SELLAS Life Sciences Group, Inc. 10-K

ITEM 1. BUSINESS Overview We are a late-stage clinical biopharmaceutical company focused on developing novel cancer immunotherapeutics for a broad range of cancer indications. Our product candidates currently include galinpepimut-S and nelipepimut-S. Galinpepimut-S, or GPS Our lead product candidate, galinpepimut-S, or GPS, is a cancer immunotherapeutic agent licensed from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, or MSK, that targets the Wilms tumor 1, or WT1, protein, which is present in 20 or more cancer types. Based on its mechanism of action as a directly immunizing agent, GPS has potential as a monotherapy or in combination with other immunotherapeutic agents to address a broad spectrum of hematologic, or blood, cancers and solid tumor indications. In January 2020, we commenced in the United States a Phase 3 clinical trial, the REGAL study, for GPS monotherapy in patients with acute myeloid leukemia, or AML, in the maintenance setting after achievement of second complete remission, or CRem2, following successful completion of second-line antileukemic therapy. We expect this study will be used as the basis for submission of a Biologics License Application, or BLA, subject to a statistically significant and clinically meaningful data outcome and agreement with the U.S. Food & Drug Administration, or the FDA. In the second half of 2020, we received approval from each of the French and German regulatory authorities to advance the REGAL study in France and Germany, respectively. We expect approvals from additional European health authorities in early 2021 which will allow us to expand AML patient enrollment for the REGAL study in Europe. We plan to enroll approximately 116 patients at up to approximately 135 clinical sites primarily in the United States and Europe with a planned interim safety and futility analysis after 80 events (deaths) which we anticipate will take place in the first half of 2022, provided that the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic does not significantly adversely impact our projected timeline for enrollment. In December 2020, we entered into an exclusive license agreement with 3D Medicines Inc., a China-based biopharmaceutical company developing next-generation immuno-oncology drugs, for the development and commercialization of GPS, as well as the Company’s next generation heptavalent immunotherapeutic GPS+, which is at preclinical stage, across all therapeutic and diagnostic uses in the Greater China territory (mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan). We have retained sole rights to GPS and GPS+ outside of the Greater China area. In December 2018, pursuant to a Clinical Trial Collaboration and Supply Agreement, we initiated a Phase 1/2 multi-arm "basket" type clinical study of GPS in combination with Merck & Co., Inc.’s anti-PD-1 therapy, Keytruda® (pembrolizumab). The tumor type currently being studied is ovarian cancer (second or third line). We reported initial data from this study in December 2020 and we expect to report further clinical and immunobiological data by the end of the first half of 2021. We, together with Merck, have determined not to pursue the following indications as part of the basket study: colorectal cancer, triple negative breast cancer, small cell lung cancer, or SCLC, or AML, and we are exploring other additional potential indications to investigate in the study. In February 2020, a Phase I open-label investigator-sponsored clinical trial of GPS, in combination with Bristol-Myers Squibb’s anti-PD-1 therapy, nivolumab (Opdivo®), in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma, or MPM, who harbor relapsed or refractory disease after having received frontline standard of care multimodality therapy was commenced at MSK. In December 2020, we announced initial data from this study and we expect to report further clinical and immunobiological data by the end of the first half of 2021. GPS was granted Orphan Drug Product Designations from the FDA, as well as Orphan Medicinal Product Designations from the European Medicines Agency, or EMA, for GPS in AML, MPM, and multiple myeloma, or MM, as well as Fast Track Designation for AML, MPM, and MM from the FDA. 4 Table of Contents Nelipepimut-S or NPS Nelipepimut-S, or NPS, is a cancer immunotherapy targeting the human epidermal growth factor receptor 2, or HER2, expressing cancers. Data presented in 2018 from a Phase 2b clinical trial of the combination of trastuzumab (Herceptin®) plus NPS in HER2 low expressing (1+ or 2+ per immunohistochemistry, or IHC) breast cancer patients in the adjuvant setting to prevent recurrences showed a clinically and statistically significant improvement in the disease-free survival, or DFS, rate for the TNBC cohort at 24 months for patients treated with NPS plus trastuzumab of 92.6% compared to 70.2% for those treated with trastuzumab alone. Following discussions with the FDA and based upon written feedback from the FDA and on the totality of clinical, safety and translational NPS data to date, we have finalized the design and plan for a Phase 3 registration-enabling study of NPS in combination with trastuzumab for the treatment of patients with TNBC in the adjuvant setting after standard treatment. If successful, we believe this study may be considered as the basis for a BLA submission to the FDA. We are seeking out-licensing opportunities to fund and conduct the future clinical development of NPS in order to maximize the potential of the program and we do not plan to conduct and fund a Phase 3 program for NPS on our own. FBP-targeting bivalent vaccine (GALE-301/-302) In order to prioritize development of our core assets, we determined to cease development of GALE-301 and GALE-302, cancer immunotherapies that target the E39 peptide derived from the folate binding protein, or FBP, which were licensed in from The Henry M. Jackson Foundation, or HJF, and the MD Anderson Cancer Center, or MDACC. We entered into a Termination Agreement with HJF and MDACC in February 2021. The chart below summarizes the current status of our clinical development pipeline: Recent Developments Subsequent to December 31, 2020, we received $3.0 million of gross proceeds from the exercise of 830,200 warrants to acquire shares of common stock at a weighted average exercise price of $3.61. 5 Table of Contents Merger of SELLAS Life Sciences Group Ltd. and Galena Biopharma, Inc. On December 29, 2017, we completed the business combination with the privately held Bermuda exempted company, Sellas Life Sciences Group Ltd., or Private SELLAS, in accordance with the terms of the Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization, dated as of August 7, 2017 and amended November 5, 2017, or the Merger Agreement, among SELLAS Life Sciences Group, Inc., Sellas Intermediate Holdings I, Inc., Sellas Intermediate Holdings II, Inc., Galena Bermuda Merger Sub, Ltd., and Private SELLAS. We refer to this business combination throughout this annual report on Form 10-K as the Merger. Immediately after the Merger, the former Private SELLAS shareholders owned approximately 67.5% of our fully diluted common stock, and the pre-Merger shareholders owned the remaining approximately 32.5%. As a result of the Merger, our business is now substantially comprised of the business of Private SELLAS, and although we are considered the legal acquiror of Private SELLAS, for accounting purposes, Private SELLAS is considered to have acquired our company in the Merger. Consequently, the Merger is accounted for as a reverse acquisition. Upon completion of the Merger, we changed our name from “Galena Biopharma, Inc.” to “SELLAS Life Sciences Group, Inc.,” our common stock began trading on The Nasdaq Capital Market, or Nasdaq, under a new ticker symbol “SLS” on January 2, 2018 and our financial statements became those of Private SELLAS. As used in this annual report on Form 10-K, the words “we,” “us,” “our,” the “Company,” and “SELLAS” refer to SELLAS Life Sciences Group, Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries following completion of the Merger. 6 Table of Contents The Cancer Immunotherapy Industry Overview Current treatments for cancer include surgery, radiation therapy, chemotherapy, hormone therapy, targeted therapy and immunotherapy. Cancer immunotherapy is an approach to cancer treatment that harnesses the body’s natural immune system response to fight and/or prevent tumor growth while keeping normal cells unaffected or delivering certain immune system components in order to inhibit the spread of cancer. In recent years, cancer immunotherapy drugs have emerged as a new mode of cancer treatment, alongside more established options such as surgery, chemotherapy, targeted therapy and radiation therapy. Either as monotherapy or in combination therapies, immunotherapies may produce long-term remissions or even operational “cures” for cancers that have often been fatal until recently. Cancer immunotherapy is an important and rapidly emerging field, which has led to exciting new clinical research studies and garnered the attention of investors, biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, regulatory agencies, payors and hospital systems, cancer patients and their families and the general public at large. Market According to a January 2020 report by Kelly Scientific Publications, cancer immunotherapy drugs have already captured nearly 50% of the overall oncology drugs market in 2019, generating about $75 billion in that year alone and are forecast to surpass $115 billion in 2023. Additionally, an October 2019 Allied Market Research report on the estimated entire market value of oncology drugs (of any type) suggests that cancer immunotherapies could represent up to 77% of that total value by 2023. According to a report published in September 2018, it was projected that approximately 70% of the 2019 immunotherapy market would be comprised of checkpoint inhibitors (~30% of the market share), immune synapse co-stimulators and bispecific monoclonal antibodies (~40% of the market share), as well as approximately 30% of other immunotherapies, including chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies and other cell-based modalities (e.g., ex vivo modified natural killer or NK cells). It is predicted that the checkpoint inhibitor market share will decrease slightly by 2023, reaching a 27% value (from a 30% value in 2019), as novel therapies, including peptide cancer active immunizers (vaccines) such as our product candidates, GPS and NPS, and cell-based therapies, advance into regulatory approvals and use in the cancer market. The total number of newly diagnosed patients with AML per year in the United States is approximately 21,450 (2019 epidemiological data: American Cancer Society). It is estimated that the number of adult patients of any age with AML in the United States per year who successfully enter into CRem2, the indication of our REGAL study, is approximately 2,000 patients and approximately 4,700 patients outside of the United States in the rest of the world, or ROW, while the number of patients who achieve first complete remission, or CRem1, is estimated to be approximately 16,400 patients in the United States and approximately 38,100 patients ROW. The number of patients potentially eligible for GPS maintenance therapy after achievement of CRem2 status is approximately 1,200 patients in the United States and approximately 2,800 patients ROW. Products/Pipeline Galinpepimut-S (GPS) Overview GPS is a WT1-targeting peptide-based cancer immunotherapeutic being developed as a monotherapy and in combination with other therapeutic agents to treat different types of cancers that result from uninhibited tumor cell growth. GPS targets malignancies and tumors characterized by an overexpression of the WT1 protein. The WT1 protein is one of the most widely expressed cancer proteins in multiple malignancies. A 2009 pilot project regarding the prioritization of cancer antigens (substances that evoke an immune response) conducted by the National Cancer Institute, or NCI, a division of the National Institutes of Health, or NIH, ranked the WT1 protein as a top priority for immunotherapy. 7 Table of Contents WT1 is a protein that resides in the cell’s nucleus and participates in the process of cancer formation and progression. As such, it is classified as an “oncogene.” WT1 plays a key role in the development of the kidneys in fetal life, but then almost disappears from normal organs and tissues. In a wide variety of cancers (20 or more cancer types), WT1 becomes detectable again in at least 50% of tumor pathology specimens in the cells of these cancers. WT1 appears in large amounts ( i.e. , becomes “overexpressed”) in numerous hematological malignancies, including AML, MM and chronic myeloid leukemia, as well as in many solid malignancies such as MPM, gastrointestinal cancers (such as colorectal cancer), glioblastoma multiforme, TNBC, ovarian cancer and SCLC. Mechanism of Action in Immune System GPS is a multi-peptide product that has been modified to enhance the degree and duration of the immune response against the WT1 protein. The modification is based on the fact that two of the four peptides in the peptide mixture comprising GPS are deliberately mutated in a single amino acid residue. These mutated peptides are recognized by the immune system as non-self-entities and are therefore less likely to induce immune tolerance. After administration of these mutated peptides, the patients become immunized against the corresponding native versions of these peptides (which are expressed by the tumor cells), and thus, are able to cross-react against them, which concept is called the heteroclitic principle. We believe that GPS has a mechanism of action that involves direct activation of the patient’s immune system specifically and solely against the WT1 protein. Although the immune system is designed to identify foreign or abnormal proteins expressed on tumor cells, this process is often defective in cancer patients. Typically, patients harboring WT1-positive malignancies have very few or no T cells specifically reactive or responsive to, and therefore activated by, WT1. T cells are involved in both sensing and killing abnormal cells, in addition to coordinating the activation of other cells in an immune response. T cells can be classified into two major subsets, CD4 cells and CD8 cells. CD8 cells are characterized by a CD8 protein on their cell surface that allow them to recognize, bind and kill cells infected by cancer cells. CD4 cells, known as helper T cells, are critical to providing the signals necessary for sustained CD8 cell responses and are also capable of exerting direct anti-tumor activity. GPS is designed to elicit both CD4 and CD8 cell immune responses. We believe that the activation of CD8 cells by GPS could lead to direct cancer cell killing, or cytotoxicity, and the eventual establishment of immunologic memory against a WT1-expressing cancer. This occurs by two mechanisms: (i) conversion of some of the activated CD8 cells to CD8 memory cells, and (ii) activation of CD4 cells and the eventual creation of CD4 terminal effective memory cells. We believe that, with respect to the conversion of activated CD8 cells, the GPS stimulated CD8 cells transform into cytotoxic T-lymphocytes, or CTLs, which are expected to be able to attack and destroy specifically WT1-positive cancer cells. Each CTL typically destroys one WT1-positive cancer cell, but they have been shown to be able to kill up to 10 to 20 WT1-positive cancer cells. Further, with respect to the activation of CD4 cells, we believe that CD4 cells are stimulated to produce WT1-specific, helper T cells, which are able to in turn activate CTLs and B cells. The B-cells “helped” by the helper T cells produce antibodies to specific WT1 epitopes. The anti-cancer effect is considered to be a result of a combination of all of the above actions, as well as possible additional, less clear mechanisms involving other immune cell types ( e.g. , natural killer cells) that are not as widely understood. 8 Table of Contents The following diagram illustrate GPS’ mechanism of action: GPS cannot be administered to patients in a water-soluble form, and so it is given under the skin, or subcutaneously. If administered on its own, GPS would rapidly degrade and would not have the opportunity to activate the immune system. Therefore, GPS is mixed with Montanide™, a commercially available, non-specific immune adjuvant composed of a natural metabolizable oil and a very refined emulsifier, creating a dense emulsion. Montanide is co-administered with GPS by subcutaneous injection to optimally activate cellular and humoral immune responses in vaccinated patients. Additionally, prior to the administration of GPS, patients receive another immune adjuvant, granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor, or GM-CSF, to non-specifically stimulate and activate antigen-presenting cells, or APCs, in the vicinity of the subcutaneous injection of GPS. After subcutaneous injection, the WT1 peptides within GPS disperse locally underneath the injection site and at local lymph nodes and are ingested by APCs. Digested peptide fragments are then presented on the surface of APCs to CD8 and CD4 lymphocytes while simultaneously associated on the cell membrane with major histocompatibility complexes, or MHC, human leukocyte antigen, or HLA, molecules. This process activates the CD4 and CD8 cells and sensitizes them to the key 25 epitopes of WT1, thus initiating the process of short- and long-term T-cell-mediated immunity against WT1. 9 Table of Contents Key Features The following table summarizes the key features of GPS: Key features of an Optimal Cancer Active Immunizer Therapeutic GPS Properties and Clinical Strategy Selecting the right target antigen and epitopes within that antigen Four peptides and 25 epitopes selected optimally with the objective of ensuring: - optimal MHC complex presentation; - specificity across different HLA types; - production of both CD4 and CD8 activated cells; and - the ability to apply the heteroclitic principle, as described above, to overcome tolerance. Optimal T-cell engagement leading to cancer cell destruction Immune response data from the final analysis of the Phase I clinical study of GPS in MM in 12 evaluable patients that were presented at the 44 th Annual Meeting of the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation, or EBMT, in 2018 (Dr. Kohne et al.) showed 75% frequency of either CD8+ or CD4+ responses to an all-pool mixture of WT1-derived antigens after completion of the 12 vaccinations per the study protocol. This evidence of multi-epitope, broad cross-reactivity along the full-length of the WT1 protein is suggestive of epitope spreading, as it emerged across epitopes against which the patients were not specifically immunized. These data corroborate the results of an earlier analysis in mid-2017 and strongly suggest stimulation of T cells towards intracellular antigen fragments from GPS-induced destruction of tumor cells, which effect is a hallmark of an effective vaccine, e.g., that it is targeting the right epitopes chosen by design. Overcoming the barriers of an adverse/immunosuppressive tumor micro-environment, or TME The GPS monotherapy clinical studies are in the setting of complete remission, or CRem, and minimal residual disease, or MRD, whereby no bulky or measurable tumor deposits exist. This is typically seen after successful frontline therapy in select cancer types for which such debulking standard therapies exist ( e.g. , AML or MPM). In these settings, the tumor micro-environment, or TME, is substantially absent. We are also pursuing combination therapy with checkpoint inhibitors in tumor settings whereby measurable disease exists, as contemporaneous checkpoint inhibition would abrogate the immunosuppressive effects of the TME. Overcoming or mitigating immune tolerance Heteroclitic peptides are those in which mutations have been deliberately introduced in the amino acid sequence. The use of heteroclitic peptide in an active immunizer, such as GPS, increases immunogenicity without changes in the antigenicity profile, as well as strengthens MHC binding of the peptide to produce cytotoxic CD8 cells that continue to recognize the corresponding native peptide sequence. This is believed to be a key factor differentiating GPS from essentially all previously developed peptide vaccines, and applies a highly innovative technology platform, peptide heteroclicity, in a clinical late-stage cancer immunotherapeutic candidate product. Addressing the broadest possible candidate patient population GPS has activity across multiple HLA types that could allow treatment of a vast majority of global patient populations harboring WT1-positive malignancies. 10 Table of Contents Potential Key Differentiators GPS’ potential key differentiators as compared to other active immunization or vaccine-type approaches, as well as compared to immunotherapy approaches more generally, are as follows: • heteroclitic peptides may offer increased immune response and less potential for tolerance; • multivalent oligopeptide mixture potentially drives differentiated immunotherapeutic efficacy, targeting 25 key epitopes of WT1; • potentially applicable to 20 or more cancer types worldwide and the vast majority of HLA types; • CRem or MRD status (after initial tumor debulking with preceding standard therapy) is the preferred setting for GPS monotherapy; • not directly competitive with current clinical standard of care therapies, but rather believed to complement them in the maintenance setting; • potential for combination approaches with other cancer immunotherapies, due to tolerable adverse event profile; • anticipated cost-effective manufacturing; allogeneic, “off-the-shelf,” vialed subcutaneously administered drug that is not patient-specific; and • positive Phase 2 clinical data on effectiveness (based on overall survival, or OS, in AML and progression-free survival, or PFS, in MM) with good tolerability and a favorable safety profile. 