized disclosure of our trade secrets or other confidential information; • the impact of litigation for infringing intellectual property rights or the disclosure of trade secrets of third parties; • our ability to obtain or maintain necessary intellectual property rights for our product candidates; • the impact of litigation to protect or enforce our patents or other intellectual property; • the impact of changes to the patent laws in the United States and other jurisdictions; • our ability to enforce our intellectual property rights throughout the world; • our ability to obtain patent term extensions for our product candidates; Managing Our Business and Operations • the impact of expanding our operations and managing growth; • our ability to attract and retain key personnel; • the impact of our employees, independent contractors, principal investigators, contract research organizations (“CROs”), contract development and manufacturing organization (“CDMOs”), consultants and collaborators in the event that they engage in misconduct or other improper activities; • the impact of computer system failures, cyber-attacks or a deficiency in our cyber-security or that of our partners; • the impact of a failure to comply with health and data protection laws and regulations; • the impact of changes in tax law or policy; • the impact of adverse outcomes resulting from examination of our income or other tax returns; • the impact of our investors’ substantial influence over our business; • our exemption from certain corporate governance requirements since we are a “controlled company”; • the existence of provisions in our governing documents or state law which may delay or prevent our acquisition by a third party; • our reliance upon our “emerging growth company” and “smaller reporting company” statuses; • the impact of geopolitical and economic uncertainty and related changes; • the impact of stock market fluctuations; Our Organizational Structure • our obligation to make payments under the Tax Receivable Agreement (as defined and discussed further below); • our ability to make distributions from PK Holdings to satisfy our obligations; and • the impact of the rights of our stockholders as a corporation in the state of Delaware. 3 PAR T I Item 1 . Business. Overview We are a late-clinical-stage biotechnology company pioneering the development of a first-in-class, autologous cell therapy that is intended to preserve kidney function in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (“CKD”) and diabetes. Our approach seeks to redefine the treatment of CKD, shifting the emphasis away from management of kidney failure to the preservation of kidney function. Our lead product candidate, rilparencel, is the only cell therapy in Phase 3 clinical study for the treatment of advanced CKD and type 2 diabetes. Rilparencel is a product that includes autologous Selected Renal Cells (“SRC”) prepared from a patient’s own (autologous) kidney cells. The SRC are formulated as rilparencel for reinjection into the patient’s kidneys using a minimally invasive outpatient procedure. Because rilparencel is a personalized product composed of cells prepared from a patient’s own kidney, there is no need for treatment with immunosuppressive therapies that are required during a patient’s lifetime when a patient receives a kidney transplant from another (allogeneic) donor. Our technology works by expanding and selecting kidney cells of a patient to preserve kidney function that is being lost due to chronic disease. Our process begins when a small piece (biopsy) of a patient’s diseased kidney is sent to our manufacturing facility. We process tissue taken from the biopsy and isolate SRC that are formulated into a personalized product for reinjection into the damaged kidney(s). To date, clinical studies suggest that rilparencel has the capacity to positively impact kidney function by stabilizing the estimated glomerular filtration rate (“eGFR”) or attenuating the rate of eGFR decline in patients with CKD and diabetes. Chronic kidney disease is segmented into five stages, from mild (CKD Stage 1) to severe (CKD Stage 5 or kidney failure), and it is estimated that over 37 million people in the United States currently suffer from CKD. We are initially pursuing the development of rilparencel in the United States for use in patients with moderate to severe CKD and type 2 diabetes, a population that includes over one million people. We are currently conducting a Phase 3 clinical study and recently completed a Phase 2 clinical study for rilparencel in subjects with advanced CKD and type 2 diabetes. Rilparencel has received regenerative medicine advanced therapy (“RMAT”) designation from the United States Food and Drug Administration (the “FDA”), a status granted to accelerate the development and review of promising regenerative medicine therapies. Rilparencel has, to date, been generally well tolerated by subjects with moderate to severe CKD in Phase 1 and 2 clinical testing. REGEN-006/PROACT 1 trial: REGEN-006 (PROACT 1) is an ongoing Phase 3, randomized, blinded, bi-lateral kidney dosing, sham controlled arm, efficacy and safety study of rilparencel in subjects with advanced CKD and type 2 diabetes. The related study protocol has been amended to focus on a subset of patients with Stage 4 CKD (eGFR between 20 and 30 mL/min/1.73m 2 ) and late Stage 3b CKD (eGFR between 30 and 35 mL/min/1.73m 2 with accompanying albuminuria UACR between 300 and 5000 mg/g). This study is being conducted in clinical centers in the United States, Mexico, and Taiwan. The primary objective of this study is to assess the efficacy of up to two rilparencel injections given three months apart and delivered into both kidneys using a minimally invasive percutaneous approach with a targeted enrollment of approximately 470 patients. Subjects will be randomized (1:1) to the treatment group and the sham control group prior to kidney biopsy. Subjects in the treatment group will receive two injections of rilparencel of 3x10 6 cells/g-KW est . The surrogate endpoint to support a potential accelerated approval of rilparencel is annualized eGFR slope. The efficacy analysis set is expected to contain approximately 360 patients and will include all patients with at least 6 months of follow-up after first injection. We anticipate topline data readout of the surrogate endpoint (eGFR slope) in the second quarter of 2027 and anticipate topline data readout of the confirmatory endpoint (composite time-to-event) in the second half of 2029. REGEN-007: In May 2025, we completed our REGEN-007 trial, a multi-center Phase 2 open-label 1:1 randomized two-arm trial of rilparencel in patients with diabetes, CKD, and an eGFR of 20-50 mL/min/1.73m². Full results were presented as a late-breaking clinical trial at the American Society of Nephrology Kidney Week 2025 and a more complete set of results were published in the Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology in early 2026. At randomization, patients were assigned to one of two treatment groups using different dosing regimens. Group 1 replicated the dosing schedule of our ongoing Phase 3 PROACT 1 study in which patients receive two scheduled rilparencel injections (one in 4 each kidney), approximately three months apart. Group 2 tested an exploratory dosing regimen to investigate whether disease progression triggers, rather than a time-based trigger, could optimize multiple administrations of rilparencel. In Group 2, patients received a single rilparencel injection in one kidney and a second injection in the contralateral kidney only if triggered by a sustained eGFR decline from baseline of ≥ 20%, and/or an increase of >30% and >30mg/g in the urine albumin to creatinine ratio (“UACR”) from baseline. The prespecified primary endpoint for REGEN-007 was the difference in annual eGFR slope (calculated using a linear mixed effects model) in the pre-injection period versus the period following the last rilparencel injection. The pre-injection period included all historical eGFR values collected up to 24 months before the screening visit as well as the on-study central laboratory eGFR results prior to first rilparencel injection. The period following the last injection included eGFR values from the last rilparencel injection to the end of study (“EOS”) visit. Median follow-up after the last injection was approximately 18 months in both Group 1 and Group 2. Fifty-three patients were randomized in the study, of whom 49 patients (mITT population) received at least one rilparencel injection. Four patients did not receive any rilparencel injections. The majority of patients were male (69%), and the mean age was 60 years. At baseline, 38 of 49 patients (78%) had type 2 diabetes mellitus and 11 (22%) had type 1 diabetes. Thirty-nine (80%) patients were receiving an ACEi or an ARB, and 18 (37%) were receiving a SGLT2 inhibitor. At baseline, the mean (SD) eGFR was 33±10 mL/min/1.73m². Notably, the median UACR was higher in Group 1 (792 mg/g) compared to Group 2 (229 mg/g). In Group 1 (n=24), kidney function stabilized after receiving rilparencel. The annual decline in eGFR slope improved by 78% from -5.8 mL/min/1.73m² in the pre-injection period to -1.3 mL/min/1.73m² in the period following the last rilparencel injection. This 4.6 mL/min/1.73m² per year difference was statistically significant (p<0.001) and clinically meaningful. Among Group 1 patients, 15 of 24 (63%) met key Phase 3 PROACT 1 inclusion criteria. In this subgroup, treatment with rilparencel resulted in a 5.5 mL/min/1.73m² improvement in the annual decline in eGFR slope. This 85% improvement was statistically significant and clinically meaningful. In Group 2 (n=25), the annual change in kidney function as measured by eGFR slope was -3.4 mL/min/1.73m² in the pre-injection period versus -1.7 mL/min/1.73m² in the period following the last rilparencel injection, resulting in an improvement of 50%, or 1.7 mL/min/1.73m² per year. This difference was not statistically significant (p=0.085) but suggests evidence of a dose response. Out of the 25 patients in Group 2, 15 (60%) met the re-dosing trigger and received a second rilparencel injection. The median time between the first and second injections in these 15 patients was approximately 11 months. No rilparencel-related serious adverse events were observed across all patients in the study who received at least one rilparencel injection (n=49). The overall study safety profile was consistent with previously reported study results and comparable to a kidney biopsy. We currently operate a manufacturing facility that has been designed to comply with FDA and European Medicines Agency (“EMA”) quality standards and to produce rilparencel treatments from biopsied material. Our manufacturing site, based in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, in the United States, has a potential capacity sufficient to supply our Phase 3 study as well as a potential commercial launch, should rilparencel receive regulatory approval. 5 Our Clinical Trial Program We are leveraging our cell therapy technology to develop product candidates designed to stop or delay kidney failure in CKD. The following table summarizes our current clinical study program: Clinical studies suggest that rilparencel can impact kidney function positively, as shown by its stabilization of eGFR, or attenuation of the rate of eGFR decline, in patients with CKD and diabetes. We have developed a cryopreserved version of rilparencel that allows for long-term product preservation and that is being used in our Phase 3 trial of rilparencel (called PROACT 1 or REGEN-006), and was used in our Phase 2 trial of rilparencel (called REGEN-007). In addition to the cryopreserved formulation of rilparencel, we used a gelatin-based hydrogel formulation in other Phase 2 trials (called RMCL-002 and REGEN-003) and a Phase 1 trial in CAKUT (called REGEN-004). Our Team and Corporate History We have an experienced internal research and development team focused on utilizing our deep understanding of kidney disease pathways to discover and develop novel cell-based therapies with a multi-modal mechanism targeting various pathways. Since our founding, we have expanded our team to incorporate additional expertise as needed to pursue our goal of becoming a fully integrated biopharmaceutical company. We have assembled key management team members with expertise in kidney disease, cell therapy, development, regulatory affairs, operations, quality and manufacturing. Effective July 1, 2025 (the “Domestication Date”), the Company completed a domestication process through which it changed its jurisdiction of incorporation from the Cayman Islands to the State of Delaware (the “Domestication”). ProKidney Corp., the Cayman Islands exempted company (“ProKidney Cayman”) deregistered as an exempted company in the Cayman Islands pursuant to Sections 206 and 207 of the Companies Act (as amended) of the Cayman Islands (the “Companies Act”), and domesticated and continued its existence as a corporation incorporated in the State of Delaware pursuant to Section 388 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the “DGCL”), effective as of the Domestication Date. In connection with the Domestication, the Company also completed certain other restructuring transactions (such transactions, together with the Domestication, the “Restructuring”) on the Domestication Date. Prior to the Restructuring, ProKidney Cayman. conducted its business indirectly through ProKidney LP (“PKLP”), a limited partnership under the laws and regulations of Ireland and its subsidiaries. As part of the Restructuring, (i) PKLP contributed substantially all of its assets to a newly formed subsidiary, ProKidney Holdings, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“PK Holdings”) (other than its limited liability company interests in PK Holdings), (ii) PKLP commenced winding-up and made a liquidating distribution of its limited liability company interests in PK Holdings to its partners, including ProKidney Cayman., in redemption of their interests in PKLP, and (iii) ProKidney Corp. GP Limited, the general partner of PKLP, sold its nominal economic interest in PK Holdings received in such liquidating distribution to ProKidney Cayman. (collectively, the “Substitution”). Immediately following the Domestication, ProKidney (“ProKidney-KY”), then a wholly owned subsidiary of PK Holdings and a Cayman Islands exempted company, re-registered as a Cayman Islands limited liability company and then deregistered as a limited liability company in the Cayman Islands and registered by way of continuation out for purposes of the Limited Liability Companies Act (as amended) of the Cayman Islands and domesticated and continued for purposes of the Delaware Limited Liability Company Act as a Delaware limited liability company named ProKidney IPCo, LLC (“ProKidney IPCo”). As a result of the consummation of the Domestication and the other transactions involved in the Restructuring, the Company and the other former limited partners of 6 PKLP are now members of PK Holdings, and PK Holdings owns all of the subsidiaries that conduct the Company’s business, including ProKidney IPCo. In connection with the Domestication and the other Restructuring transactions, the Company amended and restated certain of its material agreements, each originally dated July 11, 2022, on substantially similar terms in order to reflect updates to the Company’s corporate structure resulting from the Restructuring. These amended and restated agreements included: (i) an Amended and Restated Tax Receivable Agreement, (ii) an Amended and Restated Lock-Up Agreement, and (iii) an Amended and Restated Exchange Agreement. In addition, on the Domestication Date, the Company, together with the other former limited partners of PKLP entered into the Second Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement of PK Holdings to provide for the governance of PK Holdings and reflect the changes to its capital structure resulting from the Restructuring. After completing the Domestication and other Restructuring transactions, the Company also underwent a series of transactions to streamline its operating subsidiaries from a tax perspective (the “Post-Domestication Reorganization”). The Post-Domestication Reorganization was finalized effective as of September 1, 2025. References to PK Holdings herein refers to PKLP prior to the Domestication and PK Holdings subsequent to the Domestication. References to ProKidney IPCo. herein refer to ProKidney-KY prior to the Domestication and ProKidney IPCo. subsequent to the Domestication. Our Strategy Our goal is to become a fully integrated biopharmaceutical company pioneering treatments for CKD. Key components of our business strategy include the following: • Obtain regulatory approval for, and successfully commercialize, rilparencel as a treatment for patients with CKD and diabetes. We intend to continue to pursue the clinical development of rilparencel through our Phase 3 REGEN-006 trial. We activated the first site for our ongoing REGEN-006 trial (which we also call “PROACT 1”), in the fourth quarter of 2021 with the first Informed Consent Form signed and the first subject randomized into the trial in the first quarter of 2022. In the third quarter of 2025, the FDA confirmed in a Type B meeting that eGFR slope can serve as the surrogate endpoint and primary basis for a Biologics License Application (“BLA”) submission of rilparencel under the accelerated approval pathway. The FDA also confirmed that PROACT 1 may serve as the confirmatory study to support full approval of rilparencel based on the primary time-to-event composite endpoint specified in the protocol. In addition to PROACT 1, we are also sponsoring a long-term follow-up trial, REGEN-008, for subjects who received rilparencel as part of our trials. This study was launched in the fourth quarter of 2023. • Maintain and continually refine our sophisticated internal expertise in manufacturing our products. We have developed and built a manufacturing facility, intended to be operated in compliance with current good manufacturing practices (“cGMPs”), in which we manufacture rilparencel for clinical trials and plan to continue to develop for purposes of the eventual commercial manufacturing process, assuming receipt of necessary regulatory approvals. Our current manufacturing facility has the capacity to manufacture enough product for PROACT 1 and is intended to serve as our commercial launch facility. We initiated an expansion of our manufacturing footprint within our existing premises to prepare for the potential commercialization of rilparencel. • Discover and develop additional product candidates for the treatment of kidney diseases utilizing our cell therapy approach. Our team has extensive experience in discovery research and deep expertise in kidney disease. While executing its primary mission to develop and commercialize rilparencel, our team expects to investigate additional disease pathways associated with kidney disease, identify key targets for intervention and generate product candidates against these targets. We may also in-license from, collaborate with, or acquire third parties to develop product candidates that we, based on our understanding of kidney diseases and pathways, believe are promising therapeutics. Kidney Disease Overview CKD is highly prevalent in the United States and European Union. Based on available U.S. data from the 2018 National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey, we expect the aggregate CKD population in the United States and European Union to grow from approximately 70 million in 2020 to approximately 80 million in 2030 and approximately 93 million in 2040. The most common causes of CKD among adults are diabetes, hypertension, and glomerular disease. In the United States, it is believed that approximately 3.2 million patients per year suffer from Stage 3b or 4 CKD and over one million of those patients could be eligible for treatment with rilparencel. Our Approach: Working to Preserve Kidney Function through Autologous Cell Therapy Autologous cell therapy refers to the prevention or treatment of human disease by administering a person’s own cells that have been expanded, selected and formulated outside the body and subsequently injected into the body of the patient from whom the cells were derived. We believe that our technology has the potential to preserve kidney function by using a patient’s own SRC. 7 Rilparencel is an autologous cell therapy. It includes a homologous cell mixture, SRC prepared from each individual subject’s own kidney biopsy tissue. Preparing rilparencel begins when a biopsy of the diseased kidney is sent to our laboratory where the kidney cells are expanded and SRC selected. SRC are formulated into a cryopreserved product at a concentration of approximately 100 x 10 6 cells/mL and shipped frozen to the clinical site where they can be injected into the cortex of the damaged kidney of the patient. Due to one severe bleed that occurred during an early rilparencel injection procedure, we switched to the use of a noncutting needle design for the rilparencel procedure. In non-clinical studies, SRCs injected into the cortex of a diseased kidney were found to distribute from the injection site to throughout the kidney, with localization in the peritubular, juxta-tubular and intratubular regions. To date, clinical studies suggest that treatment with rilparencel in patients with CKD and diabetes may positively impact kidney function, shown by a stabilization in eGFR or attenuations in the rate of eGFR decline. Other improvements observed with non-clinical and clinical SRC treatment include metabolic, as well as filtration benefits. Rilparencel Tissue Acquisition-to-Injection Process Overview Mechanism of Action of Rilparencel SRC, injected into the kidney cortex, are believed to provide a molecular basis for activation of endogenous renal repair mechanisms that are still active in the chronically diseased kidney. Non-clinical studies in multiple animal models of CKD have demonstrated that SRC injected directly into the kidney cortex could effect a reparative response in multiple locations of the nephron through putative juxtacrine and paracrine mechanisms involving direct cell-cell contact and secreted factors, respectively. In animal models of CKD, treatment with SRC preserved kidney function, reduced proteinuria and provided a significant survival benefit. Additionally, there is evidence from non-clinical models suggesting that injected SRC may augment other important kidney functions related to bone and mineral metabolism and hematopoiesis. In animal models of CKD, SRC have been shown to minimize the development of osteoclastic bone resorption, which is characteristically due to secondary hyperparathyroidism in CKD, and improve cellularity in marrow related to red blood cell production. Our Product Candidate Rilparencel is currently in Phase 3 development for the treatment of advanced CKD and type 2 diabetes. Our Phase 3 study, PROACT 1, is being conducted at approximately 80 clinical sites based in the United States, Mexico and Taiwan. To date, clinical studies in participants with CKD and diabetes suggest that treatment with rilparencel may delay or prevent kidney failure by stabilizing eGFR. 8 The ongoing clinical development program utilizes an image-guided percutaneous injection into the kidney that is conducted using conscious sedation in an outpatient same-day procedure. The procedure appears to be generally well tolerated with the most commonly observed procedure related events including nausea, vomiting, fever, and hematuria with kidney biopsy. Serious adverse events, including injection-related pain, kidney-related events such as hematoma, renal vascular events, eGFR decline and acute kidney injury, have also been reported. Other serious adverse events, including acute myocardial infarction, acute respiratory failure, end stage kidney disease, and coronary artery disease have been reported and are generally associated with the co-morbidities of patients with type 2 diabetes. Background and Unmet Need Chronic Kidney Disease CKD is characterized by progressive disease that, without therapeutic intervention, can worsen until the afflicted person reaches end-stage kidney disease (“ESKD”) or dies. CKD patients have progressive damage and loss of kidney function as evidenced by decreased eGFR and / or increased excretion of urinary albumin and as observed through laboratory testing. The global adult prevalence of CKD is estimated to be 10% with ranges of 8-16% in various populations. CKD is often associated with considerable comorbidities, such as diabetes, and is often accompanied by adverse outcomes due to underlying disease states and/or risk factors for cardiovascular disease, such as hypertension and diabetes, causing an increased risk of mortality. Ninety-seven percent of patients with moderate to severe CKD have asymptomatic disease, and this stage of CKD is associated with a two-to four-fold rise in cardiovascular disease risk, along with a significant increase in all-cause mortality. Only a small proportion of CKD patients progress to ESKD (i.e., Stage 5 disease), but the increasing life expectancy of humans has led to growing numbers of patients with chronic diseases and end-stage organ failure. Even with costly treatments, patients with ESKD experience substantial morbidity and mortality. To survive, ESKD patients require renal replacement therapy (“RRT”) with peritoneal dialysis, hemodialysis or kidney transplantation. Preventing or delaying progression of CKD, delaying the onset of medical complications and treating comorbidities are key strategies for CKD management. Approved therapies for patients with CKD have been shown to delay CKD progression in some patients. However, many patients continue to lose kidney function and progress to ESKD. The major causes of CKD in adults are diabetes and hypertension. Nearly half of all CKD cases arise from diabetes, with or without hypertension. The incidence of CKD continues to increase and is primarily due to the increased worldwide incidence of type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome. Staging and grading of kidney function relies upon eGFR and urine measurement of albumin excretion (“albuminuria”). KDIGO 2012 Clinical Practice Guideline for the Evaluation and Management of Chronic Kidney Disease provides guidelines intended to aid general practitioners and nephrologists in the evaluation, classification, and management of CKD in both adults and children. As set forth below, Figure 1 categorizes the risk of ESKD from “low” to “very high” based on both eGFR measurements, ranging from >90 mL/min/1.73m 2 to <30 mL/min/1.73m 2 , and albuminuria classifications ranging from <30 mg/g to >300 mg/g. Chronic kidney failure occurs when eGFR is < 15 mL/min/1.73m 2 for 3 or more months, and is often treated by dialysis or kidney transplantation. Summary of Classification Estimates for CKD Treatment of patients with CKD focuses on treating comorbidities (such as diabetes and hypertension) and medical complications, reducing cardiovascular risk, slowing decline of kidney function and preparing for kidney failure or kidney 9 replacement therapy. For many patients, CKD occurs as part of a complex comorbidity cluster including cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes. Pharmacological therapy may include the administration of any or all of the following: angiotensin converting enzyme (“ACE”) inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (“ARB”), sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (“SGLT-2”) inhibitors, nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (“nsMRAs”), glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (“GLP-1 RA”), insulin and/or other anti-diabetic agents for glycemic control and lipid lowering therapy. When a patient reaches ESKD, RRT in the form of kidney dialysis or transplantation is generally required to prolong life. The vast majority of dialysis patients in the United States and certain other developed countries receive dialysis primarily in the form of center hemodialysis, peritoneal dialysis or home hemodialysis. Dialysis removes toxins that accumulate in the absence of normally functioning kidneys; dialysis also helps to restore fluid and electrolyte balance when kidneys fail. Hemodialysis has been associated with multiple, serious complications as well as interference with quality of life. Although kidney transplantation currently remains the most effective form of RRT for ESKD, there is a chronic shortage of organs. If a patient can secure a kidney for transplantation, long-term immunosuppressive therapy is required to prevent rejection. Use of immunosuppressants results in a higher incidence of infection and, over the long term, some types of cancer. And while xenotransplantation might be a promising alternative approach in the future to bridge the gap between the supply and demand of human organs, tissues, and cells, immunological barriers are limiting factors in clinical xenotransplantation at the current time. Clinical Development Our completed clinical trials and currently ongoing clinical trials of rilparencel are summarized below; the name of the product candidate tested in the trials was changed after completion of some of the trials from Neo-Kidney Augment (“NKA”) to REACT or rilparencel. CKD and Diabetes or CAKUT Phase 1 Clinical Development (TNG-CL010, TNG-CL011, REGEN-004 and REGEN-015) TNG-CL010 was an open-label safety and delivery optimization study of rilparencel (formerly known as NKA) conducted in Sweden in subjects with CKD. TNG-CL010 commenced in April 2013 and completed in December 2014. TNG-CL011 was also an open-label safety and delivery optimization study of rilparencel in subjects with CKD and type 2 diabetes and CKD conducted in the United States. TNG-CL011 commenced with first subject enrolled in February 2014 and completed in December 2014. The primary objective of these trials was to assess the safety and delivery of rilparencel when injected into one kidney. Six subjects from Sweden (TNG-CL010) and one from the United States with CKD and type 2 diabetes, ranging in age from 53-70 years, eGFR levels between 19-34 (average 25 +/- 2, Cystatin C) and iohexol clearance of 15-39 (average 26 +/- 3), were enrolled. One subject with CKD and type 2 diabetes was enrolled in TNG-CL011. The results from the Phase 1 trials indicate that rilparencel was well tolerated when administered to the kidney, with no adverse events from rilparencel. When the decline of kidney function pre-and post- injection were compared, the subjects receiving rilparencel in this Phase 1 trial had an imputed delay in dialysis of approximately 1.5 years beyond the standard of care based on a reduced rate of decline in eGFR from pre-injection baseline. Cortical thickness increased in the injected kidney from an average of 14 mm at time of injection to approximately 16 mm after one year. Kidney function was preserved following the rilparencel injection by iohexol clearance and based on the subjects’ ACRs. Subjects with a baseline anemia (n = 3 of 7) showed improved hemoglobin levels after rilparencel injection, and the remaining subjects maintained normal levels during the study. Antihypertensive medication was reduced in three of six subjects during the first six months following injection with rilparencel. The data from TNG-CL011 was accepted by FDA as part of a clinical data package submitted to progress to Phase 2. Phase 2 Clinical Development RMCL-001: RMCL-001 was a Phase 2, open-label safety and efficacy study of rilparencel in subjects with CKD and type 2 diabetes. The study commenced in May 2016 and ended in May 2017. The primary objective of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of a second rilparencel injection using a minimally invasive percutaneous procedure that was done under conscious sedation as a same-day outpatient procedure. A single subject with an eGFR of 14 ml/min/1.73m 2 was enrolled from the Phase 1 study (TNG-CL011) described above. The second dose of rilparencel was manufactured from cryopreserved kidney cells obtained from the Phase 1 kidney biopsy. The subject was administered a dose of 3x10 6 cells/g-KW est . The subject’s eGFR increased to approximately 20 ml/min/1.73m 2 for a period of eight months, after which the subject experienced a precipitous drop in kidney function and began hemodialysis. The study was terminated by the sponsor of the clinical trial after this subject went onto dialysis and resources were diverted to study RMCL-002. 10 RMCL-002: RMCL-002 was a Phase 2, prospective, randomized, double-arm, deferred treatment, open-label, repeat dose, safety and efficacy study of rilparencel in subjects with type 2 diabetes and CKD. The first subject was enrolled in this study in February 2017, and all subjects have completed follow-up. The aggregate number of subjects enrolled in the Phase 2 clinical trial was 83. Upon withdrawal and/or replacement of two subjects, 81 subjects were enrolled as of December 2020, of which 41 subjects were enrolled into the active treatment group and 42 subjects were enrolled into the deferred treatment group. The primary objective of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of up to two rilparencel injections given six months (+ 4 weeks) apart in patients with CKD and type 2 diabetes with eGFRs between 20 and 50 ml/min/1.73m 2 , with both doses delivered into the biopsied kidney using an outpatient, minimally invasive, percutaneous approach under conscious sedation completed in less than 90 minutes. Patients received two doses of rilparencel of 3x10 6 cells/g-KW est each. Patients were randomized (1:1) to the active treatment group and the deferred treatment group (i.e., the control group) following kidney biopsy. Subjects in the active treatment group received their first rilparencel injection as soon as the rilparencel product was manufactured and shipped to the clinical site. After six months (up to four weeks after target date), a second injection was given, as appropriate. In contrast, subjects in the deferred treatment group underwent a 12-month period of observation after kidney biopsy. The deferred treatment group allowed assessment of the rate of change in kidney function and co-morbidities in a nonexposed group compared to the active treatment arm. During this time, they received contemporaneous, standard-of-care therapy for CKD while undergoing follow-up evaluations every three months, similar to subjects in the active treatment group. After 12 months, subjects from the deferred treatment group received up to two rilparencel injections given six months apart (+/- four weeks of the target date), as appropriate. Consequently, the study design included a randomized control group receiving standard-of-care treatment for the first 12 months and a randomized, active treatment group receiving up to two rilparencel injections and follow-up evaluations during the same period of time. The final results for safety and efficacy were presented at the 61 st ERA Congress in May 2024. The rate of progression of kidney function for the active treatment group, assessed via pre-randomized serial measurements of eGFR over 24 months after the last rilparencel injection, was compared to that of the deferred treatment group. In addition, each subject’s baseline rate of eGFR decline, derived from historical and clinical data, was compared to the individual subject’s rate of eGFR decline through 24 months following the final rilparencel injection. Patients were followed for 24 months after their last rilparencel injection in part 1 of the trial. An open label extension portion of the study (part 2) was added in February 2021 to follow all subjects for an additional 3 years. Visits are being conducted at 3-month intervals to provide a total of 5 years (part 1 + part 2) of follow-up after the last rilparencel injection. Overall, the trial data final results demonstrated rilparencel’s potential for kidney function preservation in patients with advanced CKD and type 2 diabetes, with the most notable potential benefit shown in patients who had the highest risk of kidney failure (CKD Stage 4 with moderate to severe albuminuria). The results also indicated a safety profile in line with previously reported data from earlier Phase 1 and Phase 2 trials, with tolerability similar to that of a routine kidney biopsy. REGEN-003: REGEN-003 is a completed Phase 2, prospective, open-label, single-arm, safety and tolerability study of rilparencel in subjects with CKD and type 2 diabetes, specifically those with high-risk late Stage 4 CKD. This study enrolled its first patient in March 2018. The early results were published online in January 2023 in the Journal of Blood Purification in a manuscript entitled, “Renal Autologous Cell Therapy (REACT) in Type 2 Diabetes with Late Stage 4 Diabetes-Related Chronic Kidney Disease: Trial Design and Early Analysis” (DOI: doi.org/10.1159/000527582). Clinical study results were submitted to the FDA on September 8, 2023. The primary objective of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of up to two rilparencel injections given six months apart (up to four weeks after target date) in patients with CKD and type 2 diabetes and with eGFRs between 14 and 20 ml/min/1.73m 2 . Subjects received up to two doses of rilparencel of 3x10 6 cells/g-KW est each delivered into the biopsied kidney using a minimally invasive percutaneous approach. This study enrolled a total of ten adults (five men and five women). Following a percutaneous kidney biopsy and ex vivo expansion of SRC that form rilparencel, the rilparencel product was injected into the cortex of the biopsied kidney with CT image guidance. Nine participants received two doses of the rilparencel product at six-month intervals; one participant received only one injection. A six-month observation period pre-trial was required to establish a patient’s “own” baseline and rate of CKD progression. There were no cell product-related serious adverse events reported. Serious renal-linked adverse events related to the rilparencel procedure were reported in three participants, including acute kidney injury, CKD progression, renal arteriovenous fistula and hematomas, each of which required observation without transfusion or angiographic interventions. At the final analysis, median time to dialysis was 19.4 months (interquartile range 13.3-27.9). Two patients (20%) completed the study (24 months after the second injection) without advancing to RRT. One patient died due to complications related to COVID, and an additional 11 subject died due to a myocardial infarction approximately 18 months after enrollment. The results from this study suggest that rilparencel has the potential to delay dialysis in high-risk Stage 4 and Stage 5 CKD patients. REGEN-007: In May 2025, we completed our REGEN-007 trial, a multi-center Phase 2 open-label 1:1 randomized two-arm trial of rilparencel in patients with diabetes, CKD, and an eGFR of 20-50 mL/min/1.73m². Full results were presented as a late-breaking clinical trial at the American Society of Nephrology Kidney Week 2025 and a more complete set of results were published in the Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology in early 2026. At randomization, patients were assigned to one of two treatment groups using different dosing regimens. Group 1 replicated the dosing schedule of our ongoing Phase 3 PROACT 1 study in which patients receive two scheduled rilparencel injections (one in each kidney), approximately three months apart. Group 2 tested an exploratory dosing regimen to investigate whether disease progression triggers, rather than a time-based trigger, could optimize multiple administrations of rilparencel. In Group 2, patients received a single rilparencel injection in one kidney and a second injection in the contralateral kidney only if triggered by a sustained eGFR decline from baseline of ≥ 20%, and/or an increase of >30% and >30mg/g in the urine albumin to creatinine ratio (“UACR”) from baseline. The prespecified primary endpoint for REGEN-007 was the difference in annual eGFR slope (calculated using a linear mixed effects model) in the pre-injection period versus the period following the last rilparencel injection. The pre-injection period included all historical eGFR values collected up to 24 months before the screening visit as well as the on-study central laboratory eGFR results prior to first rilparencel injection. The period following the last injection included eGFR values from the last rilparencel injection to the end of study (“EOS”) visit. Median follow-up after the last injection was approximately 18 months in both Group 1 and Group 2. Fifty-three patients were randomized in the study, of whom 49 patients (mITT population) received at least one rilparencel injection. Four patients did not receive any rilparencel injections. The majority of patients were male (69%), and the mean age was 60 years. At baseline, 38 of 49 patients (78%) had type 2 diabetes mellitus and 11 (22%) had type 1 diabetes. Thirty-nine (80%) patients were receiving an ACEi or an ARB, and 18 (37%) were receiving a SGLT2 inhibitor. At baseline, the mean (SD) eGFR was 33±10 mL/min/1.73m². Notably, the median UACR was higher in Group 1 (792 mg/g) compared to Group 2 (229 mg/g). In Group 1 (n=24), kidney function stabilized after receiving rilparencel. The annual decline in eGFR slope improved by 78% from -5.8 mL/min/1.73m² in the pre-injection period to -1.3 mL/min/1.73m² in the period following the last rilparencel injection. This 4.6 mL/min/1.73m² per year difference was statistically significant (p<0.001) and clinically meaningful. Among Group 1 patients, 15 of 24 (63%) met key Phase 3 PROACT 1 inclusion criteria. In this subgroup, treatment with rilparencel resulted in a 5.5 mL/min/1.73m² improvement in the annual decline in eGFR slope. This 85% improvement was statistically significant and clinically meaningful. In Group 2 (n=25), the annual change in kidney function as measured by eGFR slope was -3.4 mL/min/1.73m² in the pre-injection period versus -1.7 mL/min/1.73m² in the period following the last rilparencel injection, resulting in an improvement of 50%, or 1.7 mL/min/1.73m² per year. This difference was not statistically significant (p=0.085) but suggests evidence of a dose response. Out of the 25 patients in Group 2, 15 (60%) met the re-dosing trigger and received a second rilparencel injection. The median time between the first and second injections in these 15 patients was approximately 11 months. No rilparencel-related serious adverse events were observed across all patients in the study who received at least one rilparencel injection (n=49). The overall study safety profile was consistent with previously reported study results and comparable to a kidney biopsy. REGEN-015 Multi-dose study REGEN-015 was a planned Phase 1 open-label study of rilparencel in subjects with CKD and type 1 or type 2 diabetes. The intended purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety of supplemental rilparencel injections in participants who have previously received rilparencel treatment. No patient received rilparencel and the study was closed in 2024. REGEN-004 REGEN-004 is a completed Phase 1, prospective, open-label, single-arm, safety, tolerability, and early efficacy study of rilparencel in subjects with CKD from CAKUT. The primary objective of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of up to two rilparencel injections given six months (up to four weeks after target date) apart and delivered into the biopsied kidney using a minimally invasive percutaneous approach that can be delivered under conscious sedation in less than 90 minutes in patients with CKD with eGFRs between 14 and 50 ml/min/1.73m 2 due to CAKUT. Five subjects were enrolled in this trial. Subjects received two doses of rilparencel of 3x10 6 cells/g-KW est . 