GlycoMimetics, Inc._December 31, 2024

Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)

OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024

Commission file number 001-36177

GlycoMimetics, Inc.

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)

(Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (240) 243-1201

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

Title of Each Class: Trading Symbol: Name of Each Exchange on which Registered

Common Stock, $0.001 par value GLYC The Nasdaq Stock Market

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

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

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

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

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

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

Large Accelerated Filer ☐ Accelerated Filer ☐

Non-accelerated Filer ☒ Smaller Reporting Company ☒

Emerging Growth Company ☐

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

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

If securities are registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act, indicate by check mark whether the financial statements of the registrant included in the filing reflect the correction of an error to previously issued financial statements. ☐

Indicate by check mark whether any of those error corrections are restatements that required a recovery analysis of incentive‐based compensation received by any of the registrant’s executive officers during the relevant recovery period pursuant to §240.10D‐1(b). ☐

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

As of June 30, 2024, the last business day of the registrant’s last completed second quarter, the aggregate market value of the Common Stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant was approximately $17.5 million based on the closing price of the registrant’s Common Stock, as reported by the Nasdaq Capital Market, on such date.

At February 7, 2025, 64,513,862 shares of GlycoMimetics, Inc.’s Common Stock, $0.001 par value per share, were outstanding.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

None.

Table of Contents

SPECIAL NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Annual Report on Form 10-K, or this Annual Report, contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, that involve substantial risks and uncertainties. The forward-looking statements are contained principally in Part I, Item 1. “Business,” Part I, Item 1A. “Risk Factors,” and Part II, Item 7. “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” but are also contained elsewhere in this Annual Report. In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by the words “may,” “might,” “will,” “could,” “would,” “should,” “expect,” “intend,” “plan,” “objective,” “anticipate,” “believe,” “estimate,” “predict,” “project,” “potential,” “continue” and “ongoing,” or the negative of these terms, or other comparable terminology intended to identify statements about the future. These statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause our actual results, levels of activity, performance or achievements to be materially different from the information expressed or implied by these forward-looking statements. Although we believe that we have a reasonable basis for each forward-looking statement contained in this Annual Report, we caution you that these statements are based on a combination of facts and factors currently known by us and our expectations of the future, about which we cannot be certain. Forward-looking statements include statements about:

● our ability to maintain compliance with Nasdaq listing standards;

● the clinical utility of our drug candidates;

● our intellectual property position;

● our ability to identify additional drug candidates; and

● our estimates regarding needs for additional financing.

You should refer to Item 1A. “Risk Factors” section of this Annual Report for a discussion of important factors that may cause our actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied by our forward-looking statements. As a result of these factors, we cannot assure you that the forward-looking statements in this Annual Report will prove to be accurate. Furthermore, if our forward-looking statements prove to be inaccurate, the inaccuracy may be material. In light of the significant uncertainties in these forward-looking statements, you should not regard these statements as a representation or warranty by us or any other person that we will achieve our objectives and plans in any specified time frame, or at all. We undertake no obligation to publicly update any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by law. You should, therefore, not rely on these forward-looking statements as representing our views as of any date subsequent to the date of this Annual Report.

Table of Contents

SELECTED RISKS AFFECTING OUR BUSINESS

Our business is subject to numerous risks. You should carefully consider the following risks, as well as general economic and business risks, and all of the other information contained in this Annual Report, together with any other documents we file with the SEC. Any of the following risks could have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results and financial condition and cause the trading price of our common stock to decline.

Among these important risks are the following:

● If the Merger is not completed, our stock price may decline significantly.

Table of Contents

be adversely affected.

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

PART I 1

ITEM 1. BUSINESS 1

ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS 18

ITEM 1B. UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS 51

ITEM 1C. CYBERSECURITY 51

ITEM 2. PROPERTIES 52

ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS 53

ITEM 4. MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES 53

ITEM 6. [RESERVED] 53

ITEM 7A. QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK 59

ITEM 8. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA 59

ITEM 9A. CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES 60

ITEM 9B. OTHER INFORMATION 60

PART III 61

ITEM 10. DIRECTORS, EXECUTIVE OFFICERS AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE 61

ITEM 11. EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION 65

ITEM 14. PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT FEES AND SERVICES 77

ITEM 15. EXHIBITS AND FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULES 77

ITEM 16. FORM 10-K SUMMARY 81

SIGNATURES 82

Table of Contents

PART I

ITEM 1. BUSINESS

Introduction

We are a biotechnology company that was previously developing a pipeline of proprietary glycomimetics, which are small molecules that mimic the structure of carbohydrates involved in important biological processes, to inhibit disease-related functions of carbohydrates, such as the roles they play in cancers and inflammation. Our previous lead glycomimetic drug candidate, uproleselan, is a specific E-selectin antagonist that we were developing to be used in combination with chemotherapy to treat patients with acute myeloid leukemia, or AML, a life-threatening hematologic cancer, and potentially other hematologic cancers.

We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 3 pivotal clinical trial to evaluate uproleselan in individuals with relapsed/refractory (R/R) AML. In the second quarter of 2024, we reported results from the Phase 3 trial showing that uproleselan combined with chemotherapy did not achieve a statistically significant improvement in overall survival in the intent to treat (ITT) population versus chemotherapy alone. We have concluded, following subsequent feedback from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, that the regulatory path forward for uproleselan for the treatment of relapsed and refractory acute myeloid leukemia would require an additional clinical trial. In July 2024, we announced a streamlined operating plan that included the exploration of strategic alternatives focused on maximizing shareholder value and a corporate restructuring that included a reduction in our workforce by 26 employees, or approximately 80% of our headcount. At this time, we do not intend to continue development of uproleselan or any other drug candidates.

Following the strategic review, on October 28, 2024, we, Gemini Merger Sub Corp., a Delaware corporation and our wholly-owned subsidiary (“First Merger Sub”), Gemini Merger Sub II, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and our wholly-owned subsidiary (“Second Merger Sub” and, together with First Merger Sub, “Merger Subs”), and Crescent Biopharma, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Crescent”), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization (the “Merger Agreement”), pursuant to which, among other matters, and subject to the satisfaction or waiver of the conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement, (i) First Merger Sub will merge with and into Crescent, with Crescent continuing as our wholly owned subsidiary and the surviving corporation of the merger (the “First Merger”) and (ii) immediately following the First Merger and as part of the same overall transaction as the First Merger, Crescent will merge with and into Second Merger Sub (the “Second Merger” and, together with the First Merger, the “Merger”).

Pursuant to the exchange ratio formula in the Merger Agreement, and based on our capitalization as of September 30, 2024 and Crescent’s capitalization as of October 28, 2024 (the date the Merger Agreement was executed), upon the closing of the Merger (and prior to closing of the Private Placement described below), on a pro forma basis and based upon the number of shares of our common stock expected to be issued in the Merger, pre-Merger Crescent stockholders will own approximately 86.21% of the combined company and pre-Merger GlycoMimetics stockholders will own approximately 13.79% of the combined company. After giving further effect to the Private Placement, the pre-Merger Crescent stockholders (inclusive of those investors participating in the Private Placement) are expected to own approximately 96.9% of the combined company and our pre-Merger stockholders are expected to own approximately 3.1% of the combined company. The exchange ratio may be further adjusted as described in the Merger Agreement. We and Crescent have agreed to customary representations, warranties and covenants in the Merger Agreement and the consummation of the Merger is subject to customary closing conditions, including, among other things, approval by our stockholders and the Crescent stockholders of the transaction, Nasdaq and SEC approvals, and completion of a concurrent private placement of at least $100 million (as described below).

Additionally, in connection with the Merger, we will establish the terms of a new series of preferred stock designated as Series A Non-Voting Convertible Preferred Stock, par value $0.001 per share (the “Series A Preferred Stock”). Holders of the Series A Preferred Stock will be entitled to receive dividends on shares of Series A Preferred Stock equal to, on an as-if-converted-to-GlycoMimetics common stock basis, and in the same form as dividends actually paid on shares of the GlycoMimetics common stock. Except as otherwise required by the Certificate of Designation or law, the Series A Preferred Stock will not have voting rights. The Certificate of Designation will provide however that for so long at least 30% of the Series A Preferred Stock remains issued and outstanding, the holders of Series A Preferred Stock exclusively and voting together as a separate class on an as-converted to common stock basis, shall be entitled to

Table of Contents

elect two (2) directors (the “Preferred Directors”); and the holders of record of the shares of common stock and of any other class or series of voting stock (including the Series A Preferred Stock), exclusively and voting together as a single class on an as-converted to common stock basis, shall be entitled to elect the balance of the total number of directors.

Upon completion of the Merger, we plan to operate under the name Crescent Biopharma, Inc. The Merger is expected to close in the second quarter of 2025, subject to certain closing conditions, including, among other things, approval by the stockholders of each company and the satisfaction of customary closing conditions. The Merger is intended to qualify for federal income tax purposes as a tax-free reorganization under the provisions of Section 368(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. Following the Merger, the current business of Crescent will become the primary business of our company.

Concurrently with the execution and delivery of the Merger Agreement, certain institutional and accredited investors have entered into a securities purchase agreement with us, pursuant to which they have agreed, subject to the terms and conditions of such agreements, to purchase, immediately following the consummation of the Merger, shares of our common stock and pre-funded warrants for an aggregate purchase price of approximately $200.0 million in a private placement (the “Private Placement”). The closing of the Private Placement is conditioned on the satisfaction or waiver of the conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement (in addition to other customary closing conditions) and is expected to occur immediately following the closing of the Merger.

Concurrently with the execution of the Merger Agreement, our directors and officers and certain stockholders of Crescent (solely in their respective capacities as Crescent stockholders) holding approximately 98% of the outstanding shares of Crescent capital stock have entered into support agreements to vote all of their shares in favor of the adoption and approval of the Merger.

Our future operations are highly dependent on the success of the Merger and there can be no assurances that the Merger will be successfully consummated. In the event that we do not complete the Merger, we may explore strategic alternatives, including, without limitation, another strategic transaction and/or pursue a dissolution and liquidation of our business.

Our Historical Platform and Drug Candidates

Our proprietary glycomimetics platform was based on our expertise in carbohydrate chemistry and our understanding of the role carbohydrates play in key biological processes. Most human proteins are modified by the addition of complex carbohydrate structures to the surface of such proteins, which affects the functions of the proteins and their interactions with other molecules. Our prior research and development efforts focused on drug candidates targeting selectins, which are proteins that serve as adhesion molecules and bind to carbohydrates that are involved in the inflammatory component and progression of a wide range of diseases, including hematologic disorders, cancer and cardiovascular disease. For example, we believe that members of the selectin family play a key role in tumor metastasis and resistance to chemotherapy. Inhibiting specific carbohydrates from binding to selectins has long been viewed as a potentially attractive approach for therapeutic intervention. The ability to successfully develop drug-like carbohydrate compounds that inhibit binding with selectins, known as selectin antagonists, has historically been limited by their potency and the complexities of carbohydrate chemistry. We believe our expertise in the rational design of potent glycomimetic antagonists with drug-like properties and in carbohydrate chemistry enabled us to identify highly effective selectin antagonists and other glycomimetics that may inhibit the disease-related functions of certain carbohydrates in order to develop novel drug candidates to address orphan diseases with high unmet medical need.

The status of our drug candidates is summarized below. We are no longer actively pursuing the development of any of these drug candidates. We retained the worldwide development and commercialization rights to each of our drug candidates, except with respect to uproleselan and GMI-1687, for which we have exclusively licensed development and commercialization rights to Apollomics (Hong Kong) Limited, or Apollomics, in Mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan, collectively referred to as Greater China. Although those agreements remain in force, Apollomics has announced its intention to wind down its clinical development program and we do not anticipate those agreements to continue following consummation of the Merger.

