Item 1A. Risk Factors

Investing in our securities involves a high degree of risks. Investors should carefully consider all of the risk factors and uncertainties described below, in addition to the other information contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including the section of this report titled “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and our consolidated financial statements and related notes, before investing in our securities.

The risks described below may not be the only ones relating to our company and additional risks that we currently believe are immaterial may also affect us. If any of these risks, including those described below, materialize, our business, competitive position, reputation, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and future prospects could be seriously harmed. In these circumstances, the market price of our securities could decline, and investors may lose all or a part of their investment.

Risks Related to Our Financial Results and Capital Needs

We have incurred substantial losses since our inception and anticipate that we will continue to incur substantial and increasing losses for the foreseeable future.

We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company. Investment in biopharmaceutical product development is highly speculative because it entails substantial upfront capital expenditures and significant risk that product candidates will fail to prove effective, gain regulatory approval or become commercially viable. We do not have any products approved by regulatory authorities and have not generated any revenues from product sales, and have incurred significant research, development and other expenses related to our ongoing operations and expect to continue to incur such expenses. As a result, we have not been profitable and have incurred significant operating losses in every reporting period since our inception. For the year ended December 31, 2020, we reported a net loss of $306.6 million.

We do not expect to generate product revenues in the near future, if at all. We expect to continue to incur significant expenses and operating losses for the foreseeable future. We anticipate these losses to increase as we continue to research, develop and seek regulatory approvals for our product candidates and any additional product candidates we may acquire, in-license or develop, and potentially begin to commercialize product candidates that may achieve regulatory approval. We may encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays and other unknown factors that may adversely affect our business. The size of our future net losses will depend, in part, on the rate of future growth of our expenses and our ability to generate revenues. If any of our product candidates fails in clinical studies or does not gain regulatory approval, or if approved, fails to achieve market acceptance, we may never become profitable. Even if we achieve profitability in the future, we may not be able to sustain profitability in subsequent periods. We anticipate that our expenses will increase in the future as we continue to invest in research and development of our existing product candidates, investigate and potentially acquire new product candidates and expand our manufacturing and commercialization activities.

We have a limited operating history, which may make it difficult to evaluate the success of our business to date and to assess our future viability.

Our company was formed in August 2012. Our operations to date have been limited to organizing and staffing our company, acquiring product and technology rights and conducting product development activities for our product candidates. We have not yet demonstrated our ability to successfully complete any Phase 2 or Phase 3 clinical studies, obtain regulatory approval, consistently manufacture a commercial scale product or arrange for a third party to do so on our behalf, or conduct sales and marketing activities necessary for successful commercialization for any of our product candidates. In addition, the adoptive immunotherapy technology underlying our T-cell product candidates, including our next-generation CAR T programs, is new and largely unproven. Any predictions about our future success, performance or viability, particularly in view of the rapidly evolving immunotherapy field, may not be as accurate as they could be if we had a longer operating history or approved products on the market.

In addition, as a young business, we may encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays and other known and unknown factors. Because of the anticipated completion of our BLA filing for tab-cel® in the third quarter of 2021 and a potential approval decision on the same in the first half of 2022, we plan to begin transitioning from a company with a research and development focus to a company capable of supporting commercial activities. We may not be successful in such a transition. We expect our financial condition and operating results to continue to fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter and year to year due to a variety of factors, many of which are beyond our control. Accordingly, any of our quarterly or annual periods’ results are not indicative of future operating performance.

We currently have no approved products and thus have no product revenues. We may never generate revenues from the sale of products or achieve profitability.

To date, we have not generated any revenues from product sales. Even if we are able to successfully achieve regulatory approval for our product candidates, we do not know when we will generate revenues from product sales or become profitable, if at all. Our ability to generate revenues from product sales and achieve profitability will depend on our ability to successfully commercialize products, including any of our current product candidates, and other product candidates that we may develop, in-license or acquire in the future. Our ability to generate revenues from the sale of products and achieve profitability also depends on a number of additional factors, including our ability to:

• set commercially viable prices for our products, if any;

• develop commercial quantities of our products at acceptable cost levels;

• achieve market acceptance of our products, if any;

• attract, hire and retain qualified personnel;

• protect our rights in our intellectual property portfolio;

Our revenues for any product candidate for which regulatory approval is obtained will be dependent, in part, upon the size of the markets in the territories for which we gain regulatory approval, the accepted price for the product, the ability to get reimbursement at any price, and whether we own the commercial rights for that territory. If the number of our addressable disease patients is not as significant as we estimate, the indication approved by regulatory authorities is narrower than we expect, or the reasonably accepted population for treatment is narrowed by competition, physician choice, treatment guidelines or a reduction in the incidence of the addressable disease, we may not generate significant revenues from sales of our products, even if approved. In addition, we anticipate incurring significant costs associated with commercializing any approved product candidate. As a result, even if we generate revenues, we may not become profitable and may need to obtain additional funding to continue operations. If we fail to become profitable or are unable to sustain profitability on a continuing basis, then we may be unable to continue our operations at planned levels and may be forced to reduce our operations.

We will require substantial additional financing to achieve our goals, and a failure to obtain this necessary capital when needed could force us to delay, limit, reduce or terminate our product development or commercialization efforts.

We expect to expend substantial resources for the foreseeable future to continue the clinical development and manufacturing of our T-cell immunotherapy product candidates, and the advancement and expansion of our preclinical research pipeline. We also expect to continue to expend resources for the development and manufacturing of product candidates and the technology we have licensed or have an exclusive right to license from our partners. These expenditures will include costs associated with research and development, potentially acquiring or licensing new product candidates or technologies, conducting preclinical and clinical studies and potentially obtaining regulatory approvals and manufacturing products, as well as marketing and selling products approved for sale, if any. Under the terms of our license agreements with each of our in-license partners, we are obligated to make payments upon the achievement of certain development, regulatory and commercial milestones. We will also need to make significant expenditures to develop a commercial organization capable of sales, marketing and distribution for any products, if any, that we intend to sell ourselves in the markets in which we choose to commercialize on our own. In addition, other unanticipated costs may arise. Because the design and outcome of our ongoing, planned and anticipated clinical studies is highly uncertain, we cannot reasonably estimate the actual amounts necessary to successfully complete the development and commercialization of our product candidates.

Our future capital requirements depend on many factors, including:

• the emergence of competing technologies or other adverse market developments.

We believe that our existing cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments as of December 31, 2020, together with projected revenues from U.S. tab-cel® sales, if approved, will be sufficient to fund our operations into 2023, including expenses related to the BLA filing and potential commercial launch of tab-cel® in the U.S. As of December 31, 2020, we had total cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments of $500.7 million. However, our operating plan may change as a result of many factors currently unknown to us, and we may need additional funds sooner than planned.

We do not have any committed external source of funds other than reimbursements, milestone and royalty payments that we may receive under the Bayer License Agreement. While we expect to continue to opportunistically seek access to additional funds through additional public or private equity offerings or debt financings, through potential collaborations, partnering or other strategic arrangements, or a combination of the foregoing, additional funds may not be available when we need them on terms that are acceptable to us, or at all. Our ability to raise additional capital may be adversely impacted by potential worsening global economic conditions and the disruptions to and volatility in the credit and financial markets in the United States and worldwide, including the trading price of our common stock, resulting from the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. If adequate funds are not available to us on a timely basis, we may be required to delay, limit, reduce or terminate preclinical studies, clinical studies or other development activities for one or more of our product candidates or delay, limit, reduce or terminate our establishment of sales, marketing and distribution capabilities or other activities that may be necessary to commercialize our product candidates.

Raising additional capital may cause dilution to our existing stockholders, restrict our operations or require us to relinquish rights to our product candidates on terms that are unfavorable to us.

We may seek required additional capital through a variety of means, including through private and public equity offerings and debt financings. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, or if existing holders of warrants exercise their rights to purchase common stock, the ownership interest of existing stockholders will be diluted, and the terms may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect the rights of stockholders. To the extent equity valuations, including the trading price of our common stock, are depressed as a result of economic disruptions and uncertainty concerning the COVID-19 pandemic or other factors, the potential magnitude of this dilution will increase. Debt financing, if available, may involve agreements that include covenants limiting or restricting our ability to take certain actions, including incurring additional debt, making capital expenditures, entering into licensing arrangements, or declaring dividends. If we raise additional funds from third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our technologies or product candidates or grant licenses or other rights on terms that are not favorable to us. If we are unable to raise additional funds through equity or debt financing when needed, we may be required to delay, limit, reduce or terminate our product development or commercialization efforts for our product candidates, grant to others the rights to develop and market product candidates that we would otherwise prefer to develop and market ourselves or take other actions that are adverse to our business.

Risks Related to the Development of Our Product Candidates

We are generally early in our development efforts and have only a small number of product candidates in clinical development. All of our other product candidates are still in preclinical development. If we or our collaborators are unable to successfully develop and commercialize product candidates or experience significant delays in doing so, our business may be materially harmed.

We are generally early in our development efforts, and only a small number of our product candidates are in clinical development. The majority of our product candidates are currently in preclinical development. We have invested substantial resources in identifying and developing potential product candidates, conducting preclinical and clinical studies, manufacturing activities and preparing for the potential commercial launch of our product candidates. Our ability to generate revenues from the sale of products, if approved, will depend heavily on the successful development and eventual commercialization of our product candidates. The success of our product candidates will depend on many factors, including the following:

• completion of preclinical and clinical studies with positive results;

• receipt of regulatory approvals from applicable authorities;

• manufacturing our product candidates at an acceptable cost;

• effectively competing with other therapies;

If we do not achieve one or more of these factors in a timely manner or at all, we could experience significant delays or an inability to successfully develop and commercialize our product candidates, which could materially harm our business.

Our business and operations have been affected by and could be materially and adversely affected in the future by the effects of health epidemics and pandemics, including the evolving and ongoing effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. The COVID-19 pandemic continues to impact our business and operations and could materially and adversely affect our business and operations in the future, as well as the businesses and operations of third parties on which we rely.

Our business could be adversely affected by health epidemics and pandemics, including the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, which has presented a substantial public health and economic challenge around the world and has affected, and continues to affect, our employees, patients, communities and business operations, as well as the U.S. economy and financial markets. The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in transient, episodic travel and other restrictions to reduce the spread of the disease and included a California executive order and many other foreign, state and local orders (including in locations where we operate facilities), which, among other things, direct individuals to shelter at their places of residence, direct businesses and governmental agencies to cease non-essential operations at physical locations, prohibit certain non-essential gatherings and order cessation of non-essential travel. As a result of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the work-from-home model we implemented for most of our employees remains in place. We continue to maintain essential in-person manufacturing and laboratory functions in order to advance key research, development and manufacturing priorities. In connection with these measures, we may be subject to claims based upon, arising out of, or related to COVID-19 and our actions and responses thereto, including any determinations that we may make to continue to operate or to re-open our facilities where permitted by applicable law. The effects of current and potential future state executive orders, local shelter-in-place orders, government-imposed quarantines and our work-from-home policies and other similar, and perhaps more severe, actions may negatively impact productivity, disrupt our business and delay our clinical programs and timelines, the magnitude of which will depend, in part, on the length and severity of the restrictions and other limitations on our ability to conduct our business in the ordinary course.