12 All five subjects received their first injection, and four subjects received both injections. The trial concluded in January 2023 with the last patient, last visit. Small mean decreases from baseline in eGFR were noted at almost all time points during the study. Results show that the estimated rate (standard error) of eGFR decline was -0.4 (2.28) mL/min/1.73 m 2 per year during the Pre-Injection Period, -2.1 (1.35) mL/min/1.73m 2 per year during the Post-Second Injection Period, and -1.4 (0.93) mL/min/1.73 m 2 per year during the Post-Injection Period. Final results of this study were reported to the FDA in December 2023. We are not pursuing this indication further at this time. Phase 3 Clinical Development Regenerative Medicine Advanced Therapy (“RMAT”) designation for rilparencel was granted by the FDA on October 28, 2021. As contemplated by the RMAT designation and as directed by the FDA, we requested a comprehensive, multidisciplinary Type B meeting with the FDA to review the status of preclinical data, clinical development activities and manufacturing of rilparencel and to discuss the planned clinical program intended to support approval of the product candidate. The FDA provided detailed written responses to our questions included in the meeting request, and the Type B meeting was held in March 2022 which informed our original Phase 3 trial design and endpoints. Since this original meeting with the FDA, we have held additional Type B meetings, which have further guided rilparencel’s registrational trial strategy. In 2024, we completed a comprehensive internal and external review to determine the optimal path to bring rilparencel to patients in the U.S. with advanced CKD and type 2 diabetes – a market where there is high unmet clinical and economic need. An important conclusion of this review, which was later confirmed by the FDA in a Type B meeting, was that eGFR slope in patients from the ongoing Phase 3 PROACT 1 study can serve as the surrogate endpoint and primary basis for a BLA submission of rilparencel under the accelerated approval pathway. Thus, REGEN-016 (PROACT 2), which was focused on enrollment outside the U.S., was discontinued. In a Type B meeting held in July 2025, the FDA confirmed that the slope of eGFR in patients from the ongoing Phase 3 PROACT 1 study could serve as the surrogate endpoint and primary basis for a BLA submission of rilparencel under the accelerated approval pathway. The FDA also confirmed that PROACT 1 may serve as the confirmatory study to support full approval of rilparencel based on the primary time-to-event composite endpoint specified in the protocol. We will continue to maintain our ongoing dialogue with the FDA under rilparencel’s RMAT designation. REGEN-006/PROACT 1 trial: REGEN-006 (PROACT 1) is an ongoing Phase 3, randomized, blinded, bi-lateral kidney dosing, sham controlled arm, efficacy and safety study of rilparencel in subjects with advanced CKD and type 2 diabetes. The related study protocol has been amended to focus on a subset of patients with Stage 4 CKD (eGFR between 20 and 30 mL/min/1.73m 2 ) and late Stage 3b CKD (eGFR between 30 and 35 mL/min/1.73m 2 with accompanying albuminuria UACR between 300 and 5000 mg/g). This study is being conducted in clinical centers in the United States, Mexico, and Taiwan. The primary objective of this study is to assess the efficacy of up to two rilparencel injections given three months apart and delivered into both kidneys using a minimally invasive percutaneous approach. Targeted enrollment is approximately 470 patients. Subjects will be randomized (1:1) to the treatment group and the sham control group prior to kidney biopsy. Subjects in the treatment group will receive two injections of rilparencel of 3x10 6 cells/g-KW est . Each of the subjects in the treatment group will receive the first rilparencel injection within about 14 weeks following kidney biopsy. After three months it is intended that a second dose be given into the contralateral kidney. In contrast, subjects in the control group will receive two sham injections, the first of which will be administered 14 weeks following sham biopsy, and the second of which will be administered three months after the first sham injection. All subjects will continue in the study until the trial end date is announced and an end of study visit is completed. The surrogate endpoint to support a potential accelerated approval of rilparencel is annualized eGFR slope. The efficacy analysis set is expected to contain approximately 360 patients and will include all patients with at least 6 months of follow-up after first injection. The primary composite endpoint to support a potential confirmatory approval is the time from first injection to the earliest of: • at least 40% reduction in eGFR, using the 2021 CKD-EPI serum creatinine equation, sustained for 30 days; • eGFR <15 mL/min/1.73m² using the 2021 CKD-EPI serum creatinine equation, sustained for 30 days and/or chronic dialysis, and/or renal transplant; or • renal or cardiovascular death. 13 We anticipate topline data readout of the surrogate endpoint (eGFR slope) in the second quarter of 2027 and anticipate topline data readout of the confirmatory endpoint (composite time-to-event) in the second half of 2029. Discontinuation of REGEN-016/PROACT 2: REGEN-016 (PROACT 2) was a planned Phase 3, randomized, blinded, sham control arm, bi-lateral kidney dosing, efficacy study of rilparencel in subjects with Stages 3b and 4 CKD and type 2 diabetes (specifically eGFR between 20 ml and 44 mL/min/1.73m 2 with moderate to severe albuminuria (UACR between 300 and 5,000 mg/g)). In 2024, we completed a comprehensive internal and external review to determine the optimal path to bring rilparencel to patients in the U.S. with advanced CKD and type 2 diabetes – a market where there is high unmet clinical and economic need. An important conclusion of this review, which was later confirmed by the FDA in a Type B meeting, was that eGFR slope in patients from the ongoing Phase 3 PROACT 1 study can serve as the surrogate endpoint and primary basis for a BLA submission of rilparencel under the accelerated approval pathway. Thus, REGEN-016 (PROACT 2), which was focused on enrollment outside the U.S., was discontinued. REGEN-008 REGEN-008 is an ongoing, prospective, open-label, observational, long term follow up master protocol study of rilparencel in subjects with diabetes and CKD who were previously enrolled and treated with rilparencel. There are two sub-studies under the REGEN-008 master protocol: REGEN-008 sub-study 1 is a multi-center, prospective, non-interventional, long-term observational extension study of participants who were enrolled and dosed in previous interventional clinical studies with the prior, fresh, rilparencel formulation. Participants will be monitored for up to five years. REGEN-008 sub-study 2 is intended to follow study participants previously treated with the cryopreserved formulation of rilparencel. Participants will be followed for up to an additional five years for this study from completion of previous protocol End of Study Visit. Competition The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by rapid technological advancement, significant competition, and an emphasis on intellectual property. We face potential competition from many different sources, including major and specialty pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, including developers of tubular and glomerular cell drug modulators, e.g., SGLT2 inhibitors, antifibrosis medications, e.g., MRAs, glucose-dependent insulin release stimulators, e.g., GLP-1 RAs, induced pluripotent cells, other autologous mesenchymal stem cells and mechanical renal assist devices such as implantable and wearable renal dialysis machines, and advances in peritoneal dialysis and home dialysis. Cell-based clinical trials by other companies are underway globally with umbilical, adipose and bone marrow derived mesenchymal stem cells for CKD. Early-phase human induced pluripotent stem cell therapies for kidney diseases are ongoing in Japan. Any product candidates that we successfully develop and commercialize will compete with current therapies and new therapies that may become available in the future. We believe that the key competitive factors affecting the success of any of our product candidates will include efficacy, safety profile, dosing, cost, effectiveness of promotional support and intellectual property protection. With respect specifically to rilparencel, we expect the key competitive factors affecting its success, if approved, will include the intended patient population, the relative convenience of dosing and administration, and efficacy. Many other companies working on medications for controlling CKD, either alone or with their collaboration partners, have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, preclinical testing, clinical trials, manufacturing, and marketing than we do. We believe that our principal competitors include developers of SGLT2 inhibitors, including canagliflozin (marketed as Invokana® by companies including Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.), dapagliflozin (marketed under the brand names Farxiga® and Forxiga® by companies including AstraZeneca plc and Bristol-Myers Squibb Company), and empagliflozin (marketed as Jardiance® by companies including Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly and Company), and MRAs, which are small-molecule therapies recently approved to lower risks of CKD progression, notably finerenone (marketed as Kerendia® by companies including Bayer AG). Most recently, GLP-1 RAs, originally approved for type 2 diabetes and obesity, have been associated with lowering all-cause mortality among patients with type 2 diabetes, advanced-stage CKD and ESKD, including semaglutide (marketed under the brand names Ozempic®, Rybelsus® and Wegovy® by Novo Nordisk) and tirzepatide (marketed under the brand name Mounjaro® by Eli Lilly and Company). In January 2025, the FDA approved Ozempic® to reduce the risk of kidney disease worsening, kidney failure, and death from cardiovascular disease in adults with type 2 diabetes and CKD. Future collaborations, mergers and acquisitions may result in further resource concentration among a smaller number of competitors. Our commercial potential could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, are more convenient or are less expensive than products that we may 14 develop. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other 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 or make our development more complicated. These competitors may also vie for a similar pool of qualified scientific and management talent, sites and patient populations for clinical trials, as well as for technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs. Supply and Manufacturing We believe that over the last 20 years we have developed our manufacturing technology for chemistry, manufacturing, and controls (“CMC”). In doing so, we have established a considerable intellectual property estate, combined with extensive manufacturing know-how, to enable us to manufacture rilparencel with consistent quality. With support from high level manufacturing and regulatory expertise, our internal manufacturing capabilities have enabled us to progress rapidly through our clinical trials. We believe that our current manufacturing capacities enable us to provide sufficient quantities of clinical trial material to supply our clinical trials. The manufacturing facilities located in Winston-Salem, North Carolina and the quality systems are intended to be compliant with global quality standards. It typically takes approximately 12 weeks to produce the clinical rilparencel products. An audit in 2023 by the Company’s contracted Qualified Person (“QP”) to evaluate our readiness for release and distribution of rilparencel in the EU identified certain deficiencies in the documentation of the quality management systems to be addressed prior to release and distribution of product for EU clinical sites. Manufacturing was subsequently paused while we optimized our capabilities to meet EU and global standards for our Phase 3 program. Of note, no safety events necessitated this pause. After undergoing a thorough remediation process in the first half of 2024, we resumed manufacturing for U.S. and non-European clinical study sites in June 2024, and in July 2024, we received the QP Declaration of Equivalence to European Union Good Manufacturing Practice (“GMP”) standards. We believe the work done during the remediation has positioned the Company well to continue manufacturing under global standards for our Phase 3 program and we are well prepared for a transition to commercial manufacturing. Our bioprocesses have been reviewed by the FDA and EMA and validation activities are ongoing in anticipation of being commercial-ready for the potential launch of rilparencel. We plan to continue to expand our manufacturing capacity to prepare for the potential commercialization of rilparencel. We intend to improve bioprocess development to further reduce manufacturing costs of the commercial rilparencel product, assuming receipt of necessary regulatory approvals. Further, similar to our Phase 3 study, our final commercial rilparencel product is planned to be a cryopreserved formulation, which we expect will reduce manufacturing costs compared to our prior fresh rilparencel formulation. We expect to leverage bulk purchasing to actively negotiate pricing of materials to further drive cost reductions. However, there can be no assurance that the manufacturing costs for our Phase 3 trials will actually be lower when we manufacture rilparencel at commercial scale. A number of factors may contribute to an inability to achieve these cost reductions, including cost overruns or inefficiencies in the supply chain and any failure to improve the formulation or bioprocessing of rilparencel in a manner that results in lower costs. Intellectual Property Our success depends in part on our ability to obtain and maintain proprietary protection for our product candidates, technology and know-how, to operate without infringing the proprietary rights of others and to prevent others from infringing our proprietary rights. Our policy is to seek to protect our proprietary position by, among other methods, pursuing and obtaining patent protection in the United States and in jurisdictions outside of the United States related to our proprietary technology, inventions, improvements, and product candidates that are important to the development and implementation of our business. For example, we have or are pursuing patents covering the composition of matter for each of our product candidates and we generally pursue patent protection covering methods-of-use for each clinical trial. We may also rely on trade secrets, know-how, continuing technological innovation and potential in-licensing opportunities to develop and maintain our proprietary position. Additionally, we expect to benefit, where appropriate, from statutory frameworks in the United States, Europe and other countries that provide a period of clinical data exclusivity to compensate for the time required for regulatory approval of our products. We continually assess and refine our intellectual property strategy as we develop new technologies and product candidates. We plan to file additional patent applications based on our intellectual property strategies where appropriate, including where we seek to adapt to competition or to improve business opportunities. Further, we plan to file patent applications, as we consider appropriate under the circumstances, to protect new technologies that we develop. To cover our proprietary technologies, proprietary cell-based rilparencel product and related methods, such as methods of use, we have filed patent applications representing 21 patent families. As of December 31, 2025, our patent estate, which is solely owned, included 454 total issued patents or pending patent applications with 14 issued U.S. patents, 14 pending U.S. 15 non-provisional patent applications, four pending Patent Cooperation Treaty (“PCT”) applications, 272 issued foreign patents and 150 pending foreign patent applications in various foreign jurisdictions. Specifically, our patent family with claims directed to cells formulated in rilparencel, implantable constructs, and methods of using the same to, for example, treat kidney disease, includes 37 issued patents and six pending patent applications. Patents in this family have been issued in ten jurisdictions, including the United States (three issued patents), Europe (two issued patents, each separately validated in seven countries), China (two issued patents), Japan (three issued patents), and South Korea (four issued patents). Issued patents and any further patents that may be issued from this family’s six pending applications are expected to expire in 2029 absent any patent term adjustments or extensions. We also own two patent families directed to our rilparencel formulations and methods of preparing the formulations. Across these families, we have 28 issued patents in eleven jurisdictions, including the United States, Europe (validated in 11 countries), China, Japan, South Korea, and Canada. We also have four patent applications that are pending in jurisdictions, including Europe, Canada and Australia. Patents across these two patent families, including any patents that may be issued from the pending applications, are expected to expire between 2031 and 2038, depending upon their respective filing dates and absent any patent term adjustments or extensions. Additionally, we own two patent families with claims directed to quality control methods for ensuring that renal cells for formulation in rilparencel, prepared by our proprietary methods, have phenotypic and functional profiles indicative of therapeutic activity. Within the first patent family, we have 82 issued patents in various jurisdictions, including the United States (three issued patents), Europe (three issued patents, a first of which has been validated in 21 countries, a second of which has been validated in 20 countries, and a third of which has been validated in 13 countries), China (two issued patents), Japan (two issued patents), South Korea (four issued patents), Hong Kong (four issued patents), Australia (three issued patents), and New Zealand (two issued patents). We also have nine patent applications in this family that are pending in multiple jurisdictions, including the United States, Europe, Australia, China, and South Korea. Issued patents, and any further patents that may be issued from this family’s nine pending applications, are expected to expire in 2033 absent any patent term adjustments or extensions. Our second patent family includes a PCT and a Taiwanese patent application. Any patents that issue as a result of having filed these applications are expected to expire in 2045 absent any patent term adjustments or extensions. We further own three patent families directed to methods of improving kidney function and/or in treating kidney disease, e.g., chronic kidney disease with diabetes or chronic kidney disease resulting from a congenital anomaly. Across these families, we have nine issued patents, including three U.S. patents and 38 pending patent applications filed in 16 jurisdictions, including the United States, Europe, Hong Kong, China, Korea, Japan, Australia, Brazil, Mexico, Israel, Canada, and Mexico. Our issued U.S. patents are expected to expire in 2037 absent any patent term adjustments or extensions. Patents across all three patent families, if issued, are expected to expire between 2036 and 2042, depending upon their respective filing dates and absent any patent term adjustments or extensions. In addition, we plan to file additional applications on aspects of our innovations that may have patent terms that extend beyond these dates. The term of individual patents depends upon the laws of the countries in which they are obtained. In the countries in which we currently file, the patent term is 20 years from the earliest date of filing of a non-provisional patent application, which serves as a priority application. However, the term of a U.S. patent may be extended to compensate for the time required to obtain regulatory approval to sell a medicine (a patent term extension) or by delays encountered during patent prosecution that are caused by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (the “USPTO”) (referred to as patent term adjustment). For example, the Hatch-Waxman Act permits a patent term extension for FDA-approved medicines of up to five years beyond the expiration of the patent. The length of the patent term extension is related to the length of time the medicine is under regulatory review and diligence during the review process. Patent term extensions cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval and only one patent covering an approved medicine or its method of use may be extended. A similar kind of patent extension, referred to as a Supplementary Protection Certificate, is available in Europe. Legal frameworks are also available in certain other jurisdictions to extend the term of a patent. We currently intend to seek patent term extensions on any of our issued patents in any jurisdiction where we have a qualifying patent and the extension is available; however there is no guarantee that the applicable regulatory authorities, including the FDA in the United States, will agree with our assessment of whether such extensions should be granted, and even if granted, the length of such extensions. Further, even if our patent is extended, the patent, including the extended portion of the patent, may be held invalid or unenforceable by a court of final jurisdiction in the United States or a foreign country. As with other biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, our ability to obtain and maintain a proprietary position on our product candidates and technologies will depend on our success in obtaining effective patent claims on these pending patents and enforcing those claims if granted. However, our pending patent applications, and any patent applications that we may in the future file or license from third parties, may not result in the issuance of patents. We also cannot predict the breadth of claims that may be 16 allowed or enforced in our patents. Furthermore, our competitors may be able to independently develop and commercialize products with similar mechanisms of action and duplicate our methods of treatments or strategies without infringing our patents. Because of the extensive time required for clinical development and regulatory review of a therapeutic product we may develop, it is possible that, before any of our products can be commercialized, any related patent may expire or remain in force for only a short period following commercialization, thereby reducing any advantage of any such patent. Moreover, even our issued patents do not guarantee us the right to practice our technology in relation to the commercialization of our clinical candidates. The area of patent and other intellectual property rights in pharmaceuticals is an evolving one with many risks and uncertainties, and third parties may have blocking patents that could be used to prevent us from commercializing our clinical candidates. The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by extensive litigation regarding patents and other intellectual property rights. Our ability to obtain and maintain our proprietary position for our product candidates and technology will depend on our success in enforcing the claims that have been granted or may grant. However, any of our patents, including patents that we may rely on to protect our market for approved therapeutics, may be held invalid or unenforceable by a court of final jurisdiction. Alternatively, we may decide that it is in our interest to settle a litigation in a manner that affects the term or enforceability of our patent. Changes in either the patent laws or in interpretations of patent laws in the United States and other countries may diminish our ability to protect our inventions and enforce our intellectual property rights. Accordingly, we cannot predict the breadth or enforceability of claims that have been or may be granted in our patents or in third-party patents. Trade secrets In addition to patents, we may rely upon unpatented trade secrets and know-how and continuing technological innovation to develop and maintain our competitive position. We seek to protect our proprietary information, in part, using confidentiality agreements with our commercial partners, collaborators, employees, and consultants, and invention assignment agreements with our employees. These agreements are designed to protect our proprietary information and, in the case of the invention assignment agreements, to grant us ownership of technologies that are developed through a relationship with a third party. These agreements may be breached, and we may not have adequate remedies for any breach. In addition, our trade secrets may otherwise become known or be independently discovered by competitors. To the extent that our commercial partners, collaborators, employees, and consultants use intellectual property owned by others in their work for us, disputes may arise as to the rights in related or resulting know-how and inventions. Government regulation In the United States, biological products, including cell-based regenerative therapy products, are subject to regulation under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the “FD&C Act”), the Public Health Service Act (the “PHS Act”) and other federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations. Both the FD&C Act and the PHS Act and their corresponding regulations govern, among other things, the research, development, clinical trial, testing, manufacturing, safety, efficacy, labeling, packaging, storage, record keeping, distribution, reporting, advertising and other promotional practices involving biological products. Each clinical trial protocol for a cell-based therapy product must be reviewed by the FDA. FDA approval must be obtained before the marketing of any biological product in the United States. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations requires the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources and we may not be able to obtain the required regulatory approvals. Ethical, social and legal concerns about gene or cell-based therapies, genetic testing and genetic research could result in additional laws and regulations restricting or prohibiting the processes we may use. Federal and state legislatures, agencies, congressional committees and foreign governments have expressed interest in further regulating biotechnology. More restrictive laws and regulations or interpretations of existing laws or regulations, or claims that our product candidates are unsafe or pose a hazard, could prevent us from commercializing any products. New government requirements may be established that could delay or prevent regulatory approval of our product candidates under development. It is impossible to predict whether legislative changes will be enacted, regulations, policies or guidance changed, or interpretations by agencies or courts changed, or what the impact of such changes, if any, may be. U.S. biological products development process The process required by the FDA before a biological product may be marketed in the United States generally involves the following: • completion of nonclinical laboratory tests and animal studies according to Good Laboratory Practices (“GLPs”), and applicable requirements for the humane use of laboratory animals or other applicable regulations; • submission to the FDA of an application for an investigational new drug (“IND”) application which must become effective before human clinical trials may begin; 17 • approval of the protocol and related documentation by an investigational review board (“IRB”) or ethics committee at each clinical trial site before each clinical trial may be initiated; • performance of adequate and well-controlled human clinical trials according to applicable IND regulations, good clinical practices, or Good Clinical Practices (“GCPs”) and other clinical-trial related regulation, to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the investigational biological product for each proposed indication; • submission to the FDA of a Biologics License Application (“BLA”) for marketing approval that includes sufficient evidence of establishing the safety, purity, and potency of the proposed biological product for each proposed indication, including from results of non-clinical testing and clinical trials; • satisfactory completion of an FDA inspection of the manufacturing facility or facilities where the biological product is produced to assess compliance with cGMPs to assure that the facilities, methods and controls are adequate to preserve the biological product’s identity, strength, quality, potency and purity and, if applicable, compliance with the FDA’s current Good Tissue Practices (“cGTPs”) for the use of human cellular and tissue products; • potential FDA inspection of the non-clinical study and clinical trial sites to assure compliance with GLPs and GCPs and the integrity of the clinical data submitted in support of the BLA; • review of the product candidate by an FDA advisory committee, where appropriate or if applicable; • payment of user fees for FDA review of the BLA (unless a fee waiver applies); and • FDA review and approval, or licensure, of the BLA. Preclinical Testing Before testing any biological product candidate, including a cell-based regenerative therapy product, in humans, the product candidate enters the preclinical testing stage. Preclinical tests, also referred to as nonclinical studies, include laboratory evaluations of a product candidate’s biological characteristics, chemistry, toxicity, stability and formulation, as well as animal studies to assess the potential safety and activity of the product candidate. The sponsor must submit the results of the preclinical studies, 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 is a request for authorization from the FDA to administer an investigational product to humans and must become effective before human clinical trials may begin. In December 2022, Congress amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the “FDCA”) and the Public Health Service Act to specify that nonclinical testing for drugs and biologics may, but is not required to, include in vivo animal testing. According to the amended language, a sponsor may fulfill nonclinical testing requirements by completing various in vitro assays (e.g., cell-based assays, organ chips, or microphysiological systems), in silico studies (i.e., computer modeling), other human or nonhuman biology-based tests (e.g., bioprinting), or in vivo animal tests. The conduct of the preclinical tests must comply with federal regulations and requirements including GLP. Some long-term preclinical testing, such as animal tests of reproductive adverse events and carcinogenicity, may continue after an IND for an investigational drug candidate is submitted to the FDA and human clinical trials have been initiated. Human clinical trials in support of a BLA Clinical trials involve the administration of the product candidate to human subjects under the supervision of qualified investigators and in accordance with GCP requirements and protocols detailing the objectives of the study, the parameters to be used in monitoring the safety and effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. Each protocol must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. Study subjects must sign an informed consent form before participating in a clinical trial. There are also requirements governing the reporting of on-going clinical trials and clinical trial results to public registries. An IND provides 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 is also a request for FDA authorization to administer such investigational product to humans. Such authorization must be secured prior to interstate shipment and administration of any biologic product candidate that is not the subject of an approved BLA. In support of a request for an IND, an applicant must submit a protocol for each clinical trial and any subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. In addition, the results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature and plans for clinical trials, among other things, must be submitted to the FDA as part of an IND. The FDA requires a 30-day waiting period after the filing of each IND before clinical trials may begin. This waiting period is designed to allow the FDA to review the IND to determine whether human research subjects will be exposed to unreasonable health risks. An IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless before that time the FDA issues a notice expressly authorizing the proposed trial to proceed or raises concerns or questions related to one or more proposed clinical trials and places the clinical trial on a clinical hold. If FDA raises concerns or places the trial on clinical hold, the IND sponsor and the agency must resolve any outstanding concerns before the proposed trials can begin. As a result, submission of an IND may not result in the FDA allowing clinical trials to commence. Following commencement of a clinical trial, the FDA may also place a clinical hold or partial clinical hold on that trial. A clinical hold is an order issued by the FDA to the sponsor to delay a proposed clinical investigation or to suspend an ongoing 18 investigation. A partial clinical hold is a delay or suspension of only part of the clinical work requested under the IND. No more than 30 days after imposition of a clinical hold or partial clinical hold, the FDA will provide the sponsor a written explanation of the basis for the hold. Following issuance of a clinical hold or partial clinical hold, an investigation may only resume after the FDA has notified the sponsor that the investigation may proceed. A sponsor may choose, but is not required, to conduct a foreign clinical trial under an IND. When a foreign clinical trial is conducted under an IND, all FDA IND requirements must be met unless waived. When a foreign clinical trial is not conducted under an IND, the sponsor must ensure that the study complies with certain regulatory requirements of the FDA in order to use the study as support for an IND or application for marketing approval or licensing. In particular, such studies must be conducted in accordance with GCP, including review and approval by an IRB or independent ethics committee (an “IEC”) and informed consent from subjects and must meet other clinical trial requirements, such as sufficient patient population size and statistical powering. The FDA must be able to validate the data through an onsite inspection, if deemed necessary by the FDA. An IRB or IEC 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 or IEC must conduct continuing review and reapprove the study at least annually. The IRB or IEC must review and approve, among other things, the study protocol and informed consent information to be provided to study subjects. An IRB or IEC must operate in compliance with FDA regulations. An IRB or IEC 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 (“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 study. Information about certain clinical trials, including details of the protocol and eventually study results, also must be submitted within specific timeframes to the National Institutes of Health for public dissemination on the ClinicalTrials.gov data registry. Information related to the product, patient population, phase of investigation, study sites and investigators and other aspects of the clinical trial is made public as part of the registration of the clinical trial. Sponsors are also obligated to disclose the results of their clinical trials after completion. Disclosure of the results of these trials can be delayed in some cases for up to two years after the date of completion of the trial. Failure to timely register a covered clinical study or to submit study results as provided for in the law can give rise to civil monetary penalties and also prevent the non-compliant party from receiving future grant funds from the federal government. Both NIH and FDA have brought enforcement actions against non-compliant clinical trial sponsors. Clinical trials typically are conducted in three sequential phases that may overlap or be combined: • Phase 1 . The product candidate is initially introduced into healthy human subjects and tested for safety, dosage tolerance, absorption, metabolism, distribution and excretion. In the case of some product candidates for severe or life-threatening diseases, especially when the product candidate may be too inherently toxic to ethically administer to healthy volunteers, the initial human testing is often conducted in patients. • Phase 2 . The product candidate is evaluated in a limited patient population to identify possible adverse effects and safety risks, to preliminarily evaluate the efficacy of the product candidate for specific targeted diseases and to determine dosage tolerance, optimal dosage and dosing schedule. • Phase 3 . Clinical trials are undertaken to further evaluate dosage, clinical efficacy, potency, and safety in an expanded patient population at geographically dispersed clinical trial sites. These clinical trials are intended to establish the overall risk/benefit ratio of the product candidate and provide, if appropriate, an adequate basis for approval and product labeling. These trials may include comparisons with placebo and/or other comparator treatments. The duration of treatment is often extended to mimic the actual use of a product during marketing. Post-approval clinical trials, sometimes referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials, may be conducted after initial marketing approval. These clinical trials are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication, particularly for long-term safety follow-up. In certain instances, the FDA may mandate the performance of Phase 4 clinical trials as a condition of approval of a BLA. The Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2023 amended the FDCA to require sponsors of a Phase 3 clinical trial, or other “pivotal study” of a new drug or biologic to support marketing authorization, to submit a diversity action plan for such clinical trial. The action plan must include the sponsor’s diversity goals for enrollment, as well as a rationale for the goals and a description of how the sponsor will meet them. A sponsor must submit a diversity action plan to the FDA by the time the sponsor submits the trial protocol to the agency for review. The FDA may grant a waiver for some or all of the requirements for a diversity action plan. If the FDA objects to a sponsor’s diversity action plan and requires the sponsor to amend the plan or take other actions, it may delay trial initiation. 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, the responsible IRBs and the 19 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 such information. Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trials may not be completed successfully within any specified period, if at all. Human cell-based products administered directly into kidney tissue are a new category of therapeutics. Because this is a relatively new and expanding area of novel therapeutic interventions, there can be no assurance as to the length of the study period, the number of patients the FDA will require to be enrolled in the studies in order to establish the safety, purity and potency of human cell-based therapy products, or that the data generated in these studies will be acceptable to the FDA to support marketing approval. Concurrent with clinical trials, companies usually complete additional animal studies and also must develop additional information about the 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 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 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. U.S. review and approval processes After the completion of clinical trials of a biological product candidate, FDA approval of a BLA must be obtained before commercial marketing of the biological product. The BLA must include results of product development, laboratory and animal studies, human studies, information on the manufacture and composition of the product, proposed labeling and other relevant information. To support marketing approval, the data submitted must be sufficient in quality and quantity to establish the safety, purity, potency and efficacy of the investigational product for its proposed indication or indications to the satisfaction of the FDA. 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. Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, as amended (“PDUFA”), each BLA must be accompanied by a significant user fee. The FDA adjusts the PDUFA user fees on an annual basis. PDUFA also imposes an annual program fee for registered biological product manufacturers. Fee waivers or reductions are available in certain circumstances, including a waiver of the application fee for the first application filed by a small business. Within 60 days following submission of the application, the FDA conducts an initial review to determine if the BLA 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 before the FDA accepts it for filing. 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, potent and effective for its proposed indication or indications and whether the product is being manufactured in accordance with cGMPs to ensure the continued safety, purity and potency of such product. Under the performance goals and policies implemented by the FDA under PDUFA, for original BLAs, the FDA targets 10 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 due to FDA requests for additional information or clarification. The review process and the PDUFA goal date may be extended by the FDA for three additional months to consider new information or in the case of a clarification provided by the applicant to address an outstanding deficiency identified by the FDA following the original submission. 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. For a cell-based therapy product, the FDA also will not approve the product if the manufacturer is not in compliance with the cGTPs. These are FDA regulations that govern the methods used in, and the facilities and controls used for, the manufacture of human cells, tissues, and cellular and tissue-based products (“HCT/ Ps”), which are human cells or tissue intended for implantation, transplant, infusion, or transfer into a human recipient. The primary intent of the cGTP requirements is to ensure that HCT/Ps are manufactured in a manner designed to prevent the introduction, transmission and spread of communicable disease. FDA regulations also require 20 tissue establishments to register and list their HCT/Ps with the FDA and, when applicable, to evaluate donors through appropriate screening and testing. 