Item 1A. Risk Factors.

Investing in our common stock involves a high degree of risk. You should carefully consider the risks described below, as well as the other information in this Annual Report, including our consolidated financial statements and related notes appearing elsewhere in this Annual Report and the section of this Annual Report titled “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” before you make an investment decision. The risks described below are not the only risks that we face. The occurrence of any of the events or developments described below could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. As a result, the market price of our common stock could decline, and you may lose all or part of your investment in our common stock.

Risks Related to Our Financial Condition and Capital Requirements

Our limited operating history may make it difficult for you to evaluate the success of our business to date and to assess our future viability.

Cullinan Oncology, Inc., our predecessor entity, began substantive operations in 2017. In January 2021, Cullinan Oncology, Inc. contributed all of the stock it owned of each of our subsidiaries to Cullinan Management, Inc. in exchange for common stock of Cullinan Management, Inc., and as a result, our subsidiaries became subsidiaries of Cullinan Management, Inc. Subsequently, Cullinan Oncology, Inc. merged with and into Cullinan Management, Inc., with the latter being the surviving entity of such merger. Our operations to date have been limited to organizing and staffing our company, business planning, raising capital for us and our subsidiaries, filing patent applications, identifying and acquiring and investing in potential product candidates, undertaking clinical trials, building our intellectual property portfolio, and establishing arrangements and collaborating with third parties for identification, discovery and research activities, preclinical studies, clinical trials, and the manufacture of initial quantities of our product candidates and component materials. We have not yet demonstrated our ability to successfully conduct late-stage clinical trials, complete any clinical trials, obtain marketing approvals, manufacture a commercial-scale product or arrange for a third party to do so on our behalf, or conduct sales, marketing, and distribution activities necessary for successful product commercialization.

In addition, we may encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays, and other known and unknown factors, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. If we decide to commercialize any of our product candidates that may be approved for marketing, we will need to develop commercial infrastructure. We may not be successful in any such transition. Consequently, any predictions you make about our future success or viability may not be as accurate as they could be if we had a longer operating history.

We have incurred significant losses since inception, and we expect to incur losses over the next several years and may not be able to achieve or sustain revenues or profitability in the future.

Investment in biopharmaceutical product development is a highly speculative undertaking and entails substantial upfront capital expenditures and significant risk that any potential therapeutic candidate will fail to demonstrate adequate efficacy or an acceptable safety profile, gain regulatory approval, and become commercially viable. We are still in the early stages of development of our product candidates. We have no products approved for commercial sale and have not generated any revenue from product sales to date, and we continue to incur significant research and development and other expenses related to our ongoing operations. We have financed our operations primarily through private placements of Cullinan Oncology, Inc.’s preferred units and our subsidiaries’ preferred stock.

We have incurred significant net losses in each period since we began substantive operations in September 2017. For the years ended December 31, 2019 and 2020, we reported net losses $21.7 million and $59.5 million, respectively. As of December 31, 2020, we had an accumulated deficit of $93.3 million. We expect to continue to incur significant losses for the foreseeable future, and we expect these losses to increase substantially if and as we:

• hire additional clinical, regulatory, and scientific personnel; and

• operate as a public company.

Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with developing pharmaceutical product candidates, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, we are unable to predict the extent of any future losses or when we will become profitable, if at all. Even if we succeed in commercializing one or more of our product candidates, we will continue to incur substantial research and development and other expenditures to develop and seek regulatory approval for additional product candidates or additional indications. We may encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays, and other unknown factors that may adversely affect our business. The size of our future net losses will depend, in part, on the rate of future growth of our expenses and our ability to generate revenue. Our prior losses and expected future losses have had and will continue to have an adverse effect on our members’ equity and working capital.

We have not generated any revenue from our product candidates and may never be profitable.

Our ability to become profitable depends upon our ability to generate revenue. To date, we have not generated any sales, or collaboration or commercial revenue from any of our product candidates. We do not expect to generate significant sales revenue or commercial revenue from the sale or license of one or more of our preclinical programs or product candidates unless or until we successfully complete clinical development and obtain regulatory approval of, and then successfully commercialize, at least one of our product candidates or, alternatively, enter into agreements with third parties for the purchase, collaboration, or license of one of our product candidates. Most of our product candidates are in the preclinical stages of development and will require additional preclinical studies, and all of our product candidates will require additional clinical development, regulatory review and approval, substantial investment, access to sufficient commercial manufacturing capacity, and significant marketing efforts before we can generate any revenue from product sales. Except for CLN-081, we have not yet administered our product candidates in humans and, as such, we face significant translational risk as our preclinical product candidates advance to the clinical stage, if ever, as promising results in preclinical studies may not be replicated in subsequent clinical trials, and testing on animals may not accurately predict human experience. For example, Apollo, our oral small molecule targeting EBNA1, was terminated due to a lack of translation of compelling preclinical pharmacodynamic effect and antitumor activity into patients. Our ability to generate revenue depends on a number of factors, including, but not limited to:

Many of the factors listed above are beyond our control and could cause us to experience significant delays or prevent us from obtaining regulatory approvals or commercializing our product candidates. Even if we are able to commercialize our product candidates, we may not achieve profitability soon after generating product sales, if ever. If we are unable to generate sufficient revenue through the commercial sale of our product candidates or any future product candidates, or from agreements with third parties for the purchase, collaboration, or license of one or more of our product candidates, we may be unable to continue operations without continued funding.