Further quarantines, shelter-in-place or similar restrictions and other actions taken by foreign, federal, state and local governments, or the perception that such orders, shutdowns or other restrictions on the conduct of business operations could occur or could be reinstated, related to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic or other infectious diseases, could impact our manufacturing capabilities and third-party manufacturing facilities in the United States and other countries, or the availability or cost of materials, which would disrupt our supply chain. In particular, standard transportation channels have been impacted and we and other manufacturing, testing, product disposition, contract manufacturing organizations and external testing laboratories are subject to enhanced risk assessment and mitigation measures. In addition, there have been and may continue to be interruptions in the supply of leukapheresis collections, which supply raw materials used in our products. Our clinical trials may be affected by health epidemics and have been affected by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Clinical site initiation and patient enrollment have experienced delays as a result of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, including due to the prioritization of hospital resources toward COVID-19 and away from clinical trials or as a result of changing practice patterns that impact the diseases our trials address. Some patients may not be able to comply with clinical trial protocols if quarantines impede patient movement or interrupt healthcare services or if patients contract COVID-19 or are forced to quarantine. For example, while most clinical trial sites for our studies, including our Phase 3 clinical trial of tab-cel® in patients with EBV+ PTLD, remain open to enrollment for patients, some sites have limited the screening and enrollment of new patients due to governmental orders related to COVID-19, or fear of infection of COVID-19, have limited, and may continue to limit, patients’ abilities to access clinical sites.COVID-19-related travel restrictions may also interrupt key clinical trial activities, such as clinical trial site data monitoring and efficacy, safety and translational data collection, processing and analyses. At the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, we observed a temporary slow-down in stem cell and solid organ transplant volumes, which may have decreased the eligible patient population for the tab-cel®Phase 3 study. In April 2020, we initiated a temporary pause in the screening and enrollment of patients in our RCT of ATA188 in patients with progressive MS. Although we were able to resume the screening and enrollment of patients in our RCT of ATA188and enrolled the first patient in the study in June 2020, the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic may require us to institute another pause in the screening and enrollment of patients in our RCT. Similarly, our ability to recruit and retain principal investigators and site staff who, as healthcare providers, may have heightened exposure to COVID-19, may be adversely impacted.

In addition, while the potential economic impact brought by, and the duration of, the COVID-19 pandemic and the various actions taken in response to it may be difficult to assess or predict, the pandemic could result in significant disruption of global financial markets, reducing our ability to access capital, which could in the future negatively affect our liquidity. In addition, a recession or market correction resulting from the spread of COVID-19 could materially affect our business and the value of our common stock.

While we expect the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic to continue to adversely affect our business operations, the extent of the impact on our clinical development and regulatory efforts and the value of and market for our common stock will depend on future developments that are highly uncertain and cannot be predicted with confidence at this time, such as the ultimate duration of the pandemic, travel restrictions, quarantines, social distancing and business closure requirements in the U.S. and in other countries, and the effectiveness of actions taken globally to contain and treat COVID-19. In addition, to the extent the evolving effects of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic adversely affect our business and results of operations, it may also have the effect of heightening many of the other risks and uncertainties described elsewhere in this “Risk Factors” section.

Our future success is dependent on the regulatory approval of our product candidates.

We do not have any products that have gained regulatory approval. Currently, our prioritized clinical-stage product candidates include tab‐cel®, for which we are positioned to initiate a BLA submission to the FDA for EBV+ PTLD, and ATA188. Our business is substantially dependent on our ability to obtain regulatory approval for, and, if approved, to successfully commercialize our product candidates in a timely manner.

We cannot commercialize product candidates in the U.S. without first obtaining regulatory approval for the product from the FDA; similarly, we cannot commercialize product candidates outside of the U.S. without obtaining regulatory approval from comparable foreign regulatory authorities. Before obtaining regulatory approvals for the commercial sale of any product candidate for a target indication, we must demonstrate with substantial evidence gathered in preclinical and clinical studies that the product candidate is safe and effective for use for that target indication and that the manufacturing facilities, processes and controls are adequate with respect to such product candidate to assure safety, purity and potency.

The time required to obtain approval by the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities is unpredictable but typically takes many years following the commencement of preclinical and clinical studies and depends upon numerous factors, including the substantial discretion of the regulatory authorities. In addition, approval policies, regulations, or the type and amount of clinical data necessary to gain approval may change during the course of a product candidate’s clinical development and may vary among jurisdictions. We have not obtained regulatory approval for any product candidate and it is possible that none of our existing product candidates or any future product candidates will ever obtain regulatory approval.

Our product candidates could fail to receive regulatory approval from the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority for many reasons, including:

• disagreement with the design or conduct of our clinical studies;

The FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority may require more information, including additional preclinical or clinical data to support approval, which may delay or prevent approval and our commercialization plans, or we may decide to abandon the development program. If we were to obtain approval, regulatory authorities may approve any of our product candidates for fewer or more limited indications than we request (including failing to approve the most commercially promising indications), may grant approval contingent on the performance of costly post-marketing clinical studies, or may approve a product candidate with a label that does not include the labeling claims necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of that product candidate.

In addition, the clinical study requirements of the FDA, EMA and other regulatory agencies and the criteria these regulators use to determine the safety and efficacy of a product candidate are determined according to the type, complexity, novelty and intended use and market of the potential products. The regulatory approval process for novel product candidates, such as our novel T-cell product candidates and next-generation CAR T programs, can be more complex and consequently more expensive and take longer than for other, better known or extensively studied pharmaceutical or other product candidates. Approvals by the EMA and FDA for existing autologous CAR T therapies, such as Novartis’s Kymriah® and Gilead’s Yescarta®, may not be indicative of what these regulators may require for approval of our therapies. Moreover, our product candidates may not perform successfully in clinical studies or may be associated with adverse events that distinguish them from those that have previously been approved, such as existing autologous CAR T therapies. For instance, allogeneic product candidates may result in adverse events not experienced with autologous products.

Our development and commercialization activities could be harmed or delayed by governmental or regulatory delays due to limitations on the availability of governmental and regulatory agency personnel to review regulatory filings or engage with us, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, changes to governmental regulatory requirements, policies, guidelines or priorities, reallocation, or availability of government resources, or for other reasons, which may significantly delay the FDA’s, or other regulatory agency, ability to review and process any submissions we have filed or may file or cause other regulatory delays.

Even if a product candidate were to successfully obtain approval from the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities, any approval might contain significant limitations related to use restrictions for specified age groups, warnings, precautions or contraindications, or may be subject to burdensome post-approval study or risk management requirements. If we are unable to obtain regulatory approval for one of our product candidates in one or more jurisdictions, or any approval contains significant limitations, we may not be able to obtain sufficient funding to continue the development of that product or generate revenues attributable to that product candidate. Also, any regulatory approval of our current or future product candidates, once obtained, may be withdrawn.

Our T-cell immunotherapy product candidates and our next-generation CAR T programs represent new therapeutic approaches that could result in heightened regulatory scrutiny, delays in clinical development or delays in or our inability to achieve regulatory approval, commercialization or payor coverage of our product candidates.

Our future success is dependent on the successful development of T-cell immunotherapies and our next-generation CAR T programs in general and our development product candidates in particular. Because these programs, particularly our pipeline of allogeneic T-cell product candidates that are bioengineered from donors, represent a new approach to immunotherapy for the treatment of cancer and other diseases, developing and commercializing our product candidates subject us to a number of challenges, including:

We cannot be sure that the manufacturing processes used in connection with our T-cell immunotherapy product candidates will yield a sufficient supply of satisfactory products that are safe, pure, potent, comparable to those T cells produced by our partners historically, scalable or profitable.

Moreover, actual or perceived safety issues, including adoption of new therapeutics or novel approaches to treatment, may adversely influence the willingness of subjects to participate in clinical studies, or, if one of our product candidates is approved by applicable regulatory authorities, of physicians to subscribe to the novel treatment mechanics or of patients to provide consent to receive a novel treatment despite its regulatory approval. The FDA or other applicable regulatory authorities may require specific post-market studies or additional information that communicates the benefits or risks of our products. New data may reveal new risks of our product candidates at any time prior to or after regulatory approval.

Physicians, hospitals and third-party payors often are slow to adopt new products, technologies and treatment practices that require additional upfront costs and training. Physicians may not be willing to undergo training to adopt this novel therapy, may decide the therapy is too complex to adopt without appropriate training or not cost-efficient, and may choose not to administer the therapy. Based on these and other factors, hospitals and payors may decide that the benefits of this new therapy do not or will not outweigh its costs.

The results of preclinical studies or earlier clinical studies are not necessarily predictive of future results. Our existing product candidates in clinical studies, and any other product candidate we advance into clinical studies, may not have favorable results in later clinical studies or receive regulatory approval.

Success in preclinical studies and early clinical studies does not ensure that later clinical studies will generate adequate data to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of an investigational drug. Likewise, a number of companies in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, including those with greater resources and experience than us, have suffered significant setbacks in clinical studies, even after seeing promising results in earlier preclinical studies or clinical studies. Despite the results reported in earlier preclinical studies or clinical studies for our product candidates, we do not know whether the clinical studies we may conduct, or clinical studies in progress, will demonstrate adequate efficacy and safety to result in regulatory approval to market tab-cel®, ATA188, any product candidates resulting from our next-generation CAR T programs or any of our other product candidates in any particular jurisdiction.

Tab-cel®has been predominantly evaluated in single-center studies under investigator-sponsored INDs held by MSK and in our EAP, utilizing different response criteria and endpoints from those we may utilize in later clinical studies. The findings may not be reproducible in late phase studies we conduct. For instance, the current protocol for our ALLELE study is designed to rule out a 20% ORR as the null hypothesis. This means that if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval on ORR among patients receiving at least one dose of tab-cel® exceeds 20% at the end of the study, then the study would be expected to meet the primary endpoint for the treatment of PTLD. For example, assuming enrollment of 33 patients in a cohort of ALLELE, an observed ORR above approximately 37% would be expected to meet the primary endpoint for that cohort. In addition, our amended ALLELE study protocol includes an interim analysis as well as a final study analysis. Depending on discussions with regulators, we may, for example, file a marketing application on the basis of interim data from a subset of the required patients or file a marketing application on the basis of the final data. A marketing application based on interim data would impact the required ORR and may also result in post-marketing requirements that must be fulfilled. Similarly, if conditional marketing authorization is granted from the European Commission, we may be subject to ongoing obligations, including the need to provide additional clinical data at a later stage to confirm a positive benefit/risk balance.

For regulatory approvals of tab-cel®, we plan on using independent radiologist and/or oncologist assessment of responses which may not correlate with the investigator-reported assessments. In addition, the Phase 2 clinical studies with tab-cel® enrolled a heterogeneous group of patients with a variety of EBV-driven malignancies, including EBV+ PTLD after HCT and EBV+ PTLD after SOT. These Phase 2 studies were not prospectively designed to evaluate the efficacy of tab-cel® in the treatment of a single disease state for which we may later seek approval.

Moreover, final study results may not be consistent with interim study results. Efficacy data from prospectively designed studies may differ significantly from those obtained from retrospective subgroup analyses. In addition, clinical data obtained from a clinical study with an allogeneic product candidate may not yield the same or better results as compared to an autologous product candidate. If later-stage clinical studies do not produce favorable results, our ability to achieve regulatory approval for any of our product candidates may be adversely impacted. Even if we believe that we have adequate data to support an application for regulatory approval to market any of our product candidates, the FDA or other regulatory authorities may not agree and may require that we conduct additional clinical studies.

Interim “top line” and preliminary data from clinical studies that we or our partners may announce or share with regulatory authorities from time to time may change as more patient data become available and are subject to audit and verification procedures that could result in material changes in the final data.

From time to time, we or our partners may announce or share with regulatory authoritiesinterim “top line” or preliminary data from clinical studies. Interim data from completed clinical studies are subject to the risk that one or more of the clinical outcomes may materially change as patient enrollment continues and more patient data become available. Preliminary or “top line” data also remain subject to audit and verification procedures that may result in the final data being materially different from the preliminary data previously announced. As a result, interim and preliminary data should be viewed with caution until the final data are available. Adverse differences between preliminary or interim data and final data could impact the regulatory approval of, and significantly harm the prospects of any product candidate that is impacted by the applicable data.

Clinical drug development involves a lengthy and expensive process with an uncertain outcome.

Clinical testing is expensive and can take many years to complete, and its outcome is inherently uncertain. Failure can occur at any time during the clinical study process. Product candidates in later stages of clinical studies may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy traits despite having progressed through preclinical and clinical studies.