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 study requirements and GCP requirements. To assure cGMP, cGTP 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. Additionally, the FDA may refer any BLA, including applications for novel biologic candidates which present difficult questions of safety or efficacy, to an advisory committee. Typically, an advisory committee is a panel of independent experts, including clinicians and other scientific experts that reviews, evaluates and provides a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendation of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations when making final decisions on approval. The FDA likely will re-analyze the clinical trial data, which could result in extensive discussions between the FDA and the applicant during the review process. The FDA also may require submission of a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (“REMS”) if it determines that a REMS is necessary to ensure that the benefits of the medicine outweigh its risks and to assure the safe use of the medicine or biological product. The REMS could include medication guides, physician communication plans, assessment plans and/or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries or other risk minimization tools. The FDA determines the requirement for a REMS, as well as the specific REMS provisions, on a case-by-case basis. If the FDA concludes a REMS is needed, the sponsor of the BLA must submit a proposed REMS. The FDA will not approve a BLA without a REMS, if required. Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act (“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 candidate for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective. The FDA may grant deferrals for submission of data or full or partial waivers. The PREA requires a sponsor who is planning to submit a marketing application for a product that includes a new active ingredient, new indication, new dosage form, new dosing regimen or new route of administration to submit an initial Pediatric Study Pla n (“PSP”), within 60 days of an end-of-Phase 2 meeting or, if there is no such meeting, as early as practicable before the initiation of the Phase 3 or Phase 2/3 clinical trial. The initial PSP must include an outline of the pediatric study or studies that the sponsor plans to conduct, including trial objectives and design, age groups, relevant endpoints and statistical approach, or a justification for not including such detailed information, and any request for a deferral of pediatric assessments or a full or partial waiver of the requirement to provide data from pediatric studies along with supporting information. The FDA and the sponsor must reach an agreement on the PSP. A sponsor can submit amendments to an agreed upon initial PSP at any time if changes to the pediatric plan need to be considered based on data collected from preclinical studies, early phase clinical trials or other clinical development programs. The FDA reviews a BLA to determine, among other things whether the product is safe, pure and potent and the facility in which it is manufactured, processed, packed or held meets standards designed to assure the product’s continued safety, purity and potency. The approval process is lengthy and often difficult, and the FDA may refuse to approve a BLA if the applicable regulatory criteria are not satisfied or may require additional clinical or other data and information. On the basis of the FDA’s evaluation of the BLA and accompanying information, including the results of the inspection of the manufacturing facilities, the FDA may issue either an approval letter or a Complete Response Letter (“CRL”). An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the product with specific prescribing information for specific indications. A CRL indicates that the review cycle of the application is complete, and the application will not be approved in its present form. A CRL generally outlines the deficiencies in the submission and may require substantial additional testing or information in order for the FDA to reconsider the application. The CRL may require additional clinical or other data, additional pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial(s) and/or other significant and time-consuming requirements related to clinical trials, nonclinical studies or manufacturing. If a CRL is issued, the applicant may choose to either resubmit the BLA addressing all of the deficiencies identified in the letter, or withdraw the application. In September 2025, the FDA began publishing CRLs, with trade secret and confidential commercial information redacted, soon after issuing them to the respective sponsors, breaking with long standing agency tradition of publishing CRLs with approval documentation after the product is approved. If and when the deficiencies described in a CRL have been addressed to the FDA’s satisfaction in a resubmission of the BLA, the FDA will issue an approval letter. The FDA has committed to reviewing such resubmissions in response to an issued CRL in either two or six months depending on the type of information included. Even with the submission of this additional information, however, the FDA ultimately may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval. If a product receives regulatory approval from the FDA, the approval is limited to the conditions of use (e.g., patient population, indication) described in the application. Further, depending on the specific risk(s) to be addressed, the FDA may require that contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the product labeling, require that post-approval trials, including Phase 4 clinical trials, be conducted to further assess a product’s safety after approval, require testing and surveillance programs to monitor the product after commercialization, or impose other conditions, including distribution and use restrictions or other risk management mechanisms under a REMS, which can materially affect the potential market and profitability of the product. The FDA may prevent or limit further marketing of a product based on the results of post-marketing trials or surveillance 21 programs. After approval, some types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications, manufacturing changes and additional labeling claims, are subject to further testing requirements and FDA review and approval. Fast Track, RMAT, Priority Review Designations and Commissioner’s National Priority Voucher The FDA has various programs, including fast track designation, RMAT designation, priority review, and the Commissioner’s National Priority Voucher program that are intended to expedite or simplify the process for the development or FDA review of medicines and biologics that are intended for the treatment of serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions. These programs do not change the standards for approval but may help expedite the development or approval process. To be eligible for fast-track designation, the FDA must determine, based on the request of a sponsor, that a new medicine or biological product is intended to treat a serious or life-threatening condition and demonstrates the potential to address an unmet medical need by providing a therapy where none exists or a therapy that may be potentially superior to existing therapy based on efficacy or safety factors. Fast track designation provides opportunities for more frequent interactions with the FDA review team to expedite development and review of the product. The FDA may also review sections of the NDA or BLA for a fast track product on a rolling basis before the complete application is submitted, if the sponsor and the FDA agree on a schedule for the submission of the application sections and the sponsor pays any required user fees upon submission of the first section of the NDA or BLA. In addition, fast track designation may be withdrawn by the sponsor or rescinded by the FDA if the designation is no longer supported by data emerging from the clinical trial process. As part of the 21st Century Cures Act (the “Cures Act”), enacted in December 2016, Congress amended the FD&C Act to facilitate an efficient development program for, and expedite review of regenerative medicine advanced therapies, or RMATs, which include cell and gene therapies, therapeutic tissue engineered products, human cell and tissue products, and combination products using any such therapies or products. Rilparencel has received RMAT designation from the FDA. RMAT designation does not include HCT/Ps regulated solely under section 361 of the PHS Act and 21 Code of Federal Regulations Part 1271. This program is intended to facilitate efficient development and expedite review of regenerative medicine therapies that are intended to treat, modify, reverse, or cure a serious or life-threatening disease or condition. A sponsor may request that FDA designate a medicine as a RMAT concurrently with or at any time after submission of an IND. The FDA has 60 calendar days to determine whether the medicine meets the criteria, including whether there is preliminary clinical evidence indicating that the medicine has the potential to address unmet medical needs for a serious or life-threatening disease or condition. A BLA for a regenerative medicine therapy that has received RMAT designation may be eligible for priority review or accelerated approval through use of surrogate or intermediate endpoints reasonably likely to predict long-term clinical benefit, or reliance upon data obtained from a meaningful number of sites. Benefits of RMAT designation also include early interactions with FDA to discuss any potential surrogate or intermediate endpoint to be used to support accelerated approval. A regenerative medicine therapy with RMAT designation that is granted accelerated approval and is subject to post-approval requirements may fulfill such requirements through the submission of clinical evidence from clinical trials, patient registries, or other sources of real-world evidence, such as electronic health records; the collection of larger confirmatory data sets; or post-approval monitoring of all patients treated with such therapy prior to its approval. The FDA may designate a product for priority review if it is a medicine or biologic that treats a serious condition and, if approved, would provide a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness. The FDA determines at the time that the marketing application is submitted, on a case-by-case basis, whether the proposed medicine represents a significant improvement in treatment, prevention or diagnosis of disease when compared with other available therapies. Significant improvement may be illustrated by evidence of increased effectiveness in the treatment of a condition, elimination or substantial reduction of a treatment-limiting reaction, documented enhancement of patient compliance that may lead to improvement in serious outcomes, or evidence of safety and effectiveness in a new subpopulation. A priority review designation is intended to direct overall attention and resources to the evaluation of such applications, and to shorten the FDA’s goal for taking action on a marketing application from 10 months to six months for an original BLA or for a New Molecular Entity NDA from the date of filing. In 2025, the FDA created a new pilot program called the Commissioner’s National Priority Voucher (“CNPV”) with the goal of radically expediting the drug and biological product review and approval process. The agency may award a CNPV to a company or a specific product candidate that demonstrates alignment with certain national health priorities. The FDA aims to take action on a marketing application for which a CNPV is used within one to two months after the filing date. Even if a product qualifies for one or more of these programs, the FDA may later decide that the product no longer meets the conditions for qualification or decide that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened. Furthermore, none of these programs change the standards for approval and may not ultimately expedite the development or approval process. Accelerated approval pathway In addition, 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 from the FDA and may be approved on 22 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 clinical benefit. The FDA may also grant accelerated approval for such a medicine or biologic when the product has an effect on an intermediate clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality (“IMM”), and that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on IMM 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 may require that a sponsor of a medicine receiving accelerated approval perform post- marketing clinical trials to verify and describe the predicted effect on IMM or other clinical endpoint, and the product may be subject to expedited withdrawal procedures. Drugs and biologics granted accelerated approval must meet the same statutory standards for safety and effectiveness as those granted traditional approval. For the purposes of accelerated approval, a surrogate endpoint is a marker, such as a laboratory measurement, radiographic image, physical sign, or other measure that is thought to predict clinical benefit but is not itself a measure of clinical benefit. Surrogate endpoints can often be measured more easily or more rapidly than clinical endpoints. An intermediate clinical endpoint is a measurement of a therapeutic effect that is considered reasonably likely to predict the clinical benefit of a medicine, such as an effect on IMM. The FDA has limited experience with accelerated approvals based on intermediate clinical endpoints but has indicated that such endpoints generally may support accelerated approval when the therapeutic effect measured by the endpoint is not itself a clinical benefit and basis for traditional approval, if there is a basis for concluding that the therapeutic effect is reasonably likely to predict the ultimate long-term clinical benefit of a medicine. The accelerated approval pathway is most often used in settings in which the course of a disease is long and an extended period of time is required to measure the intended clinical benefit of a medicine, even if the effect on the surrogate or intermediate clinical endpoint occurs rapidly. For example, accelerated approval has been used extensively in the development and approval of medicines for treatment of a variety of cancers in which the goal of therapy is generally to improve survival or decrease morbidity and the duration of the typical disease course requires lengthy and sometimes large clinical trials to demonstrate a clinical or survival benefit. The accelerated approval pathway is usually contingent on a sponsor’s agreement to conduct, in a diligent manner, additional post-approval confirmatory studies to verify and describe the medicine’s clinical benefit. As a result, a product candidate approved on this basis is subject to rigorous post-marketing compliance requirements, including the completion of Phase 4 or post-approval clinical trials to confirm the effect on the clinical endpoint. Failure to conduct required post-approval studies, or to confirm the predicted clinical benefit of the product during post-marketing studies, would allow the FDA to withdraw approval of the medicine. As part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2023, Congress provided FDA additional statutory authority to mitigate potential risks to patients from continued marketing of ineffective drugs previously granted accelerated approval. Under the act’s amendments to the FDCA, FDA may require the sponsor of a product granted accelerated approval to have a confirmatory trial underway prior to approval. The sponsor must also submit progress reports on a confirmatory trial every six months until the trial is complete, and such reports are published on FDA’s website. The amendments also give FDA the option of using expedited procedures to withdraw product approval if the sponsor’s confirmatory trial fails to verify the claimed clinical benefits of the product. All promotional materials for product candidates being considered and approved under the accelerated approval program are subject to prior review by the FDA. Post-approval requirements Maintaining substantial compliance with applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations requires the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. Following approval of a new product, the manufacturer and the approved product are subject to pervasive and continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, monitoring and recordkeeping activities, reporting of adverse experiences with the product, product sampling and distribution restrictions, complying with promotion and advertising requirements. FDA regulations require that products be manufactured in specific approved facilities and in accordance with cGMP. The cGMP regulations include requirements relating to organization of personnel, buildings and facilities, equipment, control of components and product containers and closures, production and process controls, packaging and labeling controls, holding and distribution, laboratory controls, records and reports and returned or salvaged products. We must comply with applicable requirements in the cGMP and cGTP regulations, including quality control and quality assurance and maintenance of records and documentation. Entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved biologics and HCT/Ps are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies, as well as applicable foreign counterparts, and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by such governmental authorities for compliance with cGMPs, cGTPs and other laws and regulations. Accordingly, we must continue to expend time, money and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain cGMP compliance. Future inspections by governmental authorities may identify compliance issues at our facilities that may disrupt production or distribution or require substantial resources to correct. In addition, the discovery of conditions that violate these rules, including failure to conform to cGMPs or cGTPs, could result in enforcement actions, and the discovery of problems with a 23 product after approval may result in restrictions on a product, manufacturer or holder of an approved BLA, including voluntary recall and regulatory sanctions as described below. Other post-approval requirements applicable to biological 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. We also must comply with the FDA’s advertising and promotion requirements, such as those related to direct-to-consumer advertising, industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities, and promotional activities involving the internet, as well as 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”). Although physicians may prescribe legally available products for off-label uses, manufacturers may not market or promote such uses. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label uses may be subject to significant liability. If there are any modifications to the product, including changes in indications, labeling or manufacturing processes or facilities, the applicant may be required to submit and obtain FDA approval of a new BLA or a BLA supplement, which may require the applicant to develop additional data or conduct additional nonclinical studies or clinical trials. The FDA may also place other conditions on approvals including the requirement for a REMS to assure the safe use of the product. A REMS could include medication guides, physician communication plans or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. Any of these limitations on approval or marketing could restrict the commercial promotion, distribution, prescription or dispensing of products. Product approvals may be withdrawn for non-compliance with regulatory standards or if problems occur following initial marketing. Once an approval or clearance of a medicine is granted, the FDA may withdraw the approval if compliance with regulatory requirements and standards is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the market. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in mandatory revisions to the approved labeling to add new safety information, imposition of post-market or clinical trials to assess new safety risks, or imposition of distribution or other restrictions under a REMS program. Other potential consequences include, among other things: • restrictions on the marketing or manufacturing of the product, complete withdrawal of the product from the market or product recalls; • fines, warning letters or other enforcement-related letters or clinical holds on post-approval clinical trials; • refusal of the FDA to approve pending NDAs/BLAs or supplements to approved NDAs/BLAs, or suspension or revocation of product approvals; • product seizure or detention, or refusal to permit the import or export of products; • injunctions or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties; and • consent decrees, corporate integrity agreements, debarment, or exclusion from federal health care programs; or mandated modification of promotional materials and labeling and the issuance of corrective information. In addition, the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical products is subject to the Prescription Drug Marketing Act, which sets minimum standards for the registration and regulation of pharmaceutical distributors by the states. Furthermore, the Drug Supply Chain Security Act (the “DSCSA”) was enacted with the aim of building an electronic system to identify and trace certain prescription medicines distributed in the United States, including most biological products. The DSCSA mandates resource-intensive obligations for pharmaceutical manufacturers, wholesale distributors, and dispensers. The DSCSA also replaced certain provisions from the PDMA pertaining to wholesale distribution of prescription drugs with a more comprehensive statutory scheme, requiring uniform national standards for wholesale distribution and, for the first time, for third-party logistics providers. From time to time, new legislation and regulations may be implemented that could significantly change the statutory provisions governing the approval, manufacturing and marketing of products regulated by the FDA. It is impossible to predict whether further legislative or regulatory changes will be enacted, or FDA regulations, guidance or interpretations changed or what the impact of such changes, if any, may be. 24 U.S. patent term restoration and marketing exclusivity Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of the FDA approval of the use of our product candidates, some of our 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 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 may also obtain pediatric market exclusivity in the United States. Pediatric exclusivity is a type of non-patent marketing exclusivity available in the United States and, if granted, it provides for the attachment of an additional six months of marketing protection to the term of any existing regulatory exclusivity or listed patents. This six-month exclusivity may be granted if an NDA sponsor submits pediatric data that fairly respond to a Written Request from the FDA for such data. The data do not need to show the product to be effective in the pediatric population studied; rather, if the clinical trial is deemed to fairly respond to the FDA’s request, the additional protection is granted. If reports of requested pediatric studies are submitted to and accepted by the FDA within the statutory time limits, whatever statutory or regulatory periods of exclusivity or patent protection cover the product are extended by six months. This is not a patent term extension, but it effectively extends the regulatory period during which the FDA cannot approve another application. The issuance of a Written Request does not require the sponsor to undertake the described studies. Reference product exclusivity for biological products In March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the “ACA”) was enacted in the United States and included the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (the “BPCIA”). The BPCIA amended the Public Health Service Act (the “PHSA”) to create an abbreviated approval pathway for biological products that are biosimilar to or interchangeable with an FDA-licensed reference biological product. To date, the FDA has approved a number of biosimilars, and numerous biosimilars have been approved in Europe. The FDA has also issued several guidance documents outlining its approach to reviewing and approving biosimilars and interchangeable biosimilars. A biosimilar product is defined as one that is highly similar to a reference product notwithstanding minor differences in clinically inactive components and for which there are no clinically meaningful differences between the biological product and the reference product in terms of the safety, purity and potency of the product. An interchangeable product is a biosimilar product that can be expected to produce the same clinical results as the reference product in any given patient and, for products administered multiple times to an individual, that the product and the reference product may be alternated or switched after one has been previously administered without increasing safety risks or risks of diminished efficacy relative to exclusive use of the reference biological product without such alternation or switch. Upon licensure by the FDA, an interchangeable biosimilar may be substituted for the reference product without the intervention of the health care provider who prescribed the reference product. The FDA approved the first interchangeable biosimilars, including an interchangeable monoclonal antibody biosimilar, in 2021. The biosimilar applicant must demonstrate that the product is biosimilar based on data from (1) analytical studies showing that the biosimilar product is highly similar to the reference product; (2) animal studies (including toxicity); and (3) one or more clinical studies to demonstrate safety, purity and potency in one or more appropriate conditions of use for which the reference product is approved. In addition, the applicant must show that the biosimilar and reference products have the same mechanism of action for the conditions of use on the label, route of administration, dosage and strength, and the production facility must meet standards designed to assure product safety, purity and potency. A reference biological product is granted 12 years of data exclusivity from the time of first licensure of the product, and the first approved interchangeable biologic product will be granted an exclusivity period of up to one year after it is first commercially marketed. As part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2023, Congress amended the PHSA in order to permit multiple interchangeable products approved on the same day to receive and benefit from this one-year exclusivity period. If pediatric studies are performed and accepted by the FDA as responsive to a Written Request, the 12-year exclusivity period will be extended for an additional six months. In addition, the 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. “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 supplement for the reference product for a subsequent application filed by the same sponsor or manufacturer of the reference product (or licensor, predecessor in interest or other related 25 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. Therefore, one must determine whether a new product includes a modification to the structure of a previously licensed product that results in a change in safety, purity or potency to assess whether the licensure of the new product is a first licensure that triggers its own period of exclusivity. Whether a subsequent application, if approved, warrants exclusivity as the “first licensure” of a biological product is determined on a case-by-case basis with data submitted by the sponsor. The BPCIA is complex and is still being interpreted and implemented by the FDA. In addition, various 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 litigation. As a result, the ultimate impact, implementation and meaning of the BPCIA is subject to significant uncertainty. 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. We believe that we are in material compliance with applicable environmental laws and that continued compliance therewith will not have a material adverse effect on our business. We cannot predict, however, how changes in these laws may affect our future operations. Furthermore, some countries have enacted or are considering enacting legal restrictions on the import or export of human genetic materials, cells or tissues. For example, in China, the Ministry of Science and Technology (“MOST”) and the former Ministry of Health in June 1998 jointly established the Interim Measures for the Administration of Human Genetic Resources in China. In July 2015, the MOST issued the Service Guide for the Examination and Approval of Sampling, Collecting, Trading, Exporting Human Genetic Resources, which provides that foreign entities that collect and use patients’ human genetic resources in clinical trials shall be required to file for an advance approval with the Human Genetic Resources Administration Office (“HGRAO”) through its online system. In October 2017, the MOST issued the Circular on Optimizing the Administrative Examination and Approval of Human Genetic Resources, which simplified the approval process for collecting and using human genetic resources for the purpose of seeking marketing authorization of medicines in China. In May 2019, the State Council of China issued the Regulation on the Administration of Human Genetic Resources (the “HGR Regulation”), which stipulates the approval requirements pertinent to research collaborations between Chinese and foreign-owned entities. Pursuant to this new rule, a new filing system (as opposed to the advance approval approach originally in place) is put in place for international clinical trials using Chinese patients’ biospecimens at clinical study sites without involving the export of such biospecimens outside of China. A notification filing that specifies the type, quantity and usage of the biospecimens, among others, with the HGRAO is required before conducting such clinical trials. The collection, use, and outbound transfer of Chinese patients’ biospecimens in international collaboration for basic scientific research involving export are still subject to the advance approval of the HGRAO. In October 2020, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress promulgated the China Biosecurity Law, which became effective on April 15, 2021. The China Biosecurity Law reaffirms the regulatory requirements stipulated by the HGR Regulation while potentially increasing the administrative fines significantly in cases in which foreign entities are alleged to have collected, preserved or exported Chinese human genetic resources. U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act The U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (the “FCPA”), to which we are subject, prohibits corporations and individuals from engaging in certain activities to obtain or retain business or to influence a person working in an official capacity. Under the FCPA, it is illegal to pay, offer to pay or authorize the payment of anything of value to any foreign government official, government staff member, political party or political candidate in an attempt to obtain or retain business or to otherwise influence a person working in an official capacity. In February 2025, President Trump issued an executive order directing the U.S. Department of Justice to pause initiation of new FCPA investigations and enforcement during a 180-day review period (subject to extension) and to issue updated guidelines though the FCPA remains in force and foreign anti-corruption laws continue to apply. However, it is unclear how this presidential directive may affect the biopharmaceutical industry as a whole or our business in particular. 26 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. 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: • The holder of a marketing authorization must establish and maintain a pharmacovigilance system and appoint an individual qualified person for pharmacovigilance, who is responsible for oversight of that system. Key obligations include expedited reporting of suspected serious adverse reactions and submission of periodic safety update reports (“PSURs”). • All new marketing authorization applications must include a risk management plan (“RMP”), describing the risk management system that the company will put in place and documenting measures to prevent or minimize the risks associated with the product. The regulatory authorities may also impose specific obligations as a condition of the marketing authorization. Such risk-minimization measures or post-authorization obligations may include additional safety monitoring, more frequent submission of PSURs, or the conduct of additional clinical trials or post-authorization safety studies. RMPs and PSURs are routinely available to third parties requesting access, subject to limited redactions. • All advertising and promotional activities for the product must be consistent with the approved Summary of Product Characteristics (“SmPC”), and therefore all off-label promotion is prohibited. Other health care laws and compliance requirements If our product candidates are approved in the United States, we will have to comply with various U.S. federal and state laws, rules and regulations pertaining to health care fraud and abuse, including anti-kickback laws and false claims laws, rules and regulations. Violations of the fraud and abuse laws are punishable by criminal and civil sanctions, including, in some instances, exclusion from participation in federal and state health care programs, including Medicare and Medicaid. These laws include: • the federal Anti-Kickback Statute (the “AKS”), which prohibits, among other things, knowingly and willfully soliciting, receiving, offering or paying any remuneration (including any kickback, bribe, or rebate), directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, in cash or in kind, to induce, or in return for, either the referral of an individual, or the purchase, lease, order, arrangement or recommendation of any good, facility, item or service for which payment may be made, in whole or in part, under a federal health care program, such as the Medicare and Medicaid programs; a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the AKS or specific intent to violate it to have committed a violation. In addition, the government may assert that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the AKS constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the federal False Claims Act (the “FCA”) or federal civil money penalties statute; • the federal civil and criminal false claims laws and civil monetary penalty laws, including the FCA, which prohibit, among other things, individuals or entities from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, false or fraudulent claims for payment to, or approval by Medicare, Medicaid, or other federal health care programs, knowingly making, using or causing to be made or used a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim or an obligation to pay or transmit money to the federal government, or knowingly concealing or knowingly and improperly avoiding or decreasing or concealing an obligation to pay money to the federal government. Manufacturers can be held liable under the FCA even when they do not submit claims directly to government payers if they are deemed to “cause” the submission of false or fraudulent claims. The FCA also permits a private individual acting as a “whistleblower” to bring actions on behalf of the federal government alleging violations of the FCA and to share in any monetary recovery; 27 • the Civil Monetary Penalties Law (beneficiary inducement law), which prohibits, among other things, the offering or giving of remuneration, which includes, without limitation, any transfer of items or services for free or for less than fair market value (with limited exceptions), to a Medicare or Medicaid beneficiary that the person knows or should know is likely to influence the beneficiary’s selection of a particular supplier of items or services reimbursable by a federal or state governmental program; • The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”), which created new federal criminal statutes that prohibit knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud any health care benefit program or obtain, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, any of the money or property owned by, or under the custody or control of, any health care benefit program, regardless of the payor (e.g., public or private) and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up by any trick or device a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or representations in connection with the delivery of, or payment for, health care benefits, items or services relating to health care matters; similar to the AKS, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation; • the federal transparency requirements under the ACA, including the provision commonly referred to as the Physician Payments Sunshine Act, and its implementing regulations, which requires applicable manufacturers of medicines, devices, biologics and medical supplies for which payment is available under the Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program to report annually to the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) information related to payments or other transfers of value made to physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors), physician assistants, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, certified registered nurse anesthetists, anesthesiologist assistants, certified nurse midwives and teaching hospitals, as well as ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family; and • the FCPA and other anti-corruption laws and regulations pertaining to our financial relationships and interactions with foreign government officials, which prohibit U.S. companies and their employees, officers, and representatives from paying, offering to pay, promising, or authorizing the payment of anything of value to any foreign government official (including, potentially, healthcare professionals in countries in which we operate or may sell our products), government staff member, political party, or political candidate to obtain or retain business or to otherwise seek favorable treatment. Additionally, we are subject to state and foreign equivalents of each of the health care laws and regulations described above, among others, some of which may be broader in scope and may apply regardless of the payor. Many U.S. states have adopted laws similar to the AKS and FCA, and may apply to our business practices, including, but not limited to, research, distribution, sales or marketing arrangements and claims involving health care items or services reimbursed by non-governmental payors, including private insurers. In addition, some states have passed laws that require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the April 2003 Office of Inspector General Compliance Program Guidance for Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and/or the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America’s Code on Interactions with Health Care Professionals. Several states also impose other marketing restrictions or require pharmaceutical companies to make marketing or price disclosures to the state. There are ambiguities as to what is required to comply with these state requirements and if we fail to comply with an applicable state law requirement, we could be subject to penalties. 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 under one or more of such laws. Violations of fraud and abuse laws may be punishable by criminal and/or civil sanctions, including penalties, fines, imprisonment and/or exclusion or suspension from federal and state health care programs such as Medicare and Medicaid and debarment from contracting with the U.S. government. In addition, private individuals have the ability to bring actions on behalf of the U.S. government under the FCA as well as under the false claims laws of several states. Law enforcement authorities are increasingly focused on enforcing health care fraud and abuse laws, and it is possible that some of our practices may be challenged under these laws. Efforts to ensure that our current and future business arrangements with third parties, and our business generally, will comply with applicable health care laws and regulations will involve substantial costs. If our operations, including our arrangements with physicians and other health care providers are found to be in violation of any of such laws or any other governmental regulations that apply to us, we may be subject to penalties, including, without limitation, administrative, civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, exclusion from participation in federal and state health care programs (such as Medicare and Medicaid), and imprisonment, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our financial results. The approval and commercialization of any of our product candidates outside the United States will also subject us to foreign equivalents of the health care laws mentioned above, among other foreign laws. If any of the physicians or other health care providers or entities with whom we expect to do business are found to be not in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government-funded health care programs, which may also adversely affect our business. 28 The risk of our being found in violation of these laws is increased by the fact that many of these laws have not been fully interpreted by the regulatory authorities or the courts, and their provisions are open to a variety of interpretations. 