We will require substantial additional funding to develop and commercialize our product candidates and identify and invest in new product candidates. If we are unable to raise capital when needed, we would be compelled to delay, reduce, or eliminate our product development programs or other operations.

The development of pharmaceutical products is capital intensive. We are currently advancing CLN-081 in clinical development and expect to advance CLN-049 and CLN-619 into clinical development in the near term. We expect our expenses to increase in parallel with our ongoing activities, particularly as we continue our discovery, preclinical, and clinical development activities for our current product candidates, identify and invest in new product candidates, and conduct clinical trials of, and seek marketing approval for, our product candidates. In addition, if we obtain marketing approval for and commercialize any of our product candidates, we expect to incur significant commercialization expenses related to product sales, marketing, manufacturing, and distribution. Furthermore, we expect to incur significant additional costs associated with operating as a public company. Accordingly, we will need to obtain substantial additional funding in connection with our continuing operations, which may include raising funding by one or more of our subsidiaries that could dilute our equity interest in the subsidiary. We have estimated our current additional funding needs based on assumptions that may prove to be wrong. Additionally, changing circumstances may cause us to consume capital significantly faster than we currently anticipate, and we may need to spend more money than currently expected because of circumstances beyond our control. We cannot be certain that additional funding will be available on acceptable terms, or at all. Until such time, if ever, as we can generate substantial product revenue, we expect to finance our operations through a combination of public or private equity offerings, debt financings, governmental funding, collaborations, strategic partnerships, and alliances, or marketing, distribution, or licensing arrangements with third parties, either by Cullinan Oncology, Inc., or by one or more of our subsidiaries. If we or our subsidiaries are unable to raise capital when needed or on attractive terms, we or the applicable subsidiary would be forced to delay, reduce, or eliminate our identification, discovery, and preclinical or clinical development programs, or any future commercialization efforts.

We had cash and cash equivalents and short-term investments of $210.2 million as of December 31, 2020. In addition, on January 12, 2021, we received $264.7 million in net proceeds from our initial public offering, after deducting underwriting discounts, commissions and estimated offering expenses payable by us and full exercise of the underwriters’ option to purchase additional shares. We believe that, based upon our current operating plan, our existing capital resources, will be sufficient to fund our anticipated operations through 2024. Our future capital requirements will depend on many factors, including:

• the costs, timing, and outcome of regulatory review of our product candidates;

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

In addition, if one of our subsidiaries raises funds through the issuance of its equity securities, our equity interest in such subsidiary could be substantially diminished. If one of our subsidiaries raises additional funds through collaboration and licensing arrangements, it may be necessary to relinquish some rights to our technologies or our product candidates or grant licenses on terms that are not favorable to us.

If we or our subsidiaries engage in acquisitions or strategic partnerships, this may increase our or their capital requirements, dilute our or their stockholders, cause us or them to incur debt or assume contingent liabilities, and subject us or them to other risks.

We intend to engage in various acquisitions and strategic partnerships in the future, including licensing or acquiring products, intellectual property rights, technologies, or businesses, carried out either by Cullinan or by one or more of our wholly- or partially-owned subsidiaries, including a newly-formed subsidiary formed for the purpose of such transaction. Any acquisition or strategic partnership may entail numerous risks to us or the applicable subsidiary, including:

• increased operating expenses and cash requirements;

• the assumption of indebtedness or contingent liabilities;

• the issuance of equity securities which would result in dilution;

If we fail to properly evaluate potential acquisitions, in-licenses, investments or other transactions associated with the creation of new research and development programs or the maintenance of existing ones, we might not achieve the anticipated benefits of any such transaction, we might incur costs in excess of what we anticipate, and management resources and attention might be diverted from other necessary or valuable activities.

Risks Related to Our Corporate Structure

We may not be successful in our efforts to use our differentiated hub-and-spoke business model to build a pipeline of product candidates with commercial value.