11 Table of Contents Development Program for GPS GPS has the potential as a monotherapy or in combination with other immunotherapeutic agents to address a broad spectrum of hematologic, or blood, cancers and solid tumor indications. We are currently exploring the potential role for GPS in both monotherapy and combination therapy environments: • GPS monotherapy : Phase 2 clinical trials of GPS as monotherapy for AML, MPM and MM have been completed. In January 2020, we commenced the Phase 3 clinical trial of GPS in AML, also known as the REGAL study. The pivotal Phase 3 REGAL study is a 1:1 randomized, open-label study comparing GPS monotherapy in the maintenance setting to investigators’ choice of best available treatment in AML patients who have achieved hematologic complete remission, with or without thrombocytopenia (CRem2/CRem2p), after second-line antileukemic therapy and who are deemed ineligible for or unable to undergo allogeneic stem-cell transplantation. The study is expected to enroll approximately 116 patients across up to approximately 135 clinical sites primarily in the United States and Europe. The primary endpoint is overall survival, or OS , from the time of study entry. The Phase 2 study in AML CRem2 patients, which is the same indication as the Phase 3 REGAL study, showed a median OS of 21.0 months, at a median follow-up of 30.8 months, in patients receiving GPS compared to 5.4 months in contemporaneously treated patients with best standard therapy. See data set forth in “- AML Clinical Data.” • GPS combination therapy : ◦ Combination basket study: In December 2018, we initiated a Phase 1/2 multi-arm "basket" type clinical trial of GPS in combination with the anti-PD-1 therapy pembrolizumab (Keytruda) in collaboration with a Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, N.J., U.S. subsidiary (known as MSD outside the United States and Canada), or Merck. The purpose of the basket trial is to determine if the administration of GPS in combination with pembrolizumab has the potential to demonstrate clinical activity in the presence of macroscopic disease, where monotherapy with either agent would have a more limited effect. ◦ Mesothelioma : A Phase I open-label investigator-sponsored clinical trial of GPS, in combination with Bristol-Myers Squibb’s anti-PD-1 therapy, nivolumab (Opdivo®), in patients with MPM who harbor relapsed or refractory disease after having received frontline standard of care multimodality therapy was commenced in February 2020 at MSK. The study drug is being provided by us and Bristol-Myers Squibb. The principal investigator for the study is Dr. Marjorie G. Zauderer, MD, Co-Director, Mesothelioma Program and Associate Attending Physician in the Thoracic Oncology Service, Department of Medicine at MSK. The purpose of the trial is to determine if the administration of GPS in combination with nivolumab has the potential to demonstrate antitumor immune responses and meaningful clinical activity in the presence of macroscopic disease in MPM patients. The study will also investigate the tolerability of the combination, evaluate the immunogenicity of the two agents administered together, by CD4+ and CD8+ T-lymphocytes (both peripherally and at the tumor site), and gauge the degree of clinical benefit by assessment of the overall response rate with the combination in comparison with that reported with nivolumab alone in historical comparable patient populations. In a randomized, controlled, blinded Phase 2 clinical trial in MPM patients completed in 2017, GPS monotherapy given as maintenance after first line tumor-debulking multimodality treatment demonstrated meaningful clinical activity with median survival of 22.8 months vs. 18.3 months in the control group (N=41) and with associated sustained immune responses (both CD4+ and CD8+) against the WT1 antigen while adverse events were mainly comprised of low grade reactions at the site of the injection. 12 Table of Contents Targeted Indications GPS Monotherapy for Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) Current AML Treatment Therapies AML is an aggressive and highly lethal blood cancer characterized by the rapid growth of abnormal white blood cells that build up in the bone marrow and interfere with the production of normal blood cells. Its symptoms include fatigue, shortness of breath, bruising and bleeding, and increased risk of infection. The cause of AML is unknown, and the disease is typically fatal within weeks or months if untreated. AML most commonly affects adults, and its incidence increases with age. Until recently, the overall treatment landscape for AML had remained static for decades, as numerous targeted and antiproliferative agents were unsuccessful in providing meaningful long-term clinical benefits, including increments in survival. In recent years, additional drugs have been approved and current standard treatments include chemotherapy (including the fixed-combination of chemotherapy Vyxeos), hypomethylating agents, or HMAs, drugs that target mutations of the isocitrate dehydrogenase, type-1 and -2 proteins and the FMS-like tyrosine-protein kinase, FLT3, proteins in patients whose disease harbors these genetic aberrations, the B-cell lymphoma 2 inhibitor venetoclax (typically in combination with chemotherapy or HMAs), the CD33-targeting antibody-drug conjugate gemtuxumab osogamicin, and the sonic hedgehog signaling inhibitor glasdegib. Select patients could also undergo an allogeneic hematopoietic, or blood-forming, stem cell transplant, or allo-HSCT. The effect of newer agents on overall survival has not yet been confirmed in large controlled clinical trials. One of the fundamental goals of therapy for AML, both in the upfront and salvage settings, is for the patient to achieve a state of complete remission, or CRem. CRem is defined per consensus criteria by the European Leukemia Net, whereby the hematologic and clinical features of the disease are no longer detected. In the first line setting, once AML patients achieve a status of first CRem (CRem1) they have two options for a meaningful long-term benefit: allo-HSCT and maintenance therapy with the oral form of the HMA azacytidine, which was recently approved for use by the FDA. In the second line setting, i.e., in AML patients who have relapsed and are receiving salvage antileukemic therapy, we are not aware of any therapies, other than allo-HSCT , that have shown through rigorous blinded, randomized, controlled clinical trials to offer a meaningful long-term benefit (either relapse-free or overall survival) when used as maintenance after patients achieve a status of CRem2. Once the disease relapses after second-line therapy, patients have limited options which currently include off-label administration of HMAs, venetoclax in combination with either HMAs or low-dose cytarabine or investigational agents in the context of a Phase 1/2 clinical trial. No third-line therapies have shown demonstrable clinical impact to date in AML patients after their second relapse and eventually AML patients in second relapse generally succumb to AML or complications associated with it. We believe that there is a significant unmet medical need for a clinically safe and effective therapy as maintenance after AML patients achieve CRem2 status following successful second-line (salvage) therapies, as a large significant proportion of these patients are ineligible for or unable to undergo allo-HSCT. 13 Table of Contents The AML indication was chosen for first-in-human clinical studies of GPS for the following reasons: • AML presents a clinical setting in which CRem status (specifically CRem2) can be achieved with standard antileukemic therapy; • the high degree of unmet medical need in recurrent/relapsed AML and the absence of an effective maintenance therapy over the decades after salvage re-induction until and immediately after achievement of CRem2 status, especially considering that most patients in this clinical scenario are older than 60 years of age; • the almost universal expression of WT1 in leukemic blasts, which are AML’s replicating malignant cells, as well as leukemic stem cells, or LSCs, cells that are or become extremely resistant to standard chemotherapy or targeted agent approaches and which can be realistically eradicated only with immunotherapy methods (including allo-HSCT). LSCs have been shown to be susceptible to targeting by cytotoxic T cells (CD8 and CD4 cells) stimulated against leukemia-associated antigens and we predicted this would be the case for GPS; • the fact that WT1 has been associated with the actual development of leukemia; • the positive correlation between the level of expression of WT1 and the prognosis in AML; • the fact that the level of expression of WT1 can be followed over time in patients during and after therapy, including immunotherapy, as a method of monitoring for MRD; • early evidence from mouse models that vaccination with peptides against select WT1 antigenic epitopes leads to detection of immune response; • early evidence that human immunocytes sensitized ex-vivo to peptides contained in GPS were able to recognize naturally presented WT1 peptides on the surface of several leukemia cell lines; • early anecdotal (at the time) clinical data showing antileukemic activity of WT1 monovalent vaccines in the CRem1 maintenance setting in Japanese population (albeit restricted to HLA-A*2401 type), as well as a dendritic cell vaccine in the Netherlands (independent of HLA haplotype) in the same setting; • a predictive assumption of very low to negligible degree of clinical toxicity with a WT1-targeted immunotherapy such as GPS, due to the fact that WT1 in normal, non-cancerous, tissues is both expressed at extremely low levels and limited in number of organs and tissues, but also due to the fact that WT1 fragments, or peptide epitopes, in normal cells are presented to host APCs in a different manner than are WT1 fragments produced in cancer cells; of note, WT1 expression in normal tissues of adults is limited to the podocyte layer of the glomerulus (kidney), Sertoli cells (testis), granulosa cells (ovary), decidual cells (uterus), mesothelial cells (peritoneum, pleura), mammary duct and lobule (breast), and blood-forming (hematopoietic) progenitor cells (CD34+ cells in the bone marrow); and • the advent of modern immunotherapeutics in cancer and the promise of an innovative, off-the-shelf potentially effective, low adverse event burden immunotherapy to prevent or delay relapse in patients once they achieve CRem status in AML, a disease that has historically been associated with dearth of deep and sustained responses to checkpoint inhibitors. GPS has been granted Fast Track and Orphan Drug designations by the FDA for the treatment of AML. AML Clinical Data In an initial pilot clinical trial in AML, a total of nine adult patients of all ages with de novo AML were treated with upfront standard chemotherapy and were able to achieve their first complete remission, or CRem1. Administration of GPS resulted in a median OS that was at least 35 months from the time of GPS administration. In this study, specifically for patients who were 60 years and older (n=5), median OS was at least 33 months from the time of GPS administration or approximately 43 months from the time of initial AML diagnosis. The mean time of follow-up was 30 months from the time of diagnosis at the time of this analysis for all patients. Of the eight patients tested for immunologic response, seven, or 87.5%, demonstrated a WT1-specific immune response. 14 Table of Contents In a subsequent Phase 2 clinical trial in AML, a total of 22 adult patients of all ages with de novo AML were treated with upfront standard chemotherapy and were able to achieve CRem1. Most patients also received one to four cycles of “consolidation” chemotherapy per standard AML treatment guidelines. GPS was then administered within three months from the completion of the consolidation chemotherapy regimen in up to 12 total doses: six initial doses (priming immunization) followed by six additional “booster” immunizations over a total period of up to 15 months to qualifying patients ( i.e. , patients who were clinically stable and did not show disease recurrence after the first six injections). This Phase 2 clinical trial met its primary endpoint of an actual OS rate of at least 34%, measured three years into the clinical trial ( i.e. , percentage of patients alive after three years of follow-up). An actual OS rate of 47.4% was demonstrated at three years post-GPS treatment, exceeding historical published data of OS of 20% to 25% by 2.4- to 1.9-fold (or 240% to 190%), respectively. GPS administration was also shown to improve OS in comparison to historical data in patients in CRem1. Administration of GPS resulted in a median OS that was poised to exceed 67.6 months from the time of initial AML diagnosis in patients of all ages, which represents a substantial improvement compared to best standard therapy. Only five of the 22 patients underwent allo-HSCT and an ad hoc statistical analysis failed to show a significant effect of the transplant upon OS (either in median survival times or survival rates at specific landmark time-points). In this study, the patients’ median age was 64 years old. The most frequent toxicities were mild to moderate local skin reactions and inflammation, as well as fatigue, which were self-limited and responded to local supportive measures and analgesics. None of the patients developed significant serious or high grade systemic adverse reactions (including anaphylaxis) attributable to GPS. GPS elicited WT1-specific immune responses in 88% of patients, including CD4 and CD8 T-cell responses. Further, the heteroclitic principle was confirmed, in that immune responses were seen against the native version of the two mutated WT1 peptides within the GPS mixture. The results showed a trend in improved clinical outcomes in patients who mounted an immune response with GPS compared to those patients who did not. Importantly, a preplanned subgroup analysis for the cohort of 13 patients within the clinical trial who were 60 years of age or older demonstrated a median OS of 35.3 months from time of initial diagnosis. Comparable historical populations have a median OS ranging from 9.5 to 15.8 months from initial diagnosis, which represents a 2.25 to 3.75-fold improvement in OS associated with GPS therapy in the CRem1 maintenance setting as contrasted to these historical cohorts of broadly comparable patients. An additional Phase 2 clinical trial of GPS was performed at the H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute, or Moffitt. This Phase 2 trial included 10 AML patients who had received first-line therapy for their disease, who then experienced relapse and were subsequently treated with second-line chemotherapy and achieved a CRem2. This group of patients had a more advanced disease in comparison to those treated in the Phase 2 clinical trial in CRem1 patients discussed above, and typically demonstrated a historical OS of less than ~8 months, even with post-CRem2 allo-HSCT. In the Moffitt trial, the efficacy of GPS (measured as median OS, from the time of achievement of CRem2 until death from any cause) was compared with that of “watchful waiting” in a cohort of 15 contemporaneously treated (but not matched by randomization) broadly comparable patients treated by the same clinical team at Moffitt. Initial data, at a median follow-up of 19.3 months, showed that GPS administration resulted in a median OS of 16.3 months (495 days) compared to 5.4 months (165 days) from the time of achievement of CRem2. This was a statistically significant difference (p=0.0175). Two of 14 AML patients demonstrated relapse-free survival of more than one year. Both of these patients were in CRem2 at time of GPS administration, with duration of their second remission exceeding duration of their CRem1, strongly suggesting a potential benefit based on immune response mechanisms. Final data, at a median follow-up of 30.8 months, showed a median OS of 21.0 months in patients receiving GPS therapy compared to 5.4 months in the AML CRem2 patients treated with best standard care. This is a statistically significant difference (p-value < 0.02). GPS was well-tolerated in this clinical trial. 15 Table of Contents AML Phase 3 Clinical Trial In January 2020, we commenced a Phase 3 pivotal registration-enabling study for GPS in AML patients in second complete remission, including those in complete remission with incomplete platelet recovery. This study, which we refer to as the REGAL study, is a 1:1 randomized, open-label study comparing GPS in the maintenance setting to investigators’ choice of best available treatment, or BAT, in adult AML patients (age >18 years) who have achieved their second hematologic (morphological) complete remission, with or without thrombocytopenia (CRem2/CRem2p; with “p” designating platelets), after second-line antileukemic therapy and who are deemed ineligible for or unable to undergo allo-HSCT. The primary endpoint is OS and secondary endpoints include leukemia-free survival rates of achievement of MRD negativity, and antigen-specific T-cell immune response dynamics over time. We expect this study will be used as the basis for a BLA submission, subject to a statistically significant and clinically meaningful data outcome and agreement with the FDA. In the second half of 2020, we received approval from each of the French and German regulatory authorities to advance the REGAL study in France and Germany, respectively. We expect approvals from additional European health authorities in early 2021 which will allow us to expand AML patient enrollment for the REGAL study in Europe. The REGAL study is expected to enroll approximately 116 patients at up to approximately 135 clinical sites primarily in the United States and Europe. We believe that the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the timeline for the REGAL study. Since we commenced the study in 2020, we have been initiating sites in United States and the European Union. However, since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, we have observed that, at certain times and in certain instances, clinical site initiations and patient enrollment have been delayed, likely due to prioritization of hospital resources towards the pandemic. Clinicians and patients may not have been able to comply with clinical trial protocols if quarantines impeded patient movement or interrupted operations at sites. Certain newly initiated sites have taken longer than expected to be fully operational. Additionally, several European Union countries in which we plan to initiate clinical sites, including Germany, France, and Italy, continue to impose restrictions in response to the continued surge in coronavirus cases throughout the European Union. We believe that these factors have had and could continue to have an impact on the projected timeline for enrollment of patients in the REGAL study. We have taken several steps to mitigate these actual and potential delays, including increasing the number of clinical sites from 50 to up to approximately 135, increasing the number of European Union and other countries in which sites were or will be initiated, allocating additional resources, including additional CROs and internal personnel, to the REGAL study. The study will have a single planned interim safety and futility analysis after 80 events (deaths). Based upon our current assumptions, including with respect to continuing impact of COVID-19, we believe that this analysis will occur in the first half of 2022, provided that our assumptions regarding COVID-19, including the duration thereof and the availability and uptake of vaccines, especially in Europe, remain unchanged. 16 Table of Contents The key features and schema of this study are shown in the following graphic: 17 Table of Contents GPS Monotherapy in Other Indications MPM MPM is an asbestos-related cancer that forms on the protective tissues that cover many of the internal organs. The most common area affected is the lining of the lungs and abdomen, though it can also form around the lining of the heart. Most cases are traced to job-related exposures to asbestos and it can take approximately 40 years between exposure and cancer formation. Symptoms may include shortness of breath, a swollen abdomen, chest wall pain, cough, feeling tired, and weight loss. MPM is generally resistant to radiation and chemotherapy, and long-term survival is rare, even in cases where aggressive upfront debulking multimodality therapy ( i.e. , extirpative surgery, chemotherapy and in some cases radiotherapy, often described as “trimodality therapy” when used to treat MPM) are used. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 2 clinical trial in MPM patients enrolled a total of 41 patients at MSK and MDACC. Data from this Phase 2 clinical trial was presented in 2016. Based on an initial analysis of 40 patients who were eligible at the time with a median follow-up of 16.3 months, a median OS of 24.8 months was seen for GPS-treated MPM patients, compared to a median OS of 16.6 months for patients in the control arm. For patients with a basic reproductive ratio tumor resection and subsequent treatment with GPS, a significant survival benefit was observed compared to those who received a placebo, with a median OS of 39.3 months compared to 24.8 months (HR: 0.415) in favor of GPS. In a subsequent analysis for the entire cohort (n=41) in August 2016, with a median follow-up of 17.2 months, a median OS of 22.8 months was observed for GPS-treated MPM patients, compared to a median OS of 18.3 months for patients in the control arm. In the datasets from both of these analyses, GPS was shown to induce WT1-specific CD8 and CD4 T-cell activation. There were no clinically significant severe adverse events in this study. Multiple Myeloma (MM) MM is a cancer formed by malignant plasma cells, and its cause is unknown. The overgrowth of plasma cells in the bone marrow crowds out normal blood-forming cells, causing low blood counts and anemia (a shortage of red blood cells). MM can also cause a shortage of platelets (cells responsible for normal blood clotting) and lead to increased bleeding and bruising, along with problems fighting infections due to low white cell counts and/or lower levels of infection-fighting antibodies. MM causes a host of organ problems and symptoms, including fatigue, bone pain, fractures, circulatory problems (in small vessels of the brain, eye retina, heart, bowel, etc.) and kidney failure. Treatment for MM includes chemotherapy, glucocorticoids, drugs that modulate the immune system (immunomodulatory drugs, or IMiDs), proteasome inhibitors, histone deaceylase inhibitors, targeted monoclonal antibodies, radiation and autologous stem cell transplants, or ASCTs. The prognosis in MM is highly variable and depends on numerous risk factors, some related to the biology of the disease, others to the host ( e.g. , age and functional status). Consequently, median survival can vary from up to at least 15 years in non-high-risk patients who achieve CRems, as defined by the International Myeloma Working Group, or IMWG, criteria, to approximately three years (from time of initial treatment) in patients with MM who achieve less than partial response, or PR, after ASCT. There are patients with MM who fare even more poorly than described above. For example, those in the immediately aforementioned group who also have high-risk cytogenetics at baseline may survive on average less than three years. Similarly, patients who are ineligible for ASCT and are managed only with chemotherapy and long-term IMiD maintenance (with up to nine cycles of lenalidomide) who also achieve less than CRems and remain MRD-positive demonstrate a three-year OS rate of only about 55%; these landmark three-year OS rates decrease by approximately 40 to 50% in patients who also have high-risk cytogenetics at baseline. Despite significant therapeutic advances in the management of MM, the prognosis of patients with high-risk cytogenetics at the time of diagnosis remains quite poor, even when they successfully complete an ASCT, particularly if such patients continue to have evidence of MRD. 18 Table of Contents We have reported comprehensive final data from a Phase 2 study for GPS in 19 patients with MM. All non-progression events were confirmed and remained ongoing as of the time of the latest presentation (median follow-up at 20 months for survivors). The data indicate promising clinical activity among MM patients with high-risk cytogenetics at initial diagnosis who also remain MRD(+) after successful frontline therapy (induction regimen followed by ASCT). This subgroup of MM patients, when serially assessed per IMWG criteria, typically relapse/progress within 12 to 14 months after ASCT, even when they receive maintenance therapy with IMiDs such as thalidomide or proteasome inhibitors such as bortezomib. Of note, 18 of the 19 patients received lenalidomide maintenance starting after the first three GPS administrations following ASCT; the remaining single patient received bortezomib under the same schedule. All patients had evidence of at least MRD after ASCT, while 15 of the 19 also had high-risk cytogenetics at diagnosis. Combined, these characteristics typically result in low PFS rates that do not exceed 12 to 14 months following ASCT, even while on maintenance therapy with IMiDs or proteasome inhibitors, which are the current standards of care. At June 2017, median PFS with GPS was 23.6 months, while median OS had not been reached. Our results compare favorably with an unmatched cohort of broadly comparable MM patients with high-risk cytogenetics published by the Spanish PETHEMA group from the PETHEMA Network No. 2005-001110-41 trial. Our GPS therapy demonstrated a 1.87-fold increase in median PFS, as well as a 1.34-fold increase in the PFS rate at 18 months compared to the aforementioned historical cohort, which included MM patients with high-risk cytogenetics and MRD(+) post-ASCT and on continuous intensive maintenance with thalidomide +/- bortezomib. The safety profile was devoid of grade 3/4/5 treatment-related adverse events. Immune response data showed that up to 91% of patients had successfully developed T-cell (CD8 or CD4) reactivity to any of the four peptides within the GPS mixture, while up to 64% of patients demonstrated immune response positivity (CD4/CD8) against more than one WT1 peptide (multivalent responses). Moreover, multifunctional cross-epitope T-cell reactivity was observed in 75% of patients to antigenic epitopes against which hosts were not specifically immunized, in a pattern akin to epitope spreading. Further, a distinctive link was shown between the evolution of immune responses and changes in clinical response status (achievement of CR/very good partial response clinical status per IMWG criteria) over time following treatment with GPS, with each patient being used as his or her own control for each longitudinal comparison. This association has not been previously described for a peptide vaccine in MM. We believe that these results offer mechanistic underpinnings for immune activation against WT1 in patients with aggressive, high-risk MM, and support the potential antimyeloma activity of GPS. GPS Combination Therapy with PD1 blocker (nivolumab) for Ovarian Cancer Epithelial cancer of the ovary, or ovarian cancer, is a relatively common gynecologic cancer that develops insidiously, and hence is associated with vague or no symptoms that would urge patients to seek medical attention. Not surprisingly, most women with ovarian cancer present with advanced (at least locally or regionally, and often systemically spread) disease. Ovarian cancer is managed with initial surgical resection followed by platinum-based chemotherapy. During the past decade, incremental advances in chemotherapy, and the introduction of targeted therapies (such as poly-ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitors and several others) and specially formulated compounds (such as liposomal anthracyclines) have resulted in improved survival and in more effective treatment of relapsed disease. In addition, a better understanding of genetic risk factors, along with aggressive screening, has permitted a tailored approach to preventive strategies, such as bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy in selected women along in specific patient populations genetically predisposed to this cancer (such as those harboring genetic alterations of the BRCA gene family). Although a complete clinical remission following initial chemotherapy can be anticipated for many patients, a review of “second-look” laparotomy, when it was often performed as a matter of routine care, indicates that less than 50% of patients are actually free of disease. Furthermore, nearly half of patients with a negative “second-look” procedure relapse and require additional treatment. Many patients will achieve a CRem2 clinical response with additional chemotherapy. However, almost all patients will relapse after a short remission interval of nine to 11 months. Effective strategies, such as introduction of novel immunotherapies, to prolong remission or to prevent relapse are required, as subsequent remissions are of progressively shorter duration until chemotherapy resistance broadly develops, leading to eventual disease-related demise. 19 Table of Contents Ovarian cancer represents an intriguing opportunity to study both the clinical and immunologic effects of GPS in another solid tumor. Additionally, therapeutic targeting of WT1 through immune pathways has largely not been pursued by others to date for this indication and ovarian cancer remains “incurable” once it advances and becomes disseminated, even in the face of significant advances in the field. Ovarian cancer was chosen as a target indication for the following reasons: • ovarian cancer presents a clinical setting whereby MRD status can be achieved with standard upfront therapy both immediately after first line therapy, but also after effective debulking of the “first relapse.” The latter subgroup of patients (after successful second line treatment/first salvage, lacking demonstrable macroscopic residual disease) would be optimal candidates for GPS therapy, as no standard maintenance therapy exists for such patients and the subsequent relapse patterns and metrics are known and predictable; • the high levels of expression of WT1 in ovarian cancer cells. In fact, WT1 expression is so frequent that pathologists routinely use immunohistochemical stains for WT1 (with a standardized convention for describing expression and determining as “positive” or “negative”) to help distinguish epithelial ovarian cancers from other tumors; • preliminary evidence that WT1 expression may be linked to prognosis in ovarian cancer and that it may play an anti-apoptotic role in ovarian cancer cell lines; • the high degree of unmet medical need in ovarian cancer patients after first (or subsequent) successful “salvage” debulking therapy and the absence of effective therapies for such patients; and • a predictive assumption of very low to negligible degree of clinical toxicity with a WT1-targeted immunotherapy such as GPS due to the fact that WT1 in normal, non-cancerous tissues is both expressed at extremely low levels and limited in number of organs and tissues, but also due to the fact that WT1 fragments, or peptide epitopes, in normal cells are presented to host APCs in a different manner than are WT1 fragments produced in cancer cells. GPS was studied in combination with nivolumab, a PD-1 immune checkpoint inhibitor, in an open-label, non-randomized Phase 1/pilot clinical trial, which was independently sponsored by MSK. The aim of the study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of this combination in patients with WT1-expressing (WT1+) recurrent ovarian, fallopian tube or primary peritoneal cancer who were in second or greater clinical remission (after their successful first or subsequent “salvage” therapy). Eligible patients were devoid of macroscopic residual or recurrent disease, i.e., were free of locally or distantly metastatic deposits detectable by imaging modalities (CT, MRI and/or PET scan). This Phase 1/pilot clinical trial enrolled 11 patients with recurrent ovarian cancer who were in second or greater clinical remission at MSK, of whom 10 were evaluable. Patients enrolled in the clinical trial received the combination therapy during the clinical trial’s 14-week treatment period. Individuals who had not progressed by the end of this period also received a maintenance course of GPS. In this study, treatment was continued until disease progression or toxicity. Information on the primary endpoint of this clinical trial, which was the safety of repeated GPS administrations, for a total of six doses, in combination with seven infusions of nivolumab was presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology, or ASCO, 2018 annual meeting (O’Cearbhaill RE, et al). The secondary endpoint of the study was immune response, and the exploratory endpoints included landmark one-year PFS rate compared to historical controls and correlative analyses between clinical and immune responses. Exploratory efficacy interim data from this pilot trial showed that GPS, when combined with a PD-1 inhibitor, in this case nivolumab, demonstrated PFS of 64% at one year in an intent to treat the group of 11 evaluable patients with WT1+ ovarian cancer in second or greater remission. Among patients who received at least three doses of GPS in combination with nivolumab, PFS at one year was 70% (7/10). The historical rates with best standard treatment do not exceed 50% in this disease setting. The most common adverse events were Grade 1 or 2, including fatigue and injection site reactions. Dose limiting toxicity was observed in one patient, following the second dose of the combination. No additional adverse event burden was observed for the combination as compared to nivolumab monotherapy. The combination induced a high frequency of T- and B-cell immune responses. 20 Table of Contents Follow-up data now show that three of the 11 patients enrolled in the study have continued to show no signs of disease progression. The mean PFS for these three patients is 35.4 months from the initiation of salvage chemotherapy , or mean PFS of 30.1 months from the first administration of GPS plus nivolumab. Based on this follow-up information, the estimated two-year PFS rate for this study is now 27.3% for the intent-to-treat, or ITT, patients (n=11) and approximately 30% for patients who received greater than two doses of GPS and nivolumab (n=10), as compared to a historical 3% to 10% PFS rate for patients receiving only salvage chemotherapy. No new serious adverse events were noted during the longer follow-up period. GPS Combination Therapy with PD1 blocker (pembrolizumab) Given the potential immunobiologic and pharmacodynamic synergy between GPS and an immune check-point inhibitor (e.g., PD1 blocker), we entered into a Clinical Trial Collaboration and Supply Agreement with Merck (known as MSD outside the United States and Canada), to assess the efficacy and safety of GPS in combination with Merck’s anti-PD-1 therapy pembrolizumab with exploratory long-term follow-up for OS and safety and have commenced a Phase 1/2 open-label, non-comparative, multicenter, multi-arm study of patients with WT1-positive advanced cancers, including both hematologic malignancies and solid tumors. The purpose of this “basket” trial is to determine whether the administration of GPS in combination with pembrolizumab has the potential to demonstrate clinical activity in the presence of macroscopic disease, where monotherapy with either agent would have a more limited effect. The negative influence of TME factors on the immune response is predicted to be mitigated by PD1 inhibition (by pembrolizumab), thus allowing the patients’ own immune cells to invade and destroy cancerous growth deposits specifically sensitized against WT1 (by concomitantly-administered GPS). The primary endpoints of the study are safety, overall response rate (as measured for solid tumors by “response evaluation criteria in solid tumors”, or RECIST) and achievement of morphologic CRem for hematologic cancers. This clinical study was initiated in December 2018. The tumor type currently being investigated is ovarian cancer (second or third line). In December 2020, we announced that the first set of evaluable patients (n = 8) in the study, diagnosed with 2nd or 3rd line WT1(+) relapsed or refractory metastatic ovarian cancer, demonstrated a disease control rate (the sum of overall response rate and rate of stable disease) of 87.5% with a median follow-up of 9.4 weeks. At the first assessment time-point of 6 weeks post-therapy initiation, 100% of the patients were free of disease progression. Using a validated immunohistochemistry (IHC) assay during the screening period, the rate of WT1 positivity in this ovarian cancer patient population was approximately 70%. Six of the eight evaluable patients are continuing to receive GPS plus pembrolizumab. Enrollment in this arm of the study is continuing with a target of a total of 20 patients. We expect to announce further clinical and immunobiological data by the end of the first half of 2021. We, together with Merck, have determined not to pursue the following indications as part of the basket study: colorectal cancer, TNBC, SCLC or AML, and we are exploring other potential additional indications to investigate in the basket study. GPS Combination Therapy with PD1 blocker (nivolumab) for MPM A single-center, open-label, single-arm, non-randomized investigator-sponsored Phase 1 trial of concomitant administration of GPS in combination with nivolumab was initiated in February 2020 at MSK in patients with MPM who have previously received treatment with pemetrexed-based chemotherapy and have measurable disease on imaging, either due to residual disease after prior treatment or recurrent disease. We are providing GPS and BMS is providing nivolumab for this study. The IST is planned to accrue a minimum of 10 patients. Its primary objective is to determine the tolerability of the GPS plus nivolumab combination in patients with previously treated MPM who have documented progression of disease on imaging at the time of study entry, while the secondary objective is to evaluate the immunogenicity of the above combination by assessing the WT1-specific cell-mediated immune response both in peripheral blood and at the tumor site. 21 Table of Contents The key features and schema of the study are shown in the Figure below: In December 2020, we announced that the first set of evaluable patients (n = 3) had a median PFS of at least 10 weeks since therapy initiation. In primary refractory MPM patients, any prolongation of progression-free interval greater than 8 weeks would be considered clinically meaningful, considering the current lack of effective therapies. All patients had the epithelioid variant of MPM, a tumor which is universally expressing WT1. GPS was found to be appropriately immunogenic, leading to the emergence of antigen (WT1)-specific CD4+ T-memory cell responses at three months post-therapy initiation. Additional MPM patients are currently being enrolled; completion of study enrollment (target total n = 10) and further clinical and immunobiological data are expected by the end of the first half of 2021. GPS Regulatory and Manufacturing In September 2020, we received approval of our Investigational Medicinal Product Dossier, or IMPD, from the French regulatory authority, Agence Nationale de Sécurité du Médicament et des Produits de Santé, to advance in France REGAL study in AML CR2 patients. Later in 2020, we subsequently received IMPD approval from the German health authorities. We expect approvals from additional European health authorities in early 2021 which will allow us to expand AML patient enrollment in Europe for the REGAL study. In late 2020, we manufactured the first of three registration batches of GPS which will be required for a BLA for GPS assuming positive data from the REGAL study. This additional batch will be used in our GPS clinical programs and for clinical supply to 3D Medicines under the license agreement for development and commercialization in Greater China. Commercial Strategy for GPS In December 2020, we entered into an exclusive license agreement with 3D Medicines Inc., a China-based biopharmaceutical company developing next-generation immuno-oncology drugs, for the development and commercialization of GPS, as well as the Company’s next generation heptavalent immunotherapeutic GPS+, which is at preclinical stage, across all therapeutic and diagnostic uses in the Greater China territory (mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan). We have retained sole rights to GPS and GPS+ outside of the Greater China area. See “Strategic Collaborations and License Agreements.” 22 Table of Contents NPS (nelipepimut-S) Our other cancer immunotherapy product, NPS, utilizes a targeted approach and is being developed to potentially (i) prevent secondary recurrence of HER2, low expressing breast cancer and (ii) prevent ductal carcinoma in situ, or DCIS, from becoming invasive breast cancer. Our programs for NPS primarily target patients in the adjuvant, or after-surgery, setting who have relatively healthy immune systems but may still have residual disease. MRD, or micrometastases, that are undetectable by current radiographic scanning technologies, can result in breast cancer recurrence. NPS is the immunodominant nonapeptide derived from the extracellular domain of the HER2 protein, a well-established and validated target for therapeutic intervention in breast and gastric carcinomas. The NPS vaccine is combined with GM-CSF (Sargramostim) for injection in between the layers of the skin epidermis, i.e., intradermal administration. Data has shown that an increased presence of circulating tumor cells, or CTCs, may predict reduced DFS, and OS, suggesting a presence of isolated micrometastases, not detectable clinically, but, over time, can lead to recurrence of cancer, most often in distant sites. After binding to the specific HLA molecules on antigen presenting cells, the NPS sequence stimulates specific CTLs, causing significant clonal expansion. These activated CTLs recognize, neutralize and destroy, through cell lysis, HER2 expressing cancer cells, including occult cancer cells and micrometastatic foci. The nelipepimut immune response can also generate CTLs to other immunogenic peptides through inter- and intra-antigenic epitope spreading. 