We may experience delays in our ongoing or future clinical studies and we do not know whether clinical studies will begin or enroll subjects on time, will need to be redesigned or will be completed on schedule, if at all. There can be no assurance that the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities will not put clinical studies of any of our product candidates on clinical hold in the future. Clinical studies may be delayed, suspended or prematurely terminated for a variety of reasons, such as:

• delay or failure in adding new study sites;

• failure to demonstrate a benefit from using a product candidate;

Patient enrollment, a significant factor in the timing of clinical studies, is affected by many factors including:

• the size and nature of the patient population;

• the proximity of subjects to clinical sites;

• the patient referral practices of physicians;

• the design and eligibility criteria of the clinical study;

• ability to obtain and maintain patient consents;

• risk that enrolled subjects will drop out or die before completion;

• competition for patients from other clinical studies;

• risk that we do not have appropriately matched HLA cell lines;

As an example, we activated additional clinical sites over the course of 2018 and increased HLA coverage during this period. As a result, enrollment in our studies was limited in the early part of 2018 and increased through the course of the year as we increased clinical sites and HLA coverage. However, in May 2019, we announced that enrollment in our Phase 3 studies of tab-cel® for patients with EBV+ PTLD was proceeding slower than anticipated. Many of our product candidates are designed to treat rare diseases, and as a result, the pool of potential patients with respect to a given disease is small. We may not be able to initiate or continue to support clinical studies of tab-cel®, ATA188 or any other product candidates if we are unable to locate and enroll a sufficient number of eligible participants in these studies as required by the FDA or other regulatory authorities. We have experienced some transient delays in clinical trial site initiation and patient enrollment in certain of our clinical trials, including our Phase 3 clinical trial of tab-cel®, as a result of the evolving impact of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, and if the COVID-19 pandemic continues and persists for an extended period of time, we could experience significant disruptions to our clinical development timelines. Even if we are able to enroll a sufficient number of patients in our clinical studies, if the pace of enrollment is slower than we expect, the development costs for our product candidates may increase and the completion of our studies may be delayed or our studies could become too expensive to complete.

We rely on CROs, other vendors and clinical study sites to ensure the proper and timely conduct of our clinical studies, and while we have agreements governing their committed activities, we have limited influence over their actual performance. Reliance on CROs entails risks to which we would not be subject if we conducted our clinical studies ourselves, including reliance on the CRO for clinical site initiation and monitoring, the possibility that the CRO does not maintain the financial resources to meet its obligations under our agreements, the possibility of breach of these agreements by the CRO because of factors beyond our control, including a failure to properly perform their obligations under these agreements, and the possibility of termination or nonrenewal of the agreements by the CROs, based on their own business priorities, at a time that is costly or damaging to us.

If we experience delays or quality issues in the conduct, completion or termination of any clinical study of our product candidates, the approval and commercial prospects of such product candidate will be harmed, and our ability to generate product revenues from such product candidate will be delayed. In addition, any delays in completing our clinical studies will increase our costs, slow down our product candidate development and approval process and jeopardize our ability to commence product sales and generate revenues. Any delays in completing our clinical studies for our product candidates may also decrease the period of commercial exclusivity. In addition, many of the factors that could cause a delay in the commencement or completion of clinical studies may also ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval of our product candidates.

Our product candidates, the methods used to deliver them or their dosage levels may cause undesirable side effects or have other properties that could delay or prevent their regulatory approval, limit the commercial profile of an approved label or result in significant negative consequences following any regulatory approval.

Undesirable side effects caused by our product candidates, their delivery methods or dosage levels could cause us or regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay or halt clinical studies and could result in a more restrictive label or the delay or denial of regulatory approval by the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authority. As a result of safety or toxicity issues that we or our partners may experience in our clinical studies, we or our partners may not receive approval to market any product candidates, which could prevent us from ever generating product or royalty revenues or achieving profitability. Results of our studies could reveal an unacceptably high severity and incidence of side effects, or risks that outweigh the benefits of our product candidates. In such an event, our studies could be suspended or terminated, and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities could order us to cease further development of or deny approval of our product candidates for any or all targeted indications. The drug-related side effects could affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled subjects to complete the study or result in potential product liability claims.

Additionally, if any of our product candidates receives regulatory approval, and we or others later identify undesirable side effects caused by such product, a number of potentially significant negative consequences could result, including that:

• we may be forced to suspend marketing of that product;

• regulatory authorities may withdraw or change their approvals of that product;

• we may be required to conduct post-marketing studies;

• we may be required to change the way the product is administered;

• we could be sued and held liable for harm caused to subjects or patients; and

• our reputation may suffer.

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

The market opportunities for our product candidates may be limited to those patients who are ineligible for or have failed prior treatments and may be small.

The FDA often approves new cancer therapies initially only for use in patients with relapsed or refractory metastatic disease. We expect to initially seek approval of tab-cel® and our other product candidates in this setting. Subsequently, for those products that prove to be sufficiently beneficial, if any, we would expect to seek approval in earlier lines of treatment and potentially as a first line therapy, but there is no guarantee that our product candidates, even if approved, would be approved for earlier lines of therapy, and, prior to any such approvals, we will have to conduct additional clinical trials.

Our projections of both the number of people who have the diseases we are targeting, as well as the subset of people with these diseases in a position to receive second or later lines of therapy, and who have the potential to benefit from treatment with our product candidates, are based on our current beliefs and estimates. These estimates have been derived from a variety of sources, including scientific literature, surveys of clinics, patient foundations, or our own market research, and may prove to be incorrect, including if the COVID-19 pandemic and associated responses impact our ability to engage with key stakeholders within the transplant center in person. Further, new studies or market research may change the estimated incidence or prevalence of these diseases, and the number of patients may turn out to be lower than expected. Additionally, the potentially addressable patient population for our product candidates may be limited or may not be amenable to treatment with our product candidates. For instance, we expect our lead product candidate, tab-cel®, to initially target a small patient population that suffers from aggressive EBV+PTLD who have failed rituximab or rituximab plus chemotherapy. At the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, we initially observed a temporary slow-down in stem cell and solid organ transplant volumes. These reductions were transient, but if a reduction in such volumes resumes, it could result in lower PTLD incidence and thus reduce the demand for tab-cel®. Even if we obtain significant market share for our product candidates, because the potential target populations are small, we may never achieve profitability without obtaining regulatory approval for additional indications.

We may not be able to obtain or maintain orphan drug exclusivity for our product candidates.

Regulatory authorities in some jurisdictions, including the U.S., EU and the United Kingdom (U.K.), may designate drugs for relatively small patient populations as orphan drugs. Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may designate a product as an orphan drug if it is a drug intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally defined as a patient population of fewer than 200,000 individuals annually in the U.S. Both the FDA and the EMA have granted us orphan designation for tab-cel® for EBV+ PTLD after HCT or SOT.

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

Even if we obtain orphan drug exclusivity for a product, that exclusivity may not be maintained or effectively protect the product from competition because different drugs can be approved for the same condition. Even after an orphan drug is approved, the FDA can subsequently approve a new drug for the same condition if the FDA concludes that the later drug is clinically superior in that it is shown to be safer, more effective or makes a major contribution to patient care.

BTD by the FDA and PRIME designation by the EMA may not lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process and it does not increase the likelihood that our product candidates will receive marketing approval.

Although we have obtained BTD and PRIME designation for tab-cel® for EBV+ PTLD in the U.S. and the EU, respectively, this may not lead to faster development or regulatory review and does not increase our likelihood of success. A breakthrough therapy is defined as a drug or biologic that is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs or biologics, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug, or biologic in our case, may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. For product candidates that have been designated as breakthrough therapies, interaction and communication between the FDA and the sponsor of the study can help to identify the most efficient path for clinical development while minimizing the number of patients placed in ineffective control regimens. Biologics designated as breakthrough therapies by the FDA may also be eligible for priority review. Based on our BTD, we intend to pursue a rolling submission strategy for our BLA for tab-cel® for EBV+ PTLD in the U.S. While the rolling review process may provide the opportunity for ongoing communications with and feedback from the FDA, the FDA may raise issues and pose questions to us that may delay the initiation and completion of our BLA submission, acceptance of the complete BLA for filing, and approval of the BLA, thereby potentially delaying the approval process. We may not be able to provide a satisfactory or a timely response to FDA questions or we may not be able to timely gather the required data to prepare our BLA submissions as we plan. If we are unable to address all questions or concerns the FDA may raise or if we do not have timely access to the data required for the preparation of the BLA, we may not be able to timely initiate and complete our BLA and ultimately receive FDA approval. In addition, the FDA retains discretion to decide not to review the portions of our BLA submitted under the rolling review process until the submission is deemed to be complete.

PRIME designation supports the development and accelerated review by the EMA of new therapies to treat patients with unmet medical need.

Designation as a breakthrough therapy is within the discretion of the FDA, and access to PRIME is at the discretion of the EMA. Receipt of a BTD or PRIME designation for a product candidate may not result in a faster development process, review or approval compared to drugs considered for approval under non-expedited FDA or EMA review procedures, respectively, and does not assure ultimate approval by the FDA or EMA, respectively. In addition, the FDA or EMA, respectively, may later decide that the product no longer meets the conditions for qualification and rescind the BTD or PRIME designation or decide that the time period for FDA or EMA, respectively, review or approval will not be shortened.

Failure to obtain regulatory approval in international jurisdictions would prevent our product candidates from being marketed abroad.

In addition to regulations in the U.S., to market and sell our products in the EU, the U.K., many Asian countries and other jurisdictions, we must obtain separate regulatory approvals and comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements, both from a clinical and manufacturing perspective. The approval procedure varies among countries and can involve additional testing. The time required to obtain approval may differ substantially from that required to obtain FDA approval. The regulatory approval process outside the U.S. generally includes all of the risks associated with obtaining FDA approval. Clinical studies accepted in one country may not be accepted by regulatory authorities in other countries. In addition, many countries outside the U.S. require that a product be approved for reimbursement before it can be approved for sale in that country. A product candidate that has been approved for sale in a particular country may not receive reimbursement approval in that country. We may not be able to obtain approvals from regulatory authorities or payor authorities outside the U.S. on a timely basis, if at all. Approval by the FDA does not ensure approval by regulatory or payor authorities in other countries or jurisdictions, and approval by one regulatory or payor authority outside the U.S. does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries or jurisdictions or by the FDA. We may not be able to file for regulatory approvals and may not receive necessary approvals to commercialize our products in any market. If we are unable to obtain approval of any of our product candidates by regulatory or payor authorities in the European Union, the U.K., Asia or elsewhere, the commercial prospects of that product candidate may be significantly diminished.

Even if our product candidates receive regulatory approval, they may still face future development and regulatory difficulties.

Even if we obtain regulatory approval for a product candidate, it would be subject to ongoing requirements by the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities governing the manufacture, quality control, further development, labeling, packaging, storage, distribution, adverse event reporting, safety surveillance, import, export, advertising, promotion, recordkeeping and reporting of safety and other post-marketing information. These requirements include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, registration, as well as continued compliance by us and/or our contract manufacturing organizations (CMOs) and CROs for any post-approval clinical studies that we conduct. The safety profile of any product will continue to be closely monitored by the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities after approval. If the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities become aware of new safety information after approval of any of our product candidates, they may require labeling changes or establishment of a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy, impose significant restrictions on a product’s indicated uses or marketing or impose ongoing requirements for potentially costly post-approval studies or post-market surveillance.

In addition, manufacturers of drug products and their facilities are subject to initial and continual review and periodic inspections by the FDA and other regulatory authorities for compliance with current good manufacturing practices (cGMP), current Good Clinical Practices (GCP), current good tissue practices (cGTP) and other regulations. If we or a regulatory agency discover previously unknown problems with a product, such as adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or problems with the facility where the product is manufactured, a regulatory agency may impose restrictions on that product, the manufacturing facility or us, including requiring recall or withdrawal of the product from the market or suspension of manufacturing. If we, our product candidates, or the manufacturing facilities for our product candidates fail to comply with applicable regulatory requirements, a regulatory agency may:

• issue warning letters or untitled letters;

• seek an injunction or impose civil or criminal penalties or monetary fines;

• suspend, withdraw or modify regulatory approval;

• suspend or modify any ongoing clinical studies;

The occurrence of any event or penalty described above may inhibit our ability to successfully commercialize our products.