A key element of our strategy is to use our differentiated hub-and-spoke business model to form or seek strategic alliances, create joint ventures or collaborations, or enter into licensing arrangements with third parties for programs, product candidates, technologies or intellectual property that we believe are novel, employ differentiated mechanisms of action, are more advanced in development than competitors, or have a combination of these attributes. We face significant competition in seeking appropriate strategic partners and licensing and acquisition opportunities, and the negotiation process is time-consuming and complex. We may not be successful in our efforts in building a pipeline of product candidates for the treatment of various cancers through acquisitions, licensing or through internal development or in progressing these product candidates through clinical development. Although our research and development efforts to date have resulted in our identification, discovery and preclinical and clinical development of certain of our product candidates, these product candidates may not be safe or effective as cancer treatments, and we may not be able to develop any other product candidates. Although we analyze whether we can replicate scientific results observed prior to our acquisition or investment in a product candidate, we may not be successful in doing so after our investment. Our differentiated hub-and-spoke business model is evolving and may not succeed in building a pipeline of product candidates. For example, we may not be successful in identifying additional genetic mutations which are oncogenic and which can be “basketed” into a group that is large enough to present a sufficient commercial opportunity or that is druggable with one chemical compound. Even if we are successful in building our pipeline of product candidates, the potential product candidates that we identify may not be suitable for clinical development or generate acceptable clinical data, including as a result of unacceptable toxicity or other characteristics that indicate that they are unlikely to receive marketing approval from the FDA or other regulatory authorities or achieve market acceptance. If we do not successfully develop and commercialize product candidates, we will not be able to generate product revenue in the future, which likely would result in significant harm to our financial position and adversely affect our stock price.

Additionally, we may pursue additional in-licenses or acquisitions of development-stage assets or programs, which entails additional risk to us. While we believe our hub-and-spoke model offers an attractive platform for these transactions and for potential partners, our model is unique and we may not be able to attract or execute transactions with licensors or collaborators who may choose to partner with companies that employ more traditional licensing and collaboration approaches. Identifying, selecting, and acquiring promising product candidates requires substantial technical, financial and human resources expertise. Efforts to do so may not result in the actual acquisition or license of a successful product candidate, potentially resulting in a diversion of our management’s time and the expenditure of our resources with no resulting benefit. For example, if we are unable to identify programs that ultimately result in approved products, we may spend material amounts of our capital and other resources evaluating, acquiring, and developing products that ultimately do not provide a return on our investment. We have terminated programs and expect to terminate programs in the future if they do not meet our criteria for advancement.

Our subsidiaries are party to certain agreements that provide our licensors, collaborators or other shareholders in our subsidiaries with rights that could delay or impact the potential sale of our subsidiaries or could impact the ability of our subsidiaries to sell assets, or enter into strategic alliances, collaborations or licensing arrangements with other third parties.

Each of our subsidiaries licenses intellectual property from third parties and several, including Cullinan Pearl and Cullinan MICA, have raised capital from third party investors. These third parties have certain rights that could delay collaboration, licensing or other arrangement with another third party, and the existence of these rights may adversely impact the ability to attract an acquirer or partner. These rights include rights of negotiation and fees payable upon a sale of assets or change of control of a subsidiary that are contained in license agreements, as well as rights such as drag-along rights in agreements with shareholders of the subsidiary.

For example, our partially-owned subsidiary Cullinan Pearl Corp., or Cullinan Pearl, is party to a license agreement, or the Taiho Agreement, with Taiho Pharmaceuticals, Inc., or Taiho, pursuant to which Taiho has a right of negotiation that requires Cullinan Pearl to negotiate in good faith with Taiho prior to proceeding with a transaction to license, sell, assign, transfer or otherwise dispose of a majority of the assets of Cullinan Pearl to a third party, or any transaction with respect to any

of the rights licensed from Taiho to Cullinan Pearl. While Cullinan Pearl is not obligated to enter into a transaction with Taiho, the right of negotiation could delay a potential sale or adversely impact our ability to attract a partner or acquirer and could negatively impact prospects for a larger company to acquire Cullinan Pearl or its assets or enter into a collaboration or licensing transaction that would benefit us. Further, Cullinan Pearl must pay Taiho a percentage of the proceeds from the sale, assignment or transfer of less than all or substantially all of Cullinan Pearl’s assets. In addition, our partially-owned subsidiaries Cullinan Florentine Corp., or Cullinan Florentine, and Cullinan Amber Corp., or Cullinan Amber, will also owe licensors a success fee in the event of a sale or other disposition of the majority of its assets. These fees will reduce the net proceeds we receive from any such sale or disposition of assets.

We have also entered into investor rights and voting agreements with third party investors, which may delay or impact our ability to sell our equity interests in or the assets of our partially-owned subsidiaries. For example, we would need to comply with certain notice and other provisions, such as a drag-along provision in the event of sale of the subsidiary, which may delay or prevent a specific transaction or make transacting with our subsidiaries and us less attractive to third parties. As of February 28, 2021, on a fully-diluted basis, we owned 80% of Cullinan Pearl, 90% of Cullinan Amber, 92% of Cullinan Florentine and 35% of Cullinan MICA.