23 Table of Contents NPS Therapy for Breast Cancer According to NCI, over 260,000 women in the United States are diagnosed with breast cancer annually. While improved diagnostics and targeted therapies have decreased breast cancer mortality in the United States, metastatic breast cancer remains incurable. Approximately 75% to 80% of breast cancer patients test positive for some increased amount of the HER2 receptor, which is associated with disease progression and decreased survival. Only approximately 20% to 30% of all breast cancer patients have a HER2-directed, approved treatment option, i.e., trastuzumab, available after their initial standard of care. The patients are defined as having tumors demonstrating a level of HER2 expression of 3+ by immunohistochemistry, or IHC, (HER2 IHC 3+), or HER2 IHC 2+ but also being positive by HER2 gene amplification by fluorescence in situ hybridization, or FISH. This leaves the majority of breast cancer patients with low-to-intermediate HER2 expression by IHC (IHC 1+, 2+ by IHC) with tumors that are not HER2-amplified by FISH ineligible for targeted therapy with trastuzumab and without an effective targeted treatment option to prevent cancer recurrence. In April 2018, we announced positive interim data from the prospective, randomized, single-blinded, controlled Phase 2b IST clinical trial of trastuzumab +/- NPS in HER2 1+/2+ breast cancer patients in the adjuvant setting to prevent recurrences. A pre-specified interim analysis, conducted by the data safety monitoring board, or DSMB, of the efficacy and safety data for the study in an overall population of 275 patients as well as the two primary study target patient populations (node-positive and TNBC) after a median follow-up of 19 months, demonstrated: • a clinically meaningful difference in median DFS in favor of the active arm (NPS + trastuzumab), a primary endpoint of the study, with hazard ratios of 0.67 and 0.61 in the ITT, and modified ITT, or mITT, populations (i.e., those who received at least one dose of vaccine or control) as well as a 34.9% and 39.5% reduction in relative risk of recurrence in the active versus control arms in the ITT and mITT populations, respectively; • a clinically meaningful and also statistically significant difference between the two arms in the cohort of patients (n= 98) with TNBC, with a hazard ratio of 0.26 and a p-value of 0.023 in favor of the NPS + trastuzumab combination with a 70.4% reduction in relative risk of recurrence in the active arm versus control; • a clinically meaningful and statistically significant difference between the two arms in favor of the combination in the cohort of patients not receiving hormonal therapy (n = 110), with a hazard ratio of 0.24 and a p-value of 0.009 with a 74.1% reduction in relative risk of recurrence in the active arm versus control; • no notable differences between treatment arms; and • that the addition of NPS to trastuzumab did not result in any additional cardiotoxicity compared to trastuzumab alone. Based on these results, the DSMB recommended that we expeditiously seek regulatory guidance from the FDA for further development of the combination of GPS plus trastuzumab for TNBC. In October 2018, we announced the following final data at the 26-month median follow-up of the NPS +/- trastuzumab Phase 2b trial for the TNBC cohort, which confirmed the previously reported positive data: • clinically and statistically significant efficacy in the TNBC cohort, with a p-value of 0.013 and a 75.2% reduction in risk of relapse or death; • clinically meaningful difference in median DFS in favor of the active arm (patients treated with NPS + trastuzumab) in the TNBC cohort at 24 months for patients of 92.6% compared to 70.2% for those treated with trastuzumab alone; and • in all HER2 low-expressing breast cancer patients, the DFS rate was also in favor of the NPS plus trastuzumab combination (89.8%) as compared to trastuzumab alone (83.8%). 24 Table of Contents The DSMB, in October 2018, unanimously concluded that the final analysis of the Phase 2b study data with a median follow-up of 26 months confirmed that TNBC patients should be the key target population for the development of trastuzumab plus NPS in the adjuvant setting in early-stage HER2 1+/2+ breast cancer patients and again recommended that we expeditiously seek regulatory guidance for further development for TNBC. In November and December 2018 we announced the following positive data from a preplanned secondary efficacy analysis across HLA allele subgroups from the Phase 2b IST study: • the data analysis confirmed the therapeutic potential of NPS in patients with early-stage TNBC in the adjuvant setting across HLA types A-02, -03, -24 and -26, which cover approximately 80-85% of the North American/European populations and 86-90% of Asian/Pacific basin populations; • in the subgroup of TNBC patients with the HLA-A24+ allele type, which is highly prevalent in the Asian population, treated with the combination of NPS and trastuzumab (n=47), the p-value is 0.003 with a 90.6% relative reduction in risk of relapse or death at 24 months and a hazard ratio of 0.08 in favor of the active (combination) arm; • TNBC patients with the HLA-A24+ allele type had a significant improvement in DFS both by log-rank and landmark (24 month) analysis despite the lowest predicted binding potential between the E75 (NPS) antigen and this HLA-type; and • a clinically meaningful and statistically significant decrease in the number of clinically detectable relapses in the TNBC cohort with the combination of trastuzumab and NPS (7.5%) versus trastuzumab alone (27.3%) (p=0.004). In June 2019, we announced results from a preplanned analysis of immunologic responses in the TNBC cohort at the 2019 ASCO meeting. 91 of the 97 TNBC patients, 51 of whom received the combination therapy, were analyzed for immune responses, or IR, at five timepoints. IR were evaluated ex vivo by clonal expansion of antigen NPS-specific CTLs by dextramer-staining/flow cytometry at predefined time points over three years. In vivo IR were assessed by cutaneous delayed type hypersensitivity, or DTH, reactions periodically, by measuring the diameter of skin induration post treatment. NPS plus trastuzumab-treated TNBC patients exhibited increases in CTL frequencies compared with baseline by 1.1-, 1.73-, and 2.86-fold at 18, 24 and 30 months, respectively. The mean CTL frequencies in these patients increased from 29±0.1 per 10 -4 at baseline to 112±2.6% at 30 months, a 2.86-fold difference that was highly clinically indicative (p = 0.058), as compared with patients receiving trastuzumab only, whereby CTL frequencies were 20±0.1 per 10 -4 at baseline compared with 52±1.6 per 10 -4 at 30 months, a 1.6-fold non-significant difference (p=0.70). Three patients in the combination arm recurred (5.9%) as compared with 12 (30%) in the trastuzumab-alone arm. TNBC patients treated with NPS plus trastuzumab whose disease recurred did not mount an IR by ex vivo assessment (absolute CTL frequency change) or by in vivo DTH (no change in skin induration), while non-recurrent patients mounted both vigorous NPS-specific clonal CTL expansion and enhanced in vivo DTH. In a Type C meeting with the FDA in late 2018, as well as subsequently during 2019, we discussed several key points of the clinical and regulatory strategy for NPS in combination with trastuzumab for TNBC, a registration-enabling Phase 3 trial design and biostatistical plan. After having received written feedback from the FDA in February 2020, we finalized the design and plan for a Phase 3 registration-enabling study of NPS in combination with trastuzumab for the treatment of patients with TNBC in the adjuvant setting after standard treatment based upon the FDA feedback and on the totality of clinical, safety and translational NPS data to date. The FDA indicated in its feedback that there is adequate safety information to support the use of NPS in combination with trastuzumab. The planned Phase 3 study will be a 1:1 randomized, blinded two-arm study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the NPS vaccine (NPS plus GM-CSF) in combination with trastuzumab vs. GM-CSF alone as maintenance treatment in the adjuvant setting following standard-of-care therapy in patients with TNBC, defined as hormone receptor-negative, HER2 1+/2+ tumors (as assessed by immunohistochemistry tumors), at high risk of recurrence. If successful, we believe this study may be considered as the basis for a BLA submission to the FDA. We are seeking out-licensing opportunities to fund and conduct the future clinical development of NPS in order to maximize the potential of the program and we do not plan to conduct and fund a Phase 3 program for NPS on our own. 25 Table of Contents Our second IST for NPS plus trastuzumab is a Phase 2 study in high-risk HER2 3+ breast cancer patients who are defined as patients with HER2 3+ (“classic” HER2+) breast cancer who have completed neoadjuvant therapy with an approved regimen that includes trastuzumab and who have failed to achieve a pathological complete response, meaning they have microscopic evidence of residual disease at the time of their primary surgery and are therefore at an increased risk of disease recurrence. The protocol for this study specified that the patients also should be HLA A2+ or HLA A3+. This multi-center, prospective, randomized, single-blinded Phase 2 clinical trial is fully enrolled with 100 patients actively participating. The rationale for this study is based on the fact that HER2 3+ patients with high risk features are known to have higher recurrence rates than all other HER2 3+ breast cancer patients. Eligible patients are being randomized to receive NPS + GM-CSF + trastuzumab or trastuzumab + GM-CSF alone. The primary endpoint of the study is DFS. Funding for this trial was awarded through the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program, funded through the Department of Defense, via a breast cancer research program breakthrough award. In February 2017, the DSMB reported that there were no safety concerns with the trial and the trial is not futile. The pre-specified interim safety analysis was also completed on 50 patients and demonstrated that the combination is well tolerated with no increased cardiotoxicity associated with giving NPS in combination with trastuzumab. The recommendation from the DSMB was to continue the HER2 3+ trial unmodified. In January 2021, the DSMB recommended that, given the small size of the trial and in order to preserve the statistical power of the trial, the primary analysis of the trial be completed upon the completion of the three years of follow-up on every patient or until more events are collected. We now expect the primary analysis to be completed by the end of 2021. NPS was previously granted Fast Track designation by the FDA for the adjuvant treatment of patients with early stage breast cancer with low to intermediate HER2 expression following standard of care upfront therapy (surgery plus chemotherapy +/- radiotherapy). NPS for Ductal Carcinoma In Situ of the Breast (DCIS) DCIS is defined by the NCI as a noninvasive condition in which abnormal cells are found in the lining of a breast duct and have not spread outside the duct to other tissues in the breast. DCIS is the most common type of breast neoplasm with malignant potential. DCIS represents about 20% of breast cancer cases diagnosed annually in the United States, which translates to more than 48,000 women being newly diagnosed in 2019, according to the most recent estimates by the American Cancer Society. In some cases, DCIS may become invasive cancer and spread to other tissues, and at this time, there is no way to know which lesions could become invasive. The goal of therapy for DCIS is to prevent the progression of the tumor toward an invasive breast cancer. Current treatment options for DCIS include breast-conserving surgery and radiation therapy with or without tamoxifen, breast-conserving surgery without radiation therapy, or total mastectomy with or without tamoxifen. Considering the potential for side effects from radiation therapy and the prolonged use of hormonal blockade therapy such as tamoxifen, an alternative adjuvant therapy that would be at least equally effective in reducing progression of DCIS to an invasive breast cancer would be an attractive management option. We are supporting a Phase 2 IST to evaluate women diagnosed with DCIS who are HLA-A2+ or A3+ positive, who express HER2 at IHC 1+, 2+, or 3+ levels, and who are pre- or post-menopausal. This clinical study was initiated in February 2018. Patients are being randomized to one of two arms: NPS plus GM-CSF or GM-CSF alone. The trial is sponsored and operationalized by the NCI, studying NPS’s potential clinical effects in earlier stage disease. The trial has an immunological (rather than clinical) endpoint evaluating NPS peptide-specific CTL (CTL; CD8+ T-cell) response in vaccinated patients. In August 2019, the Company announced the completion of enrollment in this study. In March 2020, we reported preliminary antigen-specific immune response data from the Phase 2 trial. The relative frequency of NPS-specific CD8 CTLs as a percentage (NPS-CTL%) was twice as large in the NPS-treated patients. The NPS-CTL% was measured in the peripheral blood by a sensitive and specific assay using dextramer staining followed by flow cytometry, both at baseline (before vaccination or GM-CSF) and at 30 (+/-7) days after surgery. The mean difference in NPS-CTL% increase between the active and control groups was +0.10% vs +0.05%. The relative magnitude of change in NPS-CTL% mean values in NPS-treated patients over time was an 11-fold increase, from 0.01% at baseline to 0.11% after surgery, indicating a continued antigen-specific T-cell response post-NPS vaccination. NPS was generally well-tolerated in the study with no drug-related unexpected serious adverse reactions. The overall adverse event profile was consistent with previous safety data. 26 Table of Contents In December 2020 we reported updated final data, based on a 6-month follow-up, which demonstrated that CD8+ T-cell responses persist long-term post-NPS treatment, with treated patients retaining and modestly enhancing their antigen-specific immune response. When compared to baseline (BL, prior to investigational agent administration), the relative frequency of NPS-specific CD8 CTLs as a percentage (NPS-CLT%) in peripheral blood at the 1-month and 6-month post-operative time-points increased in the NPS+GM-CSF group (n=9) by 11- and 14-fold: 0.01+0.02% [BL] vs. 0.11+0.12% [1-mo] and 0.14+0.12% [6-mo], respectively, while in the GM-CSF alone group (n=4) the NPS-CLT% in peripheral blood increased by only 2.25- and 3.75-fold: 0.04+0.07% [BL] vs. 0.09+0.15% [1-mo] and 0.15+0.03% [6-mo], respectively. For the NPS+GM-CSF group, the differences in absolute NPS-CTL% mean values between baseline and 1- or 6-months post-vaccination were statistically significant, with p-values of 0.039 and 0.0125, respectively. The relative change in NPS-CTL% mean values at 6 months post-vaccination was +1,300+450% for the NPS+GM-CSF group vs. 250+150% in the GM-CSF alone group, which was highly statistically significant in favor of the NPS+GM-CSF group: p=0.000094. Strategic Collaborations and License Agreements Exclusive License Agreement-Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center In September 2014, we entered into a license agreement with MSK under which we were granted an exclusive license to develop and commercialize MSK’s WT1 peptide vaccine technology. The MSK original license agreement was first amended in October 2015, further amended in August 2016, amended and restated in May 2017 and again amended and restated in October 2017. In connection with the entry of the original license agreement and its amendments, MSK was issued or assigned an aggregate of 4,846 ordinary shares of Private SELLAS common stock for the year ended December 31, 2017. These common stock shares were converted into our common stock shares upon the Merger. Under the terms of the current amended and restated MSK license agreement, we agreed to pay minimum royalty payments in the amount of $0.1 million each year commencing in 2015 and research funding costs of $0.2 million in each year and for three years commencing in January 2016. We also agreed to pay MSK a mid-six digit amount over a one year period in exchange for MSK’s agreement to further amend and restate the MSK license agreement in October 2017. In addition, to the extent certain development and commercial milestones are achieved, we also agreed to pay MSK up to $17.4 million in aggregate milestone payments for each licensed product, and for each additional patent licensed product, up to $2.8 million in additional milestone payments. We also agreed to pay MSK a tiered royalty in the mid-single digits in the event of commercial sales of any licensed products and agreed to raise $25.0 million in gross proceeds no later than December 31, 2018. We raised this amount from the proceeds received from the sale of our Series A Convertible Preferred stock in March 2018 and our underwritten public offering of shares of common stock, pre-funded warrants to purchase shares of common-stock, and warrants to purchase shares of common stock in July 2018. Under the terms of the agreement, we achieved a clinical development milestone at the end of the fourth quarter of 2018, triggering a $0.5 million payment in the first quarter of 2019. Unless terminated earlier in accordance with its terms, the MSK license agreement as amended and restated, will continue on a country-by-country and licensed product-by-licensed product basis, until the later, of: (a) expiration of the last valid claim embracing such licensed product; (b) expiration of any market exclusivity period granted by law with respect to such licensed product; or (c) ten years from the first commercial sale in such country. 27 Table of Contents Merck & Co., Inc. Clinical Trial Collaboration and Supply Agreement In September 2017, we entered into a clinical trial collaboration and supply agreement through a Merck subsidiary, whereby we agreed with the Merck subsidiary to collaborate on a clinical program to evaluate GPS as it is administered in combination with their PD1 blocker pembrolizumab in a Phase 1/2 clinical trial enrolling patients in up to five cancer indications, including both hematologic malignancies and solid tumors. The Phase 1/2 clinical trial utilizes a combination of GPS plus pembrolizumab in patients with WT1+ relapsed or refractory tumors. The study is designed to explore the combination in both solid tumor and hematological cancer indications. This study is assessing the efficacy and safety of the combination, comparing overall response rates and immune response markers achieved with the combination compared to prespecified rates based on those seen with pembrolizumab alone in comparable patient populations. This trial was initiated in December 2018. Exclusive License Agreement with 3D Medicines Inc. In December 2020, we, together with our wholly-owned subsidiary, SLSG Limited, LLC, entered into an Exclusive License Agreement (the “3DMed License Agreement”) with 3D Medicines Inc., or 3DMed, pursuant to which we granted 3D Med a sublicensable, royalty-bearing license, under certain intellectual property owned or controlled by us, to develop, manufacture and have manufactured, and commercialize GPS and heptavalent GPS, or GPS-Plus, product candidates, or the Licensed Products, for all therapeutic and other diagnostic uses in mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan, or the 3DMed Territory. The license is exclusive, except with respect to certain know-how that has been non-exclusively licensed to us and is sublicensed to 3DMed on a non-exclusive basis. We have retained development, manufacturing and commercialization rights with respect to the Licensed Products in the rest of the world. In partial consideration for the rights granted by us, 3DMed agreed to pay us (i) a one-time upfront cash payment of $7.5 million in order to reimburse us for certain expenses incurred with respect to the development of the Licensed Products prior to execution of the License Agreement, and (ii) milestone payments totaling up to $194.5 million in the aggregate upon the achievement of certain technology transfer, development and regulatory milestones, as well as certain net sales thresholds of Licensed Products in the 3DMed Territory in a given calendar year. 3DMed also agreed to pay tiered royalties based upon a percentage of annual net sales of Licensed Products in the 3DMed Territory ranging from the high single digits to the low double digits. The royalties are payable on a Licensed Product-by-Licensed Product and region-by-region basis commencing on the first commercial sale of a Licensed Product in a region and continuing until the latest of (i) the date that is fifteen years from the receipt of marketing authorization for such Licensed Product in such region and (ii) the date that is ten years from the expiration of the last valid claim of a licensed patent covering or claiming such Licensed Product in such region. The royalty rate is subject to reduction under certain circumstances, including when generic competition for a Licensed Product exists in a particular region. 3DMed is responsible for all costs related to developing, obtaining regulatory approval of and commercializing the Licensed Products in the 3DMed Territory. 3DMed is required to use commercially reasonable best efforts to develop and obtain regulatory approval for, and upon receipt of regulatory approval, commercialize the Licensed Products in the 3DMed Territory. A joint development committee has been established between 3DMed and us to coordinate and review the development, manufacturing and commercialization plans with respect to the Licensed Products in the 3DMed Territory. We and 3DMed also agreed to negotiate in good faith the terms and conditions of a clinical supply agreement, a commercial supply agreement, and related quality agreements pursuant to which we will manufacture or have manufactured and supply 3DMed with all quantities of the Licensed Product necessary for 3DMed to develop and commercialize the Licensed Products in the 3DMed Territory until 3DMed has received all approvals required for 3DMed or its designated contract manufacturing organization to manufacture the Licensed Products in the 3DMed Territory. 28 Table of Contents The 3DMed License Agreement will expire on a Licensed Product-by-Licensed Product and region-by-region basis on the date of the expiration of all of 3DMed’s payment obligations to us. Upon expiration of the 3DMed License Agreement, the license granted to 3DMed will become fully paid-up, perpetual and irrevocable. Either party may terminate the 3DMed License Agreement for the other party’s material breach following a cure period or upon certain insolvency events. We may terminate the 3DMed License Agreement if 3DMed or its affiliates or sublicensees challenge the validity or enforceability of the licensed patents. At any time following the two-year anniversary of the effective date, 3DMed has the right to terminate the 3DMed License Agreement for convenience, subject to certain requirements. 