Table of Contents

Uproleselan

We were previously developing uproleselan, a specific E-selectin antagonist, to be used in combination with chemotherapy to treat patients with acute myeloid leukemia, or AML, a life-threatening hematologic cancer, and potentially other hematologic cancers.

Uproleselan received Orphan Drug designation from the FDA in 2015 for treatment of patients with AML. In 2016, uproleselan received Fast Track designation from the FDA for treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory AML and elderly patients aged 60 years or older with AML. In 2017, uproleselan received Breakthrough Therapy designation from the FDA for treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory AML. In 2017, the European Commission, based on a favorable recommendation from the EMA Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products, granted Orphan Designation for uproleselan for treatment of patients with AML. In January 2021, the China National Medical Products Administration Center for Drug Evaluation granted Breakthrough Therapy designation to uproleselan for treatment of relapsed/refractory AML.

E-selectin plays a critical role in binding cancer cells within vascular niches in the bone marrow, which prevents the cells from entering circulation where they can be more readily killed by chemotherapy. In animal studies, uproleselan mobilized AML cancer cells out of the bone marrow, making them more sensitive to chemotherapy. In these studies, tumor burden was significantly reduced in the animals treated with a combination of chemotherapy and uproleselan as compared to animals treated with chemotherapy alone. In addition, the combination of uproleselan with chemotherapy resulted in improved survival rates for the treated animals compared to chemotherapy alone. In other animal studies, uproleselan appeared to also protect normal cells from some of the side effects of chemotherapy. Common side effects of chemotherapy include bone marrow toxicity resulting in neutropenia, which is an abnormally low number of neutrophils, the white blood cells that serve as the primary defense against infection, and mucositis, which is the inflammation and sloughing of the mucous membranes lining the digestive tract. Animals treated with uproleselan and chemotherapy had less severe neutropenia and mucositis and lower bone marrow toxicity as compared to animals treated with chemotherapy alone. We believe that treatment with uproleselan results in lower bone marrow toxicity due to its inhibition of E-selectin; this inhibition makes stem cells in the bone marrow divide less frequently, thereby protecting them from chemotherapy agents that target rapidly dividing cells.

In 2018, we dosed the first patient in a Phase 3 clinical trial to evaluate uproleselan in adults with relapsed/refractory AML. In 2021, we completed enrollment of 388 patients in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 3 pivotal clinical trial to evaluate uproleselan in individuals with relapsed/refractory AML, the design of which was based on guidance received from the FDA.

In September 2022, we submitted a request to the FDA to amend the protocol for the trial to conduct an interim analysis and have the findings reviewed by the trial’s Independent Data Monitoring Committee, or IDMC, as blinded pooled survival data showed patients living longer than expected based on the historical benchmarks used to design the trial. The statistical plan agreed to with the FDA was for the IDMC to review efficacy and safety data at 80% of survival events, which was reached at the end of 2022. When designing the interim analysis, we amended the protocol to create the opportunity to achieve unblinding at approximately 80% of survival events while maintaining the statistical integrity of the final analysis should the IDMC recommend the trial continue to the final overall events trigger. The interim analysis plan required a high statistical threshold to be met for the IDMC to recommend unblinding, reserving approximately 95% of the trial’s statistical power for the final analysis. In February 2023, the IDMC reviewed the interim utility analysis and recommended that the pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial continue to the originally planned final overall survival events trigger.

In May 2024, we reported topline results from the Phase 3 trial, in which uproleselan combined with chemotherapy did not achieve a statistically significant improvement in overall survival in the intent to treat, or ITT, population versus chemotherapy alone. In June 2024, we announced comprehensive results of the Phase 3 trial. Following the announcement of the data from the Phase 3 trial, we requested and held a meeting with the FDA to discuss whether any of the results summarized above could serve as a basis for a submission for regulatory approval. Based on the feedback received, we concluded that any potential regulatory path for uproleselan in this patient population would require an additional clinical trial, the conduct of which would require capital resources beyond those available to us. The decision

Table of Contents

to not conduct an additional clinical trial did not relate to any safety or medical issues or negative regulatory feedback related to our programs.

We also entered into a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement, or CRADA, with the National Cancer Institute, or NCI, part of the National Institutes of Health, to conduct a Phase 2/3 randomized, controlled clinical trial evaluating the addition of uproleselan to a standard chemotherapy regimen in older adults with previously untreated AML who are eligible for intensive chemotherapy. On October 29, 2024, we announced data from the Phase 2 portion of the trial showing no statistically significant improvement in event-free survival, or EFS, for patients receiving uproleselan in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone.

GMI-1687

We designed an innovative antagonist of E-selectin, GMI-1687, that could be a subcutaneously administered treatment. Initially developed as a potential life-cycle extension to uproleselan, GMI-1687 was being developed to broaden the clinical usefulness of an E-selectin antagonist to conditions where outpatient treatment is preferred or required. As described below, we have entered into a collaboration with Apollomics (Hong Kong) Limited for the development of GMI-1687, as well as uproleselan, in Mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan, also known as Greater China, but we are not otherwise actively developing GMI-1687.

Our Collaboration with Apollomics for Uproleselan and GMI-1687

In 2020, we entered into an exclusive collaboration and license agreement with Apollomics for the development and commercialization of uproleselan and GMI-1687 for all fields and all uses in Greater China. We and Apollomics were also collaborating to advance the preclinical and clinical development of GMI-1687. In December 2024 Apollomics announced that its Phase 3 bridging trial of uproleselan did not demonstrate favorable benefit and that Apollomics would be winding down the program. We do not expect the collaboration and license agreement to remain in effect following the consummation of the Merger, and do not anticipate having any material ongoing obligations under the agreement for supplying drug for any trials being conducted by Apollomics.

Under the terms of the exclusive collaboration and license agreement, which currently remains in effect, we are eligible to receive potential milestone payments totaling approximately $180.0 million based on the achievement of specified development, regulatory and commercial milestones, as well as tiered royalties ranging from the high single digits to 15% based on net sales. Apollomics will be responsible for all costs related to development, regulatory approvals and commercialization in Greater China for uproleselan and GMI-1687. We retain all rights for both compounds in the rest of the world and have agreed to supply uproleselan and GMI-1687 to Apollomics pursuant to clinical and commercial supply agreements.

We have also entered into a clinical supply agreement with Apollomics under which we will manufacture and supply uproleselan product to Apollomics at agreed upon prices. Apollomics has the option to begin manufacture after appropriate material transfer requirements are met.

In 2020, the China National Medical Products Administration, or NMPA, Center for Drug Evaluation, or CDE, granted IND approval for uproleselan (also referred to as APL-106), enabling the initiation of a Phase 1 PK and tolerability study. The IND approval also included acceptance of a Phase 3 bridging study of APL-106 in combination with chemotherapy in relapsed/refractory AML. In January 2021, APL-106 was granted Breakthrough Therapy designation from the China NMPA CDE for the treatment of relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia. In January 2024, Apollomics announced the completion of enrollment in the Phase 3 bridging study. A total of 140 adult patients across 20 sites in Greater China with primary refractory AML or relapsed AML (first or second untreated relapse) and eligible to receive induction chemotherapy were randomized to receive either uproleselan combined with chemotherapy or placebo plus chemotherapy. The primary endpoint for the Phase 3 bridging study is overall survival. Secondary outcome measures include the rate and duration of remission and whether uproleselan can reduce the rate of oral mucositis, a chemotherapy-related side effect.

We and Apollomics established a joint development committee to oversee activities under the collaboration and license agreement. The collaboration and license agreement will terminate on a region-by-region basis upon the

Table of Contents

expiration of the royalty term for each region, unless earlier terminated by either party. Either party may terminate the collaboration and license agreement upon prior written notice, subject to specified conditions, including uncured material breach, or upon bankruptcy or insolvency of the other party. Apollomics may terminate the collaboration and license agreement upon prior written notice for any reason. As noted above, in December 2024 Apollomics announced that its Phase 3 bridging trial of uproleselan did not demonstrate favorable benefit and that Apollomics would be winding down the program. We do not expect the collaboration and license agreement to remain in effect following the consummation of the Merger, and do not anticipate having any material ongoing obligations under the agreement for supplying drug for any trials being conducted by Apollomics.

Intellectual Property

We strive to protect the intellectual property that we believe is important to our business, including seeking and maintaining patent protection intended to cover the composition of matter of our drug candidates and their methods of use. We have issued patents which cover uproleselan and methods of use that are expected to expire between 2032 and 2039. In addition, we have several pending patent applications covering uproleselan and/or methods of using it, the last expiring of which, if issued, currently would be predicted to expire in 2041. We also have two issued patents covering GMI-1687 that are expected to expire in 2037. In addition, we have several pending patent applications covering GMI-1687 and/or methods of using it, the last expiring of which, if issued, currently it would be predicted to expire in 2041. We also have several pending patent applications directed to our lead galectin antagonist compounds and their methods of use, the last of which, if issued, currently would be predicted to expire in 2042. We have also relied on trade secret protection for our confidential and proprietary information and careful monitoring of such information to protect aspects of our business, as well as know-how and continuing technological innovation to develop, strengthen and maintain our proprietary position in the field of glycomimetics.

If we were to resume our historical business of drug development, our success would depend significantly on our ability to obtain and maintain patent and other proprietary protection for commercially important inventions and know-how related to our business, defend and enforce our patents, preserve confidentiality of our trade secrets and operate without infringing valid and enforceable patents and other proprietary rights of third parties.

A third party may hold intellectual property, including patent rights that are important or necessary to the development of our drug candidates. It may be necessary for us to use the patented or proprietary technology of third parties to commercialize our drug candidates, in which case we would be required to obtain a license from these third parties. If we are not able to obtain such a license, or are not able to obtain such a license on commercially reasonable terms, our business could be materially harmed.

The patent positions of biotechnology companies like us are generally uncertain and involve complex legal, scientific and factual questions. In addition, the coverage claimed in a patent application can be significantly reduced before the patent is issued, and its scope can be reinterpreted after issuance, including where a reissue application is filed in relation to an issued patent to correct issues or errors arising during prosecution that may render claims of the issued patent either wholly or partially invalid or unenforceable. Consequently, we do not know whether any of our drug candidates will be protectable or remain protected by enforceable patents. We cannot predict whether the patent applications we are currently pursuing will issue as patents in any particular jurisdiction or whether the claims of any issued patents will provide sufficient proprietary protection from competitors. Any patents that we hold may be challenged, circumvented or invalidated by third parties.

Because patent applications in the United States and certain other jurisdictions are maintained in secrecy for 18 months, and since publication of discoveries in scientific or patent literature often lags behind actual discoveries, we cannot be certain of the priority of inventions covered by pending patent applications. Moreover, we may have to participate in interference proceedings declared by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, or a foreign patent office to determine priority of invention or in post-grant challenge proceedings, such as oppositions, that challenge priority of invention or other features of patentability. Such proceedings could result in substantial cost, even if the eventual outcome is favorable to us.

Table of Contents

Manufacturing

We do not have any manufacturing facilities or personnel. We relied on third parties for the manufacturing of our drug candidates for preclinical and clinical testing, as well as for potential commercial manufacturing.

In January 2024, we entered into a project agreement with Patheon Manufacturing Services LLC, part of Thermo Fisher Scientific, or Patheon, for manufacture and supply of uproleselan for commercial sale. Pursuant to the agreement, Patheon was to manufacture commercial supplies of injectable uproleselan from active pharmaceutical ingredients we supply, and was also to be responsible for supplying the other required raw materials and other supportive manufacturing services such as quality control testing for raw materials, packaging components and finished product. The initial term of the agreement is through year-end 2026; however, following our decision to cease the development and potential commercialization of uproleselan we have paused all activities under this project agreement and expect that it may be terminated following the consummation of the Merger with Crescent.