Advertising and promotion of any product candidate that obtains approval in the U.S. will be heavily scrutinized by the FDA, the Department of Justice (the DOJ), the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), state attorneys general, members of the U.S. Congress and the public. Additionally, advertising and promotion of any product candidate that obtains approval outside of the U.S. will be heavily scrutinized by comparable foreign entities and stakeholders. For example, a company may not promote “off-label” uses for its drug products. An off-label use is the use of a product for an indication that is not described in the product’s FDA-approved label in the U.S. or for uses in other jurisdictions that differ from those approved by the applicable regulatory agencies. Physicians, on the other hand, may prescribe products for off-label uses. Although the FDA and other regulatory agencies do not regulate a physician’s choice of drug treatment made in the physician’s independent medical judgment, they do restrict promotional communications from companies or their sales force with respect to off-label uses of products for which marketing clearance has not been issued. However, companies may share truthful and not misleading information that is otherwise consistent with a product’s FDA approved labeling. Violations, including actual or alleged promotion of our products for unapproved or off-label uses, are subject to enforcement letters, inquiries and investigations, and civil and criminal sanctions by the FDA or comparable foreign bodies. Any actual or alleged failure to comply with labeling and promotion requirements may result in fines, warning letters, mandates to corrective information to healthcare practitioners, injunctions, or civil or criminal penalties.

Regulations, guidelines and recommendations published by various government agencies and organizations may affect the use of our product candidates.

Changes to regulations, recommendations or other guidelines advocating alternative therapies for the indications we treat could result in decreased use of our products. For example, although treatment with EBV-specific T cells is recognized as a recommended treatment for persistent or progressive EBV+ PTLD as set forth in the 2017 National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines, future guidelines from governmental agencies, professional societies, practice management groups, private health/science foundations and other organizations could lead to decreased ability of developing our product candidates, or decreased use of our products once approved by applicable regulatory authorities.

We may not successfully identify, acquire, develop or commercialize new potential product candidates.

Part of our business strategy is to expand our product candidate pipeline by identifying and validating new product candidates, which we may develop ourselves, in-license or otherwise acquire from others. In addition, in the event that our existing product candidates do not receive regulatory approval or are not successfully commercialized, then the success of our business will depend on our ability to expand our product pipeline through in-licensing or other acquisitions. We may be unable to identify relevant product candidates. If we do identify such product candidates, we may be unable to reach acceptable terms with any third party from which we desire to in-license or acquire them.

Bayeris generally responsible for the conduct and funding of the development and commercialization of ATA2271 and ATA3271.

Pursuant to the Bayer License Agreement, Bayer holds an exclusive, field-limited license to ATA2271 and ATA3271. As a result, other than the development of ATA2271 through Phase 1, Bayer is generally responsible for the development and obtaining and maintaining regulatory approval of ATA2271 and ATA3271.

We do not control the development activities being conducted or that may be conducted in the future by Bayer, including, but not limited to, the timing of initiation, termination or completion of clinical trials, the analysis of data arising out of those clinical trials or the timing of release of data concerning those clinical trials, which may impact our ability to report on Bayer’s results. Bayer may conduct these activities more slowly or in a different manner than we would if we controlled the development of ATA2271 after Phase 1 and ATA3271. Bayer is responsible for submitting future applications to the FDA and other regulatory authorities for approval of ATA2271 and ATA3271 and will be the owner of marketing approvals issued by the FDA and other regulatory authorities for ATA2271 and ATA3271, if approved. If the FDA or other regulatory authorities approve ATA2271 and/or ATA3271, Bayer will also be responsible for the marketing and sale of the resulting product. However, we cannot control whether Bayer will devote sufficient attention and resources to the development of ATA2271 and/or ATA3271 or will proceed in an expeditious manner. Even if the FDA or other regulatory agencies approve ATA2271 and/or ATA3271, Bayer may elect not to proceed with the commercialization of the resulting product in one or more countries.

We are currently negotiating a separate manufacturing and supply agreement with Bayer for the supply of allogenic mesothelin-directed CAR T-cell therapies for clinical trials. Delays in the negotiation and execution of this manufacturing and supply agreement would result in a delay in the ATA2271 and/or ATA3271 programs and would delay and could prevent us from obtaining revenues for this product candidate.

Disputes may arise between us and Bayer, which may delay or cause the termination of any clinical trials of ATA2271 and/or ATA3271, result in significant litigation or cause Bayer to act in a manner that is not in our best interest. The costs associated with the continuing development of ATA2271 and/or ATA3271 may cause Bayer to reconsider the terms of its investment and seek to amend or terminate our agreement or to suspend the development of ATA2271 and/or ATA3271. If development of ATA2271 and/or ATA3271 does not progress for these or any other reasons, we would not receive milestone payments or royalties on product sales from Bayer with respect to ATA2271 and/or ATA3271. If the results of one or more clinical trials with ATA2271 and/or ATA3271 do not meet Bayer’s expectations at any time, Bayer may elect to terminate further development of ATA2271 and/or ATA3271 or certain of the potential clinical trials for ATA2271 and/or ATA3271, even if the actual number of patients treated at that time is relatively small. In addition, Bayer generally has discretion to elect whether to pursue or abandon the development of ATA2271 and/or ATA3271 and may terminate our strategic alliance in whole or on a product-by-product basis for any reason upon 120 days prior notice. If Bayer abandons ATA2271 and/or ATA3271, it would result in a delay in or could prevent us from commercializing ATA2271 and/or ATA3271 and would delay and could prevent us from obtaining revenues for this product candidate.

If Bayer abandons development of ATA2271 and/or ATA3271 prior to regulatory approval or if it elects not to proceed with commercialization of the resulting product following regulatory approval, we would have to seek a new partner for development or commercialization, curtail or abandon that development or commercialization, or undertake and fund the development of ATA2271 and/or ATA3271 or commercialization of the resulting product ourselves. If we seek a new partner but are unable to do so on acceptable terms, or at all, or do not have sufficient funds to conduct the development or commercialization of ATA2271 and/or ATA3271 ourselves, we would have to curtail or abandon that development or commercialization, which could harm our business.

We may not realize the benefits of strategic alliances that we may form in the future or of potential future product acquisitions or licenses.

We may desire to form additional strategic alliances, create joint ventures or collaborations, enter into licensing arrangements with third parties or acquire products or business, in each case that we believe will complement or augment our existing business. These relationships or transactions, or those like them, may require us to incur nonrecurring and other charges, increase our near- and long-term expenditures, issue securities that dilute our existing stockholders, reduce the potential profitability of the products that are the subject of the relationship or disrupt our management and business. In addition, we face significant competition in seeking appropriate strategic alliances and transactions and the negotiation process is time-consuming and complex and there can be no assurance that we can enter into any of these transactions even if we desire to do so. Moreover, we may not be successful in our efforts to establish a strategic alliance or other alternative arrangements for any future product candidates and programs because our research and development pipeline may be insufficient, our product candidates and programs may be deemed to be at too early a stage of development for collaborative effort and third parties may not view our product candidates and programs as having the requisite potential to demonstrate a positive benefit/risk profile. Any delays in entering into new strategic alliances agreements related to our product candidates could also delay the development and commercialization of our product candidates and reduce their competitiveness even if they reach the market.

If we license products or acquire businesses, we may not be able to realize the benefit of these transactions if we are unable to successfully integrate them with our existing operations and company culture. We cannot be certain that, following an acquisition or license, we will achieve the financial or strategic results that would justify the transaction.

Risks Related to Manufacturing

We are subject to a multitude of manufacturing risks, any of which could substantially increase our costs and limit supply of our product candidates.

Concurrently with the in-license of our existing product candidates, we acquired manufacturing process know-how and, in some cases, inventory of process intermediates and clinical materials from our partners. Transferring manufacturing processes, testing and associated know-how is complex and involves review and incorporation of both documented and undocumented processes that may have evolved over time. In addition, transferring production to different facilities may require utilization of new or different processes to meet the specific requirements of a given facility. Each stage is retroactively and concurrently verified to be compliant with appropriate regulations. As a result, there is a risk that all relevant know-how was not adequately transferred to us from our partners or that previous execution was not compliant with applicable regulations.

In addition, we need to conduct significant development and scale-up work to transfer these processes and manufacture each of our product candidates for various studies, clinical studies and commercial launch readiness. To the extent we elect to transfer manufacturing within our network, we are required to demonstrate that the product manufactured in the new or “receiving” facility is comparable to the product manufactured in the original or “sending” facility. The inability to demonstrate to each of the applicable regulatory authorities that comparable drug product was manufactured could delay the development of our product candidates.

The processes by which our product candidates are manufactured were initially developed by our partners for clinical purposes. We intend to evolve the existing processes with our partners to support advanced clinical studies and commercialization requirements. Developing commercially viable manufacturing processes is a difficult and uncertain task, and there are risks associated with scaling to the level required for advanced clinical studies or commercialization, including cost overruns, potential problems with process scale-up, process reproducibility, stability issues, consistency and timely availability of reagents or raw materials. The manufacturing facilities in which our product candidates will be made could be adversely affected by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, earthquakes and other natural or man-made disasters, equipment failures, labor shortages, power failures, and numerous other factors. In addition, there have been, and there may continue to be, interruptions in the supply of leukapheresis collections related to the COVID-19 pandemic, which supply raw materials used in our product candidates. If we are unable to obtain such raw materials or other necessary raw materials in a timely manner, our business operations and manufacturing capabilities could be adversely affected.

The process of manufacturing cellular therapies is susceptible to product loss due to contamination, equipment failure or improper installation or operation of equipment, or vendor or operator error. Even minor deviations from normal manufacturing and distribution processes for any of our product candidates could result in reduced production yields, impact to key product quality attributes, and other supply disruptions. Product defects can also occur unexpectedly. If microbial, viral or other contaminations are discovered in our product candidates or in the manufacturing facilities in which our product candidates are made, these manufacturing facilities may need to be closed for an extended period of time to allow us to investigate and remedy the contamination. Because our T-cell immunotherapy product candidates are manufactured from the blood of third-party donors, the process of manufacturing is susceptible to the availability of the third-party donor material. The process of developing products that can be commercialized may be particularly challenging, even if they otherwise prove to be safe and effective. The manufacture of these product candidates involves complex processes. Some of these processes require specialized equipment and highly skilled and trained personnel. The process of manufacturing these product candidates will be susceptible to additional risks, given the need to maintain aseptic conditions throughout the manufacturing process. Contamination with viruses or other pathogens in either the donor material or materials utilized in the manufacturing process or ingress of microbiological material at any point in the process may result in contaminated or unusable product. This type of contaminations could result in delays in the manufacture of products which could result in delays in the development of our product candidates. These contaminations could also increase the risk of adverse side effects. Furthermore, our allogeneic products ultimately consist of many individual cell lines, each with a different HLA profile. As a result, the selection and distribution of the appropriate cell line for therapeutic use in a patient requires close coordination between clinical operations, supply chain and quality assurance personnel.

Any adverse developments affecting manufacturing operations for our product candidates may result in lot failures, inventory shortages, shipment delays, product withdrawals or recalls or other interruptions in the supply of our drug product which could delay the development of our product candidates. We may also have to write off inventory, incur other charges and expenses for supply of drug product that fails to meet specifications, undertake costly remediation efforts, or seek more costly manufacturing alternatives. Inability to meet the demand for our product candidates could damage our reputation and the reputation of our products among physicians, healthcare payors, patients or the medical community that supports our product development efforts, including hospitals and outpatient clinics.

We intend to manufacture a majority of our product candidates ourselves. Delays in receiving regulatory approvals for product candidates produced in our manufacturing facility could delay our development plans and thereby limit our ability to generate revenues.

The research and development and process and analytical development labs within our manufacturing facility in Thousand Oaks, California are currently supporting preclinical development activities. The facility commissioning and qualification activities required to support production at our facility were completed in 2018. Product-specific qualification to support clinical development is complete and commercial production qualification activities are ongoing. If the appropriate regulatory approvals for manufacturing product candidates in our facility are delayed, we may not be able to manufacture sufficient quantities of our product candidates, which would limit our development activities and our opportunities for growth.

In addition to the similar manufacturing risks described in “Risks Related to Our Dependence on Third Parties,” our manufacturing facility will be subject to ongoing, periodic inspection by the FDA, EMA or other comparable regulatory agencies to ensure compliance with cGMP and GTP. Our failure to follow and document our adherence to these regulations or other regulatory requirements may lead to significant delays in the availability of products for clinical or, in the future, commercial use, may result in the termination of or a hold on a clinical study, or may delay or prevent filing or approval of commercial marketing applications for our product candidates. We also may encounter problems with the following:

• shortages of qualified personnel, raw materials or key contractors; and

Failure to comply with applicable regulations could also result in sanctions being imposed on us, including fines, injunctions, civil penalties, a requirement to suspend or put on hold one or more of our clinical studies, failure of regulatory authorities to grant marketing approval of our product candidates, delays, suspension or withdrawal of approvals, license revocation, seizures or recalls of product candidates, operating restrictions and criminal prosecutions, any of which could harm our business.