3DMed may terminate the 3DMed License Agreement upon prior notice to us if the grant of the license to 3DMed is prohibited or delayed for a period of time due to a change of United States export laws and regulations. The 3DMed License Agreement includes customary representations and warranties, covenants and indemnification obligations for a transaction of this nature. The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center and The Henry M. Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of Military Medicine, Inc. License Agreement In September 2006, we acquired rights and assumed obligations under a license agreement among Apthera, Inc., our wholly owned subsidiary, the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, or MDACC, and the Henry M. Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of Military Medicine, Inc., or HJF, which grants exclusive worldwide rights to a U.S. patent covering the nelipepimut-S peptide and several U.S. and foreign patents and patent applications covering methods of using the peptide as a vaccine. Under the license agreement we agreed to pay MDACC and HJF up to $3.8 million in aggregate milestone payments to the extent certain development and commercial milestones are reached and a $0.2 million annual maintenance fee. We also agreed to pay MDACC and HJF a tiered royalty in the mid-single digits in the event of any commercial sales of licensed products. Manufacturing We do not own or operate manufacturing facilities for the production of our product candidates, nor do we have plans to develop our own manufacturing operations in the foreseeable future. We currently depend on third-party contract manufacturers for all of our required raw materials, active pharmaceutical ingredients, and finished product candidate for our clinical trials, including manufacturers with facilities in northern Italy. We do not have any current contractual arrangements for the manufacture of commercial supplies of any product candidates. We currently employ internal resources and third-party consultants to manage our manufacturing contractors. Sales and Marketing We have not yet defined our sales, marketing or product distribution strategy for our product candidates or any future product candidates. Our commercial strategy may include the use of strategic partners, distributors, a contract sale force, or the establishment of our own commercial and specialty sales force, as well as similar strategies for regions and territories outside the United States. We plan to further evaluate these alternatives as we approach approval for the use of our product candidates for one or more indications. 29 Table of Contents Intellectual Property Our commercial success depends in part on our ability to avoid infringing the proprietary rights of third parties, our ability to obtain and maintain proprietary protection for our product candidates, technologies and know-how, and our ability to prevent others from infringing our proprietary rights. We seek to protect our proprietary position by, among other methods, evaluating relevant patents, establishing defensive positions, monitoring European Union oppositions and pending intellectual property rights, preparing litigation strategies in view of the U.S. legislative framework, filing U.S. and international patent applications on technologies, inventions and improvements that are important to our business and maintaining our issued patents. We also include restrictions regarding use and disclosure of our proprietary information in our contracts with third parties, and utilize customary confidentiality and invention assignment agreements with our employees, consultants, clinical investigators and scientific advisors to protect our confidential information and know-how. Together with our licensors, we also rely on trade secrets to protect our combined technology especially where we do not believe patent protection is appropriate or obtainable. It is our policy to operate without knowingly infringing on, or misappropriating, the proprietary rights of others. The term of individual patents depends upon the legal term of the patents in countries in which they are obtained. In most countries, including the United States, the patent term is generally 20 years from the earliest date of filing a non-provisional patent application in the applicable country. In the United States, a patent’s term may, in certain cases, be lengthened by patent term adjustment, which compensates a patentee for administrative delays by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in examining and granting a patent or may be shortened if a patent is terminally disclaimed over a commonly owned patent or a patent naming a common inventor and having an earlier expiration date. The patent term of a patent that covers an FDA-approved drug may also be eligible for patent term extension, which permits patent term restoration as compensation for the patent term lost during the FDA regulatory review process. The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, or the Hatch-Waxman Act, permits a patent term extension 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 drug is under regulatory review. Patent term extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval, and only one patent applicable to an approved drug may be extended. Similar provisions are available in the European Union and certain other foreign jurisdictions to extend the term of a patent that covers an approved drug. In the future, if and when our product candidates receive approval by the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities, we expect to apply for patent term extensions on issued patents covering those products, depending upon the length of the clinical trials for each drug and other factors. Our patent portfolio includes the following: Patents and patent applications covering GPS and WT1-targeting peptides: • Patent application co-owned by us and MSK: ◦ International application under the Patent Cooperation Treaty, or PCT, system covering a heptavalent (7-peptide) immunotherapy composition and methods of use for treating, reducing the incidence of, or inducing an immune response against a WT1-expressing cancer, which is pending and, if granted in jurisdictions in the national stage, would expire in 2040. • Patents and patent applications in-licensed from MSK: ◦ Composition-of-matter patents covering the WT1-A1 peptide of GPS which have issued in the United States, Canada, Australia, and several countries of the European Union, and which are expected to expire in the United States in 2026 and elsewhere in 2024; ◦ Composition-of-matter patent covering the WT1-427 long and WT1-331 long peptides of GPS issued in the United States, which is expected to expire in 2031, and patents covering the methods of use in the United States which are expected to expire in 2026; and a patent application covering peptide conjugates of the WT1-427 long peptide or WT1-331 long peptide which, if granted, is expected to expire in 2026; 30 Table of Contents ◦ Composition-of-matter patents covering the WT1-427 long peptide of GPS and WT1-331 long peptide of GPS, and methods of use, which have issued in Australia and several countries of the European Union, which are expected to expire in 2026; ◦ Composition-of-matter patent covering the WT1-427 long peptide of GPS and method of use, which has issued in Canada which is expected to expire in 2026, and composition of matter patent application covering the WT1-331 long peptide of GPS and method of use, which is pending in Canada which, if granted, is expected to expire in 2026; ◦ Composition-of-matter patent covering a WT1-specific peptide issued in the United States, which is expected to expire in 2026; ◦ Composition-of-matter patent covering the WT1-122A1 long peptide of GPS in the United States which is expected to expire in 2033; and patent application covering the WT1-122A1 long peptide of GPS and methods of use in the United States which if granted, is expected to expire in 2027; ◦ Composition-of-matter patent covering the WT1-122A1 long peptide of GPS and methods of use in several countries of the European Union, which is expected to expire in 2027, and patent applications covering the WT1-122A1 long peptide of GPS and methods of use pending in the European Union and Canada which if granted, are expected to expire in 2027; ◦ Composition-of-matter patents covering certain WT1-targeting peptides and methods of use in the United States, Australia, China, several countries of the European Union, and Japan, which are expected to expire in 2034, and patent applications covering certain WT1-targeting and methods of use pending in the United States, Australia, European Union, Canada, China, Hong Kong, and Japan which, if granted, are expected to expire in 2034; and ◦ Patent applications covering methods for treating, reducing the incidence of, or inducing an immune response against a WT1-expressing cancer, using the peptides of GPS in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors in the United States, Australia, Canada, China, Hong Kong, European Union, South Korea, and Japan which if granted, are expected to expire in 2036. Patents and patent applications covering NPS: • Patent application owned by us: ◦ International application under the PCT system and patent application in the United States covering treatment of triple-negative breast cancer using a combination of NPS and trastuzumab which, if granted, are expected to expire in 2039. • Patents and patent applications in-licensed from HJF: ◦ Composition-of-matter patent covering modified NPS peptides, and method patent covering method of their production, which issued in the United States which are expected to expire in 2025 and 2024, respectively; and patent application pending in the United States covering modified NPS peptides and methods of use which, if granted, is expected to expire in 2023; ◦ Patents covering treatment of cancer expressing HER2/neu using a combination of NPS and trastuzumab, which have issued in the United States and Australia which are expected to expire in 2026; and ◦ Patents covering a method of inducing protective or therapeutic immunity against breast cancer having low/intermediate HER2 expression, which have issued in the United States, Australia, Canada, certain countries in the European Union, Japan, South Korea, and Mexico which are expected to expire in 2028; and patent applications covering a method of inducing protective or therapeutic immunity against breast cancer having low/intermediate HER2/neu expression pending in the United States, China, European Union, Hong Kong, Japan, and South Korea which, if granted, are expected to expire in 2028. 31 Table of Contents Competition Cancer immunotherapy has become a significant growth area for the biopharmaceutical industry, attracting large pharmaceutical companies as well as small niche players. Generally, our principal competitors in the cancer immunotherapy market comprise both companies with currently approved products for various indications, such as manufacturers of approved cancer immunotherapy products and companies currently engaged in clinical development of such products. Generally, the classes of these products include checkpoint inhibitors, bispecific antibodies, chimeric antigen receptor-engineered T-cell, or CAR-T, and NK-cell and T-cell receptor-engineered T-cell therapies, as well as interleukins, cytokines and tumor microenvironment inflammasome modulators. The large and medium-size competitors who have successfully obtained approval for cancer immunotherapy products include Bristol-Myers Squib Company, or BMS, Merck & Co., Inc., Genentech, Inc. (a subsidiary of Roche Holding AG), AstraZeneca PLC, Johnson & Johnson/Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Novartis, Gilead Sciences, Inc. and Pfizer, Inc. Most of these companies, either alone or together with their collaborative partners, have substantially greater financial resources than we do. Companies developing novel products with similar indications to those we are pursuing are expected to influence our ability to penetrate and maintain market share. Principal competitors for our AML indication broadly include both companies with currently approved products in AML, such as AbbVie/Genentech (the holders of rights to VENCLEXTA), Agios Pharmaceuticals, Inc./Servier (the holder of U.S. rights to TIBSOVO), Novartis AG (the holder of rights to RYDAPT), Astellas Pharmaceuticals (the holder of rights to XOSPATA), BMS (the holder of rights to ONUREG/VIDAZA and IDHIFA), Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (the holder of rights to DACOGEN), among others, as well as those with front-line chemotherapy drugs and maintenance therapies such as Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the holder of rights to VYXEOS), BMS (the holder of rights to ONUREG), Pfizer, Inc. (the holder of rights to MYLOTARG and DAURISMO), among others, as well as companies with drugs currently in development for AML, such as Daiichi Sankyo (the holder of rights to quizartinib/licensed in Japan under the name VANFLYTA), Karyopharm Therapeutics, Inc. (the holder of rights to XPOVIO), Pfizer, Inc./AROG Pharmaceuticals, LLC (the holders of rights to crenolanib), Novartis AG (the holder of rights to MBG453), Johnson & Johnson/Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the holder of rights to cusatuzumab, or ARGX-110/JNJ-4550), Gilead Sciences, Inc. (the holder of rights to magrolimab, or Hu5F9 G4), Actinium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the holder of rights to [131]-iodine-apamistamab) and Rafael Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the holder of rights to devimistat) , among others. Companies currently engaged in the clinical development of AML therapies with an immunological/immuno-modulatory mechanism of action include Pfizer, Inc./EMD Serono (the holders of rights to BAVENCIO), BMS (the holder of rights to YERVOY) MacroGenics, Inc./Les Laboratoires Servier, SA (the holders of rights to flotetuzumab, or MGD006), Celyad Oncology SA (the holder of rights to CYAD-01), Fortress Biotech, Inc, (the holder of rights to CNDO-109), Glycostem Therapeutics BV (the holder of rights to oNKord), iCell Gene Therapeutics, LLC (the holder of rights to CLL-CD33 Compound CAR T-cell), among others. Companies currently engaged in the clinical development of WT1-targeting vaccines (not specifically for AML) include Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (the holder of rights to OCV-501) and Dainippon Sumitomo Pharma Co., Ltd./ Boston Biomedical, Inc. (the holder of rights to DSP-7888)/ade-gramotide/nelatimotide). 32 Table of Contents For patients with early stage breast cancer, adjuvant therapy is often given to prevent recurrence and increase the chance of long-term DFS. Adjuvant therapy for breast cancer can include chemotherapy, hormonal therapy, radiation therapy, or combinations thereof. In addition, the HER2 targeting drug trastuzumab (HERCEPTIN) - alone or in combination with pertuzumab (PERJETA), both manufactured and marketed by Roche/Genentech, may be given to patients with tumors with high expression of HER2 (HER2-positive). Various other novel targets are in clinical studies in breast cancer, such as MUC1, in the context of antigen-specific immunotherapy. In addition, the FDA recently approved the first ever immunotherapy regimen for TNBC that cannot be removed with surgery and is locally advanced or metastatic, the combination of the PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitor atezolizumab (TECENTRIQ; Roche/Genentech) with nab-paclitaxel (ABRAXANE; Celgene/BMS). This combination could be further developed for earlier stages of the disease, including the adjuvant setting, which could then become directly competitive with NPS. The FDA also recently approved the HER2-targeting antibody drug conjugate (ADC) Fam-trastuzumab deruxtecan-nxki (ENHERTU, Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca), which may have activity in patients harboring breast cancers with low-to-intermediate (IHC1+/2+) HER2 expression (including TNBC), and which has the potential of becoming directly competitive with NPS. Three additional ADCs have shown clinical activity against metastatic TNBC. The first (sacituzumab govetecan-hziy, or TROPELVY), targeting TROP-2 and developed by Gilead/Immunomedics, recently received FDA approval. Both Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca (the holders of rights to the TROP2-targeting DS-1062) and MacroGenics, Inc. (the holder of rights to the B7-H3-targeting MGC018) are performing late-stage clinical trials in this setting. These ADCs have the potential to move toward frontline therapy for early-state TNBC and could become directly competitive with NPS. With regard to additional competition for NPS in the adjuvant setting for TNBC, there are several cancer vaccines in development for breast cancer, including but not limited toTPIV200, a folate receptor alpha peptide vaccine (Marker Therapeutics, Inc.), as well as two HER2-targeted vaccines: AE-37 (NuGenerex Immuno-Oncology)), and GP2 (Greenwich Lifesciences, Inc.). While these development-stage product candidates are aimed at a number of different targets, and both AE-37 and GP2 have published data in the HER2-positive (IHC3+) breast cancer patient population, there is no guarantee that any of these compounds will not in the future be investigated in clinical trials in patients with low-to-intermediate (IHC1+/2+) HER2 breast cancer (including TNBC patients) and become directly competitive with NPS. Both with regard to GPS and NPS, many of our competitors, either alone or with their strategic partners, have substantially greater financial, technical and human resources than we do, and also greater experience in obtaining FDA and other regulatory approvals of treatments and commercializing those treatments. Accordingly, our competitors may be more successful than us in obtaining approval for cancer immunotherapy products and achieving widespread market acceptance. Our competitors’ treatments may be more effectively marketed and sold than any products we may commercialize, thus causing limited market share before we can recover the expenses of developing and commercializing of our cancer immunotherapy product candidate. Mergers and acquisitions in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors. Smaller or early stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. These activities may lead to consolidated efforts that allow for more rapid development of cancer immunotherapy product candidates. These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel, the ability to work with specific clinical contract organizations due to conflict of interest, and also the conduct of trials in the ability to recruit clinical trial sites and subjects for our clinical trials. We expect any products that we develop and commercialize to compete on the basis of, among other things, efficacy, safety, price and the availability of reimbursement from government and other third-party payors. Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are viewed as safer, more convenient or less expensive than any products that we may develop. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for our current product candidates or any other future product candidate, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market. 33 Table of Contents Government Regulation The FDA and other regulatory authorities at federal, state, and local levels, as well as in foreign countries, extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, quality control, import, export, safety, effectiveness, labeling, packaging, storage, distribution, record keeping, approval, advertising, promotion, marketing, post-approval monitoring, and post-approval reporting of biologics such as those we are developing. Along with third-party contractors, we will be required to navigate the various preclinical, clinical and commercial approval requirements of the governing regulatory agencies of the countries in which we wish to conduct studies or seek approval or licensure of its current or future product candidates. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local, and foreign statutes and regulations require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. A company can make only those claims relating to safety and efficacy, purity and potency that are approved by the FDA and in accordance with the provisions of the approved label. The process required by the FDA before biologic product candidates may be marketed in the United States generally involves the following: • completion of extensive preclinical laboratory tests and animal studies performed in accordance with the FDA’s current Good Laboratory Practices, or GLP, regulations or other applicable regulations; • submission to the FDA of an IND application, which must become effective before clinical trials may begin and must be updated annually or when significant changes are made; • approval by an independent Institutional Review Board, or IRB, or ethics committee at each clinical site before the trial is begun; • performance of adequate and well-controlled human clinical trials in accordance with good clinical practices, or GCP, and other clinical-trial related regulations to establish the safety, purity and potency of the investigational biologic product candidate for its proposed indication; • preparation of and submission to the FDA of a BLA, after completion of all pivotal clinical trials; • satisfactory completion of an FDA Advisory Committee review, if applicable; • a determination by the FDA within 60 days of its receipt of a BLA to file the application for review; • satisfactory completion of an FDA pre-approval inspection of the manufacturing facility or facilities at which the proposed product is produced to assess compliance with current Good Manufacturing Practices, or cGMP, and to assure that the facilities, methods and controls are adequate to preserve the biological product’s continued safety, purity and potency; • potential audit of selected clinical trial sites to assess compliance with current GCP and the integrity of the clinical data submitted in support of the BLA; and • FDA review and approval of the BLA to permit commercial marketing of the product for particular indications for use in the United States. The testing and approval process requires substantial time, effort and financial resources, and we cannot be certain that any approvals for our current or future product candidates will be granted on a timely basis, if at all. Preclinical studies Before testing any drug or biological product candidate, including our product candidates, in humans, the product candidate must undergo rigorous preclinical testing. The preclinical developmental stage generally involves laboratory evaluations of drug chemistry, formulation and stability, as well as studies to evaluate toxicity in animals, which support subsequent clinical testing. Preclinical studies include laboratory evaluation of product chemistry and formulation, as well as in vitro and animal studies to assess the potential for adverse events and in some cases to establish a rationale for therapeutic use. The conduct of preclinical studies is subject to federal regulations and requirements, including GLP regulations for safety/toxicology studies. 