Commercialization

Prior to entering into the agreement with Crescent for the Merger, we had not yet established a sales, marketing or drug distribution infrastructure. We generally retained commercial rights in the United States for our drug candidates. If we were to resume drug development activities, then subject to receiving marketing approvals, we believe that it would be possible for us to access the U.S. market for those drug candidates through a focused, specialized, key account sales force. We believe that such an organization would be able to target the community of physicians who are the key specialists in treating the patient populations for which our drug candidates were being developed. With respect to uproleselan and GMI-1687, we granted Apollomics exclusive commercialization rights in Greater China. We would expect to enter into distribution and other marketing arrangements with third parties for any other drug candidates that obtain marketing approval outside the United States.

Competition

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition and a strong emphasis on proprietary products. While we believe that our technology, knowledge, experience and scientific resources have in the past provided us with competitive advantages, we would face potential competition from many different sources, including large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, specialty pharmaceutical and generic drug companies, and medical technology companies, in the event that we resume our drug development activities. Any product candidates that we successfully develop and commercialize would compete with existing therapies and new therapies that may become available in the future.

If we resume our development activities and seek any regulatory approvals and pursue commercialization, we believe that the key competitive factors affecting success of our drug candidates are likely to be their safety, efficacy, convenience, price, generic competition, and availability of coverage and reimbursement from government and other third-party payors.

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

Government Regulation and Product Approval

Government authorities in the United States, at the federal, state and local levels, and in other countries, extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, packaging, storage, recordkeeping, labeling, advertising, promotion, distribution, marketing, import and export of pharmaceutical products,

Table of Contents

such as those we are developing. The processes for obtaining regulatory approvals in the United States and in foreign countries, along with subsequent compliance with applicable statutes and regulations, require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources.

United States Government Regulation

In the United States, the FDA regulates drugs under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or FDCA, and its implementing regulations. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations requires the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. Failure to comply with the applicable United States requirements at any time during the drug development process, approval process or after approval, may subject an applicant to a variety of administrative or judicial sanctions, such as the FDA’s refusal to approve pending new drug applications, or NDAs, withdrawal of an approval, imposition of a clinical hold, issuance of warning or untitled letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, refusals of government contracts, restitution, disgorgement or civil or criminal penalties.

The process required by the FDA before a drug may be marketed in the United States generally involves:

● submission to the FDA of an NDA;

● satisfactory completion of an FDA advisory committee review, if applicable;

● FDA review and approval of the NDA.

Preclinical Studies

Preclinical studies include laboratory evaluation of product chemistry, toxicity and formulation, as well as animal studies to assess potential safety and efficacy. An IND sponsor must submit the results of the preclinical studies, together with manufacturing information, analytical data and any available clinical data or literature, among other things, to the FDA as part of an IND. Some preclinical testing may continue even after the IND is submitted. An IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless before that time the FDA raises concerns or questions related to one or more proposed clinical trials and places the clinical trial on a clinical hold. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. As a result, submission of an IND may not result in the FDA allowing clinical trials to commence.

Clinical Trials

Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational new drug to human subjects under the supervision of qualified investigators in accordance with GCP requirements, which include the requirement that all research subjects provide their informed consent in writing for their participation in any clinical trial. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the trial, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. A protocol for each clinical trial and any subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. In addition, an IRB at each institution participating in the clinical trial must

Table of Contents

review and approve the plan for any clinical trial before it commences at that institution, and the IRB must continue to oversee the clinical trial while it is being conducted. Information about certain clinical trials must be submitted within specific timeframes to the National Institutes of Health, or NIH, for public dissemination on their ClinicalTrials.gov website.

Human clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases, which may overlap or be combined. In Phase 1, the drug is initially introduced into healthy human subjects or patients with the target disease or condition and tested for safety, dosage tolerance, absorption, metabolism, distribution, excretion and, if possible, to gain an initial indication of its effectiveness. In Phase 2, the drug typically is administered to a limited patient population to identify possible adverse effects and safety risks, to preliminarily evaluate the efficacy of the product for specific targeted diseases and to determine dosage tolerance and optimal dosage. In Phase 3, the drug is administered to an expanded patient population, generally at geographically dispersed clinical trial sites, in well-controlled clinical trials to generate enough data to statistically evaluate the safety and efficacy of the product for approval, to establish the overall risk-benefit profile of the product and to provide adequate information for the labeling of the product.

Progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials must be submitted, at least annually, to the FDA, and more frequently if serious adverse events occur. Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trials may not be completed successfully within any specified period, or at all. Furthermore, the FDA or the sponsor may suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research subjects are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements, or if the drug has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients.

Marketing Approval

Assuming successful completion of the required clinical testing, the results of the preclinical and clinical studies, together with detailed information relating to the product’s chemistry, manufacture, controls and proposed labeling, among other things, are submitted to the FDA as part of an NDA requesting approval to market the product for one or more indications. In most cases, the submission of an NDA is subject to a substantial application user fee. Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or PDUFA, guidelines that are currently in effect, the FDA has agreed to certain performance goals regarding the timing of its review of an application.

In addition, under the Pediatric Research Equity Act, an NDA or supplement to an NDA must contain data that are adequate to assess the safety and effectiveness of the drug for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations, and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective. The FDA may, on its own initiative or at the request of the applicant, grant deferrals for submission of some or all pediatric data until after approval of the product for use in adults, or full or partial waivers from the pediatric data requirements. Unless otherwise required by regulation, the pediatric data requirements do not apply to products with orphan designation.

The FDA also may require submission of a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy, or REMS, plan to mitigate any identified or suspected serious risks. The REMS plan could include medication guides, physician communication plans, assessment plans and elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries or other risk minimization tools.

The FDA conducts a preliminary review of all NDAs within the first 60 days after submission, before accepting them for filing, to determine whether they are sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. The FDA may request additional information rather than accept an NDA for filing. In this event, the application must be resubmitted with the additional information. The resubmitted application is also subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth substantive review. The FDA reviews an NDA to determine, among other things, whether the drug is safe and effective and whether the facility in which it is manufactured, processed, packaged or held meets standards designed to assure the product’s continued safety, quality and purity.

Table of Contents

The FDA typically refers questions regarding novel drugs to an external advisory committee. An advisory committee is a panel of independent experts, including clinicians and other scientific experts, that reviews, evaluates and provides a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions.

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

The testing and approval process for an NDA requires substantial time, effort and financial resources, and could take several years to complete. Data obtained from preclinical and clinical testing are not always conclusive and may be susceptible to varying interpretations, which could delay, limit or prevent regulatory approval. The FDA may not grant approval of an NDA on a timely basis, or at all.

After evaluating the NDA and all related information, including the advisory committee recommendation, if any, and inspection reports regarding the manufacturing facilities and clinical trial sites, the FDA may issue an approval letter, or, in some cases, a complete response letter. A complete response letter generally contains a statement of specific conditions that must be met in order to secure final approval of the NDA and may require additional clinical or preclinical testing in order for the FDA to reconsider the application. Even with submission of this additional information, the FDA ultimately may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval. If and when those conditions have been met to the FDA’s satisfaction, the FDA will typically issue an approval letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the drug with specific prescribing information for specific indications.

Special FDA Expedited Review and Approval Programs

The FDA has various programs, including fast track designation, accelerated approval, priority review, and breakthrough therapy designation, which are intended to expedite or simplify the process for the development and the FDA review of drugs that are intended for the treatment of serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions and demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs. The purpose of these programs is to provide important new drugs to patients earlier than under standard FDA review procedures.

To be eligible for a fast track designation, the FDA must determine, based on the request of a sponsor, that a product is intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and demonstrates the potential to address an unmet medical need. The FDA will determine that a product will fill an unmet medical need if it will provide a therapy where none exists or provide a therapy that may be potentially superior to existing therapy based on efficacy or safety factors. The FDA may review sections of the NDA for a fast track product on a rolling basis before the complete application is submitted if the sponsor provides a schedule for the submission of the sections of the NDA, the FDA agrees to accept sections of the NDA and determines that the schedule is acceptable, and the sponsor pays any required user fees upon submission of the first section of the NDA.

The FDA may give a priority review designation to drugs that offer major advances in treatment, or provide a treatment where no adequate therapy exists. A priority review means that the goal for the FDA to review an application is six months, rather than the standard review of 10 months under current PDUFA guidelines. These six- and ten- month review periods are measured from the “filing” date rather than the receipt date for NDAs for new molecular entities, which typically adds approximately two months to the timeline for review and decision from the date of submission. Most products that are eligible for fast track designation are also likely to be considered appropriate to receive a priority review.

In addition, products studied for their safety and effectiveness in treating serious or life-threatening illnesses and that provide meaningful therapeutic benefit over existing treatments may be eligible for accelerated approval. Such products may be approved on the basis of adequate and well-controlled clinical trials establishing that the drug product

Table of Contents

has an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. Alternatively, the approval may be on a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than irreversible morbidity or mortality, that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit. Approvals may also take into account the severity, rarity or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. As a condition of approval, the FDA may require a sponsor of a drug receiving accelerated approval to perform post-marketing studies to verify and describe the predicted effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical endpoint, and the drug may be subject to accelerated withdrawal procedures.

A sponsor can also request designation of a product candidate as a “breakthrough therapy.” A breakthrough therapy is defined as a drug that is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. Drugs designated as breakthrough therapies are also eligible for accelerated approval. The FDA must take certain actions, such as holding timely meetings and providing advice, intended to expedite the development and review of an application for approval of a breakthrough therapy.

Even if a product qualifies for one or more of these programs, the FDA may later decide that the product no longer meets the conditions for qualification or decide that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened. We may explore some of these opportunities for our product candidates as appropriate.

Post-Approval Requirements

Drugs manufactured or distributed pursuant to FDA approvals are subject to pervasive and continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, requirements relating to recordkeeping, periodic reporting, product sampling and distribution, advertising and promotion and reporting of adverse experiences with the product. After approval, most changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications, manufacturing changes or other labeling claims, are subject to further testing requirements and prior FDA review and approval. There also are continuing annual user fee requirements for any marketed products, as well as application fees for supplemental applications with clinical data.

Even if the FDA approves a product, it may limit the approved indications for use of the product, require that contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the product labeling, including a boxed warning, require that post-approval studies, including Phase 4 clinical trials, be conducted to further assess a drug’s safety after approval, require testing and surveillance programs to monitor the product after commercialization, or impose other conditions, including distribution restrictions or other risk management mechanisms under a REMS, which can materially affect the potential market and profitability of the product. The FDA may prevent or limit further marketing of a product based on the results of post-marketing studies or surveillance programs.

In addition, drug manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved drugs are required to register their establishments with the FDA and state agencies, and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and these state agencies for compliance with cGMP requirements. Changes to the manufacturing process are strictly regulated and often require prior FDA approval before being implemented. FDA regulations also require investigation and correction of any deviations from cGMP and impose reporting and documentation requirements upon the sponsor and any third-party manufacturers that the sponsor may decide to use. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain cGMP compliance.

Once an approval is granted, the FDA may withdraw the approval if compliance with regulatory requirements and standards is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the market.

Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in mandatory revisions to the approved labeling to add new safety information; imposition of post-market studies or clinical

Table of Contents

trials to assess new safety risks; or imposition of distribution or other restrictions under a REMS program. Other potential consequences include, among other things:

● fines, warning letters or holds on post-approval clinical trials;

● injunctions or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties.

The FDA strictly regulates marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of products that are placed on the market. Although physicians, in the practice of medicine, may prescribe approved drugs for unapproved indications, pharmaceutical companies generally are required to promote their drug products only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved label. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label uses may be subject to significant liability. However, physicians may, in their independent medical judgment, prescribe legally available products for off-label uses. The FDA does not regulate the behavior of physicians in their choice of treatments, but the FDA does restrict manufacturer’s communications on the subject of off-label use of their products.

In addition, the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical products is subject to the Drug Supply Chain Security Act and state laws that limit the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical product samples and impose requirements to ensure accountability in distribution.