Developing advanced manufacturing techniques and process controls is required to fully utilize our facility. Without further investment, advances in manufacturing techniques may render our facility and equipment inadequate or obsolete.

A number of the product candidates in our portfolio, if approved by applicable regulatory authorities, may require significant commercial supply to meet market demand. In these cases, we may need to increase, or “scale up,” the production process by a significant factor over the initial level of production. If we are unable to do so, are delayed, or if the cost of this scale up is not economically feasible for us or we cannot find a third-party supplier, we may not be able to produce our product candidates in a sufficient quantity to meet future demand.

If our sole clinical or commercial manufacturing facility or our CMO is damaged or destroyed or production at these facilities is otherwise interrupted, our business would be negatively affected.

If any manufacturing facility in our manufacturing network, or the equipment in these facilities, is either damaged or destroyed, we may not be able to quickly or inexpensively replace our manufacturing capacity or replace it at all. In the event of a temporary or protracted loss of a facility or its equipment, we may not be able to transfer manufacturing to a third party in the time required to maintain supply. Even if we could transfer manufacturing to a third party, the shift would likely be expensive and time-consuming, particularly since the new facility would need to comply with the necessary regulatory requirements or may require regulatory approval before selling any products manufactured at that facility. Such an event could delay our clinical studies or reduce our commercial product sales.

Currently, we maintain insurance coverage against damage to our property and to cover business interruption and research and development restoration expenses. However, our insurance coverage may not reimburse us, or may not be sufficient to reimburse us, for any expenses or losses we may suffer. We may be unable to meet our requirements for our product candidates if there were a catastrophic event or failure of our current manufacturing facility or processes.

Risks Related to Our Dependence on Third Parties

Maintaining clinical and commercial timelines is dependent on our end-to-end supply chain network to support manufacturing; if we experience problems with our third party suppliers we may delay development and/or commercialization of our product candidates.

We rely in part on our CMOs or our partners for the current production of our product candidates and the acquisition of materials incorporated in or used in the manufacturing or testing of our product candidates. Our CMOs or partners are not our employees, and except for remedies available to us under our agreements with our CMOs or partners, we cannot directly control whether or not they devote sufficient time and resources, including experienced staff, to the manufacturing of supply for our ongoing clinical, nonclinical and preclinical programs. Our CMOs for tab-cel® will need to be prepared to undergo pre-approval inspection in connection with our anticipated BLA, and we cannot be certain that we will be able to adequately support them through such inspection nor that they will successfully pass any such inspection.

To meet our projected supply needs for clinical and commercial materials to support our activities through regulatory approval and commercial manufacturing of tab-cel®, ATA188, any product candidates resulting from our next-generation CAR T programs or any other product candidates, we will need to transition the manufacturing of these materials to a CMO or our own facility. Regardless of where production occurs, we will need to develop relationships with suppliers of critical starting materials or reagents, increase the scale of production and demonstrate comparability of the material produced at these facilities to the material that was previously produced. Transferring manufacturing processes and know-how is complex and involves review and incorporation of both documented and undocumented processes that may have evolved over time.

In addition, transferring production to different facilities may require utilization of new or different processes to meet the specific requirements of a given facility. We would expect additional comparability work will also need to be conducted to support the transfer of certain manufacturing processes and process improvements. We cannot be certain that all relevant know-how and data has been adequately incorporated into the manufacturing process until the completion of studies (and the related evaluations) intended to demonstrate the comparability of material previously produced with that generated by our CMO.

If we are not able to successfully transfer and produce comparable product candidates, our ability to further develop and manufacture our product candidates may be negatively impacted.

While our manufacturing facility in Thousand Oaks, California provides us with flexibility within our manufacturing network, we still may need to identify additional CMOs for continued production of supply for some of our product candidates. Given the nature of our manufacturing processes, the number of CMOs who possess the requisite skill and capability to manufacture our T-cell immunotherapy product candidates is limited. We have not yet identified alternate suppliers in the event the current CMOs that we utilize are unable to scale production, or if we otherwise experience any problems with them.

Manufacturing cellular therapies is complicated and tightly regulated by the FDA and comparable regulatory authorities around the world, and although alternative third-party suppliers with the necessary manufacturing and regulatory expertise and facilities exist, it could be expensive and take a significant amount of time to arrange for alternative suppliers, transfer manufacturing procedures to these alternative suppliers, and demonstrate comparability of material produced by such new suppliers. New manufacturers of any product candidate or intermediate would be required to qualify under applicable regulatory requirements. These manufacturers may not be able to manufacture our product candidates at costs, or in sufficient quantities, or in a timely manner necessary to complete development of our product candidates or make commercially successful products. If we are unable to arrange for alternative third-party manufacturing sources, or to do so on commercially reasonable terms or in a timely manner, we may not be able to complete development of our product candidates, or market or distribute them. In addition, should the FDA or comparable regulatory authorities not agree with our product candidate specifications and comparability assessments for these materials, further clinical development of our product candidate could be substantially delayed and we would incur substantial additional expenses.

Reliance on third-party manufacturers entails risks to which we would not be subject if we manufactured product candidates ourselves, including reliance on the third party for regulatory compliance and quality assurance, the possibility that the third-party manufacturer does not maintain the financial resources to meet its obligations under the manufacturing agreement, the possibility of breach of the manufacturing agreement by the third party because of factors beyond our control, including a failure to manufacture our product candidates or any products we may eventually commercialize in accordance with our specifications, misappropriation of our proprietary information, including our trade secrets and know-how, and the possibility of termination or nonrenewal of the agreement by the third party, based on its own business priorities, at a time that is costly or damaging to us. In addition, the FDA and other regulatory authorities require that our product candidates and any products that we may eventually commercialize be manufactured according to cGMP, cGTP and similar regulatory jurisdictional standards. These requirements include, among other things, quality control, quality assurance and the maintenance of records and documentation. The FDA or similar foreign regulatory agencies may also implement new standards at any time or change their interpretations and enforcement of existing standards for manufacture,

packaging or testing of products. We have limited control over our manufacturers’ compliance with these regulations and standards and although we monitor our manufacturers, we depend on them to provide honest and accurate information. Any failure by our third-party manufacturers to comply with cGMP or cGTP or failure to scale up manufacturing processes, including any failure to deliver sufficient quantities of product candidates in a timely manner, could lead to a delay in, or failure to obtain, regulatory approval of any of our product candidates. In addition, such failure could be the basis for the FDA to issue a warning letter, withdraw approvals for product candidates previously granted to us, or take other regulatory or legal action, including recall or seizure of outside supplies of the product candidate, total or partial suspension of production, suspension of ongoing clinical studies, refusal to approve pending applications or supplemental applications, detention or product, refusal to permit the import or export of products, injunction or imposing civil and criminal penalties.

We depend on third party suppliers for key materials used to produce our product candidates. Any significant disruption in our supplier relationships could harm our business. Any significant delay in the supply of a product candidate for an ongoing clinical study could considerably delay initiation or completion of our clinical studies, product testing and potential regulatory approval of our product candidates. If raw materials or components cannot be purchased or fail to meet approved specifications, the commercial launch of our product candidates could be delayed, or there could be a shortage in supply, which could impair our ability to generate revenues from the sale of our product candidates.

Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property

If we are unable to obtain and maintain sufficient intellectual property protection for our product candidates, or if the scope of the intellectual property protection is not sufficiently broad, our ability to commercialize our product candidates successfully and to compete effectively may be adversely affected.

We rely upon a combination of patents, trademarks, trade secrets and confidentiality agreements – both that we own or possess or that are owned or possessed by our partners that are in-licensed to us – to protect the intellectual property related to our technology and product candidates. When we refer to “our” technologies, inventions, patents, patent applications or other intellectual property rights, we are referring to both the rights that we own or possess as well as those that we in-license, many of which are critical to our intellectual property protection and our business. For example, the product candidates and platform technology we have licensed from our partners are protected primarily by patent or patent applications of our partners that we have licensed and as confidential know-how and trade secrets. If the intellectual property that we rely on is not adequately protected, competitors may be able to use our technologies and erode or negate any competitive advantage we may have.

The patentability of inventions and the validity, enforceability and scope of patents in the biotechnology field is uncertain because it involves complex legal, scientific and factual considerations, and it has in recent years been the subject of significant litigation. Moreover, the standards applied by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and non-U.S. patent offices in granting patents are not always applied uniformly or predictably. For example, there is no uniform worldwide policy regarding patentable subject matter or the scope of claims allowable in biotechnology patents.

There is no assurance that all potentially relevant prior art relating to our patents and patent applications is known to us or has been found in the instances where searching was done. We may be unaware of prior art that could be used to invalidate an issued patent or prevent a pending patent application from issuing as a patent. There also may be prior art of which we are aware, but which we do not believe affects the validity or enforceability of a claim of one of our patents or patent applications, which may, nonetheless, ultimately be found to affect the validity or enforceability of such claim. As a consequence of these and other factors, our patent applications may fail to result in issued patents with claims that cover our product candidates in the U.S. or in other countries.

Even if patents have issued or do successfully issue from patent applications, and even if these patents cover our product candidates, third parties may challenge the validity, enforceability or scope thereof, which may result in these patents being narrowed, invalidated or held to be unenforceable. No assurance can be given that if challenged, our patents would be declared by a court to be valid or enforceable.

Even if unchallenged, our patents and patent applications or other intellectual property rights may not adequately protect our intellectual property, provide exclusivity for our product candidates or prevent others from designing around our claims. The possibility exists that others will develop products on an independent basis which have the same effect as our product candidates and which do not infringe our patents or other intellectual property rights, or that others will design around the claims of patents that we have had issued that cover our product candidates. If the breadth or strength of protection provided by our patents and patent applications with respect to our product candidates is threatened, it could jeopardize our ability to commercialize our product candidates and dissuade companies from collaborating with us.

We may also desire to seek a license from a third party who owns intellectual property that may be useful for providing exclusivity for our product candidates, or for providing the ability to develop and commercialize a product candidate in an unrestricted manner. There is no guarantee that we will be able to obtain a license from such a third party on commercially reasonable terms, or at all.

In addition, the USPTO and various foreign governmental patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar provisions during the patent application process. While an inadvertent lapse can in many cases be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules, there are situations in which noncompliance can result in abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction.

We and our partners have filed a number of patent applications covering our product candidates or methods of using or making those product candidates. We cannot offer any assurances about which, if any, patents will be issued with respect to these pending patent applications, the breadth of any such patents that are ultimately issued or whether any issued patents will be found invalid and unenforceable or will be threatened by third parties. Because patent applications in the U.S. and most other countries are confidential for a period of time after filing, and some remain so until issued, we cannot be certain that we or our partners were the first to file any patent application related to a product candidate. We or our partners may also become involved in proceedings regarding our patents, including patent infringement lawsuits, interference or derivation proceedings, oppositions, and inter partes and post-grant review proceedings before the USPTO the European Patent Office and other non-U.S. patent offices.

Even if granted, patents have a limited lifespan. In the U.S., the natural expiration of a patent generally occurs 20 years after it is filed. Although various extensions may be available if certain conditions are met, the life of a patent and the protection it affords is limited. If we encounter delays in our clinical studies or in obtaining regulatory approvals, the period of time during which we could exclusively market any of our product candidates under patent protection, if approved, could be reduced. Even if patents covering our product candidates are obtained, once the patent life has expired for a product, we may be vulnerable to competition from biosimilar products, as we may be unable to prevent competitors from entering the market with a product that is similar or identical to our product candidates.