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. 34 Table of Contents Prior to beginning the first clinical trial with a product candidate, we must submit an IND to the FDA. An IND is a request for authorization from the FDA to administer an investigational new drug product to humans. The central focus of an IND submission is on the general investigational plan and the protocol(s) for clinical studies. The IND also includes the results of the preclinical studies, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature. An IND must become effective before human clinical trials may begin. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA, within the 30-day time period, raises safety concerns or questions about the proposed clinical trial. In such a case, the IND may be placed on clinical hold and the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns or questions before the clinical trial can begin. Submission of an IND therefore may or may not result in FDA authorization to begin a clinical trial. Human clinical trials in support of a BLA Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational product to human subjects under the supervision of qualified investigators in accordance with GCP, which include the requirement that all research subjects provide their informed consent for their participation in any clinical trial. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the clinical trial, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. A separate submission to the existing IND must be made for each successive clinical trial conducted during product development and for any subsequent protocol amendments. Furthermore, an IRB for each site proposing to conduct the clinical trial must review and approve the plan for any clinical trial and its informed consent form before the clinical trial begins at that site and must monitor the clinical trial until completed. Regulatory authorities, the IRB or the sponsor may suspend a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the subjects are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk or that the trial is unlikely to meet its stated objectives. Some studies also include oversight by an independent DSMB organized by the clinical trial sponsor, which provides authorization for whether or not a clinical trial may move forward at designated check points based on access to certain data from the clinical trial and may halt the clinical trial if it determines that there is an unacceptable safety risk for subjects or other grounds, such as no demonstration of efficacy. 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. Competitors may use this publicly available information to gain knowledge regarding the progress of development programs. 35 Table of Contents For purposes of BLA approval, human clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases that may overlap. • Phase 1 -The investigational product is initially introduced into healthy human subjects or patients with the target disease or condition. These studies are designed to test the safety, dosage tolerance, absorption, metabolism and distribution of the investigational product in humans, the side effects associated with increasing doses, and, if possible, to gain early evidence on effectiveness. • Phase 2 -The investigational product is administered to a limited patient population with a specified disease or condition to evaluate the preliminary efficacy, optimal dosages and dosing schedule and to identify possible adverse side effects and safety risks. Multiple Phase 2 clinical trials may be conducted to obtain information prior to beginning larger and more expensive Phase 3 clinical trials. • Phase 3 -The investigational product is administered to an expanded patient population to further evaluate dosage, to provide statistically significant evidence of clinical efficacy and to further test for safety, generally at multiple geographically dispersed clinical trial sites. These clinical trials are intended to establish the overall risk/benefit ratio of the investigational product and to provide an adequate basis for product approval and 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. • Phase 4 -In some cases, the FDA may require, or companies may voluntarily pursue, additional clinical trials after a product is approved to gain additional information and experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication, particularly for long-term safety follow up. These so-called Phase 4 studies may be made a condition to approval of the BLA. Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 testing may not be completed successfully within a specified period, if at all, and there can be no assurance that the data collected will support FDA approval or licensure of the product. Progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials must be submitted at least annually to the FDA and more frequently if serious adverse events, or SAEs, occur. The FDA or the sponsor may suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research subjects or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the clinical protocol, cGCP, or other IRB requirements or if the drug has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients. Concurrent with clinical trials, companies may complete additional animal studies and develop additional information about the biological characteristics of the product candidate and must finalize a process for manufacturing the product in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the product candidate and, among other things, must incorporate methods for testing the identity, strength, quality and purity of the final product, or for biologics, the safety, purity and potency. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested, and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the product candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life. 36 Table of Contents BLA Submission and Review by the FDA Assuming successful completion of all required testing in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements, the results of product development, preclinical studies and clinical trials are submitted to the FDA as part of a BLA requesting approval to market the product for one or more indications. The BLA must contain proof of the biological product candidate’s safety, purity, potency and efficacy for its proposed indication or indications in the form of relevant data available from pertinent preclinical and clinical studies, including negative or ambiguous results as well as positive findings, together with detailed information relating to the product’s chemistry, manufacturing, controls, and proposed labeling, among other things. Data can come from company-sponsored clinical studies intended to test the safety and effectiveness of a use of the product, or from a number of alternative sources, including studies initiated by investigators. FDA approval of a BLA must be obtained before the corresponding biologic may be marketed in the United States. Under federal law, the fee for the submission of a BLA for which clinical data is submitted and analyzed is substantial (for example, for FY2021 this application fee exceeds $2.8 million), and the sponsor of an approved BLA is also subject to an annual program fee, currently more than $330,000 per program. These fees are typically increased annually, but exemptions and waivers may be available under certain circumstances (such as a waiver for the first human drug application submitted by a qualifying small business and exemptions for orphan products). Once a BLA has been submitted, the FDA’s goal is to review the application within ten months after it accepts the application for filing, or, if the application relates to an unmet medical need in a serious or life-threatening indication, six months after the FDA accepts the application for filing. This FDA review typically takes twelve months from the date the BLA is submitted to the FDA (for a standard review) and eight months from the date the BLA is submitted (for a “priority review”) because the FDA has approximately two months, or 60 days, after BLA submission to make a “filing” decision. Furthermore, the review process is often significantly extended by FDA requests for additional information or clarification after the BLA has been accepted for filing. The FDA may also request additional information rather than accept a BLA for filing. In this event, the application must be resubmitted with the additional information. The resubmitted application is also subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing. After a BLA is accepted for filing, the FDA reviews it 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 FDA may refer any BLA, including applications for novel biologic candidates which present difficult questions of safety or efficacy to an advisory committee to provide clinical insight on application review questions. 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. Before approving a BLA, the FDA will typically inspect the facility or facilities where the product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve an application unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. Additionally, before approving a BLA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCP. If the FDA determines that the application, manufacturing process or manufacturing facilities are not acceptable, it will outline the deficiencies in the submission and often will request additional testing or information. Notwithstanding the submission of any requested additional information, the FDA ultimately may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval. 37 Table of Contents Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act, or PREA, amendments to the FDCA, a BLA or supplement to a BLA must contain data that are adequate to assess the safety and efficacy of the product candidate for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric populations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric population for which the product is safe and effective. The FDA may grant deferrals for submission of pediatric data or full or partial waivers. The Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act, or the FDASIA, enacted in 2012, made permanent PREA to require 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 Plan, or PSP, within sixty 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 pre-clinical studies, early phase clinical trials or other clinical development programs. The testing and approval process requires substantial time, effort and financial resources, and each may take several years to complete. The FDA may not grant approval on a timely basis, or at all, and we may encounter difficulties or unanticipated costs in our efforts to secure necessary governmental approvals, which could delay or preclude us from marketing its products. After the FDA evaluates a BLA and conducts inspections of manufacturing facilities where the investigational product and/or its drug substance will be produced, the FDA may issue an approval letter or a Complete Response Letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the product with specific prescribing information for specific indications. A Complete Response Letter indicates that the review cycle of the application is complete and the application is not ready for approval. A Complete Response Letter generally outlines the deficiencies in the submission and may require substantial additional testing, information or clarification for FDA to reconsider the application. The FDA may delay or refuse approval of a BLA if applicable regulatory criteria are not satisfied, require additional testing or information and/or require post-marketing testing and surveillance to monitor safety or efficacy of a product. If regulatory approval of a product is granted, such approval is limited to the conditions of use (e.g., patient population, indication) described in the application and may entail further limitations on the indicated uses for which such product may be marketed. For example, the FDA may approve the BLA with a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, plan to mitigate risks, which could include medication guides, physician communication plans, or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. The FDA 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 plan is needed, the sponsor of the BLA must submit a proposed REMS. The FDA will not approve a BLA without a REMS, if one is required. The FDA also may condition approval on, among other things, changes to proposed labeling (e.g., adding contraindications, warnings or precautions) or the development of adequate controls and specifications. Once approved, the FDA may withdraw the product approval if compliance with pre- and post-marketing regulatory standards is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the marketplace. The FDA may require one or more Phase 4 post-market studies and surveillance to further assess and monitor the product’s safety and effectiveness after commercialization and may limit further marketing of the product based on the results of these post-marketing studies. 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. In addition, new government requirements, including those resulting from new legislation, may be established, or the FDA’s policies may change, which could delay or prevent regulatory approval of our products under development. 38 Table of Contents Fast Track, Priority Review, Accelerated Approval, and Breakthrough Therapy Designations A sponsor may seek approval of its product candidate under programs designed to accelerate FDA’s review and approval of new drugs and biological products that meet certain criteria. Specifically, new drugs and biological products are eligible for Fast Track designation if they are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening condition and demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the condition. For a product candidate with Fast Track designation, the FDA may consider sections of the BLA for review on a rolling basis before the complete application is submitted if relevant criteria are met. A Fast Track designated product candidate may also qualify for priority review, under which the FDA sets the target date for FDA action on the BLA at six months after the FDA accepts the application for filing. We have obtained Fast Track designation for GPS in AML, MPM, and MM, and for NPS in TNBC. Priority review is granted when there is evidence that the proposed product would be a significant improvement in the safety or effectiveness of the treatment, diagnosis, or prevention of a serious condition. Significant improvement may be illustrated by evidence of increased effectiveness in the treatment of a condition, elimination or substantial reduction of a treatment-limiting drug reaction, documented enhancement of patient compliance that may lead to improvement in serious outcomes, or evidence of safety and effectiveness in a new subpopulation. If criteria are not met for priority review, the application is subject to the standard FDA review period of ten months after FDA accepts the application for filing. Priority review designation does not change the scientific/medical standard for approval or the quality of evidence necessary to support approval. Under the Accelerated Approval program, the FDA may approve a BLA on the basis of either a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit, or on a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than irreversible morbidity or mortality, that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity, or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. Post-marketing studies or completion of ongoing studies after marketing approval are generally required to verify the biologic’s clinical benefit in relationship to the surrogate endpoint or ultimate outcome in relationship to the clinical benefit. 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 drug. In addition, a sponsor may seek FDA designation of its product candidate as a Breakthrough Therapy, if the product candidate is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs or biologics, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the therapy may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. If the FDA designates a breakthrough therapy, it may take actions appropriate to expedite the development and review of the application. Breakthrough designation also allows the sponsor to file sections of the BLA for review on a rolling basis. Drugs or biologics designated as breakthrough therapies are also eligible for accelerated approval of their respective marketing applications. 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. Fast Track, Priority Review and Breakthrough Therapy designations do not change the standards for approval but may expedite the development or approval process. Orphan Drugs Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant Orphan Drug Product Designation to a drug or biologic intended to treat a rare disease or condition, defined as a disease or condition with a patient population of fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or a patient population greater than 200,000 individuals in the United States and when there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making available the drug or biologic in the United States will be recovered from sales in the United States for that drug or biologic. Orphan Drug Product Designation must be requested before submitting a BLA. After the FDA grants Orphan Drug Product Designation, the generic identity of the therapeutic agent and its potential orphan use are disclosed publicly by the FDA. 39 Table of Contents If a biologic product that has Orphan Drug Product Designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for a particular active ingredient for the disease for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan product exclusivity, which means that the FDA may not approve any other applications, including a full BLA, to market the same biologic for the same indication for seven years, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan product exclusivity or if FDA finds that the holder of the orphan product exclusivity has not shown that it can assure the availability of sufficient quantities of the orphan product to meet the needs of patients with the disease or condition for which the biologic was designated. Orphan product exclusivity does not prevent the FDA from approving a different drug or biologic for the same disease or condition, or the same drug or biologic for a different disease or condition. Among the other benefits of Orphan Drug Product Designation are tax credits for certain research and a waiver of the BLA application user fee. A biologic with Orphan Drug Product Designation may not receive orphan product exclusivity if it is approved for a use that is broader than the indication for which it received Orphan Drug Product Designation. In addition, orphan product exclusive marketing rights in the United States may be lost if the FDA later determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient quantities of the product to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition. We have obtained Orphan Drug Product Designation in the United States for GPS in AML, MPM and MM. Pediatric exclusivity 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 a BLA 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, or ACA, was enacted in the United States and included the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, or the BPCIA. The BPCIA amended the PHSA to create an abbreviated approval pathway for biological products that are biosimilar to or interchangeable with an FDA-licensed reference biological product. A federal district court ruling in Texas struck down the ACA in its entirety based on constitutionality in December 2018 after the individual mandate was repealed by Congress as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, effective January 1, 2019, and in December 2019 the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s finding that the individual mandate in the law is unconstitutional. However, the Fifth Circuit also reversed and remanded the case to the district court to determine if other reforms enacted as part of the ACA, but not specifically related to the individual mandate or health insurance, including the BPCIA, could be severed from the rest of the ACA so as not to be declared invalid. On March 2, 2020, the United States Supreme Court granted the petitions for writs of certiorari to review this case and allocated one hour for oral arguments, which occurred on November 10, 2020. A decision from the Supreme Court is expected to be issued in spring 2021. It is unclear how this litigation and other efforts to repeal and replace the ACA will affect the implementation of that law and our business. 