Federal and State Fraud and Abuse, Data Privacy and Security, and Transparency Laws and Regulations

In addition to FDA restrictions on marketing of pharmaceutical products, federal and state healthcare laws and regulations restrict business practices in the biopharmaceutical industry. These laws include, but are not limited to, anti-kickback and false claims laws and regulations, data privacy and security, and transparency laws and regulations.

The federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits, among other things, knowingly and willfully offering, paying, soliciting or receiving remuneration to induce or in return for purchasing, leasing, ordering or arranging for or recommending the purchase, lease or order of any item or service reimbursable under Medicare, Medicaid or other federal healthcare programs. The term “remuneration” has been broadly interpreted to include anything of value. The Anti-Kickback Statute has been interpreted to apply to arrangements between pharmaceutical manufacturers on one hand and prescribers, purchasers and formulary managers on the other. Although there are a number of statutory exemptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting some common activities from prosecution, the exemptions and safe harbors are drawn narrowly and require strict compliance in order to offer protection. Practices that involve remuneration that may be alleged to be intended to induce prescribing, purchases or recommendations may be subject to scrutiny if they do not qualify for an exemption or safe harbor. Several courts have interpreted the statute’s intent requirement to mean that if any one purpose of an arrangement involving remuneration is to induce referrals of federal healthcare-covered business, the statute has been violated.

The reach of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute was also broadened by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, or collectively PPACA, which, among other things, amended the intent requirement of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute such that a person or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of this statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation. In addition, PPACA provides that the government may assert that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the federal civil False Claims Act or the civil monetary penalties statute, which imposes penalties against any person or entity who is determined to have presented or caused to be presented a claim to a federal health program that the person knows or should know is for an item or service that was not provided as claimed or is false or fraudulent.

Table of Contents

Federal false claims laws, including the federal civil False Claims Act, prohibit any person or entity from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a false claim for payment to the federal government or knowingly making, using or causing to be made or used a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim to the federal government. A claim includes “any request or demand” for money or property presented to the U.S. government. Pharmaceutical and other healthcare companies have been prosecuted under these laws for, among other things, allegedly providing free product to customers with the expectation that the customers would bill federal programs for the product. Companies also have been prosecuted for causing false claims to be submitted because of the companies’ marketing of products for unapproved, and thus non-reimbursable, uses. The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, created additional federal criminal statutes that prohibit, among other things, knowingly and willfully executing a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program, including private third-party payors and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services. Also, many states have similar fraud and abuse statutes or regulations that apply to items and services reimbursed under Medicaid and other state programs, or, in several states, apply regardless of the payor.

In addition, we may be subject to data privacy and security regulation by both the federal government and the states in which we conduct our business. HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, or HITECH, and their respective implementing regulations, imposes specified requirements on certain types of individuals and entities relating to the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information. Among other things, HITECH makes HIPAA’s security standards directly applicable to “business associates,” defined as independent contractors or agents of covered entities (or other business associates) that create, receive, maintain or transmit protected health information in connection with providing a service for or on behalf of a covered entity, and their covered subcontractors. HITECH also increased the civil and criminal penalties that may be imposed against covered entities, business associates and possibly other persons, and gave state attorneys general new authority to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce the federal HIPAA laws and seek attorney’s fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions. In addition, state laws govern the privacy and security of health information in certain circumstances, many of which are not pre-empted by HIPAA, differ from each other in significant ways and may not have the same effect, thus complicating compliance efforts.

The federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act requires certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologics and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program, with specific exceptions, to report annually to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, information related to payments or other transfers of value made to physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors), other healthcare professionals (such as physician assistants and nurse practitioners) and teaching hospitals, and applicable manufacturers and applicable group purchasing organizations to report annually to CMS ownership and investment interests held by the physicians and their immediate family members.

We may also be subject to state laws that require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government, as well as state laws that require drug manufacturers to report information related to payments and other transfers of value to physicians and other healthcare providers or marketing expenditures.

Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of available statutory and regulatory exemptions, it is possible that some of our business activities could be subject to challenge under one or more of such laws. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of the federal and state laws described above or any other governmental regulations that apply to us, we may be subject to significant penalties, including administrative, criminal and civil monetary penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, imprisonment, additional reporting requirements and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or similar agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, disgorgement, exclusion from participation in government healthcare programs and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations. To the extent that any of our products are sold in a foreign country, we may be subject to similar foreign laws and regulations, which may include, for instance, applicable post-marketing requirements, including safety surveillance, anti-fraud and abuse laws and

Table of Contents

implementation of corporate compliance programs and reporting of payments or transfers of value to healthcare professionals.

Coverage and Reimbursement

The future commercial success of our drug candidates or any of our collaborators’ ability to commercialize any approved drug candidates successfully will depend in part on the extent to which governmental payor programs at the federal and state levels, including Medicare and Medicaid, private health insurers and other third-party payors provide coverage for and establish adequate reimbursement levels for our drug candidates. Government health administration authorities, private health insurers and other organizations generally decide which drugs they will pay for and establish reimbursement levels for healthcare. In particular, in the United States, private health insurers and other third-party payors often provide reimbursement for products and services based on the level at which the government, through the Medicare or Medicaid programs, provides reimbursement for such treatments. In the United States, the European Union, or EU, and other potentially significant markets for our drug 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 often has resulted in average selling prices lower than they would otherwise be. Further, the increased emphasis on managed healthcare in the United States and on country and regional pricing and reimbursement controls in the EU will put additional pressure on product pricing, reimbursement and usage, which may adversely affect our future product sales and results of operations. These pressures can arise from rules and practices of managed care groups, judicial decisions and laws and regulations related to Medicare, Medicaid and healthcare reform, pharmaceutical coverage and reimbursement policies and pricing in general.

Third-party payors are increasingly imposing additional requirements and restrictions on coverage and limiting reimbursement levels for medical products. For example, federal and state governments reimburse covered prescription drugs at varying rates generally below average wholesale price. These restrictions and limitations influence the purchase of healthcare services and products. Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific drug products on an approved list, or formulary, which might not include all of the FDA-approved drug products for a particular indication. Third-party payors are increasingly challenging the price and examining the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of medical products and services, in addition to their safety and efficacy. We may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of our products, in addition to the costs required to obtain the FDA approvals. Our drug candidates may not be considered medically necessary or cost-effective. A payor’s decision to provide coverage for a drug product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Further, one payor’s determination to provide coverage for a drug product does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage for the drug product. Adequate third-party reimbursement may not be available to enable us to maintain price levels sufficient to realize an appropriate return on our investment in drug development. Legislative proposals to reform healthcare or reduce costs under government insurance programs may result in lower reimbursement for our drugs and drug candidates or exclusion of our drugs and drug candidates from coverage. The cost containment measures that healthcare payors and providers are instituting and any healthcare reform could significantly reduce our revenues from the sale of any approved drug candidates. We cannot provide any assurances that we will be able to obtain and maintain third-party coverage or adequate reimbursement for our drug candidates in whole or in part.

Impact of Healthcare Reform on our Business

The United States and some foreign jurisdictions are considering enacting or have enacted a number of additional legislative and regulatory proposals to change the healthcare system in ways that could affect our ability to sell our products profitably. Among policy makers and payors in the United States and elsewhere, there is significant interest in promoting changes in healthcare systems with the stated goals of containing healthcare costs, improving quality and expanding access. In the United States, the pharmaceutical industry has been a particular focus of these efforts, which include major legislative initiatives to reduce the cost of care through changes in the healthcare system, including limits on the pricing, coverage, and reimbursement of pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical products, especially under government-funded health care programs, and increased governmental control of drug pricing.

There have been several U.S. government initiatives over the past few years to fund and incentivize certain comparative effectiveness research, including creation of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute under PPACA. Although the results of the comparative effectiveness studies are not intended to mandate coverage policies for

Table of Contents

public or private payors, it is not clear what effect, if any, the research will have on the sales of any product, if any such product or the condition that it is intended to treat is the subject of a study. It is also possible that comparative effectiveness research demonstrating benefits in a competitor’s product could adversely affect the sales of our product candidates. If third-party payors do not consider our drug candidates to be cost-effective compared to other available therapies, they may not cover our drug candidates, once 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 drugs on a profitable basis. The PPACA substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers. Among other measures that may have an impact on our business, PPACA established an annual, nondeductible fee on any entity that manufactures or imports specified branded prescription drugs and biologic agents; a new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program; and a new formula that increases the rebates a manufacturer must pay under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program. Additionally, PPACA extends manufacturers’ Medicaid rebate liability, expands eligibility criteria for Medicaid programs and expands entities eligible for discounts under the Public Health Service pharmaceutical pricing program. There have been judicial and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of PPACA, as well as efforts by the executive branch at various times to repeal or replace certain aspects of the PPACA.

Since its enactment, there have been judicial, administrative, executive, and Congressional legislative challenges to certain aspects of the PPACA. For example, in August 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, or IRA was signed into law, which among other things, extends enhanced subsidies for individuals purchasing health insurance coverage in PPACA marketplaces through plan year 2025. The IRA also eliminates the "donut hole" under the Medicare Part D program beginning in 2025 by significantly lowering the beneficiary maximum out-of-pocket cost and creating a new manufacturer discount program. It is unclear how any such challenges and additional reform measures of the second Trump administration will impact the PPACA.

In addition, there has been increasing legislative and enforcement interest in the United States with respect to specialty drug pricing practices. Specifically, there have been several recent U.S. Congressional inquiries and proposed federal and proposed and enacted 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. For example, the IRA, among other things (i) directs the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, to negotiate the price of certain high-expenditure, single-source drugs that have been on the market for at least seven years and covered under Medicare, known as the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program, and (ii) imposes rebates under Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation. These provisions began to take effect progressively in fiscal year 2023. In August 2024, HHS announced the agreed-upon prices of the first 10 drugs that were subject to price negotiations, although the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program is currently subject to legal challenges. On January 17, 2025, HHS selected fifteen additional drugs covered under Part D for price negotiation in 2025. Each year thereafter more Part B and Part D products will become subject to the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program.

Further, on December 7, 2023, an initiative to control the price of prescription drugs through the use of march-in rights under the Bayh-Dole Act was announced. On December 8, 2023, the National Institute of Standards and Technology published for comment a Draft Interagency Guidance Framework for Considering the Exercise of March-In Rights which for the first time includes the price of a product as one factor an agency can use when deciding to exercise march-in rights. While march-in rights have not previously been exercised, it is uncertain if that will continue under the new framework.

At the state level, legislatures are increasingly passing legislation and implementing 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, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. For example, on January 5, 2024, the FDA approved Florida’s Section 804 Importation Program (SIP) proposal to import certain drugs from Canada for specific state healthcare programs. It is unclear how this program will be implemented, including which drugs will be chosen, and whether it will be subject to legal challenges in the United States or Canada. Other states have also submitted SIP proposals that are pending review by the FDA. Any such approved importation plans, when implemented, may result in lower drug prices for products covered by those programs.

Table of Contents

As a result of PPACA, Medicare payments are increasingly tied to quality of care and value measures, and reporting of related data by providers such as physicians and hospitals. So-called “value-based reimbursement” measures may present challenges as well as potential opportunities for biopharmaceutical manufacturers. Medicare incentives for providers meeting certain quality measures may ultimately prove beneficial for manufacturers that are able to establish that their products may help providers to meet such measures. However, manufacturers’ ability to market their drug products based on quality or value is highly regulated and not always permissible. In addition, the potentially decreased Medicare reimbursement to those providers that fail to adequately comply with quality reporting requirements could translate to decreased resources available to purchase products and may negatively impact marketing or utilization of our drug candidates if they are approved for marketing. We cannot predict at this time what impact, if any, the longer-term shift towards value-based reimbursement will have on any of our drug candidates in either the Medicare program, or in any other third party payor programs that may similarly tie payment to provider quality.