Furthermore, the research resulting in certain of our licensed patent rights and technology was funded by the U.S. government. As a result, the government has certain rights to these patent rights and technology. When new technologies are developed with government funding, the government generally obtains certain rights in any resulting patents, including a non-exclusive license authorizing the government to practice the invention for or on behalf of the U.S. These rights may permit the government to disclose confidential information on which we rely to third parties and to exercise march-in rights to use or allow third parties to use our licensed technology. The government can exercise its march-in rights if it determines that action is necessary because we fail to achieve practical application of the government-funded technology, because action is necessary to alleviate health or safety needs, to meet requirements of federal regulations or to give preference to U.S. industry. In addition, our rights in any inventions that result from government-funded research may be subject to certain requirements to manufacture products embodying these inventions in the U.S.

If we are sued for infringing the intellectual property rights of third parties, the resulting litigation could be costly and time-consuming and could prevent or delay our development and commercialization efforts.

Our commercial success depends, in part, on us and our partners not infringing the patents and proprietary rights of third parties. There is a substantial amount of litigation and other adversarial proceedings, both within and outside the U.S., involving patent and other intellectual property rights in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, including patent infringement lawsuits, interference or derivation proceedings, oppositions, and inter partes and post-grant review proceedings before the USPTO and non-U.S. patent offices. Numerous U.S. and non-U.S. issued patents and pending patent applications owned by third parties exist in the fields in which we are developing and may develop our product candidates. As the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries expand and more patents are issued, the risk increases that our product candidates may be subject to claims of infringement of third parties’ patent rights, as it may not always be clear to industry participants, including us, which patents cover various types of products or methods of use. The coverage of patents is subject to interpretation by the courts, and the interpretation is not always uniform or predictable.

Third parties may assert infringement claims against us based on existing or future intellectual property rights, alleging that we are employing their proprietary technology without authorization. There may be third-party patents or patent applications with claims to materials, formulations, methods of manufacture or methods for treatment related to the use or manufacturing of our product candidates that we failed to identify. For example, patent applications covering our product candidates could have been filed by others without our knowledge, since these applications generally remain confidential for some period of time after their filing date. Even pending patent applications that have been published, including some of which we are aware, could be later amended in a manner that could cover our product candidates or their use or manufacture. In addition, we may have analyzed patents or patent applications of third parties that we believe are relevant to our activities and believe that we are free to operate in relation to any of our product candidates, but our competitors may obtain issued claims, including in patents we consider to be unrelated, which may block our efforts or potentially result in any of our product candidates or our activities infringing their claims.

If we or our partners are sued for patent infringement, we would need to demonstrate that our product candidates, products and methods either do not infringe the patent claims of the relevant patent or that the patent claims are invalid, and we may not be able to do this. Proving that a patent is invalid is difficult and even if we are successful in the relevant proceedings, we may incur substantial costs and the time and attention of our management and scientific personnel could be diverted from other activities. If any issued third-party patents were held by a court of competent jurisdiction to cover aspects of our materials, formulations, methods of manufacture or methods for treatment, we could be forced, including by court order, to cease developing, manufacturing or commercializing the relevant product candidate until the relevant patent expired. Alternatively, we may desire or be required to obtain a license from such third party in order to use the infringing technology and to continue developing, manufacturing or marketing the infringing product candidate. However, we may not be able to obtain any required license on commercially reasonably terms, or at all. Even if we were able to obtain a license, the rights may be nonexclusive, which could result in our competitors gaining access to the same intellectual property licensed to us.

We may face claims that we misappropriated the confidential information or trade secrets of a third party. If we are found to have misappropriated a third party’s trade secrets, we may be prevented from further using these trade secrets, which could limit our ability to develop our product candidates.

Defending against intellectual property claims could be costly and time consuming, regardless of the outcome. Thus, even if we were to ultimately prevail, or to settle before a final judgment, any litigation could burden us with substantial unanticipated costs. In addition, litigation or threatened litigation could result in significant demands on the time and attention of our management team, distracting them from the pursuit of other company business. During the course of any intellectual property litigation, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, rulings on motions, and other interim proceedings in the litigation and these announcements may have negative impact on the perceived value of our product candidates, programs or intellectual property. In the event of a successful intellectual property claim against us, we may have to pay substantial damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees if we are found to have willfully infringed a patent, or to redesign our infringing product candidates, which may be impossible or require substantial time and monetary expenditure. In addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel and the parties making claims against us may obtain injunctive or other equitable relief, which could impose limitations on the conduct of our business. We may also elect to enter into license agreements in order to settle patent infringement claims prior to litigation, and any of these license agreements may require us to pay royalties and other fees that could be significant. As a result of all of the foregoing, any actual or threatened intellectual property claim could prevent us from developing or commercializing a product candidate or force us to cease some aspect of our business operations.

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

Filing, prosecuting, enforcing and defending patents on all of our product candidates in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive. Our intellectual property rights in certain countries outside the U.S. may be less extensive than those in the U.S. In addition, the laws of certain foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as laws in the U.S. Consequently, we and our partners may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in countries outside the U.S., or from selling or importing infringing products made using our inventions in and into the U.S. or other jurisdictions. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection or where we do not have exclusive rights under the relevant patents to develop their own products and, further, may export otherwise-infringing products to territories where we and our partners have patent protection but where enforcement is not as strong as that in the U.S. These infringing products may compete with our product candidates in jurisdictions where we or our partners have no issued patents or where we do not have exclusive rights under the relevant patents, or our patent claims and other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from so competing.

Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents and other intellectual property protection, particularly those relating to biopharmaceuticals, which could make it difficult for us and our partners to stop the infringement of our patents or marketing of competing products in violation of our intellectual property rights generally. Proceedings to enforce our patent rights in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial costs and divert our attention from other aspects of our business, could put our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly, could put our patent applications at risk of not issuing, and could provoke third parties to assert claims against us or our partners. We or our partners may not prevail in any lawsuits that we or our licensors initiate, and even if we or our licensors are successful the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful.

We have in-licensed a significant portion of our intellectual property from our partners. If we breach any of our license agreements with these partners, we could lose the ability to continue the development and potential commercialization of one or more of our product candidates.

We hold rights under license agreements with our partners, including MSK, QIMR Berghofer and Moffitt that are important to our business. Our discovery and development platform is built, in part, around patent rights in-licensed from our partners. Under our existing license agreements, we are subject to various obligations, including diligence obligations with respect to development and commercialization activities, payment obligations upon achievement of certain milestones and royalties on product sales. If there is any conflict, dispute, disagreement or issue of nonperformance between us and our counterparties regarding our rights or obligations under these license agreements, including any conflict, dispute or disagreement arising from our failure to satisfy diligence or payment obligations, we may be liable to pay damages and our counterparties may have a right to terminate the affected license. The termination of any license agreement with one of our partners would materially adversely affect our ability to utilize the intellectual property that is subject to that license agreement in our drug discovery and development efforts, our ability to enter into future collaboration, licensing and/or marketing agreements for one or more affected product candidates and our ability to commercialize the affected product candidates. Furthermore, a disagreement under any of these license agreements may harm our relationship with the partner, which could have negative impacts on other aspects of our business.

We may become involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce our intellectual property, which could be expensive, time-consuming and unsuccessful and have a material adverse effect on the success of our business.

Third parties may infringe our patents or misappropriate or otherwise violate our intellectual property rights. Our patent applications cannot be enforced against third parties practicing the technology claimed in these applications unless and until a patent issues from the applications, and then only to the extent the issued claims cover the technology. In the future, we or our partners may elect to initiate legal proceedings to enforce or defend our or our partners’ intellectual property rights, to protect our or our partners’ trade secrets or to determine the validity or scope of our intellectual property rights. Any claims that we or our partners assert against perceived infringers could also provoke these parties to assert counterclaims against us or our partners alleging that we or our partners infringe their intellectual property rights or that our intellectual property rights are invalid.

Interference or derivation proceedings provoked by third parties, brought by us or our partners, or brought by the USPTO or any non-U.S. patent authority may be necessary to determine the priority of inventions or matters of inventorship with respect to our patents or patent applications. We or our partners may also become involved in other proceedings, such as reexamination or opposition proceedings, inter partes review, post-grant review or other pre-issuance or post-grant proceedings in the USPTO or its foreign counterparts relating to our intellectual property or the intellectual property of others. An unfavorable outcome in any of these proceedings could require us or our partners to cease using the related technology and commercializing our product candidates, or to attempt to license rights to it from the prevailing party. Our business could be harmed if the prevailing party does not offer us or our partners a license on commercially reasonable terms if any license is offered at all. Even if we or our licensors obtain a license, it may be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors access to the same technologies licensed to us or our licensors. In addition, if the breadth or strength of protection provided by our patents and patent applications is threatened, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to license, develop or commercialize current or future product candidates.

Any intellectual property proceedings can be expensive and time-consuming. Our or our partners’ adversaries in these proceedings may have the ability to dedicate substantially greater resources to prosecuting these legal actions than we or our partners can. Accordingly, despite our or our partners’ efforts, we or our partners may not be able to prevent third parties from infringing upon or misappropriating our intellectual property rights, particularly in countries where the laws may not protect our rights as fully as in the U.S. Even if we are successful in the relevant proceedings, we may incur substantial costs and the time and attention of our management and scientific personnel could be diverted from other activities. We could be found liable for monetary damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees, if we are found to have willfully infringed a patent. In addition, in an infringement proceeding, a court may decide that one or more of our patents is invalid or unenforceable, in whole or in part, or may refuse to stop the other party from using the technology at issue on the grounds that our patents do not cover the technology in question. An adverse result in any litigation proceeding could put one or more of our patents at risk of being invalidated, held unenforceable or interpreted narrowly.

Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation. In addition, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments.

If we are unable to protect the confidentiality of our trade secrets and other proprietary information, the value of our technology could be materially adversely affected and our business could be harmed.

In addition to seeking the protection afforded by patents, we rely on trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect proprietary know-how that is not patentable or that we elect not to patent, processes for which patents are difficult to enforce, and other elements of our technology, discovery and development processes that involve proprietary know-how, information or technology that is not covered by patents. The T-cell immunotherapy product candidates and platform technology we have licensed from our partners are protected primarily as confidential know-how and trade secrets. Any disclosure to or misappropriation by third parties of our confidential proprietary information could enable competitors to quickly duplicate or surpass our technological achievements, including by enabling them to develop and commercialize products substantially similar to or competitive with our product candidates, thus eroding our competitive position in the market.

Trade secrets can be difficult to protect. We seek to protect our proprietary technology and processes, in part, by entering into confidentiality agreements and invention assignment agreements with our employees, consultants, and outside scientific advisors, contractors and collaborators. These agreements are designed to protect our proprietary information. Although we use reasonable efforts to protect our trade secrets, our employees, consultants, contractors, or outside scientific advisors might intentionally or inadvertently disclose our trade secrets or confidential, proprietary information to competitors. In addition, competitors may otherwise gain access to our trade secrets or independently develop substantially equivalent information and techniques. If any of our confidential proprietary information were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor, we would have no right to prevent such competitor from using that technology or information to compete with us, which could harm our competitive position.

Enforcing a claim that a third party illegally obtained and is using any of our trade secrets is expensive and time consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, the laws of certain foreign countries do not protect proprietary rights such as trade secrets to the same extent or in the same manner as the laws of the U.S. Misappropriation or unauthorized disclosure of our trade secrets to third parties could impair our competitive advantage in the market and could materially adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Risks Related to Commercialization of Our Product Candidates

Our commercial success depends upon attaining significant market acceptance of our product candidates, if approved, among physicians, patients, healthcare payors and the medical community, including hospitals and outpatient clinics.

Even if we obtain regulatory approval for any of our product candidates that we may develop or acquire in the future, the product may not gain market acceptance among physicians, healthcare payors, patients or the medical community that supports our product development efforts, including hospitals and outpatient clinics. Market acceptance of any of our product candidates for which we receive approval depends on a number of factors, including:

• the administrative and logistical burden of treating patients;

• any restrictions on use together with other medications;

• the prevalence and severity of any side effects;

• the cost of treatment in relation to alternative treatments;

• relative convenience and ease of administration; and

Even if we are able to commercialize our product candidates, the products may not receive coverage and adequate reimbursement from third-party payors in the U.S. and in other countries in which we seek to commercialize our products, which could harm our business.

Our ability to commercialize any product successfully will depend, in part, on the extent to which coverage and adequate reimbursement for these products and related treatments will be available from government health administration authorities, private health insurers and other organizations.