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. 40 Table of Contents 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 follow-on 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, although to date no such products have been approved for marketing in the United States. The biosimilar applicant must demonstrate that its 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 twelve 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. If pediatric studies are performed and accepted by the FDA as responsive to a Written Request, the twelve-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 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 only beginning to be interpreted and implemented by the FDA. In addition, recent government proposals have sought to reduce the twelve-year reference product exclusivity period. Other aspects of the BPCIA, some of which may impact the BPCIA exclusivity provisions, have also been the subject of recent litigation. As a result, the ultimate impact, implementation and meaning of the BPCIA continues to be subject to significant uncertainty. 41 Table of Contents Post-approval requirements 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, which include restrictions on promoting drugs for unapproved uses or patient populations (i.e., “off-label use”) and limitations on industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities. The manufacturer and its product are also subject to similar post-approval requirements by regulatory authorities comparable to FDA in jurisdictions outside of the United States where the product is approved. 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 pre-clinical studies and 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. FDA regulations require that products be manufactured in specific approved facilities and in accordance with cGMPs. The cGMP regulations include requirements relating to organization of personnel, buildings and facilities, equipment, control of components and drug 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. The manufacturing facilities for our product candidates must meet applicable cGMP requirements to the FDA's or comparable foreign regulatory authorities' satisfaction before any product is approved and our commercial products can be manufactured. We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties for the production of clinical and commercial quantities of our products in accordance with cGMP regulations. These manufacturers must comply with cGMP regulations that require, among other things, quality control and quality assurance, the maintenance of records and documentation and the obligation to investigate and correct any deviations from cGMP. Manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved drugs or biologics are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with cGMP and other laws. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain cGMP compliance. Future inspections by the FDA and other regulatory agencies may identify compliance issues at the facilities of our CMOs 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, could result in enforcement actions, and the discovery of problems with a 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. 42 Table of Contents Once an approval or clearance of a drug 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 BLAs or supplements to approved 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, or PDMA, which regulates the distribution of drugs and drug samples at the federal level and sets minimum standards for the registration and regulation of drug distributors by the states. Both the PDMA and state laws limit the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical product samples and impose requirements to ensure accountability in distribution. Most recently, the Drug Supply Chain Security Act, or DSCSA, was enacted with the aim of building an electronic system to identify and trace certain prescription drugs distributed in the United States, including most biological products. The DSCSA mandates phased-in and resource-intensive obligations for pharmaceutical manufacturers, wholesale distributors, and dispensers over a ten‑year period that is expected to culminate in November 2023. 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, whether FDA regulations, guidance or interpretations will be changed or what the impact of such changes, if any, may be. Other Healthcare Laws and Compliance Requirements Our sales, promotion, medical education and other activities following product approval will be subject to regulation by numerous regulatory and law enforcement authorities in the United States in addition to FDA, including potentially the Federal Trade Commission, or FTC, the Department of Justice, or DOJ, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, other divisions of the Department of Health and Human Services and state and local governments. Our promotional and scientific/educational programs must comply with the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the False Claims Act, or FCA, the Veterans Health Care Act, physician payment transparency laws, privacy laws, security laws, and additional state laws similar to the foregoing. The federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits, among other things, the offer, receipt, or payment of remuneration in exchange for or to induce the referral of patients or the use of products or services that would be paid for in whole or part by Medicare, Medicaid or other federal health care programs. Remuneration has been broadly defined to include anything of value, including cash, improper discounts, and free or reduced price items and services. The government has enforced the Anti-Kickback Statute to reach large settlements with healthcare companies based on sham research or consulting and other financial arrangements with physicians. Further, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute 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 federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the FCA. Many states have similar laws that apply to their state health care programs as well as private payors. 43 Table of Contents The FCA, imposes liability on persons who, among other things, present or cause to be presented false or fraudulent claims for payment by a federal health care program. The FCA has been used to prosecute persons submitting claims for payment that are inaccurate or fraudulent, that are for services not provided as claimed, or for services that are not medically necessary. Actions under the FCA may be brought by the U.S. Attorney General or as a qui tam action by a private individual in the name of the government. Violations of the FCA can result in significant monetary penalties and treble damages. The federal government is using the FCA, and the accompanying threat of significant liability, in its investigation and prosecution of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies throughout the country, for example, in connection with the promotion of products for unapproved uses and other sales and marketing practices. The government has obtained multi-million and multi-billion dollar settlements under the FCA in addition to individual criminal convictions under applicable criminal statutes. In addition, companies have been forced to implement extensive corrective action plans, and have often become subject to consent decrees or corporate integrity agreements, restricting the manner in which they conduct their business. The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, also created federal criminal statutes that prohibit, among other things, knowingly and willfully executing a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program, including private third-party payors and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services. Given the significant size of actual and potential settlements, it is expected that the government will continue to devote substantial resources to investigating healthcare providers’ and manufacturers’ compliance with applicable fraud and abuse laws. In addition, there has been a recent trend of increased federal and state regulation of payments made to physicians and other healthcare providers. The ACA, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, or collectively, the Affordable Care Act, among other things, requires manufacturers of FDA-approved drugs, devices, biologics and medical supplies covered by Medicare or Medicaid to report, on an annual basis, to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services information related to payments or other transfers of value made by them to physicians and teaching hospitals, as well as ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members. Failure to submit required information may result in civil monetary penalties . Certain states also mandate implementation of commercial compliance programs, impose restrictions on drug manufacturer marketing practices and/or require the tracking and reporting of gifts, compensation and other remuneration to physicians and other healthcare professionals. We may also be subject to data privacy and security regulation by both the federal government and the states in which it conducts its business. HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology and Clinical Health Act, or HITECH, and their respective implementing regulations, imposes specified requirements relating to the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information. Among other things, HITECH makes HIPAA’s privacy and security standards directly applicable to “business associates,” defined as independent contractors or agents of covered entities that create, receive, maintain or transmit protected health information in connection with providing a service for or on behalf of a covered entity. HITECH also increased the civil and criminal penalties that may be imposed against covered entities, business associates and possibly other persons, and gave state attorneys general new authority to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce the federal HIPAA laws and seek attorney’s fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions. In addition, state laws govern the privacy and security of health information in certain circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and may not have the same effect. Pricing and rebate programs must comply with the Medicaid rebate requirements of the U.S. Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 and more recent requirements in the ACA. If products are made available to authorized users of the Federal Supply Schedule of the General Services Administration, additional laws and requirements apply. Prescription drug and biologic products also must meet applicable child-resistant packaging requirements under the U.S, Poison Prevention Packaging Act. 44 Table of Contents If our operations are found to be in violation of any of such laws or any other governmental regulations that apply to it, we may be subject to penalties, including, without limitation, civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, exclusion from participation in federal and state healthcare programs and imprisonment, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our financial results. Also, the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and similar worldwide anti-bribery laws generally prohibit companies and their intermediaries from making improper payments to foreign officials for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business. We cannot assure you that our internal control policies and procedures will protect us from reckless or negligent acts committed by our employees, future distributors, partners, collaborators or agents. Violations of these laws, or allegations of such violations, could result in fines, penalties or prosecution and have a negative impact on our business, results of operations and reputation. 45 Table of Contents Coverage and Reimbursement Sales of our products approved for marketing by the FDA and foreign regulatory authorities will depend, in part, on the extent to which our products will be covered by third-party payors, such as government health programs, commercial insurance and managed care organizations. In the United States no uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for drug or biological products exists. Accordingly, decisions regarding the extent of coverage and amount of reimbursement to be provided for any of our products will be made on a payor-by-payor basis. As a result, the coverage determination process is often a time-consuming and costly process that will require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of our products to each payor separately, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be obtained. The United States government, state legislatures and foreign governments have shown significant interest in implementing cost containment programs to limit the growth of government-paid health care costs, including price-controls, restrictions on reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic products for branded prescription drugs. For example, the ACA contains provisions that may reduce the profitability of drug products through increased rebates for drugs reimbursed by Medicaid programs, extension of Medicaid rebates to Medicaid managed care plans, mandatory discounts for certain Medicare Part D beneficiaries and annual fees based on pharmaceutical companies’ share of sales to federal health care programs. Adoption of general controls and measures, coupled with the tightening of restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could limit payments for pharmaceutical drugs. The Medicaid Drug Rebate Program requires pharmaceutical manufacturers to enter into and have in effect a national rebate agreement with the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services as a condition for states to receive federal matching funds for the manufacturer’s outpatient drugs furnished to Medicaid patients. The ACA made several changes to the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, including increasing pharmaceutical manufacturers’ rebate liability by raising the minimum basic Medicaid rebate on most branded prescription drugs from 15.1% of average manufacturer price, or AMP, to 23.1% of AMP and adding a new rebate calculation for “line extensions” (i.e., new formulations, such as extended release formulations) of solid oral dosage forms of branded products, as well as potentially impacting their rebate liability by modifying the statutory definition of AMP. The ACA also expanded the universe of Medicaid utilization subject to drug rebates by requiring pharmaceutical manufacturers to pay rebates on Medicaid managed care utilization and by enlarging the population potentially eligible for Medicaid drug benefits. Since its enactment, there have been judicial and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA, and as a result certain sections of the ACA have not been fully implemented or effectively repealed. In particular, in December of 2018, a Texas U.S. District Court Judge ruled that the ACA is unconstitutional in its entirety because the individual mandate was repealed by Congress as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, effective January 1, 2019. On December 18, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the District Court ruling that the individual mandate was unconstitutional but remanded the case back to the District Court to determine whether other reforms enacted as part of the ACA but not specifically related to the individual mandate or health insurance could be severed from the rest of the ACA so as not to be declared invalid as well. On March 2, 2020, the United States Supreme Court granted the petitions for writs of certiorari to review this case and allocated one hour for oral arguments, which occurred on November 10, 2020. A decision from the Supreme Court is expected to be issued in spring 2021. It is unclear how this litigation and other efforts to repeal and replace the ACA will impact the ACA and the pharmaceutical industry more generally. In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted. These changes include aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of up to 2% per fiscal year pursuant to the Budget Control Act of 2011, which began in 2013 and will remain in effect through 2030 unless additional Congressional action is taken. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, or the CARES Act, which was signed into law on March 27, 2020 and was designed to provide financial support and resources to individuals and businesses affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, suspended the 2% Medicare sequester from May 1, 2020 through December 31, 2020, and extended the sequester by one year, through 2030, in order to offset the added expense of the 2020 cancellation. The 2021 Consolidated Appropriations Act was subsequently signed into law on December 27, 2020 and extends the CARES Act suspension period to March 31, 2021. 46 Table of Contents The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, or the MMA, established the Medicare Part D program to provide a voluntary prescription drug benefit to Medicare beneficiaries. Under Part D, Medicare beneficiaries may enroll in prescription drug plans offered by private entities that provide coverage of outpatient prescription drugs. Unlike Medicare Part A and B, Part D coverage is not standardized. While all Medicare drug plans must give at least a standard level of coverage set by Medicare, Part D prescription drug plan sponsors are not required to pay for all covered Part D drugs, and each drug plan can develop its own drug formulary that identifies which drugs it will cover and at what tier or level. However, Part D prescription drug formularies must include drugs within each therapeutic category and class of covered Part D drugs, though not necessarily all the drugs in each category or class. Any formulary used by a Part D prescription drug plan must be developed and reviewed by a pharmacy and therapeutic committee. Government payment for some of the costs of prescription drugs may increase demand for products for which we receive marketing approval. However, any negotiated prices for our products covered by a Part D prescription drug plan likely will be lower than the prices we might otherwise obtain. Moreover, while the MMA applies only to drug benefits for Medicare beneficiaries, private payors often follow Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own payment rates. Any reduction in payment that results from the MMA may result in a similar reduction in payments from non-governmental payors. For a drug product to receive federal reimbursement under the Medicaid or Medicare Part B programs or to be sold directly to U.S. government agencies, the manufacturer must extend discounts to entities eligible to participate in the 340B drug pricing program. The maximum amount that a manufacturer may charge a 340B covered entity for a given product is the AMP reduced by the rebate amount paid by the manufacturer to Medicaid for each unit of that product. As of 2010, the ACA expanded the types of entities eligible to receive discounted 340B pricing, although, under the current state of the law, with the exception of children’s hospitals, these newly eligible entities will not be eligible to receive discounted 340B pricing on orphan drugs. In addition, as 340B drug pricing is determined based on AMP and Medicaid rebate data, the revisions to the Medicaid rebate formula and AMP definition described above could cause the required 340B discount to increase. 47 Table of Contents Moreover, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several 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 drug products. In March 2020, the Trump administration sent “principles” for drug pricing to Congress, calling for legislation that would, among other things, cap Medicare Part D beneficiary out-of-pocket pharmacy expenses, provide an option to cap Medicare Part D beneficiary monthly out-of-pocket expenses, and place limits on pharmaceutical price increases. In addition, the Trump administration previously released a “Blueprint” to lower drug prices and reduce out of pocket costs of drugs that contained proposals to increase manufacturer competition, increase the negotiating power of certain federal healthcare programs, incentivize manufacturers to lower the list price of their products and reduce the out-of-pocket costs of drug products paid by consumers. HHS has solicited feedback on some of these measures and has implemented others under its existing authority. For example, in September 2020, the FDA finalized a rulemaking to establish a system whereby state governmental entities could lawfully import and distribute prescription drugs sourced from Canada. Those new regulations became effective on November 30, 2020, although the impact of such future programs is uncertain and lawsuits have been filed challenging the government’s authority to promulgate them. While some of these and other measures may require additional authorization to become effective, Congress and the Trump administration have each indicated that they will continue to seek new legislative and/or administrative measures to control drug costs. For example, on July 24, 2020, President Trump announced four executive orders related to prescription drug pricing that attempt to implement several of the Administration’s proposals, including a policy that would tie Medicare Part B drug prices to international drug prices; one that directed HHS to finalize the Canadian drug importation proposed rule previously issued by HHS (which has since been finalized, as noted above) and made other changes allowing for personal importation of drugs from Canada; one that directed HHS to finalize the rulemaking process on modifying the anti-kickback law safe harbors for plans, pharmacies, and pharmaceutical benefit managers after HHS confirms that the action is not projected to increase federal spending, Medicare beneficiary premiums, or patients’ total out-of-pocket costs (which HHS finalized in November 2020); and one that reduces costs of insulin and epinephrine auto-injectors to patients of federally qualified health centers. President Trump also issued another executive order on September 13, 2020 that directed HHS to undertake rulemaking in order to test an international reference pricing model for prescription drug products, which was also implemented by HHS and then challenged in federal court by industry groups in December 2020. The probability of success of these newly announced policies and their impact on the U.S. prescription drug marketplace is unknown. There are likely to be continued political and legal challenges associated with implementing these reforms as they are currently envisioned, notwithstanding the January 20, 2021 transition to a new presidential administration. At the state level, legislatures have increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures. 