Additional legislative proposals to reform healthcare and government insurance programs, along with the trend toward managed healthcare in the United States, could influence the purchase of medicines and reduce reimbursement and/or coverage of our product candidates, if approved.

Exclusivity and Approval of Competing Products

Hatch-Waxman Patent Listing

In seeking approval for a drug through an NDA, applicants are required to list with the FDA each patent with claims that cover the applicant’s product or a method of using the product. Upon approval of a drug, each of the patents listed in the application for the drug is then published in the FDA’s Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations, commonly known as the Orange Book. Drugs listed in the Orange Book can, in turn, be cited by potential competitors in support of approval of an abbreviated new drug application, or ANDA, or 505(b)(2) NDA. Generally, an ANDA provides for marketing of a drug product that has the same active ingredients in the same strengths, dosage form and route of administration as the listed drug and has been shown to be bioequivalent through in vitro or in vivo testing or otherwise to the listed drug. ANDA applicants are not required to conduct or submit results of preclinical or clinical tests to prove the safety or efficacy of their drug product, other than the requirement for bioequivalence testing. Drugs approved in this way are commonly referred to as “generic equivalents” to the listed drug, and can often be substituted by pharmacists under prescriptions written for the original listed drug. 505(b)(2) NDAs generally are submitted for changes to a previously approved drug product, such as a new dosage form or indication.

The ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA applicant is required to certify to the FDA concerning any patents listed for the approved product in the FDA’s Orange Book, except for patents covering methods of use for which the ANDA applicant is not seeking approval. Specifically, the applicant must certify with respect to each patent that:

● the required patent information has not been filed;

● the listed patent has expired;

Generally, the ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA cannot be approved until all listed patents have expired, except when the ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA applicant challenges a listed drug. A certification that the proposed product will not infringe the already approved product’s listed patents or that such patents are invalid or unenforceable is called a Paragraph IV certification. If the applicant does not challenge the listed patents or indicate that it is not seeking approval of a patented method of use, the ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA application will not be approved until all the listed patents claiming the referenced product have expired.

If the ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA applicant has provided a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA, the applicant must also send notice of the Paragraph IV certification to the NDA and patent holders once the application has been accepted for filing by the FDA. The NDA and patent holders may then initiate a patent infringement lawsuit in response to the notice of the Paragraph IV certification. The filing of a patent infringement lawsuit within 45 days after the receipt of

Table of Contents

notice of the Paragraph IV certification automatically prevents the FDA from approving the ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA until the earlier of 30 months, expiration of the patent, settlement of the lawsuit or a decision in the infringement case that is favorable to the ANDA applicant.

Hatch-Waxman Non-Patent Exclusivity

Market and data exclusivity provisions under the FDCA also can delay the submission or the approval of certain applications for competing products. The FDCA provides a five-year period of non-patent data exclusivity within the United States to the first applicant to gain approval of an NDA for a new chemical entity. A drug is a new chemical entity if the FDA has not previously approved any other new drug containing the same active moiety, which is the molecule or ion responsible for the activity of the drug substance. During the exclusivity period, the FDA may not accept for review an ANDA or a 505(b)(2) NDA submitted by another company that contains the previously approved active moiety. However, an ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA may be submitted after four years if it contains a certification of patent invalidity or noninfringement.

The FDCA also provides three years of marketing exclusivity for an NDA, 505(b)(2) NDA or supplement to an existing NDA or 505(b)(2) NDA if new clinical investigations, other than bioavailability studies, that were conducted or sponsored by the applicant, are deemed by the FDA to be essential to the approval of the application or supplement. Three-year exclusivity may be awarded for changes to a previously approved drug product, such as new indications, dosages, strengths or dosage forms of an existing drug. This three-year exclusivity covers only the conditions of use associated with the new clinical investigations and, as a general matter, does not prohibit the FDA from approving ANDAs or 505(b)(2) NDAs for generic versions of the original, unmodified drug product. Five-year and three-year exclusivity will not delay the submission or approval of a full NDA; however, an applicant submitting a full NDA would be required to conduct or obtain a right of reference to all of the preclinical studies and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials necessary to demonstrate safety and effectiveness.

Orphan Drug Exclusivity

Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan designation to a drug or biological product intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally a disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or more than 200,000 individuals in the United States and for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making a drug or biological product available in the United States for this type of disease or condition will be recovered from sales of the product. Orphan designation must be requested before submitting an NDA or biologics license application. Orphan designation does not convey any advantage in or shorten the duration of the regulatory review and approval process.

If a product that has orphan designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for such drug for the disease or condition for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan product exclusivity, which means that the FDA may not approve any other applications to market the same drug or biological product for the same indication for seven years, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan exclusivity. Competitors, however, may receive approval of different products for the indication for which the orphan product has exclusivity or obtain approval for the same product but for a different indication for which the orphan product has exclusivity. If a drug or biological product designated as an orphan product receives marketing approval for an indication broader than what is designated, it may not be entitled to orphan product exclusivity. Orphan drug status in the EU has similar, but not identical, benefits.

Pediatric Exclusivity

Pediatric exclusivity is another type of non-patent marketing exclusivity in the United States and, if granted, provides for the attachment of an additional six months of marketing protection to the term of any existing regulatory exclusivity, including the non-patent and orphan drug exclusivity periods described above. This six-month exclusivity may be granted if an NDA sponsor submits pediatric data that fairly respond to a written request from the FDA for such data. The data do not need to show the product to be effective in the pediatric population studied; rather, if the clinical trial is deemed to fairly respond to the FDA’s request, the additional protection is granted. If reports of requested pediatric studies are submitted to and accepted by FDA within the statutory time limits, whatever statutory or regulatory periods of exclusivity or Orange Book listed patent protection cover the drug are extended by six months. This is not a

Table of Contents

patent term extension, but it effectively extends the regulatory period during which the FDA cannot approve an ANDA or 505(b)(2) application owing to regulatory exclusivity or listed patents. If any of our drug candidates is approved, we anticipate seeking pediatric exclusivity when it is appropriate.

Foreign Regulation

In order to market any product outside of the United States, we would need to comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of other countries regarding safety and efficacy and governing, among other things, clinical trials, marketing authorization, commercial sales and distribution of our drug candidates. For example, in the EU, we must obtain authorization of a clinical trial application, or CTA, in each member state in which we intend to conduct a clinical trial. Whether or not we obtain FDA approval for a drug, we would need to obtain the necessary approvals by the comparable regulatory authorities of foreign countries before we can commence clinical trials or marketing of the drug in those countries. The approval process varies from country to country and can involve additional product testing and additional administrative review periods. The time required to obtain approval in other countries might differ from and be longer than that required to obtain FDA approval. Regulatory approval in one country does not ensure regulatory approval in another, but a failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one country may negatively impact the regulatory process in others.

Employees and Human Capital Resources

In July 2024, in connection with our streamlined operating plan, we announced a corporate restructuring that included a reduction in our workforce by 26 employees, or approximately 80% of our headcount. We substantially completed the reduction in the third quarter of 2024.

As of January 31, 2025, we had four full-time employees, all of whom are located in the United States. None of our employees is represented by a labor union or covered by a collective bargaining agreement. We consider our relationship with our employees to be good.

Prior to our corporate restructuring and the ceasing of our drug development activities, our human capital resources objectives included, as applicable, identifying, recruiting, retaining, incentivizing and integrating our existing and new employees. The principal purposes of our equity incentive plans were to attract, retain and reward high performing employees through the granting of equity-based compensation awards in order to motivate employees to perform to the best of their abilities and achieve our objectives.

Corporate Information

We were incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware in 2003. Our executive officers and employees work remotely, and our mailing address is P.O. Box 65, Monrovia, Maryland 21770, and our telephone number is (240) 243-1201.

“GlycoMimetics,” the GlycoMimetics logo and other trademarks or service marks of GlycoMimetics, Inc. appearing in this Annual Report are the property of GlycoMimetics, Inc. This Annual Report contains additional trade names, trademarks and service marks of others, which are the property of their respective owners.

Available Information

Our internet website address is www.glycomimetics.com. In addition to the information contained in this Annual Report, information about us can be found on our website. Our website and information included in or linked to our website are not part of this Annual Report.

Our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, are available free of charge through our website as soon as reasonably practicable after they are electronically filed with or furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC. Additionally the SEC maintains an internet site that contains reports, proxy and information statements and other information. The address of the SEC’s website is www.sec.gov.

Table of Contents

ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS

Risks Related to Our Proposed Merger with Crescent

Failure to complete, or delays in completing, the potential merger, announced on October 29, 2024, could materially and adversely affect our results of operations, business, financial results and/or common stock price.

On October 28, 2024, we entered into the Merger Agreement, pursuant to which, among other matters, and subject to the satisfaction or waiver of the conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement, First Merger Sub will merge with and into Crescent. Upon consummation of the First Merger, First Merger Sub will cease to exist and the Crescent will become our wholly owned subsidiary. Immediately following the First Merger and as part of the same overall transaction as the First Merger, Crescent will merge with and into Second Merger Sub with Second Merger Sub being the surviving entity of the Second Merger. Consummation of the Merger is subject to certain closing conditions, a number of which are not within our control. Any failure to satisfy these required conditions to closing may prevent, delay or otherwise materially adversely affect the completion of the transaction. We cannot predict with certainty whether or when any of the required closing conditions will be satisfied or if another uncertainty may arise and cannot assure you that we will be able to successfully consummate the Merger as currently contemplated under the Merger Agreement or at all.

Our efforts to complete the Merger could cause substantial disruptions and uncertainty, which may materially adversely affect our results of operations and business. Uncertainty as to whether the Merger will be completed in a timely manner or at all may affect our ability to retain and motivate our remaining employees. Uncertainty as to whether the Merger will be completed in a timely manner or at all could adversely affect our relationships with collaborators, suppliers, vendors, regulators and other business partners. The adverse effects of the pendency of the transaction could be exacerbated by any delays in completion of the transaction or termination of the Merger Agreement.

If the conditions to the Merger are not satisfied or waived, the Merger may not occur.

Even if the Merger is approved by our stockholders, specified conditions must be satisfied or, to the extent permitted by applicable law, waived to complete the Merger. We cannot assure you that all of the conditions to the consummation of the Merger will be satisfied or waived. If the conditions are not satisfied or waived, the Merger may not occur or the closing may be delayed.

The exchange ratio for the Merger will not change or otherwise be adjusted based on the market price of GlycoMimetics common stock.

Applying the exchange ratio based on GlycoMimetics’ capitalization as of September 30, 2024 and Crescent’s capitalization as of October 28, 2024 (the date the Merger Agreement was executed), our current securityholders are expected to own approximately 3% of the aggregate number of shares of the combined company's capital stock following the Merger (on a fully-diluted basis), subject to certain assumptions, including, but not limited to, GlycoMimetics' net cash as of closing being equal to $1.8 million. In the event GlycoMimetics' net cash is below $1.725 million, the exchange ratio will be adjusted such that the number of shares issued to Crescent's pre-closing securityholders will be increased, and our stockholders will own a smaller percentage of the combined company following the consummation of the Merger.

Any changes in the market price of our stock before the completion of the First Merger will not affect the number of shares our stockholders will be entitled to receive pursuant to the Merger Agreement. Therefore, if before the completion of the First Merger, the market price of our common stock increases from the market price on the date of the Merger Agreement, then our stockholders could receive merger consideration with substantially more value for their shares than the parties had negotiated when they established the exchange ratio. Similarly, if before the completion of the First Merger, the market price of our common stock declines from the market price on the date of the Merger Agreement, then our

Table of Contents

stockholders could receive merger consideration with substantially lower value. The Merger Agreement does not include a price-based termination right.

If the Merger is not completed, our stock price may decline significantly.