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. The shifting compliance environment and the need to build and maintain a robust system to comply with multiple jurisdictions with different compliance and reporting requirements increases the possibility that a health care company may violate one or more of the requirements. Efforts to ensure that our business arrangements with third parties will comply with applicable health care laws and regulations will involve substantial cost. Data Privacy and Security There are federal, state and foreign laws governing the privacy and security of health information and personal information, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and apply simultaneously, thus complicating compliance efforts. HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (“HITECH”), and its implementing regulations, strengthens and expands requirements relating to the privacy, security, and transmission of individually identifiable health information; and requires notification to affected individuals and regulatory authorities of certain breaches of security of individually identifiable health information. HITECH strengthened and expanded HIPAA and increased penalties for violations. Under HITECH, regulated entities are subject to enforcement by the federal government and by state Attorneys General, who were given authority to enforce HIPAA under HITECH. Many state laws also impose privacy protections even more stringent than HIPAA and data security requirements applicable to information beyond health care information (for example, the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (the “CCPA”)). These state laws create an additional level of enforcement and may require additional reporting in the event of breach. Most of the health care providers in the United States with whom we collaborate to develop and test our products must comply with HIPAA and applicable state law. We may not be directly subject to these laws, however, we must structure our activities in compliance with these laws to ensure that we can access and use health information to support our research, development and other activities. Our failure to comply with these privacy and security laws or a breach of health information or personal data could prompt enforcement against our health care provider partners, create third party liability for our company and/or cause significant financial or reputational harm to our company. Numerous other countries have, or are developing, laws governing the collection, use and transmission of personal data as well. For example, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union adopted a comprehensive general data privacy framework called the General Data Protection Regulation ("GDPR"), which went into effect in 2018 and implemented a broad data protection framework that expanded the scope of EU data protection law, and applies to entities located inside and outside of the EU that process, or control the processing of, personal data relating to individuals located in the EU, including clinical trial data. Also in China, the Personal Information Protection Law, which took effect on November 1, 2021, introduced stringent protection requirements for processing personal information, which are in many ways akin to the requirements of the GDPR. We also continue to see other jurisdictions proposing and enacting data localization laws. Evolving legal, contractual, and other privacy and data protection obligations, could impose significant limitations, require changes to our business, or restrict our collection, use, storage or processing of personal data, which may increase our compliance expenses and make our business more costly or less efficient to conduct. In addition, any such changes could impact our ability to develop an adequate marketing strategy and pursue our growth strategy effectively, or even prevent us from providing our products in jurisdictions in which we receive marketing authorization, or potentially cause us to incur liability in an effort to comply, which, in turn, could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Complying with these numerous, complex and often evolving requirements is expensive and difficult, and suspected and actual failure to comply, whether by us, our service providers, CROs, business partners or other third parties, or any inadvertent or unauthorized access to or use or disclosure of data that we store or handle as part of operating our business, could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Artificial Intelligence Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) is an emerging and rapidly evolving technology. We currently evaluate and monitor potential uses of AI that may present business opportunities to support our business operations and overall business strategy. At the same time, the use, development, and deployment of AI are subject to evolving laws, regulations, and regulatory guidance in the jurisdictions in which we operate. In the United States, federal and state authorities have adopted, and continue to consider, laws and regulations governing AI, including in jurisdictions where we operate. These requirements are intended to address risks associated with AI, including potential bias, discrimination, privacy, transparency, and accountability concerns, and may impose compliance obligations, increase our costs, and affect our business operations and strategy. In addition, the European Union’s Artificial Intelligence Act (the “AI Act”), which entered into force on August 1, 2024 and is being implemented in phases, establishes a regulatory framework governing AI systems, including requirements for certain high-risk 29 uses and restrictions on specified applications. The AI Act may apply to entities that develop, deploy, or use AI systems in the European Union and provides for significant penalties for non-compliance, including fines of up to €35 million or up to 7% of total worldwide annual turnover for the preceding financial year, whichever is greater. As regulatory frameworks, industry standards, and AI technologies continue to evolve, we will continue to monitor developments in AI to assess potential business opportunities as well as associated risks. Health care reform In the United States and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been, and continue to be, several legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the health care system that could prevent or delay marketing approval of product and therapeutic candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities, and affect the ability to profitably sell product and therapeutic candidates that obtain marketing approval. The FDA’s and other regulatory authorities’ policies may change and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of our product and therapeutic candidates. In addition, future legislative and regulatory proposals may materially impact the ability of the FDA and other regulatory agencies to operate as they have historically operated. We cannot be sure whether additional legislative changes will be enacted, or whether any of the FDA’s regulations, guidance or interpretations will be changed, or what the impact of such changes on the agency and its scientific review staff, if any, may be. For example, negotiations on the next FDA user fee reauthorization package began in mid-2025, and the resulting agreement is expected to be sent to Congress in early 2027 for purposes of initiating the legislative process. Reauthorization of the prescription drug user fee program must be finalized by Congress by the end of September 2027 in order to avoid a disruption in FDA’s review goals for BLAs and other activities supported by user fees assessed against industry. 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 otherwise may have obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability, which would adversely affect our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations. The containment of healthcare costs has become a priority of federal and state governments and the prices of therapeutics have been a focus in this effort. The U.S. government, state legislatures and foreign governments have shown significant interest in implementing cost-containment programs to limit the growth of government-paid healthcare costs, including price controls, restrictions on reimbursement, and requirements for substitution of generic and biosimilar products for branded prescription medicines, respectively. In recent years, the U.S. Congress has considered reductions in Medicare reimbursement levels for medicines and biologics administered by physicians. CMS, the agency that administers the Medicare and Medicaid programs, also has authority to revise reimbursement rates and to implement coverage restrictions for most drugs and biologics. Cost reduction initiatives and changes in coverage implemented through legislation or regulation could decrease utilization of and reimbursement for any approved products we may market in the future. While Medicare regulations apply only to pharmaceutical benefits for Medicare beneficiaries, private payors often follow Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own reimbursement rates. Therefore, any reduction in reimbursement that results from federal legislation or regulation may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors. The ACA, as amended by the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act, was enacted in 2010 and substantially changed the way health care is financed by both governmental and private insurers in the United States, and significantly impacted the pharmaceutical industry. The ACA was intended to broaden access to health insurance, reduce or constrain the growth of healthcare spending, enhance remedies against healthcare fraud and abuse, add new transparency requirements for healthcare and health insurance industries, impose new taxes and fees on pharmaceutical manufacturers, and impose additional health policy reforms. With regard to biopharmaceutical products, the ACA, among other things, addressed a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for therapeutics that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted or injected, increased the minimum Medicaid rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program and extended the rebate program to individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations, established annual fees on manufacturers of certain branded prescription medicines, created a new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program, and expanded the 340B drug discount program. As another example, the 2021 Consolidated Appropriations Act signed into law on December 27, 2020 incorporated extensive health care provisions and amendments to existing laws, including a requirement that all manufacturers of medicines and biological products covered under Medicare Part B report the product’s average sales price, to the DHHS beginning on January 1, 2022, subject to enforcement via civil money penalties. L egislative and regulatory changes under the ACA remain possible, but it is unknown what form any such changes or any law would take and how or whether it may affect the biopharmaceutical industry as a whole or our business in the future. We expect that changes or additions to the ACA, the Medicare and Medicaid programs and changes stemming from other healthcare reform measures, especially with regard to healthcare access, financing or other legislation in individual states, could have a material adverse effect on the healthcare industry in the United States. 30 In addition, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which biopharmaceutical manufacturers set prices for their marketed products. Such scrutiny has resulted in several recent U.S. Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to medicine pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, reduce the cost of medicines under Medicare, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for pharmaceutical products. Notably, on December 20, 2019, the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2020 became law (P.L. 116-94) and included a piece of bipartisan legislation called the Creating and Restoring Equal Access to Equivalent Samples Act of 2019 (the “CREATES Act”). The CREATES Act was enacted to address the concern articulated by both the FDA and others in the industry that some brand manufacturers had improperly restricted the distribution of their products, including by invoking the existence of a REMS for certain products, to deny generic and biosimilar product developers access to samples of brand products. Because generic and biosimilar product developers need samples of a reference product to conduct certain comparative testing required by the FDA, some attributed the inability to timely obtain samples as a cause of delay in the entry of generic and biosimilar products. To remedy this concern, the CREATES Act establishes a private cause of action that permits a generic or biosimilar product developer to sue the brand manufacturer to compel it to furnish the necessary samples on “commercially reasonable, market-based terms.” Although lawsuits have been filed under the CREATES Act since its enactment, those lawsuits have settled privately; therefore to date no federal court has reviewed or opined on the statutory language and there continues to be uncertainty regarding the scope and application of the law. In August 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (the “IRA”) became law. Among other things, the IRA has multiple provisions that may impact the prices of drug products that are both sold into the Medicare program and throughout the United States. For example, a manufacturer of a drug or biological product covered by Medicare Parts B or D must pay a rebate to the federal government if the drug product’s price increases faster than the rate of inflation. This calculation is made on a product by product basis and the amount of the rebate owed to the federal government is directly dependent on the volume of a drug product that is paid for by Medicare Parts B or D. Additionally, CMS will negotiate drug prices annually for a select number of single-source Part D drugs, including biologics that have been on the market for 13 years, without generic or biosimilar competition. CMS will also negotiate drug prices for a select number of Part B drugs, including biologics that have been on the market for 13 years, starting for payment year 2028. If a drug product is selected by CMS for negotiation, it is expected that the revenue generated from such drug will decrease. CMS has begun to implement these new authorities announcing the first round of negotiated “maximum fair prices” for the first 10 drug products in August 2024, which will become applicable for payment year 2026. The second round of negotiated prices for 15 drug products was announced in November 2025, and CMS published the next group of drug products selected for negotiation in January 2026. However, the IRA’s impact on the pharmaceutical industry in the United States remains uncertain, in part because multiple large pharmaceutical companies and other stakeholders (e.g., the U.S. Chamber of Commerce) have initiated federal lawsuits against CMS arguing the program is unconstitutional for a variety of reasons, among other complaints. Those lawsuits are currently ongoing. Separately, the Trump Administration announced the creation of a government website called TrumpRx, which will allow consumers to purchase certain drugs at reduced prices as negotiated between the drug manufacturers and the administration. As of December 2025, the Trump Administration secured deals with five major drug manufacturers to offer certain drugs at most-favored-nation prices The Federal Trade Commission in mid-2022 also launched sweeping investigations into the practices of the PBM industry, and published interim reports with its findings in mid-2024 and January 2025, that also appear to be contributing to additional federal and state legislative and regulatory proposals, as well as enforcement action and private litigation, targeting PBM operations, pharmacy networks, and financial arrangements. In February 2026, President Trump signed into law several PBM regulatory reforms as part of a federal budget package, including but not limited to requirements for PBMs to pass back 100% of rebates and fees to commercial health plan sponsors; to provide extensive informational disclosures related to patients’ coverage and benefits; and to accept only bona fide service fees from drug companies when providing services under Medicare Part D. The Department of Labor (DOL) also issued a proposed rule in January 2026 that would mandate specific PBM fee disclosures to self-insured plan fiduciaries under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). If finalized as proposed, the DOL rule would also allow plan fiduciaries to audit those PBM disclosures to confirm accuracy. Additional proposals and legislative changes aimed at PBMs and their business practices are likely to continue to be introduced and considered in Congress and by executive agencies. Significant efforts to change the PBM industry as it currently exists in the United States may affect the entire pharmaceutical supply chain and the business of other stakeholders, including biopharmaceutical developers like us. 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. These measures could reduce the ultimate demand for our products, once approved, or put pressure on our product pricing. At the state level in the United States, legislatures have also 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. For example, in recent years, several states have formed prescription drug affordability boards (“PDABs”). Much like the IRA’s drug price negotiation program, these PDABs have attempted to implement upper payment limits (“UPLs”) on drugs sold in their respective states in both public and commercial health plans. In August 2023, 31 Colorado’s PDAB announced a list of five prescription drugs that would undergo an affordability review. The effects of these efforts remain uncertain pending the outcomes of several federal lawsuits challenging state authority to regulate prescription drug payment limits. Furthermore, in December 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court held unanimously that federal law does not preempt the states’ ability to regulate pharmaceutical benefit managers and other members of the healthcare and pharmaceutical supply chain, an important decision that may lead to further and more aggressive efforts by states in this area. We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative or executive action, either in the United States or abroad. We expect that additional federal, state, and foreign healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in limited coverage and reimbursement and reduced demand for our products, once approved, or additional pricing pressures. Coverage and reimbursement Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of any cell-based regenerative therapies for which we may obtain regulatory approval. In the United States and markets in other countries, sales of any cell-based therapies for which we receive regulatory approval for commercial sale will depend, in part, on the availability of coverage and reimbursement from payors. Payors include government authorities, managed care providers, private health insurers and other organizations. Patients who are prescribed treatments for their conditions and providers who prescribe such treatments generally rely on these third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the treatment and other associated health care costs. The process for determining whether a payor will provide coverage for a medicine, device or biologic product may be separate from the process for setting the reimbursement rate that the payor will pay for the product. Payors may limit coverage to specific products on an approved list, or formulary, which might not include all of the FDA-approved products for a particular indication. A decision by a payor not to cover our cell-based therapies could reduce physician utilization of our products, if they are approved, and have a material adverse effect on our sales, results of operations and financial condition. Moreover, a payor’s decision to provide coverage for a product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Adequate third-party reimbursement may not be available to enable us to maintain price levels sufficient to realize an appropriate return on our investment in product development and manufacturing costs. In addition, coverage and reimbursement for products can differ significantly from payor to payor. One payor’s decision to cover a particular medical product or service does not ensure that other payors will also provide coverage for the medical product or service, or will provide coverage at an adequate reimbursement rate. In the United States, the principal decisions about reimbursement for new medicines are typically made by CMS. 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. Furthermore, recent U.S. federal actions include initiatives incorporating “most favored nation” (international reference pricing) concepts for certain prescription drugs, as well as agency testing of new payment models that could tie Medicare reimbursement or manufacturer rebates to prices in specified reference countries. Additionally, the coverage determination process will require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of our products to each payor separately and will be a time-consuming process. Payors are increasingly challenging the price and examining the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of medical products and services, in addition to their safety and efficacy. In order to obtain and maintain coverage and reimbursement for any product, we may need to conduct expensive evidence generation studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of such a product, in addition to the costs required to obtain regulatory approvals. If payors do not consider a product to be cost-effective compared to current standards of care, they may not cover the product as a benefit under their plans or, if they do, the level of payment may not be sufficient to allow a company to cover its costs or make a profit. Outside of the United States, the pricing of pharmaceutical products is subject to governmental control in many countries. For example, in the European Union, pricing and reimbursement schemes vary widely from country to country. Some countries provide that products may be marketed only after a reimbursement price has been agreed with the government authority. Furthermore, some countries may require the completion of additional studies that compare the effectiveness and/or cost-effectiveness of a particular therapy to current standards of care as part of so-called health technology assessments in order to obtain reimbursement or pricing approval. Additionally, there may be a need for activities to secure reimbursement for procedures associated with products administered in a hospital setting under the diagnosis-related group system, whereby a billing code may not exist or may be currently insufficient to cover the cost of the procedure. In other instances, countries may monitor and control product volumes and issue guidance to physicians to limit prescriptions in the form of treatment policies. Efforts to control prices and utilization of pharmaceutical products and medical devices will likely continue as countries attempt to manage health care expenditures. 32 Human Capital Resources As of December 31, 2025, ProKidney had 231 full-time employees. This included 71 in research and development, 120 in manufacturing, operations, quality control and quality assurance, and 40 in general and administrative functions. We have no collective bargaining agreements with our employees, and we have not experienced any work stoppages. We consider our relations with our employees to be good. Information About Our Executive Officers and Directors Name Position Executive Officers Bruce Culleton, M.D. Chief Executive Officer and Director James Coulston, CPA Chief Financial Officer Todd C. Girolamo Chief Legal Officer Darin J. Weber, Ph.D. Chief Regulatory Officer Non-Employee Directors Pablo Legorreta Chairman of the Board, Director William F. Doyle Lead Independent Director Jennifer Fox Director José Ignacio Jimenez Santos Director Alan M. Lotvin, M.D. Director Brian J.G. Pereira, M.D. Director Uma Sinha, Ph.D. Director Information Available on the Internet Our internet address is https://www.prokidney.com. We use our website as a routine channel for distribution of information that may be material to investors, including news releases, financial information, presentations and corporate governance information. This Annual Report on Form 10-K and our quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, and all amendments to those reports, are available to you free of charge through the Investors section of our website as soon as reasonably practicable after such materials have been electronically filed with, or furnished to, the SEC. The SEC maintains an internet site (http://www.sec.gov) that contains reports, proxy and information statements, and other information regarding issuers that file electronically with the SEC. We include our web site address in this Annual Report only as an inactive textual reference. Information contained in or connected to our website does not constitute a part of, and is not incorporated by reference in, this report or our other filings with the SEC. Item 1A . Risk Factors. You should carefully consider each of the following risk factors and all of the other information set forth in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including the section titled “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and our consolidated financial statements and related notes, and in other documents that we file with the SEC, in evaluating our company and our business. Investing in our securities involves a high degree of risk. If any of the following risks and uncertainties develop into actual events, these events could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations and future growth prospects could be materially and adversely affected and the trading price of our Class A common stock could decline. Our actual results could differ materially from those anticipated in the forward-looking statements as a result of factors that are described below and elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Risks Related to Our Financial Position and Need for Additional Capital We have incurred significant net losses since inception and we expect to continue to incur significant net losses for the foreseeable future. We have incurred significant net losses since our inception. We continue to incur significant research and development and other expenses related to our ongoing operations. For the years ended December 31, 2025, 2024 and 2023, we reported net losses before noncontrolling interest of $151.6 million, $163.3 million and $135.4 million, respectively. As of December 31, 2025 and 2024, we had an accumulated deficit of $1,269.8 million and $1,200.8 million, respectively. We have devoted substantially all of our resources and efforts to research and development, and we expect that it will be several years, if ever, before we generate revenue from product sales. Even if we receive marketing approval for, and commercialize our lead product candidate, rilparencel, we expect that we will continue to incur substantial research and development and other expenses to develop and market additional potential product candidates. 33 Our product candidate, rilparencel, is still in clinical testing. We expect to continue to incur significant losses for the foreseeable future, and we anticipate that our expenses will increase substantially if, and as, we: • advance the development of rilparencel and any other future product candidates through clinical development, and, if successful, later-stage and confirmatory clinical trials; • experience delays or interruptions to any future preclinical studies, our current clinical trials, our receipt of services from our third-party service providers on whom we rely, or our supply chain, including delays due to health crises or events or circumstances beyond our control; • seek regulatory approvals for any future product candidates that may successfully complete clinical trials; • commercialize rilparencel and any future product candidates, if approved; • increase the amount of research and development activities to discover and develop product candidates and line extensions; • manufacture the materials needed for clinical trials or, following receipt of necessary regulatory approvals, commercial sales, at our manufacturing facilities; • establish and validate commercial-scale cGMP manufacturing facilities and partner with Contract Development and Manufacturing Organizations (“CDMOs”); • establish a commercialization infrastructure and scale up internal and external manufacturing and distribution capabilities to commercialize any product candidates for which we may obtain regulatory approval; • hire additional executives in clinical development, regulatory, manufacturing, quality control, quality assurance, scientific, general and administrative and management personnel; • expand our operational, financial and management systems and increase personnel, including personnel to support our clinical development and manufacturing efforts and general and administrative functions; • establish domestic and global sales, marketing, medical affairs and distribution infrastructure to commercialize any products for which we may obtain marketing approval and intend to commercialize on our own or jointly with third parties; • maintain, expand and protect our intellectual property portfolio; and • invest in or in-license other technologies or product candidates. To become and remain profitable, we must develop and eventually commercialize products with significant market potential. This will require us to be successful in a range of challenging activities, including completing nonclinical studies and clinical trials, obtaining marketing approval for rilparencel and any future product candidates, manufacturing, marketing and selling products for which we may obtain marketing approval and satisfying any post-marketing requirements. Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with biopharmaceutical product development, we are unable to accurately predict the timing or amount of increased expenses or when, or if, we will be able to achieve profitability. We may never succeed in any or all of these activities and, even if we do, we may never generate revenue that is significant enough to achieve profitability. If we do achieve profitability, we may not be able to sustain or increase profitability on a quarterly or annual basis. Our failure to become and remain profitable would decrease the value of our company and could impair our ability to raise capital, maintain our research and development efforts, expand our business or continue our operations. We will continue to require substantial additional capital to finance our operations. If we are unable to raise such capital when needed, or on acceptable terms, we may be forced to delay, reduce and/or eliminate one or more of our research and product development programs, future commercialization efforts or other operations. Developing biopharmaceutical products, including conducting clinical trials, is a very time-consuming, expensive and uncertain process that takes years to complete. Our operations have consumed substantial amounts of cash since inception. We expect our expenses to increase in connection with our ongoing activities, particularly as we conduct our ongoing and planned clinical trials of rilparencel and any future product candidates that we may develop, seek regulatory approvals for rilparencel and our future product candidates, and manufacture, launch and commercialize any products for which we receive regulatory approval. Accordingly, we will need to obtain substantial additional funding in order to maintain our continuing operations. If we are unable to raise capital when needed or on acceptable terms, we may be forced to delay, reduce or eliminate one or more of our research and product development programs or future commercialization efforts. As of December 31, 2025, we had approximately $270.0 million in cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments. Based on our current operating plan, we believe that our cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments will be sufficient to fund our operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements into mid-2027. However, this does not reflect the possibility that we may not be able to access a portion of our existing cash, cash equivalents and investments due to market conditions. If banks or other financial institutions enter receivership or become insolvent in the future in response to financial conditions affecting the banking system and financial markets, our ability to access our existing cash, cash equivalents and investments may be threatened and could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition. Furthermore, our future capital requirements and the period for which our existing resources will support our operations may vary significantly from what we expect, and we will in any event require additional capital to complete clinical development of any of our current programs. 34 Our monthly spending levels will vary based on new and ongoing development and corporate activities. Because the length of time and activities associated with development of rilparencel and any future product candidates is highly uncertain, we are unable to estimate the actual funds we will require for development, marketing and commercialization activities. Our future funding requirements, both near and long-term, will depend on many factors, including, but not limited to: • the initiation, progress, timing, costs and results of clinical trials for rilparencel and any future product candidates; • the clinical development plans we establish for these product candidates; • the number and characteristics of product candidates that we develop; • the outcome, timing and cost of meeting regulatory requirements established by the FDA and other comparable foreign regulatory authorities; • whether we are able to enter into and maintain collaboration agreements, including the terms of and timing of payments under any such agreements; • the cost of filing, prosecuting, defending and enforcing our patent claims and other intellectual property rights; • the cost of defending intellectual property disputes, including patent infringement actions brought by third parties against us, rilparencel or any of our future product candidates; • the effect of competing clinical, technological and market developments; • the costs of maintaining our own commercial-scale cGMP manufacturing facility; • the cost of establishing sales, marketing and distribution capabilities for any product candidates for which we may receive regulatory approval in regions where we choose to commercialize our products on our own; • the revenue, if any, received from commercial sales of rilparencel and any of our future product candidates for which we receive marketing approval; and • the costs of operating as a public company. We currently do not have any committed external source of funds or other support for our development efforts, and we cannot be certain that additional funding will be available on acceptable terms, or at all. Until we can generate sufficient revenue to finance our cash requirements, which we may never do, we expect to finance our future cash needs through a combination of public or private equity offerings, debt financings, collaborations, strategic alliances, licensing arrangements and other marketing or distribution arrangements. If we raise additional funds through public or private equity offerings, the terms of these securities may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect the rights of our shareholders. Further, 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. In addition, any debt financing may subject us to fixed payment obligations and covenants limiting or restricting our ability to take specific actions, such as incurring additional debt, making capital expenditures or declaring dividends. If we raise additional capital through marketing and distribution arrangements or other collaborations, strategic alliances or licensing arrangements with third parties, we may have to relinquish certain valuable intellectual property or other rights to rilparencel and any future product candidates, technologies, future revenue streams or research programs or grant licenses on terms that may not be favorable to us. We also may be required to seek collaborators for rilparencel or any of our future product candidates at an earlier stage than otherwise would be desirable or relinquish our rights to rilparencel and any future product candidates or technologies that we otherwise would seek to develop or commercialize ourselves. Market volatility could also adversely impact our ability to access capital as and when needed. If we are unable to raise additional capital in sufficient amounts or on terms acceptable to us, we may have to significantly delay, scale back or discontinue the development or commercialization of rilparencel or any of our future product candidates or one or more of our other research and development initiatives. Any of the above events could significantly harm our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations and cause the price of our common stock to decline. Risks Related to Research and Development of Rilparencel and Our Future Product Candidates We have a limited operating history and have not generated any revenue to date, and may never become profitable. We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company with a limited operating history. We have no products approved for commercial sale and have not generated any revenue. Our operations to date have been limited to organizing and staffing our company, business planning, raising capital, undertaking nonclinical studies, conducting clinical trials, developing a network of key opinion leaders, and performing research and development of rilparencel. Our approach to the discovery and development of product candidates is unproven, and we do not know whether we will be able to develop any products of commercial value. Rilparencel and any other product candidates we develop will require substantial additional development and clinical research time and resources before we would be able to apply for or receive regulatory approvals and begin generating revenue from product sales. We have not yet demonstrated the ability to progress any product candidate through later-stage clinical trials leading to successful marketing authorization. We may be unable to obtain regulatory approval, manufacture a commercial scale product, or arrange for a third party to do so on our behalf, achieve market access, and acceptance with insurers and health care providers, or conduct sales and marketing activities necessary for successful product commercialization. 35 Investment in biopharmaceutical product development is highly speculative because it entails substantial upfront capital expenditures and significant risk that any potential product candidate will fail to demonstrate adequate efficacy or an acceptable safety profile, gain regulatory approval and become commercially viable. If and when one of our product candidates were to receive regulatory approval, we would need to transition from a company with a research and development focus to a company capable of supporting commercial activities. We may not be successful in such a transition. In addition, as a business with a limited operating history, we may encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays and other known and unknown factors and risks frequently experienced by early-stage biopharmaceutical companies in rapidly evolving and complex fields. Consequently, we have no meaningful history of operations upon which to evaluate our business, and predictions about our future success or viability may not be as accurate as they could be if we had a longer operating history or a history of successfully developing and commercializing medical products. Due to the uncertainties and risks associated with these activities, we are unable to accurately and precisely predict the timing and amount of revenues, the extent of any further losses or if or when we might achieve profitability. We may never succeed in these activities and, even if we succeed in commercializing one or more of our product candidates, we may never generate revenue that is significant enough to achieve profitability. If we do achieve profitability, we may not be able to sustain or increase profitability on a quarterly or annual basis and we will continue to incur substantial research and development and other expenditures to develop and market additional product candidates. Our failure to become and remain profitable could decrease the value of our shares and impair our ability to raise capital, maintain our research and development efforts, expand our business or continue our operations. The market for biologics and for the treatment of kidney disease is highly competitive. If we fail to effectively compete, our business, financial condition and operating results will suffer. We face significant competition in the biologics market and in the area of treatment of kidney disease. We face competition from companies that develop and manufacture cell therapies, including major and specialty pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, developers of tubular and glomerular cell drug modulators, antifibrosis medications, induced pluripotent cells, other autologous mesenchymal stem cells and mechanical renal assist devices such as implantable and wearable renal dialysis machines, and advances in peritoneal dialysis and home dialysis. Cell-based clinical trials by other companies are underway globally with umbilical, adipose and bone marrow derived mesenchymal stem cells for CKD. Early-phase human induced pluripotent stem cell therapies for kidney diseases are ongoing in Japan. We believe that our principal competitors include developers of SGLT2 inhibitors and MRAs, which are small-molecule therapies recently approved to lower risks of CKD progression. Many of our current competitors may have competitive advantages over us, including significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, preclinical testing, clinical trials, manufacturing and marketing than we have. We believe that the principal competitive factors in our target markets include: • accuracy, including sensitivity and specificity, and reproducibility of results; • reputation among customers; • innovation in offerings or products, if approved; • efficacy and safety profile; • cost; • effectiveness of promotional support; • intellectual property protection; • the intended patient population; and • relative convenience of dosing and administration. Even if approved, our products may not compete favorably or may not be successful in the face of increasing competition from new products and technologies introduced by existing competitors or new companies entering our target markets. Notably, we may face additional competition from GLP-1 RAs approved for type 2 diabetes, obesity, and most recently kidney disease (Ozempic® was approved in January 2025 for kidney disease), which have shown to reduce mortality in patients with advanced-stage CKD and ESKD, slow the progression of CKD and may lead to long term weight loss. Ongoing and increased adoption of GLP-1 RAs or other new or innovative technologies, drugs or other treatments have the potential to impact the rate of growth of our intended patient population or decrease the size of our addressable market. Any sustained or significant decline in the rate of growth of our intended patient population or demand for our products, whether as a result of developments related to new or innovative technologies, drugs, treatments or otherwise, may adversely impact our business. In addition, our competitors may have or develop products or technologies that currently or in the future will enable them to produce competitive products with greater capabilities or at lower costs than ours. Any failure to compete effectively could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition and operating results. 