Government authorities and third-party payors, such as private health insurers and health maintenance organizations, determine which medications they will cover and establish reimbursement levels. A primary trend in the healthcare industry is cost containment. Government authorities and third-party payors have attempted to control costs by limiting coverage and the amount of reimbursement for particular medications. Increasingly, third-party payors are requiring that drug companies provide them with predetermined discounts from list prices and are challenging the prices charged for medical products. Third-party payors may also seek additional clinical evidence, beyond the data required to obtain regulatory approval, demonstrating clinical benefits and value in specific patient populations before covering our products for those patients. We cannot be sure that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be available for any product that we commercialize and, if reimbursement is available, what the level of reimbursement will be. In some countries such as the U.S., greater cost-shifting from the payor to the patient is also a trend, and higher patient copayments or other administrative burdens could lead to reduced demand from patients or healthcare professionals. This could particularly be the case in a challenging economic climate, such as during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Coverage and reimbursement may impact the demand for, or the price of, any product candidate for which we obtain regulatory approval, and ultimately our ability to successfully commercialize any product candidate for which we obtain regulatory approval.

There may be significant delays in obtaining coverage and reimbursement for newly approved drugs, and coverage may be more limited than the purposes for which the drug is approved by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. Moreover, eligibility for coverage and reimbursement does not imply that any drug will be paid for in all cases or at a rate that covers our costs, including research, development, manufacture, sale and distribution. Interim reimbursement levels for new drugs, if applicable, may also not be sufficient to cover our costs and may only be temporary. Reimbursement rates may vary according to the use of the drug and the clinical setting in which it is used, may be based on reimbursement levels already set for lower cost drugs and may be incorporated into existing payments for other services. Net prices for drugs may be reduced by mandatory discounts or rebates required by government healthcare programs or private payors and by any future relaxation of laws that presently restrict imports of drugs from countries where they may be sold at lower prices than in the U.S. Coverage and reimbursement policies for drug products can differ significantly from payor to payor as there is no uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for drug products among third-party payors in the U.S. Third-party payors in the U.S. often rely upon Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own reimbursement policies. There may be significant delays in obtaining coverage and reimbursement as the process of determining coverage and reimbursement is often time consuming and costly which will require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of our products to each payor separately, with no assurance that coverage or adequate reimbursement will be obtained. It is difficult to predict at this time what government authorities and third-party payors will decide with respect to coverage and reimbursement for our drug products. Our inability to promptly obtain coverage and profitable reimbursement rates from both government-funded and private payors for any approved products that we develop could have a material adverse effect on our operating results, our ability to raise capital needed to commercialize products and our overall financial condition.

Current and future legislation, including potentially unfavorable pricing regulations or other healthcare reform initiatives, may increase the difficulty and cost for us to obtain regulatory approval of and commercialize our product candidates and affect the prices we may obtain.

The regulations that govern, among other things, regulatory approvals, coverage, pricing and reimbursement for new drug products vary widely from country to country. In the U.S. and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system that could prevent or delay regulatory approval of our product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities and affect our ability to successfully sell any product candidates for which we obtain regulatory approval. In particular, in March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, collectively, the Affordable Care Act, was enacted, which substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers, and continues to significantly impact the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. The Affordable Care Act and its implementing regulations, among other things, addressed a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for certain drugs and biologics, including our product candidates, increased the minimum Medicaid rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, extended the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program to utilization of prescriptions of individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations, subjected manufacturers to new annual fees and taxes for certain branded prescription drugs, provided incentives to programs that increase the federal government’s comparative effectiveness research and established a new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program.

Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the U.S. since the Affordable Care Act was enacted. In August 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, created measures for spending reductions by the U.S. Congress. A Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, tasked with recommending a targeted deficit reduction of at least $1.2 trillion for the years 2013 through 2021, was unable to reach required goals, thereby triggering the legislation’s automatic reduction to several government programs. This includes aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect in April 2013, and, due to subsequent legislative amendments, will remain in effect through 2030 unless additional Congressional action is taken. COVID-19 relief legislation suspended the 2% Medicare sequester from May 1, 2020 through March 31, 2021, and extended the sequester by one year, through 2030. In January 2013, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (the ATRA) was enacted which, among other things, further reduced Medicare payments to several providers, including hospitals and outpatient clinics, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years.

There remain judicial and Congressional challenges to numerous elements of the Affordable Care Act, as well as efforts by both the executive and legislative branches of the federal government to repeal or replace certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act. For example, President Trump signed Executive Orders designed to delay or eliminate the implementation of certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act or otherwise circumvent some of the requirements for health insurance mandated by the Affordable Care Act. In addition, the U.S. Congress has considered legislation that would repeal or repeal and replace all or part of the Affordable Care Act. While the U.S. Congress has not passed comprehensive repeal legislation, it has enacted laws that modify certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act, such as removing penalties, starting January 1, 2019, for not complying with the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate to carry health insurance, eliminating the implementation of certain mandated fees, and increasing the point-of-sale discount that is owed by pharmaceutical manufacturers who participate in Medicare Part D. In December 2018, a Texas District Court Judge ruled that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional in its entirety because the “individual mandate” was repealed by Congress as part of legislation enacted in 2017, informally titled the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the Tax Act). In December 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld the Texas District Court ruling that the individual mandate was unconstitutional and remanded the case back to the Texas District Court to determine whether the remaining provisions of the Affordable Care Act are invalid as well. The United States Supreme Court is currently reviewing this case, but it is unknown when a decision will be reached. Although the United States Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, on January 28, 2021, President Biden issued an executive order to initiate a special enrollment period from February 15, 2021 through May 15, 2021 for purposes of obtaining health insurance coverage through the Affordable Care Act marketplace. The executive order also instructs certain governmental agencies to review and reconsider their existing policies and rules that limit access to healthcare, including among others, reexamining Medicaid demonstration projects and waiver programs that include work requirements, and policies that create unnecessary barriers to obtaining access to health insurance coverage through Medicaid or the Affordable Care Act. It is unclear how the United States Supreme Court ruling, other such litigation, and the healthcare form measures of the Biden administration will impact the Affordable Care Act and our business.

There have been, and likely will continue to be, legislative and regulatory proposals at the foreign, federal and state levels directed at broadening the availability of healthcare and containing or lowering the cost of healthcare. We cannot predict the initiatives that may be adopted in the future. The continuing efforts of governments, insurance companies, managed care organizations and other payors of healthcare services to contain or reduce costs of healthcare, including by imposing price controls, may adversely affect the demand for our product candidates for which we obtain regulatory approval and our ability to set a price that we believe is fair for our products. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors.

Legislative and regulatory proposals have been made to expand post-approval requirements and restrict sales and promotional activities for pharmaceutical products. We cannot be sure whether additional legislative changes will be enacted, or whether the U.S. or foreign regulations, guidance or interpretations will be changed, or what the impact of these changes on the regulatory approvals of our product candidates, if any, may be. In the U.S., the European Union and other potentially significant markets for our product candidates, government authorities and third-party payors are increasingly attempting to limit or regulate the price of medical products and services, particularly for new and innovative products and therapies, which has resulted in lower average selling prices for certain products in certain markets. For example, in the U.S., there have been several recent Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs. At the federal level, the Trump administration’s budget proposal for the fiscal year 2021 included a $135 billion allowance to support legislative proposals seeking to reduce drug prices, increase competition, lower out-of-pocket drug costs for patients, and increase patient access to lower-cost generic and biosimilar drugs. 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. Additionally, in May 2018, the Trump administration previously laid out a “Blueprint” to lower drug prices and reduce out of pocket costs of drugs that contained additional proposals to increase manufacturer competition, increase the negotiating power of certain federal healthcare programs, incentivize manufacturers to lower the list price of their products and reduce the out-of-pocket costs of drug products paid by consumers. On July 24, 2020 and September 13, 2020, the Trump administration announced several executive orders related to prescription drug pricing that attempt to implement several of the administration’s proposals. On November 20, 2020, HHS finalized a regulation removing safe harbor protection for price reductions from pharmaceutical manufacturers to plan sponsors under Part D, either directly or through pharmacy benefit managers, unless the price reduction is required by law. The rule also creates a new safe harbor for price reductions reflected at the point-of-sale, as well as a safe harbor for certain fixed fee arrangements between pharmacy benefit managers and manufacturers. Further, on November 20, 2020, CMS issued an interim final rule implementing President Trump’s Most Favored Nation executive order, which would tie Medicare Part B payments for certain physician-administered drugs to the lowest price paid in other economically advanced countries, effective January 1, 2021. On December 28, 2020, the U.S. District Court in Northern California issued a nationwide preliminary injunction against implementation of the interim final rule. However, it is unclear whether the Biden administration will work to reverse these measures or pursue similar policy initiatives. 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, and, in some cases, to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. Furthermore, the increased emphasis on managed healthcare in the U.S. and on country and regional pricing and reimbursement controls in the European Union will put additional pressure on product pricing, reimbursement and usage, which may adversely affect our future product sales. These pressures can arise from rules and practices of managed care groups, judicial decisions and governmental laws and regulations related to Medicare, Medicaid and healthcare reform, pharmaceutical reimbursement policies and pricing in general. Further, it is possible that additional governmental action is taken in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

In addition, there is significant uncertainty regarding the reimbursement status of newly approved healthcare products. We may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in order to demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of our products. If third-party payors do not consider our products to be cost-effective compared to other therapies, the payors may not cover our products after approved as a benefit under their plans or, if they do, the level of payment may not be sufficient to allow us to sell our products on a profitable basis.

Price controls may be imposed in foreign markets, which may adversely affect our future profitability.

In some countries, particularly member states of the European Union, the pricing of prescription drugs is subject to governmental control. In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after receipt of regulatory approval for a product. In addition, there can be considerable pressure by governments and other stakeholders on prices and reimbursement levels, including as part of cost containment measures. Political, economic and regulatory developments may further complicate pricing negotiations, and pricing negotiations may continue after reimbursement has been obtained. Reference pricing used by various European Union member states and parallel distribution, or arbitrage between low-priced and high-priced member states, can further reduce prices. In some countries, we, or our collaborators, may be required to conduct a clinical study or other studies that compare the cost-effectiveness of our product candidates to other available therapies in order to obtain or maintain reimbursement or pricing approval. Publication of discounts by third-party payors or authorities may lead to further pressure on the prices or reimbursement levels within the country of publication and other countries. If reimbursement of our products is unavailable or limited in scope or amount, or if pricing is set at unsatisfactory levels, our business could be adversely affected.

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

We face competition from numerous pharmaceutical and biotechnology enterprises, as well as from academic institutions, government agencies and private and public research institutions for our current product candidates. Our commercial opportunities will be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, have fewer side effects or are less expensive than any products that we may develop. Additionally, our commercial opportunities will be reduced or eliminated if novel upstream products or changes in treatment protocols reduce the overall incidence or prevalence of our current or future target diseases. Competition could result in reduced sales and pricing pressure on our product candidates, if approved by applicable regulatory authorities. In addition, significant delays in the development of our product candidates could allow our competitors to bring products to market before us and impair any ability to commercialize our product candidates.

There are currently no FDA- or EMA-approved products for the treatment of EBV+ PTLD. However, some marketed products and therapies are used off-label in the treatment of EBV+ PTLD, such as rituximab and combination chemotherapy regimens. In addition, a number of companies and academic institutions are developing product candidates for EBV+ PTLD and other EBV-driven diseases including: Viracta Therapeutics, Inc., which is conducting a Phase 1b/2 clinical study for nanatinostat (formerly named tractinostat, or VRx-3996) in combination with antiviral drug valganciclovir in relapsed/refractory EBV+lymphomas; AlloVir (formerly known as ViraCyte), which has completed a Phase 2 clinical study for Viralym-M (ALVR105), an allogeneic, multi-virus T-cell product that targets six viruses in allogeneic HSCT recipients with ≥1 treatment-refractory infection, including EBV, and is planning to initiate several Phase 3 studies for CMV, AdV and Virus-Associated Hemorrhagic-Cystitis, as well as a Phase 1b/2 proof of concept trial for the prevention of BKV, CMV, AdV, EBV, HHV06 and JCV; and Tessa Therapeutics Pte Ltd., which has a Phase 2 autologous and preclinical allogeneic CD30-CAR-T product candidate being evaluated in CD30+ lymphomas.