The market price of our common stock is subject to significant fluctuations. Market prices for securities of pharmaceutical, biotechnology and other life science companies have historically been particularly volatile. In addition, the market price of our common stock will likely be volatile based on whether stockholders and other investors believe that we can complete the Merger or otherwise raise additional capital to support our operations if the Merger is not consummated and another strategic transaction cannot be identified, negotiated and consummated in a timely manner, if at all. The volatility of the market price of our common stock has been and may be exacerbated by low trading volume. Additional factors that may cause the market price of our common stock to fluctuate include:

• the loss of key employees;

• future sales of common stock;

• general and industry-specific economic conditions; and

• period-to-period fluctuations in financial results.

Moreover, the stock markets in general have experienced substantial volatility that has often been unrelated to the operating performance of individual companies. These broad market fluctuations may also adversely affect the trading price of our common stock. In the past, following periods of volatility in the market price of a company’s securities, stockholders have often instituted class action securities litigation against such companies.

Even if we complete the Merger, the combined company will need to raise additional capital by issuing equity securities or additional debt or through licensing arrangements, which may cause significant dilution to the combined company’s stockholders or restrict the combined company’s operations.

On October 28, 2024, we entered into the Private Placement with certain investors pursuant to which the investors agreed to purchase, in the aggregate, $200.0 million in shares of our common stock and pre-funded warrants immediately following the closing of the Merger. The closing of the Private Placement is conditioned upon the satisfaction or waiver of the conditions to the closing of the Merger as well as certain other conditions. Our shares of common stock and pre-funded warrants to be issued in the Private Placement will result in dilution to all securityholders of the combined company.

Additional financing may not be available to the combined company when it is needed or may not be available on favorable terms. To the extent that the combined company raises additional capital by issuing equity securities, such financing will cause additional dilution to all securityholders of the combined company. It is also possible that the terms of any new equity securities may have preferences over the combined company’s common stock. Any debt financing the combined company enters into may involve covenants that restrict its operations. These restrictive covenants may include limitations on additional borrowing and specific restrictions on the use of the combined company’s assets, as well as prohibitions on its ability to create liens, pay dividends, redeem its stock or make investments. In addition, if the combined company raises additional funds through licensing arrangements, it may be necessary to grant licenses on terms that are not favorable to the combined company.

Some of our directors and executive officers have interests in the Merger that are different from yours and that may influence them to support or approve the Merger without regard to your interests.

Our directors and executive officers may have interests in the Merger that are different from, or in addition to, the interests of our other stockholders generally. These interests with respect to our directors and executive officers may

Table of Contents

include, among others, retention bonus payments, extension of exercisability periods of previously issued stock option grants, severance payments if employment is terminated in a qualifying termination in connection with the Merger and rights to continued indemnification, expense advancement and insurance coverage.

Our board of directors was aware of and considered those interests, among other matters, in reaching their decisions to approve and adopt the Merger Agreement, approve the Merger, and recommend the approval of the Merger Agreement to our stockholders. These interests, among other factors, may have influenced the directors and executive officers of each company to support or approve the Merger.

Certain provisions of the Merger Agreement may discourage third parties from submitting competing proposals, including proposals that may be superior to the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement.

While the Merger Agreement is in effect, each party is generally prohibited from, among other things, soliciting, initiating or knowingly encouraging, inducing or facilitating the communication, making, submission or announcement of any acquisition proposal or acquisition inquiry. In addition, our current directors and executive officers have entered into support agreements pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, and as an inducement to GlycoMimetics willingness to enter into the Merger Agreement, by which they have agreed to vote all of their shares of our capital stock in favor of the Merger Agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby and against any competing proposals, subject to certain limited exceptions. These provisions could discourage a potential competing acquirer from considering or proposing an acquisition or merger, even if it were prepared to pay consideration with a higher value than that implied by the merger consideration in the combination.

Our stockholders will experience significant dilution as a consequence of the Merger and related transactions.

The ownership of current stockholders of our company is expected to decrease from 100% of our common stock to approximately 3% of the combined company following the Merger and related private placement financing. This reduced ownership interest in the combined company will significantly reduce the influence that our current stockholders will have on the management of the combined company.

If the combined company is unable to realize the full strategic and financial benefits currently anticipated from the Merger, our stockholders will have experienced substantial dilution of their ownership interests without receiving any commensurate benefit, or only receiving part of the commensurate benefit to the extent the combined company is able to realize only part of the strategic and financial benefits currently anticipated from the Merger.

We may fail to realize all of the anticipated benefits of the Merger and may be exposed to other operational and financial risks.

The consummation of our proposed Merger with Crescent will require significant time on the part of the Company, and the diversion of the Company’s attention may disrupt our business.

Our ability to realize the anticipated benefits of the Merger are highly uncertain. Any anticipated benefits will depend on a number of factors, including our ability to integrate our business with that of Crescent and our ability to generate future value for the stockholders of the combined company. The expected benefits may not be achieved within the anticipated time frame, or at all.

The consummation of the Merger may also require more time or greater cash resources than we anticipate and expose us to other operational and financial risks, including:

● increased near-term and long-term expenditures;

● exposure to unknown liabilities;

● higher than expected acquisition or integration costs;

Table of Contents

● increased amortization expenses;

● difficulty and cost in combining Crescent’s operations with ours;

● inability to retain employees; and

● possibility of future litigation.

If we are unable to consummate the Merger with Crescent, our board of directors may decide to pursue a dissolution and liquidation. In such an event, the amount of cash available for distribution to our stockholders will depend heavily on the timing of such liquidation as well as the amount of cash that will need to be reserved for commitments and contingent liabilities.

There can be no assurance that we will be able to complete the proposed Merger with Crescent. If the Merger is not completed, our board of directors may decide to pursue a dissolution and liquidation. In such an event, the amount of cash available for distribution to our stockholders will depend heavily on the timing of such decision and, with the passage of time the amount of cash available for distribution will be reduced as we continue to fund our operations. In addition, if our board of directors were to approve and recommend, and our stockholders were to approve, a dissolution and liquidation, we would be required under Delaware corporate law to pay our outstanding obligations, as well as to make reasonable provision for contingent and unknown obligations, prior to making any distributions in liquidation to our stockholders.

As a result of this requirement, a portion of our assets may need to be reserved pending the resolution of such obligations and the timing of any such resolution is uncertain. In addition, we may be subject to litigation or other claims related to a dissolution and liquidation. If a dissolution and liquidation were pursued, our board of directors, in consultation with our advisors, would need to evaluate these matters and make a determination about a reasonable amount to reserve. Accordingly, holders of our common stock could lose all or a significant portion of their investment in the event of a liquidation, dissolution or winding up. A liquidation would be a lengthy and uncertain process with no assurance of any value ever being returned to our stockholders.

We may become involved in litigation, including securities class action litigation, that could divert management’s attention and harm our business, and insurance coverage may not be sufficient to cover all costs and damages.

In the past, litigation, including securities class action litigation, has often followed certain significant business transactions, such as the sale of a company or announcement of any other strategic transaction, or the announcement of negative events, such as negative results from clinical trials. These events may also result in investigations by the SEC. We may be exposed to such litigation, even if no wrongdoing occurred. Litigation is usually expensive, uncertain, and diverts management’s attention and resources, which could adversely affect our business and cash resources and our ability to consummate the Merger with Crescent.

If we fail to comply or regain compliance with Nasdaq’s continued listing standards prior to the consummation of the Merger, our common stock may be delisted and the price of our common stock, our ability to consummate the Merger, our access the capital markets and our financial condition could be negatively impacted.

Our common stock was previously listed on the Nasdaq Global Market, and we were required to meet certain listing requirements, including with respect to minimum closing bid prices, market value of publicly held shares, stockholders’ equity and market value of listed securities.

In June 2024, we received notice from the Listing Qualifications Department of The Nasdaq Stock Market, or Nasdaq, that we were not in compliance with the minimum bid price requirement for continued listing on the Nasdaq Global Market. Pursuant to Nasdaq listing rules, we were provided an initial compliance period until December 18, 2024 to regain compliance. In order to qualify for additional time to regain compliance, we transferred the listing of our common stock from the Nasdaq Global Market to the Nasdaq Capital Market, which became effective as of December 20, 2024. In connection with that transfer, on December 19, 2024, we received notice from Nasdaq that we had been

Table of Contents

granted an additional 180 calendar days, or until June 16, 2025, to regain compliance with the minimum closing bid price requirement for continued listing on The Nasdaq Capital Market under Nasdaq Listing Rule 5550(a)(2).

If necessary to regain compliance with Nasdaq listing standards, we may, subject to approval of our board of directors and stockholders, implement a reverse stock split. However, there can be no assurance that a reverse stock split, or any other alternatives we may consider to regain compliance with the minimum bid price requirement, would be approved or would result in a sustained higher stock price that would allow us to meet the Nasdaq stock price listing requirements. In addition, pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement we are required to use commercially reasonable efforts to maintain our listing on Nasdaq until the effective time of the First Merger.

Separately, Nasdaq listing rules requires companies listed on the Nasdaq Capital Market to maintain a stockholders’ equity of at least $2.5 million. As of December 31, 2024, we had stockholders’ equity of $5.3 million. As a result of our expected decrease in stockholders’ equity prior to the Merger due to continued net losses, there can be no assurance that we will be able to maintain the minimum required stockholders’ equity under the Nasdaq continued listing standards.

Risks Related to Our Financial Position and Capital Needs

We have incurred significant losses since our inception. We expect to continue to incur losses and may never achieve or maintain profitability.

We have incurred significant losses since our inception and, as of December 31, 2024, we had an accumulated deficit of $494.4 million. In recent years, we have financed our operations primarily with proceeds from public offerings of our common stock.

We have devoted substantially all of our financial resources and efforts to research and development, including preclinical studies and clinical trials. However, we have not completed development of any drugs, and in July 2024, following the announcement of the data from our Phase 3 pivotal trial and our discussions with the FDA, we announced that we would initiate a review of strategic alternatives focused on maximizing stockholder value. We also reduced our workforce by approximately 80% in order to conserve our cash resources as part of a streamlined operating plan while we undertook our strategic review. Following the strategic review, we entered into an acquisition agreement with Crescent to consummate the proposed Merger.

In connection with the termination of our clinical programs, our research and development expenses have decreased. We expect to continue to incur costs and expenditures in connection with the merger process. Based on our current operating plan, which includes the ceasing of our clinical development programs, we expect that our current cash and cash equivalents will fund our operations until the closing of the Merger; however, we have based this estimate on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and we could use our capital resources sooner than we expect. There can be no assurance that the proposed Merger with Crescent, or any other course of action, business arrangement or transaction, or series of transactions, will be pursued, successfully consummated or lead to increased stockholder value. If we are unable to close the Merger or raise additional capital, we will need to eliminate some or all of our operations or liquidate our company.

We expect to continue to incur significant expenses in connection with our ongoing activities, including continuing to operate as a public company. If we were to resume clinical development activities in the future, we would expect to incur significant additional expenses and operating losses.

To become and remain profitable, we must succeed in developing and eventually commercializing drugs that generate significant revenue. This would require us to be successful in a range of challenging activities, including completing preclinical testing and clinical trials of our drug candidates, obtaining regulatory approval for these drug candidates and manufacturing and commercializing any drugs for which we may obtain regulatory approval, as well as discovering additional drug candidates. If we were to resume our development programs, we may never succeed in these activities and, even if we did, we may never generate revenue that is significant enough to achieve profitability.

Table of Contents

Even if we achieve profitability, we may not be able to sustain or increase profitability on a quarterly or annual basis. Our failure to become and remain profitable would depress the value of our company and could impair our ability to raise capital, expand our business, maintain our research and development efforts or even continue our operations. A decline in the value of our company could also result in significant harm to our financial position and adversely affect our stock price.

If we decide to resume development of our drug candidates, we would need substantial additional funding. If we were unable to raise that capital when needed, we may not be able to continue as a going concern and could be forced to delay, reduce or eliminate drug development programs or potential commercialization efforts.