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. As noted above, the marketability of any products for which we receive regulatory approval for commercial sale may suffer if the government and third-party payors fail to provide adequate coverage and reimbursement. An increasing emphasis on cost containment measures in the United States has increased and we expect will continue to increase the pressure on pharmaceutical pricing. Coverage policies and third-party reimbursement rates may change at any time. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for one or more products for which we receive regulatory approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future. 48 Table of Contents In some foreign countries, proposed pricing for a drug must be approved before the product may be lawfully marketed. The requirements governing drug pricing vary widely from country to country. Some countries provide that drug products may be marketed only after agreement on a reimbursement price has been reached. Some countries may require additional studies that compare the cost-effectiveness of our product candidate to currently available therapies (so called health technology assessment, or HTA) in order to obtain reimbursement or pricing approval. For example, the European Union provides options for its member states to restrict the range of medicinal products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices of medicines. A member state may approve a specific price for the product or it may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the product on the market. Other member states allow companies to fix their own drug prices but monitor and control prescription volumes and issue guidance to physicians to limit prescriptions. There can be no assurance that any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for pharmaceutical products will allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements for any of our products. Historically, products launched in the European Union do not follow price structures of the United States and generally tend to by significantly lower. Foreign Regulation In addition to regulations in the United States, we are and will be subject, either directly or through our distribution partners, to a variety of regulations in other jurisdictions governing, among other things, clinical trials and commercial sales and distribution of our products, if approved in such jurisdiction. Whether or not we obtain FDA approval for a product, we must obtain the requisite approvals from regulatory authorities in non-U.S. countries prior to the commencement of clinical trials or marketing of the product in those countries. The time required to obtain approval in other countries and jurisdictions might differ from and be longer than that required to obtain FDA approval. Regulatory approval in one country or jurisdiction does not ensure regulatory approval in another, but a failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one country or jurisdiction may negatively impact the regulatory process in others. It is not yet clear how the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union, which took place on January 31, 2020, will affect the approval of medicinal products in the United Kingdom. Certain countries outside of the United States have processes that require the submission of a clinical trial application much like an IND prior to the commencement of human clinical trials. In Europe, for example, a clinical trial application, or CTA, must be submitted to the competent national health authority and to independent ethics committees in each country in which a company plans to conduct clinical trials. Once the CTA is approved in accordance with a country’s requirements, clinical trials may proceed in that country. The E.U. clinical trials legislation currently is undergoing a transition process mainly aimed at harmonizing and streamlining clinical-trial authorization, simplifying adverse-event reporting procedures, improving the supervision of clinical trials and increasing their transparency. Specifically, in April 2014, the new Clinical Trials Regulation, (E.U.) No 536/2014 (Clinical Trials Regulation) was adopted and it is anticipated to come into application in late 2020 or early 2021. The Clinical Trials Regulation will be directly applicable in all the E.U. Member States, repealing the current Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC. Conduct of all clinical trials performed in the European Union will continue to be bound by currently applicable provisions until the new Clinical Trials Regulation becomes applicable. The extent to which ongoing clinical trials will be governed by the Clinical Trials Regulation will depend on when the Clinical Trials Regulation becomes applicable and on the duration of the individual clinical trial. If a clinical trial continues for more than three years from the day on which the Clinical Trials Regulation becomes applicable the Clinical Trials Regulation will at that time begin to apply to the clinical trial. The requirements and processes governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement in Europe vary from country to country, even though there is already some degree of legal harmonization in the E.U. member states resulting from the national implementation of underlying E.U. legislation. In all cases, the clinical trials are conducted in accordance with GCP and other applicable regulatory requirements. To obtain regulatory approval of a new drug or medicinal product in the European Union, a sponsor must obtain approval of a marketing authorization application. The way in which a medicinal product can be approved in the European Union depends on the nature of the medicinal product. 49 Table of Contents The centralized procedure results in a single marketing authorization granted by the European Commission that is valid across the European Union, as well as in Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. The centralized procedure is compulsory for human drugs that are: (i) derived from biotechnology processes, such as genetic engineering, (ii) contain a new active substance indicated for the treatment of certain diseases, such as HIV/AIDS, cancer, diabetes, neurodegenerative diseases, autoimmune and other immune dysfunctions and viral diseases, (iii) officially designated as “orphan drugs” and (iv) advanced-therapy medicines, such as gene-therapy, somatic cell-therapy or tissue-engineered medicines. The centralized procedure may at the request of the applicant also be used for human drugs which do not fall within the above mentioned categories if (a) the human drug contains a new active substance which was not authorized in the European Community before May 20, 2004; or (b) the applicant shows that the medicinal product constitutes a significant therapeutic, scientific or technical innovation or that the granting of authorization in the centralized procedure is in the interests of patients or animal health at the European Community level. Under the centralized procedure in the European Union, the maximum timeframe for the evaluation of a marketing authorization application by the EMA is 210 days (excluding clock stops, when additional written or oral information is to be provided by the applicant in response to questions asked by the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use, or CHMP), with adoption of the actual marketing authorization by the European Commission thereafter. Accelerated evaluation might be granted by the CHMP in exceptional cases, when a medicinal product is expected to be of a major public health interest from the point of view of therapeutic innovation, defined by three cumulative criteria: the seriousness of the disease to be treated; the absence of an appropriate alternative therapeutic approach, and anticipation of exceptional high therapeutic benefit. In this circumstance, EMA ensures that the evaluation for the opinion of the CHMP is completed within 150 days, excluding clock stops, and the opinion issued thereafter. There are also two other possible routes to authorize medicinal products in several E.U. countries, which are available for investigational medicinal products for which the centralized procedure is not obligatory: the decentralized procedure and the mutual recognition procedure, or MRP. Using the decentralized procedure, an applicant may apply for simultaneous authorization in more than one E.U. country of medicinal products that have not yet been authorized in any E.U. country and that do not fall within the mandatory scope of the centralized procedure. The MRP is applicable to the majority of conventional medicinal products, and is based on the principle of recognition of an already existing national marketing authorization by one or more member states. The characteristic of the MRP is that the procedure builds on an already existing marketing authorization in an E.U. member state which is used as reference in order to obtain marketing authorizations in other E.U. member states. In the MRP, a marketing authorization for a drug already exists in one or more member states of the E.U. and subsequently marketing authorization applications are made in other European Union member states by referring to the initial marketing authorization. The member state in which the marketing authorization was first granted will then act as the reference member state. The member states where the marketing authorization is subsequently applied for act as concerned member states. The MRP is based on the principle of the mutual recognition by E.U. member states of their respective national marketing authorizations. Based on a marketing authorization in the reference member state, the applicant may apply for marketing authorizations in other member states. In such case, the reference member state shall update its existing assessment report about the drug in 90 days. After the assessment is completed, copies of the report are sent to all member states, together with the approved summary of product characteristics, labeling and package leaflet. The concerned member states then have 90 days to recognize the decision of the reference member state and the summary of product characteristics, labeling and package leaflet. National marketing authorizations shall be granted within 30 days after acknowledgement of the agreement. 50 Table of Contents Should any Member State refuse to recognize the marketing authorization by the reference member state, on the grounds of potential serious risk to public health, the issue will be referred to a coordination group. Within a timeframe of 60 days, member states shall, within the coordination group, make all efforts to reach a consensus. If this fails, the procedure is submitted to an EMA scientific committee for arbitration. The opinion of this EMA Committee is then forwarded to the Commission, for the start of the decision-making process. As in the centralized procedure, this process entails consulting various European Commission Directorates General and the Standing Committee on Human Medicinal Products or Veterinary Medicinal Products, as appropriate. In the E.U., new chemical entities, sometimes referred to as new active substances, qualify for eight years of data exclusivity upon marketing authorization and an additional two years of market exclusivity. The data exclusivity, if granted, prevents regulatory authorities in the E.U. from referencing the innovator’s data to assess a generic or biosimilar application for eight years, after which generic marketing authorization can be submitted, and the innovator’s data may be referenced, but not approved for two years. The overall ten-year period can be extended to a maximum of 11 years if, during the first eight years of those 10 years, the marketing authorization holder obtains an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications which, during the scientific evaluation prior to their authorization, are determined to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with currently approved therapies. The criteria for designating an orphan medicinal product in the European Union are similar in principle to those in the United States. Under Article 3 of Regulation (EC) 141/2000, a medicinal product may be designated as orphan if (1) it is intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition; (2) either (a) such condition affects no more than five in 10,000 persons in the European Union when the application is made, or (b) the product, without the benefits derived from orphan status, would not generate sufficient return in the European Union to justify investment; and (3) there exists no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment of such condition authorized for marketing in the European Union, or if such a method exists, the product will be of significant benefit to those affected by the condition, as defined in Regulation (EC) 847/2000. Orphan medicinal products are eligible for financial incentives such as reduction of fees or fee waivers and are, upon grant of a marketing authorization, entitled to ten years of market exclusivity for the approved therapeutic indication. The application for orphan designation must be submitted before the application for marketing authorization. The applicant will receive a fee reduction for the marketing authorization application if the orphan designation has been granted, but not if the designation is still pending at the time the marketing authorization is submitted. Orphan designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process. The ten-year market exclusivity for orphan products in the European Union may be reduced to six years if, at the end of the fifth year, it is established that the product no longer meets the criteria for orphan designation, for example, if the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify maintenance of market exclusivity. Additionally, marketing authorization may be granted to a similar product for the same indication at any time if: • the second applicant can establish that its product, although similar, is safer, more effective or otherwise clinically superior; • the applicant consents to a second orphan medicinal product application; or • the applicant cannot supply enough orphan medicinal product. We have obtained Orphan Medicinal Product Designations from the EMA for GPS in AML, MPM and MM. For other countries outside of the United States and the European Union, such as countries in Eastern Europe, Latin America or Asia, the requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary from country to country. In all cases, again, the clinical trials are conducted in accordance with GCP and the other applicable regulatory requirements. 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. 51 Table of Contents Health Care Reform in the U.S. and Potential Changes to Health Care Laws FDA and other regulatory authority policies may change and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of our drug candidates. For example, in December 2016, the 21st Century Cures Act, or Cures Act, was signed into law. The Cures Act, among other things, is intended to modernize the regulation of drugs and devices and to spur innovation, but its ultimate implementation is uncertain. In addition, in August 2017, the FDA Reauthorization Act was signed into law, which reauthorized the FDA’s user fee programs and included additional drug and device provisions that build on the Cures Act. 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. As previously mentioned, the primary trend in the US health care industry and elsewhere is cost containment. Government authorities and other third-party payors have attempted to control costs by limiting coverage and the amount of reimbursement for particular medical products and services, implementing reductions in Medicare and other health care funding and applying new payment methodologies. For example, in March 2010, the ACA was enacted, which, among other things, increased the minimum Medicaid rebates owed by most manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program; introduced a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for drugs that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted or injected; extended the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program to utilization of prescriptions of individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care plans; imposed mandatory discounts for certain Medicare Part D beneficiaries as a condition for manufacturers’ outpatient drugs coverage under Medicare Part D; and established a Center for Medicare Innovation at the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, to test innovative payment and service delivery models to lower Medicare and Medicaid spending. The uncertainty related to the Affordable Care Act and the Trump Administration’s regulatory and executive actions pertaining to drug costs and drug pricing matters is described above under “Coverage, Pricing, and Reimbursement.” Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the Affordable Care Act that may affect health care expenditures. For example, on December 20, 2019, President Trump signed the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2020 into law (P.L. 116-94) that includes a piece of bipartisan legislation called the Creating and Restoring Equal Access to Equivalent Samples Act of 2019 or the “CREATES Act.” The CREATES Act aims to address the concern articulated by both the FDA and others in the industry that some brand manufacturers have 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 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 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.” Whether and how generic and biosimilar product developments will use this new pathway, as well as the likely outcome of any legal challenges to provisions of the CREATES Act, remain highly uncertain and its potential effects on our future commercial products are unknown. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, signed into law by President Trump on December 27, 2020 also includes, among other things, a new requirement for patent information to be submitted to the FDA and published in a “Purple Book” that contains detailed information about each FDA-licensed biological product, analogous to the Orange Book that provides information about approved small-molecule drug products and their patent and exclusivity information under the Hatch-Waxman Amendments. In addition, the next cycle of Congressional reauthorization for FDA’s prescription drug, biologic, and medical device user fee programs must be completed by mid-2022 and that periodic must-pass legislation is typically used as a vehicle to implement federal policy changes or other substantive amendments to the FDCA. 52 Table of Contents 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 state and federal health care reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for health care products and services. Moreover, 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, our therapeutic candidates may lose any marketing approval that may have been obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability, which would adversely affect our business. Corporate Information Our principal executive offices are located at 7 Times Square, Suite 2503, New York, NY 10036, and our phone number is (646) 200-5278. Our website address is www.sellaslife.com. We do not incorporate the information on our website into this annual report on Form 10-K, and you should not consider such information part of this annual report on Form 10-K. We were incorporated on April 3, 2006 in Delaware as Argonaut Pharmaceuticals, Inc. On November 28, 2006, we changed our name to RXi Pharmaceuticals Corporation and began operations January 2007. On September 26, 2011, we changed our name to Galena Biopharma, Inc., or Galena. In December 2017, we completed the Merger with Private SELLAS and changed our name to “SELLAS Life Sciences Group, Inc.” A copy of our Corporate Governance Guidelines, Code of Business Conduct and Ethics and the charters of the Audit Committee, Compensation Committee and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee are posted on our website, www.sellaslifesciences.com, under “Investors – Corporate Governance.” 53 Table of Contents