36 Our business is highly dependent on the success of our lead product candidate, rilparencel, as well as any other future product candidates that we may advance into clinical development. Rilparencel and our future product candidates will require significant additional clinical development and funding 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. Rilparencel, our lead product candidate, is in Phase 3 clinical development. We cannot offer any assurances or predict with any certainty that such Phase 3 clinical development will be successfully completed, that positive clinical data will be obtained from such Phase 3 clinical development efforts or that regulatory authorities will grant marketing approval for rilparencel, in any such case on the expected timelines. Furthermore, regulatory approvals for rilparencel, even if obtained, may limit the type of patients in which rilparencel may be used for CKD or otherwise require specific warning or labeling language, each of which may reduce the commercial potential of rilparencel. Even if approved, we might not be successful in commercializing rilparencel. Should we fail to obtain regulatory approvals for rilparencel or fail to successfully commercialize rilparencel upon such regulatory approvals, our business and financial condition could be materially harmed and we may be more heavily dependent on the success of our other therapeutic programs. As an organization, we have not previously conducted any later stage or pivotal clinical trials, have limited experience in preparing, submitting and pursuing regulatory filings and have not previously submitted a BLA for any product candidate. Before we can generate any revenue from sales of our lead product candidate, rilparencel, or any of our future product candidates, we must complete clinical development, regulatory review and approval in one or more jurisdictions. We also need to obtain substantial additional funding to support our continuing operations and pursue our growth strategy. In addition, if rilparencel or any of our future product candidates is approved, we must ensure access to sufficient commercial manufacturing capacity and conduct significant marketing efforts in connection with any commercial launch. These efforts will require substantial investment, and we may not have the financial resources to continue development of rilparencel or any of our future product candidates. We may experience setbacks that could delay or prevent regulatory approval of, or our ability to commercialize, rilparencel and any of our future product candidates, including: • negative or inconclusive results from our clinical trials or positive results from the clinical trials of others for product candidates similar to ours leading to their approval, leading to a decision or requirement to conduct additional preclinical testing or clinical trials or to abandon a program; • product-related side effects or adverse events experienced by patients or subjects in our clinical trials or by individuals using medicines or therapeutics that we, the FDA, other regulators or others view as relevant to the development of rilparencel or any of our future product candidates; • delays in submitting INDs or comparable foreign applications or delays or failure in obtaining the necessary approvals from regulators to commence a clinical trial, or a suspension or termination of a clinical trial once commenced; • conditions imposed by the FDA or comparable foreign authorities regarding the scope and design of our clinical trials, including our clinical endpoints, and any requirement for additional confirmatory trials; • delays in enrolling subjects in clinical trials and completion of clinical trials, including under the FDA’s GCPs, the guidelines from International Conference on Harmonization (“ICH Guidelines”), GLP, and cGTPs; • inability to maintain compliance with regulatory requirements, including cGMPs, and complying effectively with other procedures; • high drop-out rates of subjects from clinical trials; • inadequate supply or quality of rilparencel or our future product candidates or other materials necessary for the conduct of our clinical trials; • greater than anticipated clinical trial costs; • inability to compete with other therapies; • poor efficacy of rilparencel or our future product candidates during clinical trials; • trial results taking longer than anticipated; • trials being subjected to fraud or data capture failure or other technical mishaps leading to the invalidation of our trial results; • the results of our trials not supporting application for conditional approval in the European Union, the Asia-Pacific region, and Latin America; • unfavorable FDA or other regulatory agency inspection and review of a clinical trial site; • failure of our third-party contractors or investigators to comply with regulatory requirements or otherwise meet their contractual obligations in a timely manner, or at all; • delays and changes in regulatory requirements, policy and guidelines, including the imposition of additional regulatory oversight around clinical development generally or with respect to our technology in particular; • varying interpretations of data by the FDA and similar foreign regulatory agencies; • the completion of Health Technology Assessment (“HTA”) procedures with governmental authorities; 37 • any policy level review of rilparencel by CMS; • the financing on our other ongoing or future programs; • evolving scientific discovery and technology of cell-based therapies and bioprocessing; or • obsolescence of manufacturing automation which could require a re-design of parts or equipment to ensure quality replacement component, the delays of which could cause significant delays in manufacturing and loss of sales. We do not have complete control over many of these factors, including certain aspects of clinical development and the regulatory submission process, potential threats to our intellectual property rights and our manufacturing, marketing, distribution and sales efforts or that of any future collaborator. Rilparencel is based on a novel technology, which makes it difficult to predict the time and cost of product development and of subsequently obtaining regulatory approval. The clinical trial requirements of the FDA and regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions, and the criteria these regulators use to determine the safety and efficacy of a product candidate, vary substantially according to the type, complexity, novelty, and intended use and market of the potential products. The regulatory approval process for product candidates such as ours can be more expensive and take longer than for other, better known, or more extensively studied pharmaceutical or other product candidates. Regulatory requirements in the United States and in other countries governing cell therapy products are evolving and the FDA or other regulatory bodies may change the requirements, or identify different regulatory pathways, for approval for rilparencel or any of our future product candidates. For example, the FDA has established the Office of Tissues and Advanced Therapies within the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (“CBER”) to consolidate the review of cell therapy and related products, and has established the Cellular, Tissue and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee to advise CBER in its review when called upon. It is possible that over time new or different divisions may be established or be granted the responsibility for regulating cell therapy products, including regenerative cell-based products, such as ours. Further, additional regulatory involvement from FDA advisory bodies, including the Cardio-Renal Advisory Committee, may delay review or make additional recommendations requiring further investigation. As a result, we may be required to change our regulatory strategy or to modify our applications for regulatory approval, which could delay and impair our ability to complete the nonclinical and clinical development and manufacture of, and obtain regulatory approval for, rilparencel or any future product candidates. Changes in regulatory authorities and advisory groups, or any new requirements or guidelines they promulgate, may lengthen the regulatory review process, require us to perform additional studies, increase our development and manufacturing costs, lead to changes in regulatory pathways, positions and interpretations, delay or prevent approval and commercialization of rilparencel or any future product candidates or lead to significant post-approval limitations or restrictions. We have concentrated our research and development efforts on utilizing regenerative renal cell-based therapies. To date, the FDA has approved a relatively small number of cell-based therapies for commercialization, and no regenerative renal-based cell therapy has been approved for commercial use by any regulatory authority. The processes and requirements imposed by the FDA or other applicable regulatory authorities may cause delays and additional costs in obtaining approvals for marketing authorization for rilparencel or any future product candidates. Because our platform is novel, and cell-based therapies are relatively new, regulatory agencies may lack experience in evaluating product candidates like rilparencel. This novelty may lengthen the regulatory review process, including the time it takes for the FDA to review our IND applications if and when submitted, increase our development costs and delay or prevent commercialization of rilparencel. Additionally, advancing novel CKD therapies creates significant challenges for us, including: • educating medical personnel regarding the potential side-effect profile of rilparencel and, as the clinical development program progresses, on observed side effects with rilparencel; • training medical personnel on the proper use and delivery of rilparencel; • enrolling sufficient numbers of subjects in clinical trials; and • continuing to develop a manufacturing process to support the clinical development of rilparencel. We must be able to overcome these challenges in order for us to develop, commercialize and manufacture rilparencel. As we advance rilparencel, we will be required to consult with the FDA and other regulatory authorities, and rilparencel will likely be reviewed by an FDA advisory committee. We also must comply with applicable requirements, and if we fail to do so, we may be required to delay or discontinue development of rilparencel. Delays or unexpected costs in obtaining, or the failure to obtain, the regulatory approval necessary to bring a potential product to market could impair our ability to generate sufficient product revenues to maintain our business. In addition, adverse developments in preclinical studies or clinical trials conducted by others in the field of cell therapy products may cause the FDA and other regulatory bodies to revise the requirements for approval of any product candidates we may develop, and may otherwise negatively affect our ability to develop and commercialize rilparencel or future product candidates. 38 The regulatory review committees and advisory groups described above and the new guidelines they promulgate may lengthen the regulatory review process, require us to perform additional studies or clinical trials, increase our development costs, lead to changes in regulatory positions and interpretations, delay or prevent approval and commercialization of these treatment candidates, or lead to significant post-approval limitations or restrictions. As we advance our research programs and develop future product candidates, we will be required to consult with these regulatory and advisory groups and to comply with applicable guidelines. If we fail to do so, we may be required to delay or discontinue development of any product candidates we identify and develop. Clinical development involves a lengthy, complex and expensive process, with an uncertain outcome, and the results of nonclinical studies, previous clinical trials, or interim results of ongoing clinical trials of rilparencel and any of our future product candidates may not be predictive of future results. Further, we may encounter substantial delays in completing the development of rilparencel and any of our future product candidates. Our product candidate, rilparencel, is in clinical development, and its risk of failure is high. The clinical trials, manufacturing and marketing of rilparencel or any of our future product candidates, if approved, are and will continue to be subject to extensive and rigorous review and regulation by numerous government authorities in the United States and in other countries where we intend to test and market rilparencel and any of our future product candidates. Before obtaining regulatory approvals for the commercial sale of rilparencel or any of our future product candidates, we must demonstrate through lengthy, complex and expensive testing and clinical trials that our product candidates are both safe and effective for use in each target indication. In particular, because rilparencel is subject to regulation as a biological product, we will need to demonstrate that it is safe, pure and potent for use in its target indication and lacks latent untoward cell effects. Rilparencel and any other product candidate we may develop must demonstrate an adequate risk versus benefit profile in its intended patient population and for its intended use. The process of administration of rilparencel involves taking a small biopsy of tissue from the kidney. The risks associated with a biopsy include bleeding, pain, hematoma, or bruising, scarring, and infarcts, or loss of blood supply resulting in loss of function. Clinical testing is expensive and can take many years to complete, and its outcome is inherently uncertain. In particular, the general approach for FDA approval of a new therapeutic modality includes dispositive data from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials of the relevant product in the relevant patient population, but in certain cases, the agency may determine that confirmatory post-market evidence is needed to establish effectiveness and support approval for the target indication. Our Phase 3 development program may have significant costs and take years to complete. A product candidate can fail at any stage of testing, even after observing promising signals of activity in earlier nonclinical studies or clinical trials. The outcome of nonclinical studies and early clinical trials of rilparencel and our future product candidates may not be predictive of the success of the Phase 3 registrational development program, and interim results of a clinical trial do not necessarily predict final results. In addition, initial success in clinical trials may not be indicative of results obtained when such trials are completed. There is typically an extremely high rate of attrition from the failure of product candidates proceeding through clinical trials. Product candidates in later stages of clinical trials may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy profile despite having progressed through nonclinical studies and initial clinical trials. A number of companies in the biopharmaceutical industry have suffered significant setbacks in advanced clinical trials due to lack of efficacy or unacceptable safety issues, notwithstanding promising results in earlier trials. Most product candidates that commence clinical trials are never approved as therapeutic products and there can be no assurance that any of our future clinical trials will ultimately be successful or support further clinical development of rilparencel or any of our future product candidates. Product candidates and delivery methods for cellular therapeutics and tissue engineered products that appear promising in the early phases of development may fail to reach the market for several reasons, including: • nonclinical or preclinical studies or clinical trials may show the product candidates to be less effective than expected (e.g., a clinical trial could fail to meet its primary endpoint(s)) or to have unacceptable side effects or toxicities associated with the product or delivery method; • failure to establish clinical endpoints that applicable regulatory authorities would consider clinically meaningful and relevant; • failure to receive the necessary regulatory approvals; • manufacturing costs, formulation issues, pricing or reimbursement issues, mechanism of action, logistical constraints or other factors that make a product candidate uneconomical; and • the proprietary rights of others and their competing products and technologies that may prevent one of our product candidates from being commercialized. In addition, differences in trial design between early-stage clinical trials and later-stage clinical trials make it difficult to extrapolate the results of earlier clinical trials to later clinical trials. Moreover, clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses, and many companies that have believed their product candidates performed satisfactorily in clinical trials have nonetheless failed to obtain marketing approval of their products. Additionally, our earlier stage trials are open-label studies, where both the subject and investigator know whether the subject is receiving rilparencel or standard of care therapy. Most typically, open-label clinical trials test only the investigational product candidate and sometimes do so at different dose levels. Open-label clinical trials are subject to various limitations and biases that may exaggerate any therapeutic effect as subjects in 39 open-label clinical trials are aware when they are receiving 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 subjects have received treatment and may interpret the information of the treated group more favorably given this knowledge. Given that our earlier stage trials include an open-label dosing design, while we believe our trials utilize objective assessment measures for measuring our endpoints and therefore are unlikely to be influenced in any manner by subject or investigator bias, it is unknown whether the open-label design may not be predictive of future clinical trial results with this or other product candidates for which we conduct an open-label clinical trial when studied in a controlled environment or with only objective endpoints. Furthermore, the standards that the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities use when regulating products like rilparencel require judgment and may change over time, which makes it difficult to predict with certainty how they will be applied. Any analysis we perform of data from nonclinical and clinical activities is subject to validation and interpretation by regulatory authorities, which could delay, limit or prevent regulatory approval. We may also encounter unexpected delays or increased costs due to new government regulations. Examples of such regulations include future legislation or administrative action, or changes in FDA policy during the period of product development and FDA regulatory review. Specifically, some countries have enacted or are considering enacting restrictions on the import and export of human genetic materials, cells and tissues. Such laws and regulations could impair our ability to import and export human cells and cell-based therapies, which could have a material adverse impact on our business. We cannot predict whether legislative changes will be enacted, whether FDA or foreign regulations, guidance or interpretations will be changed, or what the impact of such changes, if any, may be. 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 approval. The opinion of the advisory committee, although not binding, may have a significant impact on our ability to obtain approval of any product candidates that we develop. To date, we have not completed any pivotal trials required for the approval of rilparencel. We may experience delays in conducting any clinical trials because of the redesign of clinical trials, and/or our ability to recruit and enroll subjects on time or at all. Clinical trials can be delayed suspended or terminated for a variety of reasons, including in connection with: • delays in sufficiently developing, characterizing, standardizing or controlling a manufacturing process and quality criteria suitable for advanced clinical trials; • delays in developing suitable assays for screening patients for eligibility for trials with respect to certain product candidates; • delays in reaching agreement with the FDA or other regulatory authorities as to the design or implementation of our clinical trials; • obtaining additional regulatory authorizations to conduct future clinical trials; • reaching agreements on acceptable terms with additional/future clinical trial sites or prospective CROs, the terms of which can be subject to extensive negotiation and may vary significantly among different clinical trial sites; • obtaining IRB or Ethics Committee approval at each additional/future trial site; • recruiting suitable patients to participate in a clinical trial; • having subjects complete a clinical trial or return for post-treatment follow-up; • inspections of clinical trial sites or operations by applicable regulatory authorities, or the imposition of a clinical hold; • clinical sites, CROs or other third parties deviating from trial protocol or dropping out of a trial; • failure to perform in accordance with the applicable regulatory requirements, including FDA’s GCP requirements, or applicable regulatory requirements in other countries; • addressing patient safety concerns that arise during the course of a trial, including occurrence of adverse events associated with the product candidate or the delivery procedure that are viewed to outweigh its potential benefits; • adding a sufficient number of clinical trial sites; • manufacturing sufficient quantities of a product candidate for use in clinical trials; • disruptions in our supply chain, which could result in improper storage, transport or development conditions for our product components, whose treatment is time-sensitive and temperature-sensitive and which are patient-specific; or • interruption of our manufacturing processes, which could lead to our inability to properly administer treatment. We may experience numerous unforeseen events during, or as a result of, clinical trials that could delay or prevent our ability to receive marketing approval or commercialize rilparencel or any of our future product candidates or significantly increase the cost of such trials, including: • changes in regulatory requirements or guidance, or receive feedback from regulatory authorities that requires us to modify the design of our clinical trials; • clinical trials of rilparencel or our future product candidates may produce negative or inconclusive results, and we may decide, or regulators may require us, to conduct additional clinical trials or abandon development programs; • the number of subjects required for clinical trials of rilparencel or our future product candidates may be larger than we anticipate, enrollment in these clinical trials may be slower than we anticipate or subjects may drop out of these clinical trials at a higher rate than we anticipate; 40 • our third-party contractors may fail to comply with regulatory requirements or meet their contractual obligations to us in a timely manner, or at all; • we or our investigators might have to suspend or terminate clinical trials of rilparencel or our future product candidates for various reasons, including non-compliance with regulatory requirements, a finding that rilparencel or our future product candidates have undesirable side effects or other unexpected characteristics, or a finding that the subjects are being exposed to unacceptable health risks; • the cost of clinical trials of rilparencel or our future product candidates may be greater than we anticipate and we may not have funds to cover the costs; • the supply or quality of rilparencel or our future product candidates or other materials necessary to conduct clinical trials of our product candidates may be insufficient or inadequate; • regulators may revise the requirements for approving rilparencel or our future product candidates, or such requirements may not be as we anticipate; and • any future collaborators that conduct clinical trials may face any of the above issues, and may conduct clinical trials in ways they view as advantageous to them but that are suboptimal for us. If we are required to conduct additional clinical trials or other testing of rilparencel or any of our future product candidates beyond those that we currently contemplate, if we are unable to successfully complete clinical trials of rilparencel or our future product candidates or other testing, if the results of these trials or tests are not positive or are only modestly positive or if there are safety concerns, we may: • incur unplanned costs; • be delayed in obtaining marketing approval for rilparencel or any of our future product candidates or not obtain marketing approval at all; • obtain marketing approval in some countries and not in others; • obtain marketing approval for indications or patient populations that are not as broad as intended or desired; • obtain marketing approval with labeling that includes significant use or distribution restrictions or safety warnings, including boxed warnings or REMS; • be subject to additional post-marketing testing requirements; • be subject to changes in the way the product is administered; or • have regulatory authorities withdraw or suspend their approval of the product or to impose restrictions on its distribution after obtaining marketing approval. We could encounter delays if a clinical trial is suspended or terminated by us, by the IRBs of the institutions in which such trials are being conducted, by the DSMB for such trial or by the FDA or other regulatory authorities. Such authorities may impose such a suspension or termination due to a number of factors, including failure to conduct the clinical trial in accordance with regulatory requirements or our clinical protocols, inspection of the clinical trial operations or trial site by the FDA or other regulatory authorities resulting in the imposition of a clinical hold, unforeseen safety issues or adverse side effects, failure to demonstrate a benefit from using rilparencel or one of our future product candidates, changes in governmental regulations or administrative actions or lack of adequate funding to continue the clinical trial. Rilparencel, our lead product candidate, will require extensive clinical testing before we are prepared to submit a BLA for regulatory approval. We cannot predict with any certainty if or when we might complete the clinical development for rilparencel and submit a BLA for regulatory approval of rilparencel or whether any such BLA will be approved. We may also seek feedback from the FDA or other regulatory authorities on our clinical development program, and the FDA or such other regulatory authorities may not provide such feedback on a timely basis, or such feedback may not be favorable, which could further delay our development programs. If we seek to conduct clinical trials in foreign countries or pursue marketing approvals in foreign jurisdictions, we must comply with numerous foreign regulatory requirements governing, among other things, the conduct of clinical trials, manufacturing and marketing authorization, pricing and third-party reimbursement. The foreign regulatory approval process varies among countries and may include all of the risks associated with FDA approval described above as well as risks attributable to the satisfaction of local regulations in foreign jurisdictions. Moreover, the time required to obtain approval from foreign regulatory agencies may differ from that required to obtain FDA approval. Approval by the FDA does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities outside the United States and vice versa. Successful completion of clinical trials is a prerequisite to submitting a marketing application to the FDA and similar marketing applications to comparable foreign regulatory authorities, for each product candidate and, consequently, the ultimate approval and commercial marketing of any product candidates. We may experience negative or inconclusive results, which may result in our deciding, or our being required by regulators, to conduct additional clinical studies or trials or abandon some or all of our product development programs, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. 41 Any topline data or interim analyses from our nonclinical studies and clinical trials that may be announced or published from time to time may change as more data becomes available and will remain subject to audit and verification procedures that could result in material changes in the final data. We have disclosed interim analyses of certain ongoing clinical trials and may continue to disclose publicly interim or topline data from its nonclinical studies and clinical trials in the future. These interim updates will be based on a preliminary analysis of then-available data, and the results and related findings and conclusions will be subject to change following a more comprehensive review of the data related to the particular study or trial. We will be required to make assumptions, estimations, calculations and conclusions as part of our analyses of data, and we may not have received or had the opportunity to fully and carefully evaluate all data. As a result, the interim or topline results that we may report might differ from future results of the same studies or trials, or different conclusions or considerations may qualify such results, once additional data have been received and fully evaluated. Interim and topline data will remain subject to audit and verification procedures that may result in the final data being materially different from the data we previously published. As a result, any interim or topline data should be viewed with caution until the final data are available. Interim data from clinical trials that we may complete will be subject to the risk that one or more of the clinical outcomes may materially change as patient enrollment continues and more patient data becomes available. 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 and us 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, investors or others may not agree with what we determine is material or otherwise appropriate information to include in our disclosure, and any information we determine not to disclose may ultimately be deemed significant with respect to future decisions, conclusions, views, activities or otherwise regarding a particular product candidate or our business. If the interim or topline data that we report differ from actual results, or if others, including regulatory authorities, disagree with the conclusions reached, our ability to obtain approval for, and commercialize, our product candidate may be harmed, which could harm our business, operating results, prospects or financial condition. The regulatory approval processes of the FDA and comparable foreign authorities are lengthy, time-consuming and inherently unpredictable. If we are not able to obtain required regulatory approval for rilparencel, our lead product candidate, or any of our future product candidates, our business may be materially and adversely affected. The time required to obtain approval or other marketing authorizations by the FDA and comparable foreign authorities is unpredictable, and it 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, and 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. We have not obtained regulatory approval for any product candidate, and it is possible that we may never obtain regulatory approval for any product candidates we may seek to develop in the future. Neither we nor any current or future collaborator is permitted to market any biologic product candidates in the United States until we receive regulatory approval of a BLA from the FDA, and we cannot market it in jurisdictions outside of the United States until we obtain the applicable regulatory a uthorization required in such other jurisdictions. To date, we have had only limited discussions with domestic and foreign regulatory agencies regarding clinical development programs or regulatory approval for any product candidate within such jurisdictions. Prior to obtaining approval to commercialize any biologic product candidate in the United States or abroad, we must demonstrate with substantial evidence from well-controlled clinical trials, and to the satisfaction of the FDA or other foreign regulatory agencies, that such product candidates are safe and effective for their intended uses. Results from nonclinical or preclinical studies and clinical trials may be interpreted differently by different regulatory agencies. Even if we believe the nonclinical or clinical data for rilparencel are promising, such data may be insufficient to support approval by the FDA and other regulatory authorities. The FDA may also require us to conduct additional nonclinical studies or clinical trials for rilparencel either prior to or after approval, or it may object to elements of our clinical development programs. Rilparencel could fail to receive regulatory approval for many reasons, including the following: • the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may disagree with the design or implementation of our clinical trials; • we may be unable to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities that a product candidate is safe and effective for its proposed indication; • the results of our clinical trials may not meet the level of statistical significance required by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities for approval; • we may be unable to demonstrate that a product candidate’s clinical and other benefits outweigh its safety risks; • the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may fail to approve our manufacturing processes or facilities of third-party suppliers with which we contract for clinical and commercial supplies; and 42 • the approval policies or regulations of the FDA or comparable foreign authorities may significantly change in a manner rendering our clinical data insufficient for approval. Of the large number of product candidates developed by biologics manufacturers, only a small percentage successfully complete the FDA or foreign regulatory approval processes and are commercialized. The lengthy approval and marketing authorization process as well as the unpredictability of future clinical trial results may result in our failing to obtain regulatory approval and marketing authorization to market rilparencel or any of our future product candidates, which would significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. We have invested a significant portion of our time and financial resources in the development of rilparencel. Our business is dependent on our ability to successfully complete nonclinical and clinical development of, obtain regulatory approval for, and, if approved, successfully commercialize rilparencel and any future product candidates in a timely manner. Even if we eventually complete clinical testing and receive approval of a BLA or foreign marketing application for rilparencel or any future product candidates, the FDA or the applicable foreign regulatory agency may grant approval or other marketing authorization contingent on the performance of costly additional clinical trials, including post-marketing clinical trials. The FDA or the applicable foreign regulatory agency also may approve or authorize for marketing a product candidate for a more limited indication or patient population than we originally request and may not approve or authorize the labeling that we believe is necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of a product candidate. Any delay in obtaining, or inability to obtain, applicable regulatory approval or other marketing authorization would delay or prevent commercialization of that product candidate and would materially adversely impact our business and prospects. In addition, the FDA and other regulatory authorities may change their policies, issue additional regulations or revise existing regulations, or take other actions, which may prevent or delay approval of our future product candidates on a timely basis. Such policy or regulatory changes could impose additional requirements upon us that could delay our ability to obtain approvals, increase the costs of compliance or restrict our ability to maintain any marketing authorizations we may have obtained. Our nonclinical studies and clinical trials may fail to demonstrate substantial evidence of the safety and efficacy of rilparencel or our future product candidates, or serious adverse or unacceptable side effects may be identified during the development of rilparencel or any of our future product candidates, which could prevent, delay or limit the scope of regulatory approval of rilparencel or any of our future product candidates, limit their commercialization, increase our costs or necessitate the abandonment or limitation of the development of rilparencel or our future product candidates. To obtain the requisite regulatory approvals for the commercial sale of rilparencel and any of our future product candidates, we must demonstrate through lengthy, complex and expensive nonclinical testing and clinical trials that our product candidates are safe, pure, potent and effective for use in each target indication. Nonclinical testing and clinical trials are expensive and time consuming, and their outcomes are inherently uncertain. Failures can occur at any time during the development process. The outcome of nonclinical studies and early clinical trials may not be predictive of the results of later clinical trials, and interim results of a clinical trial do not necessarily predict final results. Moreover, nonclinical and clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses. Many companies that have believed their product candidates performed satisfactorily in preclinical studies and clinical trials have nonetheless failed to obtain marketing approval of their product candidates. We may fail to demonstrate with substantial evidence from adequate and well-controlled trials, and to the satisfaction of the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, that rilparencel is safe and potent for its intended uses. Possible adverse side effects that could occur with treatment with autologous cell therapy products include thrombocytopenia, chills, anemia, febrile neutropenia, diarrhea, neutropenia, vomiting, hypotension, dyspnea, cytokine release syndrome and neurotoxicity. Side effects may be unrecognized and mismanaged by medical personnel and considered unrelated due to unfamiliarity with the rilparencel cell-based treatments. Rilparencel treatment necessitates a renal biopsy to obtain tissue to manufacture the bioactive component and subsequent injections to deposit the rilparencel product into the kidney. Each intervention poses well-known risks of adverse events such as renal bleeding, cortical scarring, decline in kidney function or other adverse events that may require hospitalization, blood transfusion or angiographic intervention. In the RMCL-002 trial, which used a different formulation of the rilparencel product and a different procedure than that presently used in our Phase 3 trials, one participant experienced serious adverse events that included scarring or fibrosis and a decrease in kidney function. A second participant experienced decreased kidney blood flow observed on computed tomography (“CT”) imaging and a decrease in kidney function. If other adverse events, or other unexpected serious adverse events, occur, our clinical trials could be suspended or terminated. If we cannot demonstrate that adverse events experienced by subjects enrolled in our current and planned clinical trials were not caused by the rilparencel product candidate or procedure, the FDA or other foreign regulatory authorities could order us to cease further development of, or deny approval of, our product candidate for any or all targeted indications. Even if we are able to demonstrate that serious adverse events experienced by subjects enrolled in our current and planned clinical trials are not product-related, such occurrences could affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled subjects to complete the trial. Moreover, if we elect, or are required, to delay, suspend or terminate any future clinical trial of any of 43 our product candidates, the commercial prospects of such product candidates may be harmed and our ability to generate product revenues from any of these product candidates may be delayed or eliminated. Any of these occurrences may harm our ability to develop other product candidates, and may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly. Furthermore, if rilparencel or any of our future product candidates is associated with undesirable effects in nonclinical studies or clinical trials or have characteristics that are unexpected, we may decide or be required to perform additional nonclinical studies or to halt or delay further clinical development of our product candidates or to limit their 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, which may limit the commercial expectations for the product candidate, if approved. The FDA and other health authorities, an IRB, or an IEC may also require that we suspend, discontinue, or limit our clinical trials based on safety information, or that we conduct additional animal or human studies regarding the safety and efficacy of our product candidates which we have not planned or anticipated. Such findings could further result in regulatory authorities failing to provide marketing authorization for our product candidates or limiting the scope of the approved indication, if approved. Many product candidates that initially showed promise in early stage testing have later been found to cause side effects that prevented further development of the product candidate. Additionally, if rilparencel or any of our future product candidates receives marketing approval, and we or others identify unacceptable side effects caused by such products, a number of potentially significant negative consequences could result, including: • regulatory authorities may suspend, withdraw or limit approvals of such product, or seek an injunction against its manufacture or distribution; • regulatory authorities may require additional warnings on the label; • we may be required to create a medication guide outlining the risks of such side effects for distribution to patients or other requirements subject to a REMS; • we may be required to change the way the product is administered or conduct additional nonclinical studies or clinical trials; • we could be sued and held liable for harm caused to patients; • we may decide to remove the product from the market; • we may not be able to achieve or maintain third-party payor coverage and adequate reimbursement; • we may be subject to fines, injunctions or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties; and • our reputation and physician or patient acceptance of our products may suffer. There can be no assurance that we will resolve any issues related to any product-related adverse events to the satisfaction of the FDA or foreign regulatory agencies in a timely manner or at all. Moreover, any of these events could prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of the particular product candidate, if approved, and could significantly harm our business, results of operations and prospects. Negative public opinion and increased regulatory scrutiny of autologous cell therapy using rilparencel may adversely impact the development or commercial success of our current and future product candidates. The clinical and commercial success of rilparencel will depend in part on public acceptance of the use of autologous cell therapy for treatment of kidney disease. Any adverse public attitudes about the use of rilparencel may adversely impact our ability to enroll clinical trials. Moreover, our success will depend upon physicians prescribing, and their patients being willing to receive, treatments that involve the use of product candidates we may develop in lieu of, or in addition to, existing treatments with which they are already familiar and for which greater clinical data may be available. More restrictive government regulations or negative public opinion would have a negative effect on our business or financial condition and may delay or impair