Competition in the MS market is high with at least 20 therapies, including four generics or bioequivalents, approved in the U.S. and EU for the treatment of various forms of MS, including clinically isolated syndrome, relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS), secondary progressive MS (SPMS) and primary progressive MS (PPMS). There are many competitors in the MS market, including major multi-national fully-integrated pharmaceutical companies and established biotechnology companies. Most recently, Kesimpta® (anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody), marketed by Novartis, was approved in the U.S. for the treatment of relapsing forms of MS, and a decision for its approval for treatment of the same indication in the EU is expected in the first half of 2021. Johnson & Johnson has completed Phase 3 studies of its sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor 1 (S1P1) modulator, ponesimod, and has sought regulatory approval also for relapsing forms of MS in the U.S. and EU.

There are numerous development candidates in Phase 3 studies for both relapsing and/or progressive forms of MS and additional novel agents could be approved in either or both indications in the future including TG Therapeutics’ anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody ublituximab, EMD Serono’s Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor, evobrutinib, Roche’s BTK inhibitor, fenebrutinib, Sanofi’s BTK inhibitor, SAR442168 and AB Science’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor, masitinib. Medicinova is planning to initiate a Phase 3 study of its PDE inhibitor, ibudilast (MN166) in non-active SPMS.

There are currently four autologous CAR T therapies approved in the U.S. and/or EU: Novartis’ Kymriah® (tisagenlecleucel),Gilead/Kite’s Yescarta® (axicabtagene ciloleucel) and TecartusTM (brexucabtagene autoleucel) and Bristol-Myers Squibb’s Breyanzi® (lisocabtagene maraleucel). Bristol-Myers Squibb has filed a BLA to the U.S. FDA for idecabtagene vicleucel with bluebird bio. There are many CAR-mediated cell therapies in development, and, although the majority are autologous, they include allogeneic and off-the-shelf cell therapies. There are multiple allogeneic CAR platforms being developed with differences in approaches to minimize instances of donor cells recognizing the patient’s body as foreign or rejection of the donor cells by the patient’s body. These approaches include the use of gene-editing to remove or inhibit the TCR and the use of cell types without a TCR. The majority of clinical stage allogeneic CAR programs utilize alpha beta T cells as the cell type and gene editing of the T-cell receptor and HLA as the preferred technology approach, however, other strategies are also in development. It is possible that some of these other approaches will have more favorable characteristics than the approach we utilize, which would result in them being favored by potential partners or customers over our products. Depending on the diseases that we target in the future, we may face competition from both autologous and allogeneic CAR therapies and other modalities (e.g., small molecules, antibodies) in the indication of interest.

Many of the approved or commonly used drugs and therapies for our current or future target diseases, including EBV+ PTLD and MS, are well established and are widely accepted by physicians, patients and third-party payors. Some of these drugs are branded and subject to patent protection, and other drugs and nutritional supplements are available on a generic basis. Insurers and other third-party payors may encourage the use of generic products or specific branded products. We expect that, if any of our product candidates are approved, they will be priced at a significant premium over competitive generic products. Absent differentiated and compelling clinical evidence, pricing premiums may impede the adoption of our products over currently approved or commonly used therapies, which may adversely impact our business. In addition, many companies are developing new therapeutics, and we cannot predict what the standard of care will become as our products continue in clinical development.

Many of our competitors or potential competitors have significantly greater established presence in the market, financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical studies, obtaining regulatory approvals and marketing approved products than we do, and as a result may have a competitive advantage over us. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, including through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies or if they are acquired by larger companies. These third parties compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific, commercial and management personnel, establishing clinical study sites and patient registration for clinical studies, as well as in acquiring technologies and technology licenses complementary to our programs or advantageous to our business.

As a result of these factors, these competitors may obtain regulatory approval of their products before we are able to obtain patent protection or other intellectual property rights, which will limit our ability to develop or commercialize our product candidates. Our competitors may also develop drugs that are safer, more effective, more widely used and cheaper than ours, and may also be more successful than us in manufacturing and marketing their products. These appreciable advantages could render our product candidates obsolete or noncompetitive before we can recover the expenses of development and commercialization.

We expect the product candidates we develop will be regulated as biological products (biologics) and therefore they may be subject to competition sooner than anticipated.

The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (BPCIA) was enacted as part of the Affordable Care Act to establish an abbreviated pathway for the approval of biosimilar and interchangeable biological products. The regulatory pathway establishes legal authority for the FDA to review and approve biosimilar biologics, including the possible designation of a biosimilar as “interchangeable” based on its similarity to an approved biologic. Under the BPCIA, an application for a biosimilar product cannot be approved by the FDA until 12 years after the reference product was approved under a BLA. The law is complex and is still being interpreted and implemented by the FDA. As a result, its ultimate impact, implementation, and meaning are subject to uncertainty. While it is uncertain when processes intended to implement BPCIA may be fully adopted by the FDA, any of these processes could have a material adverse effect on the future commercial prospects for our biological products.

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

In addition, the approval of a biologic product biosimilar to one of our products could have a material adverse impact on our business as it may be significantly less costly to bring to market and may be priced significantly lower than our products.

If we are unable to establish sales and marketing capabilities or enter into agreements with third parties to market and sell our product candidates, we may be unable to generate any revenue from the sale of our products.

We are at an early stage of establishing an organization that will be responsible for the sale, marketing and distribution of pharmaceutical products and the cost of establishing and maintaining such an organization may exceed the cost-effectiveness of doing so. In order to market any products that may be approved by the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities, we must build our sales, marketing, managerial and other non-technical capabilities or make arrangements with third parties to perform these services. There are significant risks involved in building and managing a sales organization, including our ability to hire, retain and incentivize qualified individuals, generate sufficient sales leads, provide adequate training to sales and marketing personnel and effectively manage a geographically dispersed sales and marketing team. Any failure or delay in the development of our internal sales, marketing and distribution capabilities, or entering into agreements with third parties to market and sell our products, would adversely impact the commercialization of these products. We may be competing with many companies that currently have extensive and well-funded sales and marketing operations. Without a sufficiently scaled, appropriately timed and trained internal commercial organization or the support of a third party to perform sales and marketing functions, we may be unable to compete successfully against these more established companies.

We may need to grow the size of our organization, and we may experience difficulties in managing this growth.

As of December 31, 2020, we had 437 employees. We have made the decision to grow the size of our organization in order to support our continued development and potential commercialization of our product candidates. In particular, we may need to add substantial numbers of additional personnel and other resources to support our development and potential commercialization of our product candidates. As our development and commercialization plans and strategies continue to develop, or as a result of any future acquisitions, our need for additional managerial, operational, manufacturing, sales, marketing, financial and other resources will increase. Our management, personnel and systems currently in place may not be adequate to support this future growth. Future growth would impose significant added responsibilities on members of management, including:

• managing our preclinical and clinical studies effectively;

• expanding our facilities.

As our operations expand, we will also need to manage additional relationships with various strategic partners, suppliers and other third parties. Our future financial performance and our ability to commercialize our product candidates and to compete effectively will depend, in part, on our ability to manage any future growth effectively. To that end, we must be able to manage our development efforts and preclinical and clinical studies effectively and hire, train and integrate additional management, research and development, manufacturing, administrative and sales and marketing personnel. Our failure to accomplish any of these tasks could prevent us from successfully growing our company.

Risks Related to Ownership of Our Common Stock

Our stock price has been and will likely continue to be volatile and may decline regardless of our operating performance.

Our stock price has fluctuated in the past and can be expected to be volatile in the future. From January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2020, the reported sale price of our common stock has fluctuated between $4.52 and $54.45 per share. The stock market in general and the market for biotechnology companies in particular have experienced extreme volatility that has often been unrelated to the operating performance of particular companies. In particular, the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has further heightened the volatility of the stock market for biopharmaceutical companies. As a result of this volatility, investors may experience losses on their investment in our common stock. The market price of our common stock may be influenced by many factors, including the following:

• the success of competitive products or technologies;

• actual or anticipated changes in our growth rate relative to our competitors;

• regulatory or legal developments in the U.S. and other countries;

• the recruitment or departure of key personnel;

• announcement or expectation of additional financing efforts;

• sales of our common stock by us, our insiders or our other stockholders;

• changes in the structure of healthcare payment systems;

• market conditions in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors;

• general economic, industry and market conditions; and

• the other risks described in this “Risk Factors” section.

In addition, the stock markets in general, and the markets for biotechnology and pharmaceutical stocks in particular, have experienced significant volatility that has often been unrelated to the operating performance of particular companies, including in connection with the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, which has resulted in decreased stock prices for many companies. For example, negative publicity regarding drug pricing and price increases by pharmaceutical companies has negatively impacted, and may continue to negatively impact, the markets for biotechnology and pharmaceutical stocks. Likewise, as a result of significant changes in U.S. social, political, regulatory and economic conditions or in laws and policies governing foreign trade and healthcare spending and delivery, including the possible repeal and/or replacement of all or portions of the Affordable Care Act or changes in tariffs and other restrictions on free trade stemming from U.S. and foreign government policies, or for other reasons, the financial markets could experience significant volatility that could also negatively impact the markets for biotechnology and pharmaceutical stocks. These market fluctuations may adversely affect the trading price of our common stock.

In the past, class action litigation has often been instituted against companies whose securities have experienced periods of volatility in market price. Any such litigation brought against us could result in substantial costs and divert management’s attention and resources, which could result in delays of our clinical studies or commercialization efforts.

Our principal stockholders own a significant percentage of our stock and will be able to exert significant control over matters subject to stockholder approval.

Our principal stockholders own a significant portion of our outstanding common stock. These stockholders may be able to determine the outcome of all matters requiring stockholder approval. For example, these stockholders may be able to control elections of directors, amendments of our organizational documents, or approval of any merger, sale of assets, or other major corporate transaction. This may prevent or discourage unsolicited acquisition proposals or offers for our common stock. The interests of our significant stockholders may not always coincide with the interests of other stockholders and they may act in a manner that advances their best interests and not necessarily those of other stockholders, including seeking a premium value for their common stock, and might affect the market price for our common stock.

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

Sales of a substantial number of shares of our common stock in the public market could occur at any time. These sales, or the perception in the market that the holders of a large number of shares intend to sell shares, could reduce the market price of our common stock. Moreover, certain holders of shares of our common stock will have rights, subject to certain conditions, to require us to file registration statements covering their shares or to include their shares in registration statements that we may file for ourselves or other stockholders. We have registered and intend to continue to register all shares of common stock that we may issue under our equity compensation plans. Once we register these shares, they can be freely sold in the public market upon issuance, subject to volume limitations applicable to affiliates.

We have incurred and will continue to incur increased costs as a result of being a public company and our management expects to devote substantial time to public company compliance programs.

As a public company, we have incurred and will continue to incur significant legal, accounting and other expenses. We are subject to the reporting requirements of the Exchange Act, which require, among other things, that we file with the SEC annual, quarterly and current reports with respect to our business and financial condition. In addition, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, as well as rules subsequently adopted by the SEC and The Nasdaq Stock Market to implement provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, impose significant requirements on public companies, including requiring establishment and maintenance of effective disclosure and financial controls and changes in corporate governance practices. Further, pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, the SEC has adopted and will adopt additional rules and regulations, such as mandatory “say on pay” voting requirements, that now apply to us. Stockholder activism, the current political environment and the potential for future regulatory reform may lead to substantial new regulations and disclosure obligations, which may lead to additional compliance costs and impact the manner in which we operate our business in ways we cannot currently anticipate.

The rules and regulations applicable to public companies have substantially increased our legal and financial compliance costs and make some activities more time-consuming and costly. To the extent these requirements divert the attention of our management and personnel from other business concerns, they could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. The increased costs will decrease our net income or increase our net loss and may require us to reduce costs in other areas of our business or increase the prices of our products or services.

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

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

ATRA US Equity

ATRA · 10-K · period ended 2020-12-31

Item 1A. Risk Factors

ATRA US Equity☆

ATRA · 10-K · period ended 2020-12-31

Item 1A. Risk Factors

ATRA US Equity