If we were to resume development of drug candidates, our capital requirements would depend on many factors, including:

● the costs, timing and outcome of regulatory review of our drug candidates;

Identifying potential drug candidates and conducting preclinical testing and clinical trials is a time-consuming, expensive and uncertain process that takes years to complete, and we or any current or future collaborators may never generate the necessary data or results required to obtain regulatory approval and achieve product sales. In addition, drug candidates, if approved, may not achieve commercial success. Accordingly, if we were to resume development activities, our ability to fund our operations would be dependent upon management’s plans, which could include raising additional capital through a combination of equity and debt financings, collaborations and strategic alliances. However, there can be no assurances that new financings or other transactions will be available to us on commercially acceptable terms, or at all. Our ability to raise additional capital could also be adversely impacted by global economic conditions and disruptions to and volatility in the credit and financial markets in the United States and worldwide. If we are unable to raise capital to fund our operations when needed or on attractive terms, we could be forced to delay, reduce the scope of or eliminate our research and development programs or any future commercialization efforts.

Raising additional capital may cause dilution to our stockholders, restrict our operations or require us to relinquish rights to our drug candidates.

If we were to resume our development activities, we would expect to finance our cash needs through a combination of equity offerings, debt financings and license and development agreements until such time, if ever, as we could generate substantial commercial revenues. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, your ownership interest would be diluted, and the terms of these securities may include liquidation or other preferences that could adversely affect your rights as a common stockholder. Debt financing and preferred equity financing, if available, may involve agreements that include covenants limiting or restricting our ability to take specific actions, such as incurring additional debt, making capital expenditures or declaring dividends.

If we were to raise additional funds through collaborations, strategic alliances or marketing, distribution or licensing arrangements with third parties, we may be required to relinquish valuable rights to our research programs or drug candidates or grant licenses on terms that may not be favorable to us or that may be at less than the full potential value of such rights. If we are unable to raise additional funds through equity or debt financings or other arrangements with third parties when needed, we may be required to delay, limit, reduce or terminate our drug development or future

Table of Contents

commercialization efforts or grant rights to third parties to develop and market drug candidates that we would otherwise prefer to develop and market ourselves.

Risks Related to the Discovery and Development of Our Drug Candidates

Should we resume development of our drug candidates, our focus on discovering and developing novel glycomimetic drugs and our approach to discovering and developing drugs may never lead to marketable drugs.

A key element of our prior development strategy was to use and expand our platform to build a pipeline of novel glycomimetic drug candidates and progress these drug candidates through clinical development for the treatment of a variety of diseases. The discovery of therapeutic drugs based on molecules that mimic the structure of carbohydrates is an emerging field, and the scientific discoveries that form the basis for our past efforts to discover and develop drug candidates are relatively new. The scientific evidence to support the feasibility of developing drug candidates based on these discoveries is both preliminary and limited. Although our research and development efforts resulted in a pipeline of glycomimetic drug candidates, we were unable to successfully progress those drug candidates through clinical trials. If we were to resume our development activities, the drug candidates that we identify may not be suitable for clinical development, including as a result of being shown to have harmful side effects or other characteristics that indicate that they are unlikely to be drugs that will receive marketing approval and achieve market acceptance. If we do not successfully develop and commercialize drug candidates based upon our glycomimetics platform, we will not be able to obtain product revenue in future periods.

If we were to resume development activities, we would need to conduct additional clinical trials. All of our other drug candidates other than uproleselan were in earlier stages of clinical trials or in preclinical development.

Uproleselan is our only drug candidate that was recently in a Phase 2 or Phase 3 clinical trial. In the second quarter of 2024, we announced results of our pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial of uproleselan in R/R AML. The study of uproleselan combined with chemotherapy did not meet its primary endpoint of overall survival in the intent to treat population. Following the announcement of the data from the Phase 3 trial, we requested and held a meeting with the FDA to discuss whether any of the results summarized above could serve as a basis for a submission for regulatory approval. Based on the feedback received, we concluded that any potential regulatory path for uproleselan in this patient population would require an additional clinical trial, the conduct of which would require capital resources beyond those available to us.

Our other drug candidates were in earlier stages of clinical trials or in preclinical development. We have not completed the development of any drug candidates, we currently generate no revenue from the sale of any drugs, and even if we were to resume our development activities, we may never be able to develop a marketable drug. As a company, we have no experience in submitting and obtaining FDA approval for an NDA. We previously invested substantially all of our efforts and financial resources in the development of our glycomimetics platform, the identification of potential drug candidates using that platform and the development of our drug candidates. If we were to resume development, our ability to generate revenue from our other drug candidates, would depend heavily on their successful development and eventual commercialization. The success of those drug candidates would depend on several factors, including:

● successful completion of preclinical studies and clinical trials;

● receipt of marketing approvals from applicable regulatory authorities;

● effectively competing with other therapies;

● obtaining and maintaining healthcare coverage and adequate reimbursement;

Table of Contents

● protecting our rights in our intellectual property portfolio; and

Clinical drug development involves a lengthy and expensive process, with an uncertain outcome. Should we resume development of our drug candidates, we may incur additional costs or experience delays in completing, or ultimately be unable to complete, the development and commercialization of our drug candidates.

The risk of failure of our drug candidates is high. It is impossible to predict when or if any of our drug candidates will prove safe or effective in humans or will receive regulatory approval. Before obtaining marketing approval from regulatory authorities for the sale of any drug candidate, we or a collaborator must complete preclinical development and then conduct extensive clinical trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of the drug candidate in humans. Clinical testing is expensive, difficult to design and implement, can take many years to complete and is uncertain as to outcome. For example, in May 2024, we announced results of our pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial of uproleselan in R/R AML. Even though we observed favorable results in earlier trials of uproleselan, uproleselan combined with chemotherapy did not meet the primary endpoint of overall survival in the intent to treat population in our Phase 3 trial. A failure of one or more clinical trials can occur at any stage of development. The outcome of preclinical testing and early clinical trials may not be predictive of the success of later clinical trials, and interim results of a clinical trial do not necessarily predict final results. In addition, changes in patient treatment options over time may make the relevance of historical control data for a given indication less relevant to the drug candidate being studied, which could impact the success of the trial or, even if successful, the desirability of a successful drug candidate versus other available treatment options. Moreover, preclinical and clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses, and many companies that have believed their drug candidates performed satisfactorily in preclinical studies and clinical trials have nonetheless failed to obtain marketing approval of their drugs.

If we were to resume development activities, we or our current or future collaborators may experience numerous unforeseen events during, or as a result of, clinical trials that could delay or prevent our or their ability to receive marketing approval or commercialize our drug candidates, including:

Table of Contents

Our drug development costs would also increase if we experience delays in testing or marketing approvals. Preclinical studies or clinical trials may not begin as planned, could need to be restructured or may not be completed on schedule, or at all. Significant preclinical study or clinical trial delays also could shorten any periods during which we may have the exclusive right to commercialize our drug candidates or allow our competitors to bring drugs to market before we do, and thereby impair our ability to successfully commercialize our drug candidates.

Should we resume development of our drug candidates, serious adverse or unacceptable side effects could be identified, in which case we would need to abandon or limit their development.

If we were to resume the development of our drug candidates and those candidates are associated with undesirable side effects in clinical trials or have characteristics that are unexpected, we may need to abandon their development or limit their development to more narrow uses or subpopulations in which the undesirable side effects or other characteristics are less prevalent, less severe or more acceptable from a risk-benefit perspective. Many drug candidates that initially showed promise in early-stage testing have later been found to cause side effects that prevented their further development.

If we were to resume development of our drug candidates, we may expend our limited resources to pursue a particular drug candidate or indication and fail to capitalize on drug candidates or indications that may be more profitable or for which there is a greater likelihood of success.

Even if we resume our drug development activities, we would have limited financial and management resources and as a result would need to focus on a limited number of research programs and drug candidates. As a result, we may forego or delay pursuit of opportunities with other drug candidates or for other indications that later prove to have greater commercial potential. Our resource allocation decisions could cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial drugs or profitable market opportunities. Our spending on research and development programs and drug candidates for specific indications may not yield any commercially viable drugs. If we do not accurately evaluate the commercial potential or target market for a particular drug candidate, we may relinquish valuable rights to that drug candidate through collaboration, licensing or other arrangements in cases in which it would have been more advantageous for us to retain sole development and commercialization rights.

Risks Related to Our Dependence on Third Parties

Should we resume development activities, our success would depend in part on collaborations. If we are unable to maintain any of these collaborations, or if these collaborations are not successful, our business could be adversely affected.

Even before our decision to cease development activities, we had limited capabilities for drug development and do not have any capabilities for sales, marketing or distribution. If we were to resume drug development, we expect that we would need to engage collaborators to support our operations. We cannot assure you that collaborators will develop our drug candidates in a timely manner, or at all, or, if regulatory approval for a drug candidate is achieved, that such collaborator will successfully commercialize the candidate.

Any collaborations we might enter into may pose a number of risks, including:

● collaborators may not perform their obligations as expected;

Table of Contents

If any collaborations we might enter into do not result in the successful development and commercialization of drugs, or if one of our collaborators terminates its agreement with us, we may not receive any future research funding or milestone or royalty payments under the collaboration. For example, in 2020, our former collaborator Pfizer terminated its license agreement with us for the worldwide development and commercialization of our prior drug candidate rivipansel, thereby eliminating our right to receive any future development or commercialization milestones or royalty payments for sales of that drug candidate. In addition, even if we are eligible to receive any such payments from a collaborator, they could be substantially delayed. If we do not receive the funding we expect under these agreements, the development of our drug candidates could be delayed and we may need additional resources to develop our drug candidates. All of the risks relating to drug development, regulatory approval and commercialization described in this report also apply to the activities of our collaborators.

If a current or future collaborator of ours is involved in a business combination, the collaborator might deemphasize or terminate development or commercialization of any drug candidate licensed to it by us. If one of our collaborators terminates its agreement with us, we may find it more difficult to attract new collaborators and our reputation in the business and financial communities could be adversely affected. We may in the future determine to collaborate with pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies for their development and potential commercialization of our drug candidates. We face significant competition in seeking appropriate collaborators. Our ability to reach a definitive agreement for a collaboration will depend, among other things, upon our assessment of a collaborator’s resources and expertise, the terms and conditions of the proposed collaboration and the proposed collaborator’s evaluation of a number of factors. If we are unable to reach agreements with suitable collaborators on a timely basis, on acceptable terms, or at all, we may have to curtail the development of a drug candidate, reduce or delay its development or one or more of our other development programs, delay its potential commercialization or reduce the scope of any sales or marketing activities or increase our expenditures and undertake development or commercialization activities at our own expense. If we elect to fund and undertake development or commercialization activities on our own, we may need to obtain additional expertise and additional capital, which may not be available to us on acceptable terms or at all. If we fail to enter into collaborations and do not have sufficient funds or expertise to undertake the necessary development and

Table of Contents

commercialization activities, we may not be able to further develop our drug candidates or bring them to market, which would impair our business prospects.

Should we resume development of our drug candidates, we would expect to rely on third parties to conduct additional clinical trials for our drug candidates, and those third parties may not perform satisfactorily, including failing to meet deadlines for the completion of such trials.

We previously engaged a third-party contract research organization, or CRO, to conduct our clinical trials for uproleselan. If we were to resume clinical development, we would expect to engage CROs with respect to any further clinical trials of uproleselan or any of our other drug candidates that may progress to clinical development. We would also expect to rely on third parties, such as CROs, clinical data management organizations, medical institutions and clinical investigators, to conduct those clinical trials. Agreements with such third parties might terminate for a variety of reasons, including a failure to perform by the third parties. If we need to enter into alternative arrangements, that would delay our drug development activities.