the development and commercialization of rilparencel or any of our future product candidates or demand for any products once approved. Adverse events in our or others’ clinical trials, even if not ultimately attributable to our product candidates, and the resulting publicity could result in increased governmental regulation, unfavorable public perception, potential regulatory delays in the testing or approval of rilparencel or our future product candidates, stricter labeling requirements for those product candidates that are approved and a decrease in demand for any such product candidates, all of which would have a negative impact on our business and operations. We are conducting our first Phase 3 clinical trial and may be unable to successfully complete it or any future clinical trials. The conduct of a Phase 3 clinical trial is a complicated process. Although members of our management team have conducted Phase 3 clinical trials in the past while employed at other companies, we as a company are currently conducting our first Phase 3 development program, and as a result may require more time and incur greater costs than we anticipate. Failure to include the correct treatment regimen, complete, or delays in, our Phase 3 clinical trial could prevent us from or delay us in commencing future clinical trials for rilparencel, obtaining regulatory approval of and commercializing rilparencel, which would adversely impact our 44 financial performance. In addition, some of our competitors are currently conducting clinical trials for product candidates that treat the same indications as rilparencel, and patients who are otherwise eligible for our clinical trials may instead enroll in clinical trials of our competitors’ product candidates. We have and may continue to encounter difficulties enrolling patients in our clinical trials, and our clinical development activities have been and may continue to be delayed or otherwise adversely affected. Successful and timely completion of clinical trials will require that we enroll a sufficient number of patients. Patient enrollment, a significant factor in the timing of clinical trials, is affected by many factors, including the size and nature of the patient population and competition for patients eligible for our clinical trials with competitors which may have ongoing clinical trials for product candidates that are under development to treat the same indications as one or more of our product candidates, or may have approved products for the conditions for which we are developing our product candidates. Clinical trials may be subject to delays as a result of patient enrollment taking longer than anticipated or greater than anticipated subject withdrawal. We may not be able to initiate or continue clinical trials for rilparencel or our future 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 foreign regulatory authorities. We cannot predict how successful we will be at enrolling subjects in future clinical trials. The enrollment of patients depends on many factors, including: • the patient eligibility and exclusion criteria defined in the protocol; • the size and demographics of the patient population required for analysis of the clinical trial’s primary endpoints and the process for identifying patients; • the proximity of subjects to clinical trial sites; • the design of the trial; • our ability to recruit clinical trial investigators with the appropriate competencies and experience; • clinicians’ and patients’ perceptions as to the potential advantages and risks of the product candidate being studied in relation to other available therapies, including any new products that may be approved for the indications we are investigating; • the availability of competing commercially available therapies and other competing product candidates’ clinical trials; • our ability to obtain and maintain clinical trial subject informed consents; and • the risk that subjects enrolled in clinical trials will drop out of the trials before completion. For example, we are initially developing rilparencel for the treatment of patients with advanced CKD and type 2 diabetes. We have and may continue to encounter difficulties enrolling subjects in our clinical trials of rilparencel due, in part, to the stringent inclusion criteria for subjects, the novelty of the treatment modality and the fact that it involves a physically invasive procedure. In addition, our clinical trials compete with other clinical trials for product candidates that are in the same therapeutic areas as rilparencel, and this competition has and may continue to reduce the number and types of patients available to us, because some patients who might have opted to enroll in our trials may instead opt to enroll in a 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 may reduce the number of patients who are available for our clinical trials in such clinical trial site. Our inability to enroll a sufficient number of patients for clinical trials would result in significant delays and could require us to abandon one or more clinical trials altogether. Delays in patient enrollment have and may continue to result in increased costs and have and may continue to affect the timing or outcome of our future clinical trials, which could prevent completion of these trials and adversely affect our ability to advance the development of rilparencel or any of our future product candidates. Furthermore, we expect to rely on CROs and clinical trial sites to ensure the proper and timely conduct of our clinical trials and we will have limited influence over their performance. Furthermore, due to the follow-up period, lengthy study duration and the requirement for on-site visits, subjects may drop out of our clinical trials at a higher rate than we anticipate or may elect to participate in alternative clinical trials sponsored by our competitors with product candidates that treat the same indications as rilparencel and any future product candidates. Even if we are able to enroll a sufficient number of subjects for our clinical trials, we may have difficulty maintaining enrollment of such subjects in our clinical trials. The design or execution of our ongoing and future clinical trials may not support marketing approval. The design or execution of a clinical trial can determine whether its results will support marketing approval, and flaws in the design or execution of a clinical trial may not become apparent until the clinical trial is well advanced. Additionally, in some instances, there can be significant variability in safety or efficacy results between different trials with the same product candidate due to numerous factors, including differences in trial protocols, size and type of the patient populations, variable adherence by investigators and subject to protocol requirements and the rate of dropout among clinical trial subjects. We do not know whether 45 any clinical trials we conduct will demonstrate consistent or adequate efficacy and safety to obtain the marketing approvals necessary to commercialize rilparencel or any of our future product candidates. Further, the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities have substantial discretion in the approval process and in determining when or whether marketing approval will be obtained for rilparencel or any of our future product candidates. Rilparencel may not be approved even if it achieves its primary endpoints in our ongoing Phase 3 clinical trial or other future registrational trials. The FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may disagree with our trial designs and our interpretation of data from nonclinical studies or clinical trials. In addition, any of these regulatory authorities may change requirements for the approval of a product candidate even after reviewing and providing comments or advice on a protocol for a pivotal Phase 3 or registrational clinical trial. In addition, any of these regulatory authorities may also approve a product candidate for fewer or more limited indications than we request or may grant approval contingent on the performance of costly post-marketing clinical trials, which may not provide sufficient confirmatory evidence to support continued marketing approval. The FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may not approve the labeling claims that we believe would be necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of rilparencel or any of our future product candidates, if approved. We have obtained RMAT Designation from the FDA for rilparencel, but this may not lead to a faster development or regulatory review process, and such designation does not increase the likelihood that any of our product candidates will receive marketing approval in the United States and the FDA may withdraw such designation. RMAT designation is intended to expedite the development and review of product candidates that are designed to treat serious or life-threatening diseases and unmet need when “preliminary clinical evidence indicates that a product candidate may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development.” The designation of rilparencel with expedited designation provides potential benefits that include: more frequent meetings with FDA to discuss the development plan for the product candidate and ensure collection of appropriate data needed to support approval; more frequent written correspondence from FDA about such things as the design of the proposed clinical trials and use of biomarkers; intensive guidance on an efficient cell therapy program, beginning as early as Phase 1; organizational commitment involving senior managers; and eligibility for rolling review and priority review if supported by clinical data at the time of the submission of the BLA. Cell and gene therapies, therapeutic tissue engineered products, human cell and tissue products, and combination products using any such therapies or products that are intended to treat, modify, reverse, or cure a serious or life-threatening disease or condition are eligible for designation by the FDA as RMATs. The RMAT designation is intended to facilitate efficient development and expedite review of regenerative medicine therapies by offering eligibility for priority review or accelerated approval, as well as early interactions with FDA to discuss any potential surrogate or intermediate endpoint to be used to support accelerated approval. We applied for RMAT designation for rilparencel, which was granted by the FDA on October 28, 2021. As contemplated by the RMAT designation and as directed by the FDA, we requested a comprehensive, multidisciplinary Type B meeting with the FDA to review the status of preclinical and clinical development and manufacturing of rilparencel, and to discuss the planned clinical program intended to support approval of the product candidate. The FDA provided detailed written responses to our questions included in the meeting request, and the Type B meeting was held in March 2022. As a result of that meeting, we will continue to advance the clinical development program for rilparencel in the United States with the benefit of enhanced clarity as to the FDA’s expectations and requirements for a registrational program, including the design of the trials needed for approval, manufacturing assays, and comparability studies. In 2025, we had a Type B meeting with the FDA in which the FDA confirmed that the slope of eGFR in patients from the ongoing Phase 3 PROACT 1 study can serve as the surrogate endpoint and primary basis for a BLA submission of rilparencel under the accelerated approval pathway. The FDA’s input is more fully set forth under the heading “Phase 3 Clinical Development: REGEN-006 (PROACT 1)” in the section titled “ Part I—Item 1, Business. ” Even though we obtained RMAT designation in October 2021, such a designation does not change the standards for product approval, and there is no assurance that this designation will result in expedited review or approval or that the approved indication will not be narrower than the indication covered by RMAT designation. Thus, even though RMAT designation was granted for rilparencel, we may not experience a faster development process, review or marketing approval compared to conventional FDA procedures. The FDA may withdraw RMAT designation if it believes that the product no longer meets the qualifying criteria. It is also possible that the FDA could provide further input on our trial design, in which case our timelines to completion of the clinical development of rilparencel could be delayed. Our business may be harmed if we are unable to avail ourselves of these or any other expedited development and regulatory pathways. We may expend our limited resources to pursue a particular product candidate or indication and fail to capitalize on product candidates or indications that may be more profitable or for which there is a greater likelihood of success. Because we have limited financial and management resources, we must focus on development programs and product candidates that we identify for specific indications. As such, we are only focused on the development of rilparencel for the treatment of CKD. As a result, we may forego or delay pursuit of opportunities with other product candidates or for other 46 indications for these product candidates that later prove to have greater commercial potential. Our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial products or profitable market opportunities. Our spending on current and future development programs and product candidates for specific indications may not yield any commercially viable products. If we do not accurately evaluate the commercial potential or target market for a particular product candidate, we may relinquish valuable rights to that product candidate through collaboration, licensing or other royalty arrangements in cases in which it would have been more advantageous for us to retain sole development and commercialization rights to such product candidate. We have conducted and may in the future continue to conduct additional clinical trials for rilparencel outside the United States, and the FDA and similar foreign regulatory authorities may not accept data from such trials conducted in locations outside of their jurisdiction. We have conducted additional clinical trials for rilparencel in the Asia-Pacific region, European Union, and Latin America, and may in the future continue to conduct clinical trials outside the United States or other foreign jurisdictions. The acceptance of data from clinical trials conducted outside the United States by the FDA may be subject to certain conditions or may be rejected. In cases where data from clinical trials conducted outside the United States are intended to serve as the sole basis for marketing approval in the United States, the FDA will generally not approve the application on the basis of foreign data alone unless: (i) the data are applicable to the United States population and United States medical practice; (ii) the trials were performed in compliance with GCP by clinical investigators of recognized competence; and (iii) the data may be considered valid without the need for an on-site inspection by the FDA or, if the FDA considers such an inspection to be necessary, the FDA is able to validate the data through an on-site inspection or other appropriate means. Additionally, the FDA’s clinical trial requirements, including sufficient size of patient populations and statistical powering, must be met. Many foreign regulatory bodies have similar approval requirements. In addition, such foreign clinical trials would be subject to the applicable local laws of the foreign jurisdictions where the trials are conducted. There can be no assurance that the FDA or any similar foreign regulatory authority will accept data from clinical trials conducted outside of the United States or the applicable jurisdiction. If the FDA or any similar foreign regulatory authority does not accept such data, it would result in the need for additional clinical trials, which would be costly and time-consuming and delay aspects of our business plan, and which may result in rilparencel not receiving approval or clearance for commercialization in the applicable jurisdiction. We may not be successful in our efforts to identify or discover additional product candidates in the future. Our research programs may initially show promise in identifying potential product candidates, yet fail to yield product candidates for clinical development for a number of reasons, including: • our inability to design such product candidates with the pharmacological properties that we desire or attractive pharmacokinetics; • our inability to design and develop a suitable manufacturing process; or • potential product candidates may, on further study, be shown to have harmful side effects or other characteristics that indicate that they are unlikely to be medicines that will receive marketing approval and achieve market acceptance. Research programs to identify new product candidates require substantial technical, financial and human resources. If we are unable to identify suitable compounds for clinical development, we will not be able to obtain product revenue in future periods, which likely would result in significant harm to our financial position. Due to our limited resources and access to capital, we must make decisions on the allocation of resources to certain programs and product candidates; these decisions may prove to be wrong and may adversely affect our business. We have limited financial and human resources and intend to initially focus on research programs and product candidates for a limited set of indications. As a result, we may forgo or delay pursuit of opportunities with other product candidates or for other indications that later prove to have greater commercial potential or a greater likelihood of success. In addition, we may seek to accelerate our development timelines, including by initiating certain clinical trials of rilparencel or our future product candidates before earlier-stage studies have been completed. This approach may cause us to commit significant resources to prepare for and conduct later-stage trials for one or more product candidates that subsequently fail earlier-stage clinical testing. Therefore, our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial products or profitable market opportunities or expend resources on product candidates that are not viable. There can be no assurance that we will ever be able to identify additional therapeutic opportunities for rilparencel or our future product candidates or to develop suitable potential product candidates through internal research programs, which could materially adversely affect our future growth and prospects. We may focus our efforts and resources on potential product candidates or other potential programs that ultimately prove to be unsuccessful. 47 If we do not achieve our projected development goals in the time frames we announce and expect, the commercialization of our products may be delayed or never achieved. From time to time, we may estimate the timing of the accomplishment of various scientific, clinical, regulatory, manufacturing and other product development goals, which we sometimes refer to as milestones. These milestones may include the commencement or completion of clinical trials and the submission of regulatory filings, including IND submissions. From time to time, we may publicly announce the expected timing of some of these milestones. All of these milestones are, and will be, based on a variety of assumptions. The actual timing of these milestones can vary significantly compared to our estimates, in some cases for reasons beyond our control. We may experience numerous unforeseen events during, or as a result of, any future clinical trials that we conduct that could delay or prevent our ability to receive marketing approval or commercialize rilparencel or any of our future product candidates. Risks Related to the Manufacturing of Rilparencel and Our Future Product Candidates Cell therapies are complex and difficult to manufacture, and we have experienced and may continue to experience manufacturing problems that result in delays in the development or commercialization of rilparencel, our lead product candidate, or otherwise harm our business. The manufacture of cell therapy products is technically complex and necessitates substantial expertise and capital investment. Production difficulties caused by unforeseen events may delay the availability of material for our clinical trials. Further, we are not aware of any other cell therapy that has been manufactured for a market of the anticipated size for rilparencel. If rilparencel is approved for commercial sale, as to which no assurance can be given, we may be unable to meet market demand for the product in a timely manner due to the complex processes that are involved in its manufacturing. Additionally, all entities involved in the preparation of therapeutics for clinical trials or commercial sale are subject to extensive cGMP, state and federal regulations, as well as foreign requirements when applicable. An audit in 2023 by the Company’s contracted Qualified Person (QP) to evaluate our readiness for release and distribution of rilparencel in the EU identified certain deficiencies in the documentation of the quality management systems to be addressed prior to release and distribution of product for EU clinical sites. Manufacturing was subsequently paused while we optimized our capabilities to meet EU and global standards for our Phase 3 program. Of note, no safety events necessitated this pause. After undergoing a thorough remediation process in the first half of 2024, we resumed manufacturing for U.S. and non-European clinical study sites in June 2024, and in July 2024, we received the Qualified Person (QP) Declaration of Equivalence to European Union Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) standards. Components of a finished therapeutic product approved for commercial sale or used in late-stage clinical trials must be manufactured in accordance with cGMP regulations. These regulations govern manufacturing processes and procedures (including record keeping) and the implementation and operation of quality systems to control and assure the quality of investigational products and products approved for sale. 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 rilparencel that may not be detectable in final product testing. We must supply all necessary documentation in support of a BLA on a timely basis. Our facilities and quality systems, including those of any third parties we contract with to manufacture any critical component of the final product, must pass a pre-approval inspection for compliance with the applicable regulations as a condition of regulatory approval of rilparencel or any of our other potential products. In addition, the FDA and other regulatory authorities may, at any time, audit or inspect a manufacturing facility involved with the preparation of rilparencel or our other potential products or the associated quality systems for compliance with the regulations applicable to the activities being conducted at such facilities, and they could put a hold on one or more of our clinical trials if our facilities, or those of our contracted third parties, do not pass such audits or inspections. If such facilities do not pass a pre-approval plant inspection, FDA approval of the products will not be granted. Any failure to adhere to or document compliance with such regulatory requirements could lead to a delay or interruption in the availability of rilparencel for clinical trials or enforcement action from the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities. If we or our suppliers were to fail to comply with the requirements of the FDA or other regulatory authority, it could result in regulatory actions or sanctions being imposed on us, including the issuance of Form FDA 483 notices of inspectional observations, warning letters or untitled letters, clinical holds, fines, injunctions, civil penalties, delays, suspension or withdrawal of approvals, license revocation, seizures or recalls of product candidates or products, operating restrictions and criminal prosecutions, any of which could significantly and adversely affect supplies of rilparencel. Our potential future dependence upon others for the manufacture of rilparencel may also adversely affect our future profit margins and our ability to commercialize rilparencel or any future product candidates that receive regulatory approval on a timely and competitive basis. Biological products are inherently difficult to manufacture. Rilparencel is manufactured using technically complex processes requiring specialized equipment and facilities, highly specific raw materials, autologous cells collected from patients, and reagents, and the process involves various production constraints. Even though we aim to have backup supplies of raw materials and reagents whenever possible, we cannot be certain they will be sufficient if our primary sources are unavailable. A shortage of a critical raw material or reagent, or a technical issue during manufacturing may lead to delays in clinical development or commercialization 48 plans. Any changes in the manufacturing of components of the raw materials we use could result in unanticipated or unfavorable effects in our manufacturing processes, resulting in delays. Delays or failures in the manufacture of cell therapies can result in a patient being unable to receive their cell therapy or a requirement to re-manufacture which itself then causes delays in manufacture for other patients. Any delay or failure or inability to manufacture on a timely basis can adversely affect a patient’s outcomes and delay the timelines for our clinical trials. Such delays or failure or inability to manufacture can result from: • a failure in the manufacturing process itself, for example by an error in manufacturing equipment or reagent failure, failure in any step of the manufacturing process, failure to maintain a cGMP environment or failure in quality systems applicable to manufacture, sterility failures, or contamination during process; • product loss or failure due to logistical issues associated with the collection of a patient’s autologous cells or other samples, shipping that material to analytical laboratories, and shipping the final cell therapy back to the location using cold chain distribution where it will be administered to the patient, manufacturing issues associated with the differences in patient starting materials, inconsistency in cell growth and variability in product characteristics; • a lack of reliability or reproducibility in the manufacturing process itself, leading to variability in end manufacture of the cell therapy, which may lead to regulatory authorities placing a hold on a clinical trial or requesting further information on the process, which could in turn result in delays to the clinical trials; • product loss or failure due to logistical issues including issues associated with the differences between patients’ autologous cells or characteristics, interruptions to process, contamination, failure to supply patient apheresis material within required timescales (for example, as a result of an import or export hold-up) or supplier error; • inability to have enough manufacturing slots to manufacture cell therapies for patients as and when those patients require manufacture; • inability to procure starting materials or to manufacture starting materials; • interruptions in our supply chain, which may require us to find an alternative manufacturer or supplier for one or more components that we need in the manufacture of rilparencel, which would in turn require such manufacturer or supplier to be qualified through a BLA supplement, could lead the regulatory agencies to require additional studies if a new manufacturer is relied upon for commercial production, and may involve substantial costs and delays related to switching manufacturers; • loss of or close-down of any manufacturing facility used in the manufacture of our cell therapies, or the inability to find alternative manufacturing capability in a timely fashion; • loss or contamination of patient starting material, requiring the starting material to be obtained again from the patient or the manufacturing process to be re-started; and • a requirement to modify or make changes to any manufacturing process, which may also require comparability testing that delays our ability to make the required modifications or perform any required comparability testing in a timely fashion, require further regulatory approval or require successful tech transfer to CDMOs to continue manufacturing. These factors could cause the delay of clinical trials, regulatory submissions, required approvals or commercialization of rilparencel, cause us to incur higher costs and prevent us from commercializing rilparencel successfully, if approved. We intend to improve bioprocess development to reduce manufacturing costs of the commercial rilparencel product, assuming receipt of necessary regulatory approvals. Culture media represents the highest cost in rilparencel processing, and we are exploring reduced culture media usage via bioprocess and automation improvements. Further, our final commercial rilparencel product is planned to be a cryopreserved formulation, which is projected to reduce manufacturing costs compared to our fresh rilparencel formulation. We expect to leverage bulk purchasing to actively negotiate pricing of materials to further drive cost reductions. However, there can be no assurance that we will be able to lower the manufacturing costs for rilparencel when we manufacture it at commercial scale. A number of factors may contribute to an inability to achieve these cost reductions, including any failures to achieve the automation efficiencies that we anticipate, cost overruns or inefficiencies in the supply chain, and any failure to improve the formulation or bioprocessing of rilparencel in a manner that results in lower costs. We have our own manufacturing capabilities, which may result in increased costs being incurred by us. Our manufacturing facility for rilparencel is within our Winston-Salem, North Carolina facility, and this facility currently manufactures SRC for use in our clinical trials. Regulatory authorities, in particular the FDA, might not continue to approve our ability to manufacture SRC or other cell therapies at the Winston-Salem facility. Our ability to successfully manufacture our own cell therapies at the Winston-Salem facility within a reasonable period of time and within currently projected costs is dependent on a number of factors, including: • our ability to recruit the required employees at a suitable level and experience and within required timescales and to maintain employment of such required employees; 49 • our ability to obtain regulatory approval for the facility and for the manufacture of cell therapies at the facility and to satisfy regulatory authorities on an ongoing basis; • our ability to manufacture cell therapies reliably and reproducibly and to timescales sufficient to support required patient administration; • our ability to manufacture cell therapies in compliance with the applicable regulatory requirements, including requirements applicable in both the United States and the European Union, including cGMP, enforced by the FDA and state regulatory authorities; • our ability to develop internal quality controls and processes sufficient to enable manufacture and supply of cell therapies at our Winston-Salem facility; • our ability to establish comparability with currently used manufacturing processes and for such comparability data to be accepted by the appropriate regulatory authorities; and • our ability to fund ongoing development, including equipment requirements necessary for successful manufacture of cell therapies at our facility. Any further delay or failure in manufacture at our facility could result in delays to the supply of cell therapies for our clinical trials. Should we become unable to produce cell therapies for use in our clinical trials or be unable to produce cell therapies at the required level, then we will be unable to support such clinical trials until alternative manufacturing capability is secured. Contract development and manufacturing organizations have a finite cell manufacturing capacity, which could inhibit the long-term growth prospects of our business. We currently produce materials for our clinical trials at our facility in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. It is possible that the demand for our products could exceed existing manufacturing capacity. We expect that, as our own cell therapy development programs progress and demand for cell therapy services in the industry expand, it may become necessary or desirable for us to expand our manufacturing vendors for cell therapy services and products in the future, which may require us to invest significant amounts of capital and to obtain regulatory approvals. If manufacturers are unable to meet our rising demand for products and services on a timely basis or unable to maintain cGMP/cGTP compliance standards, then it is likely that the progress of our own programs will be impaired which could materially and adversely affect the overall success of our development programs. Components of therapeutic products approved for commercial sale or used in late-stage clinical trials must be manufactured in accordance with cGMPs and manufacturers of cell-based product candidates must comply with cGTPs. In addition, manufacturers of therapeutic products may be required to modify their manufacturing processes from time to time in response to regulatory requests. The manufacture of live cellular-based products is complex and imposes significant regulatory burdens that may change over time. We may encounter difficulties in the production of our product candidates due to our limited manufacturing experience. Our autologous cell therapy products are patient-specific, and we need to ensure that the correct product is administered to the correct patient. Administration of autologous cell therapies is patient-specific and personalized medicine. The process requires careful handling of patient-specific products and fail-safe tracking to ensure that the tracking process is without error and that patient samples are tracked from patient collection, through manufacturing and re-administration to the same patient. While such mechanisms are in place, should the tracking process fail, whether at our own facility, a third-party facility or at any point in the manufacturing process and supply chain, a patient could receive another patient’s SRC, resulting in significant toxicity and potentially patient fatality. We will need to invest in enhanced systems, such as bar coding and electronic chain of identity and chain of custody systems to further ensure fail-safe tracking. There is always a risk of a failure in any such system. Inability to develop or adopt an acceptable fail-safe tracking methodology and handling regime may delay or prevent us from receiving regulatory approval and/or result in significant toxicity and potentially patient fatality if a patient receives another patient’s SRC. This risk may be increased where autologous cell therapies are used in clinical trials that we do not control or sponsor and, should an error be made in the administration of our autologous cell therapies in such clinical trials, this could affect the steps required in our own clinical trials and manufacturing process requiring the addition of further tracking mechanisms to ensure fail-safe tracking. The tracking systems required to further ensure safe patient administration may also require enhanced procedures and administration to satisfy other regulatory requirements, for example, data protection requirements in Europe. The need to ensure tracking systems are adequate and to comply with these additional regulatory requirements may result in delay to the start of clinical trials or the need to obtain additional regulatory licenses or consents prior to starting such trials. 50 Delays in obtaining regulatory approval of the manufacturing process and facility to produce rilparencel or disruptions in the manufacturing process may delay or disrupt our commercialization efforts. Very few cGMP cell therapy manufacturing facilities in the United States have received approval from the FDA for the manufacture of an approved cell therapy product. Before we can begin to commercially manufacture rilparencel or any of our future product candidates, we must obtain regulatory approval from the FDA for our manufacturing processes and for the facility in which manufacturing is performed. Very few cGMP cell therapy manufacturing facilities in the United States have received approval from the FDA for the manufacture of an approved cell therapy product and, therefore, the timeframe required for us to obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates is uncertain. In addition, we must pass a pre-approval inspection of the manufacturing facility, including any facilities that produce any component of rilparencel, by the FDA and other relevant regulatory authorities before rilparencel or any of our future cell therapy product candidates can obtain marketing approval. If a prolonged government shutdown occurs, or if global health concerns continue to prevent the FDA or other regulatory authorities from conducting their regular inspections, reviews, or other regulatory activities, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA 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. In order to obtain approval, we will need to ensure that all of our processes, quality systems, methods, equipment, policies and procedures are compliant with cGMP and other applicable regulations, and perform extensive audits of vendors, contract laboratories, and suppliers. If any of our vendors, contract laboratories, or suppliers is found to be out of compliance with cGMP or other applicable regulations relating to rilparencel, we may experience delays or disruptions in manufacturing while we work with such third parties to remedy the violation or while we work to identify suitable replacement vendors. The cGMP requirements govern, among other things, quality control of the manufacturing process and documentation policies and procedures. In complying with cGMP regulations, we will be obligated to spend time, money and effort in production, record keeping and quality control to assure that the product meets applicable specifications and other requirements. If we fail to comply with these requirements, we may be subject to regulatory enforcement actions or other legal sanctions and may not be permitted to sell any products that we may develop. Any problems in our manufacturing process or facilities could make us a less attractive collaborator for potential partners, including larger pharmaceutical companies and academic research institutions, which could limit our access to additional attractive development programs. We do not have experience as a company managing a complex supply chain or satisfying manufacturing-related regulatory requirements. The FDA and other foreign regulatory authorities may require us to submit samples of any lot of any approved product together with the protocols showing the results of applicable lot release tests at any time. Under some circumstances, the FDA or other foreign regulatory authorities may require that we not distribute a product lot until the relevant agency authorizes its release. Slight deviations in the manufacturing process, including those affecting quality attributes and stability, may result in unacceptable changes in a cell therapy product that could lead to lot failures or product recalls. Lot failures or product recalls could cause us to delay product launches or clinical trials, which could be costly to us and otherwise harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Problems in our manufacturing processes could restrict our ability to meet market demand for our products. Managing an autologous ex vivo cell therapy supply chain is highly complex. We must identify, engage, and coordinate with treatment centers where patients’ cellular source material must be collected, prepared and transported to the manufacturing facility and the cryopreserved therapeutic product must be returned to the treatment center for administration to the patient using vapor phase liquid nitrogen shipping containers. Additionally, we are dependent on highly specialized vendors to provide raw materials and components for our manufacturing process. Once collected from the patient, the cellular source material must be prepared and stored according to specified procedures. While we intend to standardize the processes at treatment centers, if there is a deviation of the processes, the cellular source material from a patient could be adversely impacted and potentially result in manufacturing failures. The patient’s cellular materials must be transported to the manufacturing facility using a shipping container that maintains the material at a sufficiently cold temperature and must typically be delivered and processed within four days of collection. While we intend to use reputable couriers and agents for the transport of such materials, if the shipping container is opened or damaged such that the appropriate storage/shipping temperature is not maintained, the cellular source material may be adversely impacted and it may not be feasible to manufacture a cell therapy product for the patient. Similarly, if a shipment is delayed due to adverse weather, misrouting, being held up at a customs point or other events, the cellular source material may not be delivered within a time window that will allow for its use for the successful manufacture of a cell therapy product. Similarly, the patient’s autologous cell therapy product must be returned to the clinical site for administration to the patient using a specialized shipping container that maintains the material at a very low temperature. While we intend to use reputable 51 couriers and agents for the transport of our products, if the shipping container is opened or damaged such that the very low temperature is not maintained, the cell therapy product may be adversely impacted and it may not be feasible to administer it to the patient or, if administered, it could cause harm to the patient. Similarly, if a shipment is delayed due to adverse weather, misrouting, being held up at a customs point or other events, and is not delivered to the clinical site within the time period that the very low temperature is maintained, the cell therapy product may be adversely affected and be unable to be administered or, if administered, could cause harm to the patient. We may be delayed or unable to identify, engage, successfully coordinate with or qualify treatment centers in the regions we are targeting as part of our commercial launch strategy, which could delay or prevent patients from receiving cell therapy treatments, if approved. If our treatment centers fail to perform satisfactorily, we may suffer reputational, operational, and business harm. Any of the above events, should they happen, could adversely affect our development timelines and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. We depend on third-party suppliers for materials that are necessary for the conduct of clinical trials of rilparencel, our lead product candidate, and the loss of these third-party suppliers or their inability to supply us with sufficient quantities of adequate materials, or to do so at acceptable quality levels and on a timely basis, could harm our business. Manufacturing rilparencel, our lead product candidate, requires many reagents, which are substances used in our manufacturing processes to bring about chemical or biological reactions, and other specialty materials and equipment, some of which are manufactured or supplied by small companies with limited resources and experience to support commercial biologics production. We currently depend on a limited number of vendors for certain materials and equipment used in the manufacture of rilparencel. Some of these suppliers may not have the capacity to support clinical trials and commercial products manufactured under cGMP by biopharmaceutical firms or may otherwise be ill-equipped to support our needs. We also do not have supply contracts with many of these suppliers and may not be able to obtain supply contracts with them on acceptable terms or at all. Accordingly, we may experience delays or interruption in receiving key materials and equipment to support clinical or commercial manufacturing. Any significant delay or interruption in the supply of components or sub-assemblies, or our inability to obtain substitute components, sub-assemblies or materials from alternate sources at acceptable prices in a timely manner, could impair our ability to meet the demand of our customers and harm our business. For some of these reagents, equipment, and materials, we rely and may in the future rely on sole source vendors or a limited number of vendors. The supply of the reagents and other specialty materials and equipment that are necessary to produce rilparencel could be reduced or interrupted at any time. In such case, identifying and engaging an alternative supplier could result in delay, and we may not be able to find other acceptable suppliers on acceptable terms, or at all. Switching suppliers may involve substantial costs and is likely to result in a delay in our desired clinical and commercial timelines. If we change suppliers for commercial production, applicable regulatory agencies may require us to conduct additional studies or trials. If key suppliers are lost, or if the supply of the materials is diminished or discontinued, we may not be able to develop, manufacture and market rilparencel in a timely and competitive manner, or at all. An inability to continue to source products from any of these suppliers, which could be due to a number of issues, including regulatory actions or requirements affecting the supplier, adverse financial or other strategic developments experienced by a supplier, labor disputes or shortages, unexpected demands or quality issues, could adversely affect our ability to satisfy demand for rilparencel, which could adversely and materially affect our product sales and operating results or our ability to conduct clinical trials, either of which could significantly harm our business. As we continue to develop and scale our manufacturing process, we expect that we will need to obtain rights to and supplies of certain materials and equipment to be used as part of that process. We may not be able to obtain rights to such materials or equipment on commercially reasonable terms, or at all, and if we are unable to alter our process in a commercially viable manner to avoid the use of such materials or equipment or find a suitable substitute, it would have a material adverse effect on our business. Even if we are able to alter our process so as to use other materials or equipment, such a change may lead to a delay in our clinical development and/or commercialization plans. If such a change occurs for a product candidate that is already in clinical development, the change may require us to perform both ex vivo comparability studies and to collect additional data from subjects prior to undertaking more advanced clinical trials. These factors could cause the delay of nonclinical studies or clinical trials, regulatory submissions, required approvals or commercialization of rilparencel or future product candidates that we develop, cause us to incur higher costs and prevent us from commercializing our product candidates successfully. Any microbial contamination in the manufacturing process for our cell-based product, shortages of raw materials or failure of any of our key suppliers to deliver necessary components could result in delays in our clinical development or marketing schedules. Given the nature of cell product manufacturing, there is a risk of microbial contamination. Any microbial contamination could adversely affect our ability to produce, release or administer our cell therapies on schedule and could, therefore, harm our results of operations and cause reputational damage. 52 Some of the raw materials required in our manufacturing processes are derived from biologic sources. Such raw materials are difficult to procure and may be subject to contamination or recall. A material shortage, contamination, recall or restriction on the use of biologically derived substances in the manufacture of rilparencel could adversely impact or disrupt the commercial manufacturing or the production of clinical material, which could adversely affect our development timelines and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Rilparencel requires cryopreservation with specific storage, handling and administration at the clinical sites. Rilparencel requires cryopreservation and must be stored at very low temperatures in specialized liquid nitrogen tanks or specialized shipping containers until immediately prior to use. For administration, the cryopreserved product must be carefully removed from storage, rapidly thawed under controlled temperature conditions in an area proximal to the patient’s bedside and immediately administered to the patient. The handling, thawing and administration of the cryopreserved cell therapy product must be performed according to specific instructions, typically using specific disposables, and some steps must be completed within specific time periods. Failure to correctly handle the product, follow the instructions for thawing and administration and or failure to administer the product within the specified period post-thaw could negatively impact the efficacy and or safety of the product. Changes in methods of product candidate manufacturing or formulation may result in additional costs or delay. As product candidates progress through clinical trials to marketing approval and commercialization, various aspects of the development program, such as manufacturing methods and the product’s formulation, may be altered along the way in an effort to optimize yield, manufacturing batch size, minimize costs and achieve consistent quality and results. These changes carry the risk that they will not achieve their intended objectives. Any of these changes could cause rilparencel or any of our future product candidates to perform differently and affect the results of planned clinical trials or other future clinical trials conducted with the altered materials. This could delay completion of our ongoing or planned clinical trials, require us to perform bridging clinical trials or repeat one or more clinical trials, increase clinical trial costs, delay any potential approval of rilparencel or any of our future product candidates and jeopardize our ability to commercialize rilparencel or any of our future product candidates and generate revenue. In addition, there are risks associated with process development and large-scale manufacturing for clinical trials or commercial distribution including, among others, cost overruns, potential problems with process scale-up, process reproducibility, stability issues, compliance with cGMP, lot consistency and timely availability of raw materials. Even if we obtain marketing approval for any of our product candidates, there is no assurance that we will be able to manufacture the approved product to specifications acceptable to the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities, to produce it in sufficient quantities to meet the requirements for the potential commercial launch of the product or to meet potential future demand. Additionally, the manufacturing processes for biological products is more complex and expensive than with small-molecule products, and additional manufacturing suppliers may be needed to manufacture clinical trial supplies for these development programs. If we are unable to produce sufficient quantities for clinical trials or for commercialization, our development and commercialization efforts would be impaired, which would have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects. Our current operations are concentrated in a number of locations, including a single manufacturing facility in North Carolina. We or the third parties upon whom we depend may be adversely affected by earthquakes, wildfires or other natural disasters, as well as epidemics, pandemics and other incidents, and our business continuity and disaster recovery plans may not adequately protect us from a serious disaster. Any unplanned event, such as flood, fire, explosion, earthquake, extreme weather condition, medical epidemics or pandemics, power shortage, telecommunication failure or other natural or manmade accidents or incidents that result in us being unable to fully utilize our facilities may have a material and adverse effect on our ability to operate our business, particularly on a daily basis, and have significant negative consequences on our financial and operating conditions. Loss of access to these facilities may result in increased costs, delays in the development of rilparencel or any of our future product candidates or interruption of our business operations. Earthquakes, wildfires or other natural disasters could further disrupt our operations, and have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. If a natural disaster, power outage or other event prevented us from using all or a significant portion of our manufacturing facilities, or otherwise disrupted operations, it may be difficult or, in certain cases, impossible, for us to continue our business for a substantial period of time. The disaster recovery and business continuity plans we have in place, including use of contract manufacturers and inherent risks associated therewith with respect to technology transfer and quality issues, may prove inadequate in the event of a serious disaster or similar event. We may incur substantial expenses as a result of the limited nature of our disaster recovery and business continuity plans, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. As part of our risk management policy, we maintain insurance coverage at levels that we believe are appropriate for our business. However, in the event of an accident or incident at these facilities, we cannot assure you that the amounts of insurance will be sufficient to satisfy any damages and losses. If our facilities are unable to operate because of an accident or incident or for any other reason, even for a short period of time, any or all of our research and 53 development programs may be harmed. Any business interruption may have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Risks Related to the Commercialization of Rilparencel and Our Future Product Candidates Even if rilparencel or a future product candidate we develop receives marketing approval, it may fail to achieve the degree of market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors and others in the medical community necessary for commercial success. Even if rilparencel or any other product candidates we develop receives marketing approval, it may nonetheless fail to gain sufficient market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors, such as Medicare and Medicaid programs and managed care organizations, and others in the medical community. In addition, the availability of coverage by third-party payors may be affected by existing and future health care reform measures designed to reduce the cost of health care. If the product candidates we develop do not achieve an adequate level of acceptance, we may not generate significant product revenues and we may not become profitable. The degree of market acceptance of any product candidate, if approved for commercial sale, will depend on a number of factors, including: • the efficacy and potential advantages of our current or future product candidates compared to alternative treatments; • product labeling or product insert requirements of the FDA or other foreign regulatory authorities, including any limitations or warnings contained in a product’s approved labeling, including any black box warning or REMS; • the clinical indications for which our current or future product candidates are approved; • availability of alternative treatments already approved or commercially launched in the future; • the ability to offer our products, if approved, for sale at competitive prices; • convenience and ease of administration compared to alternative treatments; • the willingness of the target patient population to try new therapies and of physicians to prescribe these therapies, including where there may be a perception that our therapies, if approved, involve an increased risk of adverse events; • the recommendations with respect to our product candidates in guidelines published by various scientific organizations applicable to us and our product candidates; • the strength of marketing and distribution support; • any restrictions on the use of our products together with other medications; • our ability to hire and retain a sales force in the United States; • the ability to obtain sufficient third-party coverage and adequate reimbursement for our products, including necessary reimbursement codes; • the prevalence and severity of any side effects; • the ability to obtain Current Procedural Terminology (“CPT”) Codes and Resource-Based Relative Value Scale for appropriate provider reimbursement; • the ability to obtain designated International Classification of Diseases (“ICD-10”) codes from the WHO for disease designation; • willingness of provider proceduralists to perform invasive kidney procedures that may cause increased medical liability from procedural-related or cell based adverse events; and • the ability to provide advanced procedural training for delivery of product candidates. Sales of cell-based products also depend on the willingness of physicians to prescribe the treatment, which is likely to be based on a determination by these physicians that the products are safe, therapeutically effective and cost effective. In addition, the inclusion or exclusion of products from treatment guidelines established by various physician groups and the viewpoints of influential physicians can affect the willingness of other physicians to prescribe the treatment. We cannot predict whether physicians, physicians’ organizations, hospitals, other health care providers, government agencies or private insurers will determine that our products are safe, therapeutically effective and cost effective as compared with competing treatments. If any product candidate is approved but does not achieve an adequate level of acceptance by such parties, we may not generate or derive sufficient revenue from that product candidate and may not become or remain profitable. If government and other third-party payors do not provide coverage and adequate reimbursement levels for any products we commercialize, market acceptance and commercial success would be reduced. Rilparencel is percutaneously injected into the kidney and requires additional proceduralist technical training with possible ongoing maintenance of certification. Facilities where rilparencel is delivered may require additional cell-based licensing by state, federal or laboratory certification agencies and require equipment with appropriate technology and inventories. We currently have no marketing and sales organization and have no experience as a company in commercializing products, and we may have to invest significant resources to develop these capabilities. If we are unable to establish marketing and sales 54 capabilities or enter into agreements with third parties to market and sell any products for which we obtain regulatory approval, we may not be able to generate product revenue. We have no internal sales, marketing or distribution capabilities, nor have we commercialized a product. If rilparencel or any of our future product candidates ultimately receives regulatory approval, we expect to establish a marketing and sales organization with technical expertise and supporting manufacturing and distribution capabilities to commercialize each such product in major markets, which will be expensive and time consuming. We have no prior experience as a company in the marketing, sale and distribution of biopharmaceutical products and there are significant risks involved in building and managing a sales organization. For example, recruiting and training a sales force is expensive and time consuming and could delay any product 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 market our products on our own include: • our inability to recruit, train and retain adequate numbers of effective sales and marketing personnel; • the inability of sales personnel to obtain access to physicians in order to educate physicians about our product candidates, including product administration and product delivery, once approved; • the lack of complementary products to be offered by sales personnel, which may put us at a competitive disadvantage relative to companies with more extensive product lines; and • unforeseen costs and expenses associated with creating an independent sales and marketing organization. Any failure or delay in the development of our internal sales, marketing and distribution capabilities would adversely impact the commercialization of these products. We may also choose to collaborate with third parties that have direct sales forces and established distribution systems, either to augment our own sales force and distribution systems or in lieu of our own sales force and distribution systems. We may not be able to enter into collaborations or hire consultants or external service providers to assist us in sales, marketing and distribution functions on acceptable financial terms, or at all. In addition, our product revenues and our profitability, if any, may be lower if we rely on third parties for these functions than if we were to market, sell and distribute any products that we develop and for which we receive regulatory approval ourselves. 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 products effectively. If we are not successful in commercializing our products, either on our own or through arrangements with one or more third parties, we may not be able to generate any future product revenue and we would incur significant additional losses. The affected populations for rilparencel or any of our future product candidates may be smaller than we or third parties currently project, which may affect the addressable markets for rilparencel or our future product candidates. Our projections of the number of people who have the diseases we are seeking to treat, as well as the subset of people with these diseases who have the potential to benefit from treatment with rilparencel or any of our future product candidates, are estimates based on our knowledge and understanding of these diseases. These estimates may prove to be incorrect, and new studies, medications, or medical practices may further reduce the estimated incidence or prevalence of this disease. The number of patients in the United States, the European Union and elsewhere may turn out to be lower than expected, may not be otherwise amenable to treatment with rilparencel or any of our future product candidates or patients may become increasingly difficult to identify and access, all of which would adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Further, even if we obtain approval for rilparencel or any of our future product candidates, the FDA or other regulators may limit their approved indications to more narrow uses or subpopulations within the populations for which we are targeting development of rilparencel or any of our future product candidates. The total addressable market opportunity for rilparencel or any of our future 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 and product pricing and reimbursement. Incidence and prevalence estimates are frequently based on information and assumptions that are not exact and may not be appropriate, and the methodology is forward-looking and speculative. The process we have used in developing an estimated incidence and prevalence range for the indications we are targeting has involved collating limited data from multiple sources. Accordingly, the incidence and prevalence estimates included in this Annual Report should be viewed with caution. Further, the data and statistical information used in this Annual Report, including estimates derived from them, may differ from information and estimates made by our competitors or from current or future studies conducted by independent sources. 55 Obtaining and maintaining regulatory approval of rilparencel or any of our future product candidates in one jurisdiction does not mean that we will be successful in obtaining regulatory approval of rilparencel or future product candidates in other jurisdictions. Obtaining and maintaining regulatory approval of rilparencel or any of our future product candidates in one jurisdiction does not guarantee that we will be able to obtain or maintain regulatory approval in any other jurisdiction, while a failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one jurisdiction may have a negative effect on the regulatory approval process in others. For example, even if the FDA grants marketing approval of a product candidate, similar foreign regulatory authorities must also approve the manufacturing, marketing and promotion of the product candidate in those countries. Approval and licensure procedures vary among jurisdictions and can involve requirements and administrative review periods different from, and greater than, those in the United States, including additional studies or clinical trials as clinical trials conducted in one jurisdiction may not be accepted by regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions. In many jurisdictions outside the United States, a product candidate must be approved for reimbursement before it can be approved for sale in that jurisdiction. In some cases, the price that we intend to charge for our products is also subject to approval. We may also submit marketing applications in other countries. Regulatory authorities in jurisdictions outside of the United States have requirements for approval of product candidates with which we must comply prior to marketing in those jurisdictions. Obtaining similar foreign regulatory approvals and compliance with similar foreign regulatory requirements could result in significant delays, difficulties and costs for us and could delay or prevent the introduction of our products in certain countries. We do not have any product candidates approved for sale in any jurisdiction, including international markets, and we do not have experience in obtaining regulatory approval in international markets. If we fail to comply with the regulatory requirements in international markets and/or receive applicable marketing approvals, our target market will be reduced and our ability to realize the full market potential of rilparencel or any of our future product candidates will be harmed. Off-label use or misuse of our products may harm our reputation in the marketplace, result in injuries that lead to costly product liability suits, and/or subject us to penalties if we fail to comply with regulatory requirements or experience unanticipated problems with any product. If we have any product candidate approved, our product labeling, advertising, and promotion will be subject to regulatory requirements and continuing regulatory review. In the United States, the FDA and the Federal Trade Commission (the “FTC”) strictly regulate the promotional claims that may be made about pharmaceutical products to ensure that any claims about such products are consistent with regulatory approvals, not misleading or false, and adequately substantiated by clinical data. The promotion of a medicine or biologic product in a manner that is false, misleading, unsubstantiated, or for unapproved (or off-label) uses may result in enforcement letters, inquiries and investigations and civil and criminal sanctions by the FDA, FTC, and other regulatory authorities. In particular, a product may not be promoted for uses that are not approved by the FDA as reflected in the product’s approved labeling. If we receive marketing approval for a product candidate, physicians may nevertheless prescribe it to their patients in a manner that is inconsistent with the approved label. If we are found to have promoted such off-label uses, we may become subject to significant liability. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label uses may be subject to significant sanctions and may result in false claims litigation under federal and state statutes, which can lead to consent decrees, civil monetary penalties, restitution, criminal fines and imprisonment, and exclusion from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other federal and state health care programs. 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 government has also required that companies enter into consent decrees and/or imposed permanent injunctions under which specified promotional conduct is changed or curtailed. Any off-label use of rilparencel or any of our future product candidates could harm our reputation in the marketplace among physicians and patients. There may also be increased risk of injury to patients if physicians attempt to use our products for these uses for which they are not approved, which could lead to product liability suits that might require significant financial and management resources and that could harm our reputation. Additionally, advertising and promotion of any product candidate that obtains approval outside of the United States will be heavily scrutinized by comparable foreign regulatory authorities and stakeholders. Rilparencel and our future product candidates for which we intend to seek approval as biologic products may face competition sooner than anticipated, and our operating results will suffer if we fail to compete effectively. Even if we are successful in achieving regulatory approval to commercialize a product candidate ahead of our competitors, rilparencel or any of our future product candidates may face competition from biosimilar products. In the United States, rilparencel is expected to be regulated by the FDA as a biological product, and we intend to seek approval for rilparencel pursuant to the BLA pathway. The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (the “BPCIA”) created an abbreviated pathway for FDA approval of biosimilar and interchangeable biological products based on a previously licensed reference product. Under the BPCIA, an application for a biosimilar biological product cannot be approved by the FDA until 12 years after the original reference 56 biological product was approved under a BLA. 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. While it is uncertain when such processes intended to implement BPCIA may be fully adopted by the FDA, any such processes could have a material adverse effect on the future commercial prospects for rilparencel. We believe that any of our current or future product candidates approved as a biological product under a BLA should qualify for the 12-year period of exclusivity available to reference biological products. However, there is a risk that this exclusivity could be shortened due to congressional action or otherwise, or that the FDA will not consider our product candidates to be reference biological products pursuant to its interpretation of the exclusivity provisions of the BPCIA for competing products, potentially creating the opportunity for generic follow-on biosimilar competition sooner than anticipated. Moreover, the extent to which a biosimilar product, once approved, will be substituted for any one of our reference products in a way that is similar to traditional generic substitution for non-biological products is not yet clear, and will depend on a number of marketplace and regulatory factors that are still developing, including whether a future competitor seeks an interchangeability designation for a biosimilar of one of our products. Under the BPCIA as well as state pharmacy laws, only interchangeable biosimilar products are considered substitutable for the reference biological product without the intervention of the health care provider who prescribed the original biological product. However, as with all prescribing decisions made in the context of a patient-provider relationship and a patient’s specific medical needs, health care providers are not restricted from prescribing biosimilar products in an off-label manner. In addition, a competitor could decide to forego the abbreviated approval pathway available for biosimilar products and to submit a full BLA for product licensure after completing its own nonclinical studies and clinical trials. In such a situation, any exclusivity to which we may be eligible under the BPCIA would not prevent the competitor from marketing its biological product as soon as it is approved. Furthermore, the CREATES Act was enacted in late 2019 to address concerns articulated by both the FDA and others in the industry that some brand manufacturers had improperly restricted the distribution of their products, including by invoking the existence of a REMS for certain products, to deny follow-on product developers access to samples of brand drug or biologic products. Because follow-on product developers need samples of the reference products to conduct certain comparative testing required by the FDA, some have attributed the inability to timely obtain samples as a cause of delay in the entry of follow-on products. To remedy this concern, the CREATES Act established a private cause of action that permits a follow-on product developer to sue the brand manufacturer to compel it to furnish the necessary samples on “commercially reasonable, market-based terms.” Therefore, a follow-on developer may request that we provide samples of rilparencel, if it receives marketing approval, in order to conduct comparative testing to support a follow-on biosimilar version, and if we refuse any such request, we may be subject to litigation under the CREATES Act. Although lawsuits have been filed under the CREATES Act since its enactment, those lawsuits have settled privately; therefore, to date no federal court has reviewed or opined on the statutory language and there continues to be uncertainty regarding the scope and application of the law. Coverage and reimbursement may be limited or unavailable in certain market segments for rilparencel or our future product candidates, if approved, which could make it difficult for us to sell any product candidates profitably. In the United States and in other countries, patients who are prescribed treatment for their conditions generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the costs associated with their treatment. Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of any products for which we may obtain regulatory approval. In the United States, sales of any products for which we may receive regulatory marketing approval will depend, in part, on the availability of coverage and reimbursement from third-party payors. Third-party payors include government authorities such as Medicare, Medicaid, TRICARE, and the Veterans Administration, managed care providers, private health insurers, and other organizations. Coverage and adequate reimbursement from governmental health care programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and commercial payors is critical to new product acceptance. Even if any of our products obtains regulatory approval, patients are unlikely to use such products unless coverage is provided and reimbursement is adequate to cover a significant portion of the cost. We cannot be sure that coverage and reimbursement will be available for, or accurately estimate the potential revenue from, any of our products, if approved, or assure that coverage and reimbursement will be available for any product that we may develop. Rilparencel, due to the novel cell therapy and new indication for CKD, may require formulation of CPT codes with resource-based relative value unit appropriation and ICD-10 designation. Each are obtained through different processes and may lead to reimbursement delays of unknown lengths of times. Government authorities and other third-party payors decide which treatments they will cover and the amount of reimbursement. Coverage and reimbursement by a third-party payor may depend upon a number of factors, including the third-party payor’s determination that use of a product is: • a covered benefit under its health plan; • safe, effective and medically necessary; • appropriate for the specific patient; • supported by peer-reviewed medical journals; • included in clinical practice guidelines; 57 • cost-effective; and • neither experimental nor investigational. Our ability to commercialize successfully any of our products for which we obtain regulatory approval will depend in part on the extent to which coverage and adequate reimbursement for these products and related treatments will be available from third-party payors, including government health care programs and private health insurers. Moreover, a payor’s decision to provide coverage for a biopharmaceutical product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. If coverage and adequate reimbursement is not available, or is available only to limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize rilparencel or any of our future product candidates. Even if coverage is provided, the approved reimbursement amount may not be high enough to allow us to establish or maintain pricing sufficient to realize a sufficient return on our investment. In the United States, no uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for products exists among third-party payors. Therefore, coverage and reimbursement for our products can differ significantly from payor to payor. As a result, obtaining coverage and reimbursement approval of a product from a government or other third-party payor is a time-consuming and costly process that could require us to provide to each payor supporting scientific, clinical and cost-effectiveness data for the use of our products on a payor-by-payor basis, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be obtained. Even if we obtain coverage for a given product, the resulting reimbursement payment rates might not be adequate for us to achieve or sustain profitability or may require co-payments that patients find unacceptably high. Additionally, third-party payors may not cover, or provide adequate reimbursement for, long-term follow-up evaluations required following the use of product candidates, once approved. It is difficult to predict at this time what third-party payors will decide with respect to the coverage and reimbursement for rilparencel or any of our future product candidates, if approved. Changes to current laws and state and federal health care reform measures that may be adopted in the future may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other health care funding and otherwise affect the prices we may obtain for any product candidates for which we may obtain regulatory approval or the frequency with which any such product candidate is prescribed or used. If product liability lawsuits are brought against us, we may incur substantial financial or other liabilities and may be required to limit commercialization of rilparencel or our future product candidates. We face an inherent risk of product liability as a result of testing rilparencel or any of our future product candidates in clinical trials and will face an even greater risk if we commercialize any products. For example, we may be sued if rilparencel or any of our future product candidates causes or is perceived to cause injury or are found to be otherwise unsuitable during clinical trials, 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. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against product liability claims, we may incur substantial liabilities or be required to limit commercialization of rilparencel or any of our future product candidates. Even a successful defense of these claims would require significant financial and management resources. Regardless of the merits or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in: • inability to bring a product candidate to the market; • decreased demand for our products; • injury to our reputation; • withdrawal of clinical trial subjects and inability to continue clinical trials; • initiation of investigations by regulators; • significant costs to defend the related litigation; • reduced resources of our management to pursue our business strategy; • substantial monetary awards to trial subjects; • product recalls, withdrawals or labeling, marketing or promotional restrictions; • loss of revenue; • exhaustion of any available insurance and our capital resources; • the inability to commercialize any products that we may develop; and • decline in our share price. Our inability to obtain sufficient product liability insurance at an acceptable cost to protect against potential product liability claims could prevent or inhibit the commercialization of products we develop. We will need to obtain additional insurance for clinical trials as rilparencel continues clinical development and as additional product candidates enter the clinic. However, we may be unable to obtain, or may obtain on unfavorable terms, clinical trial insurance in amounts adequate to cover any liabilities from any of our clinical trials. Our insurance policies may also have various exclusions, and we may be subject to a product liability claim for which we have no coverage. We may have to pay any amounts awarded by a court or negotiated in a settlement that exceed our coverage limitations or that are not covered by our insurance, and we may not have, or be able to obtain, sufficient 58 capital to pay such amounts. Even if our agreements with any future corporate collaborators entitle us to indemnification against losses, such indemnification may not be available or adequate should any claim arise. If we or any contract manufacturers and suppliers we engage, now or in the future, fail to comply with environmental, health, and safety laws and regulations, we could become subject to fines or penalties or incur costs that could substantially harm our business. We and any CDMOs and suppliers we engage, now or in the future, are subject to numerous federal, state and local environmental, health, and safety laws, regulations, and permitting requirements, including those governing laboratory procedures; the generation, handling, use, storage, treatment and disposal of hazardous and regulated materials and wastes; the emission and discharge of hazardous materials into the ground, air and water; and employee health and safety. Our operations involve the use of hazardous materials, including chemicals and biological materials. Our operations also produce hazardous waste. 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. Under certain environmental laws, we could be held responsible for costs relating to any contamination at our current or past facilities and at third-party facilities. We also could incur significant costs associated with civil or criminal fines and penalties. Compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations may be expensive, and current or future environmental laws and regulations may impair our research, product development and manufacturing efforts. In addition, we cannot entirely eliminate the risk of accidental injury or contamination from these materials or wastes. 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 carry specific biological or hazardous waste insurance coverage, and our property, casualty, and general liability insurance policies specifically exclude coverage for damages and fines arising from biological or hazardous waste exposure or contamination. Accordingly, in the event of contamination or injury, we could be held liable for damages or be penalized with fines in an amount exceeding our resources, and our clinical trials or regulatory approvals could be suspended, which could substantially harm our business. Risks Related to Our Reliance on Third Parties We rely on third parties to conduct, supervise and monitor a certain portion of our research and nonclinical testing and clinical trials for rilparencel, and if those third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties, comply with regulatory requirements or otherwise perform satisfactorily, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval or commercialize rilparencel, or such approval or commercialization may be delayed, and our business may be substantially harmed. We depend, or may depend in the future, upon third parties to conduct certain aspects of our nonclinical studies and clinical trials, and to monitor and manage data, under agreements with universities, medical institutions, CROs, strategic collaborators and others. We expect to have to negotiate budgets and contracts with such third parties, which may result in delays to our development timelines and increased costs. We expect to continue to rely on third parties, including clinical CROs, medical institutions and clinical investigators, to conduct those clinical trials. If any of our relationships with these third-party CROs or others terminate, we may not be able to enter into arrangements with alternative CROs or other third parties or to do so on commercially reasonable terms, if at all. Switching or adding additional CROs involves additional cost and requires management time and focus. In addition, there is a natural transition period when a new CRO begins work. As a result, delays may occur, which can materially impact our ability to meet our desired development timelines. Though we carefully manage our relationships with our CROs, there can be no assurance that we will not encounter similar challenges or delays in the future or that these delays or challenges will not have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition and prospects. Any third parties conducting aspects of our nonclinical studies or clinical trials will not be our employees and, except for remedies that may be available to us under our agreements with such third parties, we cannot control whether or not they devote sufficient time and resources to our nonclinical studies and clinical trials. These third parties may also have relationships with other commercial entities, including our competitors, for whom they may also be conducting clinical trials or other product development activities, which could affect their performance on our behalf. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or obligations or meet expected deadlines, or if they need to be replaced or if the quality or accuracy of the nonclinical or clinical data they obtain is compromised due to the failure to adhere to our protocols or regulatory requirements or for other reasons, our product development timelines, including clinical development timelines, may be extended, delayed or terminated, and we may not be able to complete development of, obtain regulatory approval of or successfully commercialize rilparencel. As a result, our financial results and the commercial prospects for rilparencel would be harmed, our costs could increase and our ability to generate revenue could be delayed. We will rely especially heavily on third parties over the course of our clinical trials and will have limited control over the clinical investigators and limited visibility into their day-to-day activities, including with respect to their compliance with the approved clinical trial protocol. Nevertheless, we are responsible for ensuring that each of our clinical trials is conducted in 59 accordance with the applicable protocol, legal and regulatory requirements and scientific standards, and our reliance on third parties does not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities. We and these third parties are required to comply with GCP requirements, which are regulations and guidelines enforced by the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities for product candidates in clinical development. Regulatory authorities enforce these GCP requirements through periodic inspections of trial sponsors, clinical investigators and clinical trial sites. If we or any of these third parties fail to comply with applicable GCP requirements, the clinical data generated in our clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require us to suspend or terminate these trials or perform additional nonclinical studies or clinical trials before approving our marketing applications. We cannot be certain that, upon inspection, such regulatory authorities will determine that any of our clinical trials comply with the GCP requirements. In addition, our clinical trials must be conducted with biologic product produced under cGMP, and likely cGTP, regulations and will require a large number of test subjects. Our failure or any failure by our contracted third parties, including CROs, to comply with these regulations or to recruit a sufficient number of subjects may require us to repeat clinical trials, which would delay the regulatory approval process. Moreover, our business may be implicated if any of these third parties violates federal or state fraud and abuse or false claims laws and regulations or health care privacy and security laws. We also are required to register certain ongoing clinical trials and post the results of certain completed clinical trials on a government-sponsored database, ClinicalTrials.gov, within specified timeframes. Failure to do so can result in fines, adverse publicity and civil and criminal sanctions. In addition, principal investigators for our clinical trials may serve as scientific advisors or consultants to us from time to time and receive compensation in connection with such services. Under certain circumstances, we may be required to report some of these relationships to the FDA. The FDA may conclude that a financial relationship between us and a principal investigator has created a conflict of interest or otherwise affected interpretation of the trial. The FDA may therefore question the integrity of the data generated at the applicable clinical trial site and the utility of the clinical trial itself may be jeopardized. This could result in a delay in approval, or rejection, of our marketing applications by the FDA and may ultimately lead to the denial of marketing approval for rilparencel or any of our future product candidates. We also expect to rely on other third parties to store and distribute product supplies for our clinical trials. Any performance failure on the part of our distributors could delay clinical development or marketing approval of rilparencel or any of our future product candidates or commercialization of rilparencel or any of our future product candidates, producing additional losses and depriving us of potential revenue. We rely on third parties for materials, including tissue samples, required for our research and development activities, and if we are unable to reach agreements with these third parties our research and development activities would be delayed. We rely on third parties, primarily hospitals, health clinics and academic institutions, for the provision of tissue samples and other materials required in our research and development activities. Obtaining these materials requires various approvals as well as reaching a commercial agreement on acceptable terms with the hospital or other provider of the materials. While we currently have agreements in place with the institutions from which we receive our tissue samples, we do not have any exclusive arrangements with such sources and there is no guarantee that we will be able to maintain or renew such agreements on commercially reasonable terms, if at all. If we were unable to maintain or renew such agreements we would be forced to seek new arrangements with new hospitals, clinics or health institutions. If so, we may not be able to reach agreements with alternative partners or do so on terms acceptable to us. If we are unable to enter into such agreements, our research and development activities will be delayed and our ability to implement a key part of our development strategy will be compromised. We may in the future seek to enter into collaborations with third parties for the development and commercialization of rilparencel and/or our future product candidates, and our future collaborations will be important to our business. If we are unable to enter into collaborations, or if these collaborations are not successful, our business could be adversely affected. A part of our strategy is to consider partnerships in indications and geographies where we believe partners can add significant commercial and/or development capabilities. Further, we have limited capabilities for product development and do not yet have any capability for commercialization. Accordingly, we have entered into and may in the future enter into collaborations with other companies to provide us with important technologies and funding for our programs and technology. Any future collaborations we enter into may pose a number of risks, including the following: • collaborators have significant discretion in determining the efforts and resources that they will apply; • collaborators may not perform their obligations as expected; • collaborators may not pursue development and commercialization of any product candidates that achieve regulatory approval or may elect not to continue or renew development or commercialization programs or license arrangements based on clinical trial results, changes in the collaborators’ strategic focus or available funding, or external factors, such as a strategic transaction that may divert resources or create competing priorities; 60 • collaborators may delay clinical trials, provide insufficient funding for a clinical trial program, stop a clinical trial or abandon a product candidate, repeat or conduct new clinical trials or require a new formulation of a product candidate for clinical testing; • collaborators could independently develop, or develop with third parties, products that compete directly or indirectly with our products and product candidates if the collaborators believe that the competitive products are more likely to be successfully developed or can be commercialized under terms that are more economically attractive than ours; • product candidates discovered in collaboration with us may be viewed by our collaborators as competitive with their own product candidates or products, which may cause collaborators to cease to devote resources to the commercialization of rilparencel or our future product candidates; • collaborators may fail to comply with applicable regulatory requirements regarding the development, manufacture, distribution or marketing of a product candidate or product; • collaborators with marketing and distribution rights to rilparencel or one or more of our future product candidates that achieve regulatory approval may not commit sufficient resources to the marketing and distribution of such product or products; • collaborators may not provide us with timely and accurate information regarding development progress and activity under any future license agreement, which could adversely impact our ability to report progress to our investors and otherwise plan development of rilparencel or our future product candidates; • disagreements with collaborators, including disagreements over proprietary rights, contract interpretation or the preferred course of development, might cause delays or terminations of the research, development or commercialization of product candidates, might lead to additional responsibilities for us with respect to product candidates, or might result in litigation or arbitration, any of which would be time-consuming and expensive; • collaborators may not properly maintain or defend our intellectual property rights or may use our proprietary information in such a way as to invite litigation that could jeopardize or invalidate our intellectual property or proprietary information or expose us to potential litigation; • collaborators may infringe the intellectual property rights of third parties, which may expose us to litigation and potential liability; • if a collaborator of ours is involved in a business combination, the collaborator might deemphasize or terminate the development or commercialization of any product candidate licensed to it by us; and • collaborations may be terminated by the collaborator, and, if terminated, we could be required to raise additional capital to pursue further development or commercialization of the applicable product candidates. If any future collaborations we enter into do not result in the successful discovery, development and commercialization of product candidates or if one of our collaborators terminates its agreement with us, we may not receive any future research funding or milestone or royalty payments under such collaboration. All of the risks relating to product development, regulatory approval and commercialization described in this Annual Report also apply to the activities of our collaborators. Additionally, if one of our collaborators terminates its agreement with us, we may find it more difficult to attract new collaborators and our perception in the business and financial communities could be adversely affected. We face significant competition in seeking appropriate collaborators for rilparencel and future product candidates, and the negotiation process is time-consuming and complex. In order for us to successfully establish a collaboration for rilparencel or any of our future product candidates, potential collaborators must view these product candidates as economically valuable in markets they determine to be attractive in light of the terms that we are seeking and other available products for licensing by other companies. Collaborations are complex and time-consuming to negotiate and document. In addition, there have been a significant number of recent business combinations among large biopharmaceutical companies that have resulted in a reduced number of potential future collaborators. Our ability to reach a definitive agreement for a collaboration will depend, among other things, upon our assessment of the collaborator’s resources and expertise, the terms and conditions of the proposed collaboration and the proposed collaborator’s evaluation of a number of factors. If we are unable to reach agreements with suitable collaborators on a timely basis, on acceptable terms, or at all, we may have to curtail the development of a product candidate, reduce or delay its development program or one or more of our other development programs, delay its potential commercialization or reduce the scope of any sales or marketing activities, or increase our expenditures and undertake development or commercialization activities at our own expense. If we elect to increase our expenditures to fund development or commercialization activities on our own, we may need to obtain additional expertise and additional capital, which may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all. If we fail to enter into future collaborations or do not have sufficient funds or expertise to undertake the necessary development and commercialization activities, we may not be able to further develop rilparencel or future product candidates, bring them to market and generate revenue from sales of such products or continue to develop our technology, and our business may be materially and adversely affected. Even if we are successful in our efforts to establish new strategic collaborations, the terms that we agree upon may not be favorable to us, and we may not be able to maintain such strategic collaborations if, for example, development or approval of a product candidate is delayed or sales of an approved product are disappointing. Any delay in entering into new strategic collaboration agreements related to rilparencel or our future product candidates could delay their development and 61 commercialization and reduce their competitiveness even if it reaches the market. Finally, the pursuit of any collaboration with third parties will require investment of time and resources of the Company which may prove to be a distraction to management and, consequently, the business in the event that the Company is unable to consummate or enter into new strategic collaboration agreements. Risks Related to Legal and Regulatory Compliance Matters Our relationships with customers, health care providers, physicians, prescribers, purchasers, third-party payors, charitable organizations and patients will be subject to applicable anti-kickback, fraud and abuse and other health care laws and regulations, which could expose us to criminal sanctions, civil penalties, contractual damages, reputational harm and diminished profits and future earnings. Although we do not currently have any products on the market, upon commercialization of rilparencel or any of our future product candidates, if approved, we will be subject to additional health care statutory and regulatory requirements and oversight by federal and state governments in the United States as well as foreign governments in the jurisdictions in which we conduct our business. Health care providers, including physicians, in the United States and elsewhere play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of biopharmaceutical products. Arrangements with third-party payors and customers can expose biopharmaceutical manufacturers to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other health care laws and regulations, including, without limitation, the AKS and the FCA, which may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which such companies sell, market and distribute biopharmaceutical products. In particular, the research of rilparencel or any of our future product candidates, as well as the promotion, sales and marketing of health care items and services, as well as certain business arrangements in the health care industry, are subject to extensive laws designed to prevent fraud, kickbacks, self-dealing and other abusive practices. These laws and regulations may restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, structuring and commission(s), certain customer incentive programs and other business arrangements generally. Activities subject to these laws also involve the improper use of information obtained in the course of patient recruitment for clinical trials. The health care laws that may affect us include: the federal fraud and abuse laws, including the AKS; false claims and civil monetary penalties laws, including the FCA and Civil Monetary Penalties Law; federal data privacy and security laws, including HIPAA, as amended by HITECH; and the federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act requiring reports of payments and/or other transfers of value made to or held by physicians (including doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists, and chiropractors), certain non-physician health practitioners, and teaching hospitals, as well as certain ownership and investment interests held by physicians, during the previous year. In addition, many states have similar laws and regulations that may differ from each other and federal law in significant ways, thus complicating compliance efforts. Moreover, several states require biopharmaceutical companies to comply with the biopharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government and may require manufacturers to report information related to payments and other transfers of value to physicians and other health care providers or marketing expenditures. Additionally, some state and local laws require the registration of biopharmaceutical sales representatives in the jurisdiction. The scope and enforcement of each of these laws is uncertain and subject to rapid change in the current environment of health care reform, especially in light of the lack of applicable precedent and regulations. Ensuring business arrangements comply with applicable health care 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 other aspects of its business. It is possible that governmental and enforcement authorities will conclude that our business practices may not comply with current or future statutes, regulations or case law interpreting applicable fraud and abuse or other health care laws and regulations. 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, including the imposition of significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, imprisonment, reputational harm, possible exclusion from participation in federal and state funded health care programs, contractual damages and the curtailment or restricting 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. Further, if any of the physicians or other health care providers or entities with whom we expect to do business is found not to be in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to significant criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government funded health care programs. Any action for violation of these laws, even if successfully defended, could cause a biopharmaceutical manufacturer to incur significant legal expenses and divert management’s attention from the operation of the business. Therefore, even if we are successful in defending against any such actions that may be brought against us, our business may be impaired. Prohibitions or restrictions on sales or withdrawal of future marketed products could materially affect business in an adverse way. Even if we receive regulatory approval of any product candidates, we will be subject to ongoing regulatory oversight and continued regulatory review, which may result in significant additional expense and we may be subject to penalties if we fail to 62 comply with regulatory requirements or experience unanticipated problems with rilparencel or any of our future product candidates. If rilparencel or any of our future product candidates is approved, activities such as the manufacturing, labeling, packaging, storage, advertising, promotion, sampling, and record keeping for the products will be subject to extensive and ongoing regulatory requirements. These requirements include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, registration, as well as continued compliance with cGMP and cGTP regulations. Biopharmaceutical manufacturers and any CDMOs responsible for any product manufacturing processes are required to comply with extensive FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authority requirements, including ensuring that quality control and manufacturing procedures conform to cGMP and cGTP regulations and any applicable foreign equivalents. As such, we and any CDMOs we may employ in the future will be subject to continual review and inspections to assess compliance with cGMPs and cGTPs and adherence to commitments made in any BLA, other marketing application, and previous responses to inspectional observations. Accordingly, we and others with whom we work must continue to expend time, money, and effort in all areas of regulatory compliance, including manufacturing, production and quality control. The FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority may also impose requirements for costly post-marketing nonclinical studies or clinical trials (often called Phase 4 trials) and post-marketing surveillance to monitor the safety or efficacy of the product. If we or a regulatory authority discover previously unknown problems with a product, such as adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, production problems or issues with the facility where the product is manufactured or processed, such as product contamination or significant noncompliance with applicable cGMP or cGTP regulations, a regulator may impose restrictions on that product, the manufacturing facility or us. If we or our third-party providers fail to comply fully with applicable regulations, then we may be required to initiate a recall or withdrawal of our products. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with rilparencel or any of our future product candidates, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with our manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in the following, among other things: • restrictions on the manufacturing of the product, the approved manufacturers or the manufacturing process; • restrictions on the labeling or marketing of a product; • restrictions on product distribution or use; • requirements to conduct post-marketing studies or clinical trials; • withdrawal of the product from the market; • product recalls; • warning or untitled letters from the FDA or comparable notice of violations from foreign regulatory authorities; • refusal of the FDA or other applicable regulatory authority to approve pending applications or supplements to approved applications; • fines, restitution or disgorgement of profits or revenues; • suspension or withdrawal of marketing approvals; • suspension of any of our ongoing clinical trials; • product seizure or detention or refusal to permit the import or export of products; and • consent decrees, injunctions or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties. In addition, regulatory authorities’ policies (such as those of the FDA) may change, and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of rilparencel or any of our future product candidates. 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 otherwise not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may lose any marketing approval that we may have obtained, which would adversely affect our business, prospects and ability to achieve or sustain profitability. The FDA’s policies may change and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay marketing approval of rilparencel or any of our future product candidates. 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, which would adversely affect our business, prospects and ability to achieve or sustain profitability. Changes in health care policies, laws and regulations, including legislative measures aimed at reducing health care costs, may impact our ability to obtain approval for, or commercialize rilparencel or any of our future product candidates, if approved. All aspects of our business, including research and development, manufacturing, marketing, pricing, sales, litigation, and intellectual property rights, are subject to extensive legislation and regulation. Changes in applicable U.S. federal and state laws and agency regulation, as well as foreign laws and regulations, could have a materially negative impact on our business. In the 63 United States and in some other jurisdictions, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the health care system that could prevent or delay marketing approval of our product candidates or any potential future product candidates of ours, restrict or regulate post-approval activities, or affect our ability to profitably sell any product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. Increased scrutiny by the U.S. 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. Congress also must reauthorize the FDA’s user fee programs every five years and often makes changes to those programs in addition to policy or procedural changes that may be negotiated between the FDA and industry stakeholders as part of this periodic reauthorization process. Congress most recently reauthorized the user fee programs in September 2022 without any substantive policy changes. Negotiations on the next FDA user fee reauthorization package began in mid-2025, and the resulting agreement is expected to be sent to Congress in early 2027 for purposes of initiating the legislative process. Reauthorization of the prescription drug user fee program must be finalized by Congress by the end of September 2027 in order to avoid a disruption in FDA’s review goals for BLAs and other activities supported by user fees assessed against industry. Among policy makers and payors in the United States and elsewhere, there is significant interest in promoting changes in health care systems with the stated goals of containing health care costs, improving quality and/or expanding access. In the United States, the pharmaceutical industry has been a focus of these efforts and has been significantly affected by major legislative initiatives. In March 2010, Congress passed the ACA, which substantially changed the way health care is financed by both the government and private insurers, and significantly impacts the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. We expect that changes or additions to the ACA, the Medicare and Medicaid programs, and changes stemming from other health care reform measures, especially with regard to health care access, financing or other legislation in individual states, could have a material adverse effect on the health care industry in the United States. The DSCSA, which became fully effective and enforceable in November 2024, imposes obligations on manufacturers of pharmaceutical products related to product tracking and tracing. Furthermore, in February 2022, FDA released proposed regulations to amend the national standards for licensing of wholesale drug distributors by the states; establish new minimum standards for state licensing third-party logistics providers; and create a federal system for licensure for use in the absence of a state program, each of which is mandated by the DSCSA. Other legislative and regulatory proposals have been made to expand post-approval requirements and restrict sales and promotional activities for pharmaceutical products. We are unsure whether additional legislative changes will be enacted, or whether the current regulations, guidance or interpretations will be changed, or whether such changes will have any impact on our business. Additionally, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny in the United States of biopharmaceutical pricing practices considering the rising cost of prescription drugs and biologics. Such scrutiny has resulted in several recent congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for products. At the state level, legislatures are increasingly passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical 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 December 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court held unanimously that federal law does not preempt the states’ ability to regulate pharmaceutical benefit managers (“PBMs”) and other members of the health care and pharmaceutical supply chain, an important decision that may lead to further and more aggressive efforts by states in this area. Then, in mid-2022, the FTC launched sweeping investigations into the practices of the PBM industry that appear to be contributing to additional federal and state legislative and regulatory proposals, as well as enforcement action and private litigation, targeting PBM operations, pharmacy networks, or financial arrangements. In February 2026, President Trump signed into law several PBM regulatory reforms as part of a federal budget package, including but not limited to requirements for PBMs to pass back 100% of rebates and fees to commercial health plan sponsors; to provide extensive informational disclosures related to patients’ coverage and benefits; and to accept only bona fide service fees from drug companies when providing services under Medicare Part D. The DOL also issued a proposed rule in January 2026 that would mandate specific PBM fee disclosures to self-insured plan fiduciaries under ERISA, which would allow plan fiduciaries to audit those PBM disclosures to confirm accuracy. In addition, in the last few years, several states have formed PDABs, with the authority to implement UPLs, on drugs sold in their respective jurisdictions. There are several pending federal lawsuits challenging the authority of states to impose UPLs, however. Under the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (the “IRA”) a manufacturer of a drug or biological product covered by Medicare Parts B or D must pay a rebate to the federal government if the product’s price increases faster than the rate of inflation. This calculation is made on a drug product by drug product basis and the amount of the rebate owed to the federal government is directly dependent on the volume of a drug product that is paid for by Medicare Parts B or D. Additionally, CMS will negotiate drug prices annually for a select number of single source Part D drugs without generic or biosimilar competition. CMS will also negotiate drug prices for a select number of Part B drugs starting for payment year 2028. If a drug product is selected by CMS for negotiation, it is expected that the revenue generated from such drug will decrease. 64 Any additional federal or state health care reform measures could limit the amounts that third-party payers will pay for future health care products and services, and, in turn, could significantly reduce the projected value of certain development projects and reduce our profitability. Disruptions and changes at the United States Food and Drug Administration (the “FDA”) and other government agencies from funding cuts, personnel losses and changes, regulatory reform, government shutdowns and other developments could hinder our ability to obtain guidance from the FDA regarding our clinical development program and develop and secure approval of our product candidates in a timely manner, which would 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, its 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 FDA, 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. Future legislative and regulatory proposals may materially impact the ability of the FDA and other regulatory agencies to operate as they have historically operated. We cannot be sure whether additional legislative changes or executive orders will be enacted, or whether any of the FDA’s regulations, guidances or interpretations will be changed, or what the impact of such changes on the agency and its scientific review staff, if any, may be. For example, the FDA has experienced significant and rapid fluctuations in leadership and scientific review personnel, which may be key contributing factors in multiple reported delays in agency decision making on marketing applications and agency requests for additional data that are inconsistent with prior regulatory feedback. Additionally, the next FDA user fee reauthorization package entered stakeholder negotiations in mid-2025, and any agreement will be sent to Congress in early 2027. Reauthorization of the prescription drug user fee program must be finalized by Congress by the end of September 2027 in order to avoid a disruption in FDA’s review goals for NDAs or BLAs, and to other activities supported by user fees assessed against industry. Similarly, actions by the U.S. government have significantly disrupted the operations of U.S. government agencies such as the National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the FDA, which have traditionally provided funding for basic research, research and development, and clinical testing. These U.S. government actions have included, among other things, suspending, terminating and withholding of disbursements of funds owed under ongoing contracts, grants, and other financial assistance agreements; declining to continue multi-year research projects for additional annual budget periods; canceling or delaying solicitations for new contract, grant and other financial assistance awards; canceling or delaying proposal evaluation processes and issuance of such new awards; substantially reducing federal agency staff responsible for managing contract and financial assistance programs; eliminating agency information and resources for facilitating research activity; delaying or terminating federal agency procedures for authorizing international transactions; initiating aggressive enforcement actions that may disrupt the operations of major research universities that are significant contributors to life sciences research in the U.S.; and threatening access to federal agency contracts and other funding awards based on companies’ otherwise lawful corporate policies and choice of counsel. These U.S. government actions could, directly or indirectly, significantly disrupt, delay, prevent, or increase the costs of our research and product commercialization programs, including our ability to develop new product candidates, conduct clinical trials, implement research collaborations with other companies or institutions, and obtain approvals to market and sell new products. In addition, government funding of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“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 slow the time necessary for clinical trial applications and/or marketing applications for new drugs to be reviewed or approved, which would adversely affect our business. For example, political disputes in Congress may result in a shutdown of the U.S. government and, in such cases, certain regulatory agencies, such as the FDA and the SEC, may have to furlough critical staff and stop critical activities during that period. Government shutdowns or slowdowns can increase the time needed for an agency to complete its review or make final approvals or other administrative decisions. If a prolonged government shutdown occurs, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA to timely review and process our regulatory submissions and the ability of the SEC to timely review our public filings, to the extent such review is necessary, and our ability to access the public markets. Accordingly, if any of the foregoing developments and others impact the ability of the FDA to provide us with guidance regarding our clinical development programs or delay the FDA’s review and processing of our regulatory submissions, including INDs and new drug applications or biologics license applications, our business would be negatively impacted. Further, any future government shutdown could impact our ability to access the public markets and obtain necessary capital in order to properly capitalize and continue our operations. We may incur substantial costs in our efforts to comply with evolving global data protection laws and regulations, and any failure or perceived failure by us to comply with such laws and regulations may harm our business and operations. The global data protection landscape is rapidly evolving, and we may be or become subject to or affected by numerous federal, state and foreign laws and regulations, as well as regulatory guidance, governing the collection, use, disclosure, transfer, 65 security and processing of personal data, such as information that we collect about subjects and health care providers in connection with clinical trials. Implementation standards and enforcement practices are likely to remain uncertain for the foreseeable future, which may create uncertainty in our business, affect our or our service providers’ ability to operate in certain jurisdictions or to collect, store, transfer use and share personal data, result in liability or impose additional compliance or other costs on us. Any failure or perceived failure by us to comply with federal, state, or foreign laws or self-regulatory standards could result in negative publicity, diversion of management time and effort and proceedings against us by governmental entities or others. In the United States, numerous federal and state laws and regulations, including federal health information privacy laws ( e.g. , HIPAA, as amended by HITECH, state data breach notification laws, state health information privacy laws and federal and state consumer protection laws (e.g., Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act), that govern the collection, use, disclosure and protection of health-related and, in many cases, other personal information could apply to our operations or the operations of our collaborators. In addition, we may obtain health information from third parties (including research institutions from which we obtain clinical trial data) that are subject to privacy and security requirements under HIPAA, as amended by HITECH, or other privacy and data security laws. Depending on the facts and circumstances, we could be subject to criminal penalties if we knowingly obtain, use, or disclose protected health information maintained by a HIPAA-covered entity in a manner that is not authorized or permitted by HIPAA. However, determining whether protected health information has been handled in compliance with applicable privacy standards and our contractual obligations can be complex and may be subject to changing interpretation. If we are unable to properly protect the privacy and security of protected health information or other personal, sensitive, or confidential information in our possession, we could be found to have breached our contracts. Further, if we fail to comply with applicable privacy laws, including applicable HIPAA privacy and security standards, we could face significant administrative, civil and criminal penalties. Enforcement activity can also result in financial liability and reputational harm, and responses to such enforcement activity can consume significant internal and outside resources. Furthermore, state attorneys general are authorized to bring civil actions seeking either injunctions or damages in response to violations that threaten the privacy of state residents. In addition to the risks associated with enforcement activities and potential contractual liabilities, our ongoing efforts to comply with evolving laws and regulations at the federal and state level may be costly and require ongoing modifications to our policies, procedures and systems. Many state laws govern the privacy and security of personal information and data in specified circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways, are often not pre-empted by HIPAA, and may have a more prohibitive effect than HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts. For example the CCPA, which went into effect in January 2020 and provides new data privacy rights for consumers and new operational requirements for companies, which may increase our compliance costs and potential liability. The CCPA gives California residents expanded rights to access and delete their personal information, opt out of certain personal information sharing, and receive detailed information about how their personal information is used. The CCPA provides for civil penalties for violations, as well as a private right of action for data breaches that is expected to increase data breach litigation. While there is currently an exception for protected health information that is subject to HIPAA and clinical trial regulations, as currently written, the CCPA may impact certain of our business activities. In addition, the California Consumer Rights Act (the “CPRA”) was enacted to strengthen elements of the CCPA and became effective on January 1, 2023. Many other states have implemented or are considering proposals for similar privacy laws, all of which increases the complexity of compliance and the risk of failures to comply. These privacy laws may impact our business activities and exemplify the vulnerability of our business to the evolving regulatory environment related to personal data. Numerous other countries have enacted, or are developing, laws governing the collection, use and transmission of personal data as well. For example, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union adopted the General Data Protection Regulation ("GDPR"), and China enacted the Personal Information Protection Law. Such laws, as well as evolving contractual and other privacy and data protection obligations, increase the complexity and cost of compliance and could result in significant limitations or require changes to our business, or restrict our collection, use, storage or processing of personal data. In addition, data protection and privacy requirements in certain jurisdictions could impact our ability to develop an adequate marketing strategy and pursue our growth strategy effectively, or even prevent us from providing our products in such jurisdictions, even if we receive marketing authorization, or potentially cause us or our collaborators to incur liability in an effort to comply, which, in turn, could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Legal, political and economic uncertainty relating to our international operations could negatively impact or restrict our operations. We must dedicate additional resources to comply with numerous laws and regulations in each jurisdiction in which we plan to operate. The FCPA prohibits any U.S. individual or business entity from paying, offering, authorizing payment or offering of anything of value, directly or indirectly, to any foreign official, political party or candidate for the purpose of influencing any act or decision of the foreign entity in order to assist the individual or business in obtaining or retaining business. Compliance with the FCPA is expensive and difficult, particularly in countries in which corruption is a recognized problem. In addition, the FCPA presents particular challenges in the biopharmaceutical industry, because in many countries, hospitals are 66 operated by the government, and doctors and other hospital employees are considered foreign officials. Certain payments to hospitals and health care providers in connection with clinical trials and other work have been deemed to be improper payments to government officials and have led to FCPA enforcement actions. In February 2025, President Trump issued an executive order directing the U.S. Department of Justice to pause initiation of new FCPA investigations and enforcement during a 180-day review period (subject to extension) and to issue updated guidelines, though the FCPA remains in force and foreign anti-corruption laws continue to apply. However, it is unclear how this presidential directive may affect the biopharmaceutical industry as a whole or our business in particular. Various laws, regulations and executive orders also restrict the use and dissemination outside of the United States, or the sharing with certain non-U.S. nationals, of information products classified for national security purposes, as well as certain products, technology and technical data relating to those products. As we expand our operations throughout the world, we will be required to dedicate additional resources to comply with these laws, and these laws may preclude us from developing, manufacturing, or selling certain products and product candidates outside of the United States, which could limit our growth potential and increase our development costs. The failure to comply with laws governing international business practices may result in substantial civil and criminal penalties and su