Our reliance on these third parties for research and development activities would reduce our control over these activities, but would not relieve us of our responsibilities. For example, we would remain responsible for ensuring that each of our clinical trials is conducted in accordance with the general investigational plan and protocols for the trial. Moreover, the FDA requires us to comply with standards, commonly referred to as good clinical practices, or GCPs, for conducting, recording and reporting the results of clinical trials to assure that data and reported results are credible and accurate and that the rights, integrity and confidentiality of trial participants are protected. We also are required to register ongoing clinical trials and post the results of completed clinical trials on a government-sponsored database, ClinicalTrials.gov, within specified timeframes. Failure to do so can result in fines, adverse publicity and significant civil and criminal sanctions.

Furthermore, these third parties may also have relationships with other entities, some of which may be our competitors. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties, meet expected deadlines or conduct our clinical trials in accordance with regulatory requirements or our stated protocols, we will not be able to obtain, or may be delayed in obtaining, marketing approvals for our drug candidates and will not be able to, or may be delayed in our efforts to, successfully commercialize our drug candidates.

We also expect to rely on other third parties to store and distribute drug supplies for any further clinical trials that we were to conduct. Any performance failure on the part of our distributors could delay clinical development or marketing approval of our drug candidates or commercialization of our drugs, producing additional losses and depriving us of potential revenue.

We previously contracted with third parties for the manufacturing of our drug candidates for preclinical and clinical testing, and if we were to resume development activities and pursue commercialization, we would expect to continue to do so. This reliance on third parties increases the risk that we would not have sufficient quantities of our drug candidates or drugs, or such quantities at an acceptable cost, which could delay, prevent or impair our potential development or commercialization efforts.

We do not have any manufacturing facilities or personnel. We have in the past relied on third parties for the manufacturing of our drug candidates for preclinical and clinical testing, as well as for potential commercial manufacture. If we were to resume our drug development activities, we would need to re-engage those third parties. Our reliance on third parties would increase the risk that we will not have sufficient quantities of our drug candidates or drugs, or such quantities at an acceptable cost or quality, which could delay, prevent or impair our ability to timely conduct clinical trials or our other potential development or commercialization efforts.

We would also expect to rely on third-party manufacturers or third-party collaborators for the manufacturing of commercial supply of any other drug candidates for which we or our collaborators obtain marketing approval. For example, in January 2024 we entered into an agreement with Patheon Manufacturing Services LLC, or Patheon, for manufacture and supply of uproleselan for commercial sale. Pursuant to the agreement, Patheon was to manufacture commercial quantities of injectable uproleselan from active pharmaceutical ingredient we were to supply.

Table of Contents

If we were to resume our development activities, we may be unable to establish any agreements with third-party manufacturers or to do so on acceptable terms. Even if we are able to establish agreements with third-party manufacturers, reliance on third-party manufacturers entails additional risks, including:

● reliance on the third party for regulatory compliance and quality assurance;

● the possible breach of the manufacturing agreement by the third party;

Third-party manufacturers may not be able to comply with current good manufacturing practices, or cGMP, regulations or similar regulatory requirements outside the United States. Our failure, or the failure of our third-party manufacturers, to comply with applicable regulations could result in sanctions being imposed on us, including clinical holds, fines, injunctions, civil penalties, delays, suspension or withdrawal of approvals, license revocation, seizures or recalls of drug candidates or drugs, operating restrictions and criminal prosecutions, any of which could significantly and adversely affect supplies of our drugs.

In addition, in the event that any of our third-party manufacturers fails to comply with such requirements or to perform its obligations to us in relation to quality, timing or otherwise, or if our supply of components or other materials becomes limited or interrupted for other reasons, we may be forced to manufacture the materials ourselves, for which we currently do not have the capabilities or resources, or enter into an agreement with another third party, which we may not be able to do on commercially reasonable terms, if at all. If our contract manufacturers cannot perform as agreed, we may be required to replace such manufacturers and we may incur added costs and delays in identifying and qualifying any such replacement. Any replacement of our manufacturers could require significant effort and expertise because there may be a limited number of qualified replacements. If we are required to change manufacturers for any reason, we will be required to verify that the new manufacturer maintains facilities and procedures that comply with quality standards and with all applicable regulations and guidelines. The delays associated with the verification of a new manufacturer could negatively affect our ability to develop our drug candidates in a timely manner or within budget.

Our dependence upon others for the manufacturing of our drug candidates or drugs may adversely affect our ability to commercialize any drugs that receive marketing approval on a timely and competitive basis.

Risks Related to the Potential Commercialization of Drug Candidates

Should we resume development of drug candidates, if any of those drug candidates were to receive marketing approval, it may still fail to achieve the degree of market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors and others in the medical community necessary for commercial success.

We do not intend to continue development of uproleselan or any of our other product candidates. However, should we decide to resume development activities and any of our drug candidates receives marketing approval, it may nonetheless fail to gain sufficient market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors and others in the medical community. If our drug candidates do not achieve an adequate level of acceptance, we may not generate significant revenue from drug sales and we may not become profitable. The degree of market acceptance of our drug candidates, even if approved for commercial sale, would depend on a number of factors, including:

● the efficacy and potential advantages compared to alternative treatments;

● our ability to offer our drugs for sale at competitive prices;

● the convenience and ease of administration compared to alternative treatments;

● the strength of marketing and distribution support;

Table of Contents

● the availability of third-party coverage and adequate reimbursement;

● the prevalence and severity of any side effects; and

● any restrictions on the use of our drugs together with other medications.

Should we resume development of our drug candidates, we would need to establish sales, marketing and distribution capabilities for our drug candidates and may not be successful in commercializing those drug candidates if approved.

Even prior to our decision to cease drug development and commercialization activities, we did not have a sales or marketing infrastructure and had no experience in the sale, marketing or distribution of pharmaceutical drugs. If we were to resume development, we would need to establish a sales and marketing organization to market or co-promote any drugs that achieve marketing approval. There are risks involved with establishing sales, marketing and distribution capabilities. For example, recruiting and training a sales force is expensive and time consuming and could delay any product launch. If the commercial launch of a drug candidate for which we recruit a sales force and establish marketing capabilities is delayed or does not occur for any reason, we would have prematurely or unnecessarily incurred these commercialization expenses. This may be costly, and our investment would be lost if we cannot retain or reposition our sales and marketing personnel.

Other factors that could inhibit our efforts to commercialize drugs on our own include:

If we are unable to establish our own sales, marketing and distribution capabilities and therefore enter into arrangements with third parties to perform these services, our revenue and our profitability, if any, would likely be lower than if we were to sell, market and distribute any drugs that we develop ourselves. In addition, we may not be successful in entering into arrangements with third parties to sell, market and distribute our drug candidates or may be unable to do so on terms that are favorable to us. We likely would have little control over such third parties, and any of them may fail to devote the necessary resources and attention to sell and market our drugs effectively. Even if we were to resume drug development, in the event that we do not establish sales, marketing and distribution capabilities successfully, either on our own or in collaboration with third parties, we would not be successful in commercializing our drug candidates.

Even if we were to resume drug development, we would face substantial competition, which may result in others discovering, developing or commercializing drugs before or more successfully than we do.

The development and commercialization of new drugs is highly competitive. We have faced competition with respect to our drug candidates, and should we resume drug development we would face competition with respect to any drug candidates that we may seek to develop or commercialize in the future, from major pharmaceutical companies, specialty pharmaceutical companies, biotechnology companies, academic institutions, governmental agencies and public and private research institutions. Should any competitors’ drug candidates receive regulatory or marketing approval prior to ours, they may establish a strong market position and diminish the need for our drug candidates.

The key competitive factors affecting the success of all of our drug candidates, if approved, are likely to be their safety, efficacy, convenience, price, the level of generic competition and the availability of coverage and reimbursement from government and other third-party payors. To the extent that competitive drugs or drug candidates developed by others are successful in treating our target indications, it would reduce the market opportunity for our drug candidates.

Many of the companies against which we may compete in the future, have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals and marketing approved drugs than we do. Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical and

Table of Contents

biotechnology industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel and establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs.

Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize drugs that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, are more convenient or are less expensive than any drugs that we may develop. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their drugs more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market.

In addition, because we have no patents with respect to our glycomimetics platform, our competitors may use our methods, or acquire similar expertise, in order to develop glycomimetic drug candidates and progress these drug candidates through clinical development and commercialization, which could impair our ability to successfully commercialize our drug candidates or otherwise limit our commercial opportunities.

Even if we or our collaborators are able to commercialize any of our drug candidates, the drugs may become subject to unfavorable pricing regulations or third-party coverage and reimbursement policies.

Our and our collaborators’ ability to commercialize any of our drug candidates successfully would depend, in part, on the extent to which coverage and adequate reimbursement for these drugs and related treatments will be available from government payor programs at the federal and state levels authorities, including Medicare and Medicaid, private health insurers, managed care plans and other organizations. Government authorities and third-party payors, such as private health insurers and health maintenance organizations, decide which medications they will pay for and establish reimbursement levels. A primary trend in the U.S. healthcare industry and elsewhere 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 drugs. Coverage and reimbursement may not be available for any drug that we or our collaborators commercialize and, even if these are available, the level of reimbursement may not be satisfactory. Inadequate reimbursement levels may adversely affect the demand for, or the price of, any drug candidate for which we or our collaborators obtain marketing approval. Obtaining and maintaining adequate reimbursement for our drugs may be difficult. We may be required to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies to justify coverage and reimbursement or the level of reimbursement relative to other therapies. If coverage and adequate reimbursement are not available or reimbursement is available only to limited levels, we or our collaborators may not be able to successfully commercialize any drug candidates for which marketing approval is obtained.

There may be significant delays in obtaining coverage and reimbursement for newly approved drugs, and coverage may be more limited than the indications for which the drug is approved by the FDA or similar regulatory authorities outside the United States. Moreover, eligibility for coverage and reimbursement does not imply that a drug will be paid for in all cases or at a rate that covers our costs, including research, development, manufacture, sale and distribution expenses. Interim reimbursement levels for new drugs, if applicable, may also not be sufficient to cover our costs and may not be made permanent. 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 United States. Third-party payors often rely upon Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own reimbursement policies. However, one payor’s determination to provide coverage for a drug does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage for the drug. Our or our collaborators’ inability to promptly obtain coverage and adequate reimbursement rates from both government-funded and private payors for any approved drugs that we develop could adversely affect our operating results, our ability to raise capital needed to commercialize drugs and our overall financial condition.

The regulations that govern marketing approvals, pricing, coverage and reimbursement for new drugs vary widely from country to country. Current and future legislation may significantly change the approval requirements in ways that

Table of Contents

could involve additional costs and cause delays in obtaining approvals. Some countries require approval of the sale price of a drug before it can be marketed. In many countries, the pricing review period begins after marketing or licensing approval is granted. In some foreign markets, prescription pharmaceutical pricing remains subject to continuing governmental control even after initial approval is granted. As a result, we or our collaborators might obtain marketing approval for a drug in a particular country, but then be subject to price regulations that delay commercial launch of the drug, possibly for lengthy time periods, and negatively impact our ability to generate revenue from the sale of the drug in that country. Adverse pricing limitations may hinder our ability to recoup our investment in one or more drug candidates, even if our drug candidates obtain marketing approval.

There can be no assurance that our drug candidates, if they are approved for sale in the United States or in other countries, will be considered medically reasonable and necessary for a specific indication, that they will be considered cost-effective by third-party payors, that coverage or an adequate level of reimbursement will be available or that third-party payors’ reimbursement policies will not adversely affect our ability to sell our drug candidates profitably if they are approved for sale.

CBIO US Equity

CBIO · 10-K · period ended 2024-12-31

ITEM 1. BUSINESS

ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS

CBIO US Equity☆

CBIO · 10-K · period ended 2024-12-31

ITEM 1. BUSINESS

ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS

CBIO US Equity