We may form additional subsidiaries and enter into similar agreements with future partners or investors, or our subsidiaries may enter into further agreements, that in each case may contain similar provisions or other terms that are not favorable to us.

Our ability to realize value from our subsidiaries may be impacted if we reduce our ownership to a minority interest or otherwise cede control to other investors through contractual agreements or otherwise.

We currently own the majority of the fully-diluted shares outstanding of Cullinan Pearl, Cullinan Florentine, Cullinan Apollo, and Cullinan Amber. Our ownership in Cullinan MICA, which owns intellectual property related to CLN-619, represents 88.5% of Cullinan MICA’s Series A Senior Preferred Stock, but approximately 35% of its fully-diluted common stock equivalent outstanding as of February 28, 2021. However, we currently can designate three of the five directors of the company and have control over certain corporate actions such as the acquisition of Cullinan MICA by any other corporation or entity, through our majority ownership of the Series A Senior Preferred Stock. Further, we will maintain our Series A Senior Preferred Stock ownership percentage by participating in future milestone dependent closings of the Series A financing (for more information please see Note 5 of our condensed consolidated financial statements).

In the event that any of our subsidiaries require additional capital and its respective board of directors authorizes the transaction, our equity interest in our subsidiaries may be further reduced to the extent such additional capital is obtained from third party investors rather than from us. However, such transactions would still need to be approved by the board of directors of our respective subsidiary over which we maintain full or, in the case of Cullinan MICA, majority control. For example, in the event Cullinan MICA were to undertake a transaction that could lead to further dilution of our interest, such action would still be subject to protective provisions requiring the consent of a majority in interest of the then-outstanding shares of Series A Senior Preferred Stock, or the Protective Voting Rights, including, among other things, any authorization, designation, recapitalization or issuance of any new class or series of stock or any other securities convertible into equity securities of Cullinan MICA. Cullinan Oncology, Inc. currently holds a majority of the Series A Senior Preferred Stock. These Protective Voting Rights give holders of Series A Senior Preferred voting control over any actions that would result in redemptions of equity securities.

However, if we do not wish to or cannot provide additional capital to any of our subsidiaries, we may approve of an issuance of equity by a subsidiary that dilutes our ownership and may lose control over the subsidiary. In addition, if the affairs of such minority-owned subsidiaries such as Cullinan MICA were to be conducted in a manner detrimental to our interests or intentions, our business, reputation, and prospects may be adversely affected. For example, other shareholders of Cullinan MICA could take actions without our consent, including that a majority of shareholders could demand a registration of their shares beginning in April 2025 and such a liquidity event by the other shareholders could have an adverse impact on our investment in the subsidiary.

A single or limited number of subsidiaries may comprise a large proportion of our value.

A large proportion of our value may at any time reside in one or two of our subsidiaries, including intellectual property rights and the value ascribed to the product candidate or program that it is developing. Our consolidated financial condition and prospects may be materially diminished if the clinical development or potential commercialization prospects of a subsidiary’s product candidate or program or one or more of the intellectual property rights held by a specific subsidiary becomes impaired. Furthermore, a large proportion of our consolidated revenue may at any time be derived from one, or a small number of, licensed technologies, and termination or expiration of licenses to these technologies would likely have a material adverse effect on our consolidated revenue. Any material adverse impact on the value of a particular subsidiary, including its intellectual property rights or the clinical development of its product candidate or program, could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated business, financial condition, results of operations or prospects.

We may expend our limited resources to pursue a particular product candidate or indication and fail to capitalize on product candidates or indications that may be more profitable or for which there is a greater likelihood of success.

Because we have limited financial and managerial resources, we must focus on a limited number of research programs and product candidates and on specific indications. As a result, we may forego or delay pursuit of opportunities with other product candidates or for other indications that later prove to have greater commercial potential or fail to recognize or acquire assets that may be more promising than those we acquire. Our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial products or profitable market opportunities. Our spending on current and future identification, discovery, and preclinical development programs and product candidates for specific indications may not yield any commercially viable products.

Our reliance on a central team consisting of a limited number of employees who provide various administrative, research and development, and other services across our organization presents operational challenges that may adversely affect our business.

As of February 28, 2021, we had 24 full-time employees upon which we rely for various administrative, research and development, and other support services shared among our other operating subsidiaries. We also have two consultants who we rely on for research and development, business development, and other services. While we believe this structure enables us to reduce certain infrastructure costs, the small size of our centralized team may limit our ability to devote adequate personnel, time, and resources to support the operations of all of our subsidiaries, including their research and development activities, and the management of financial, accounting, and reporting matters. Given that our employees and management are primarily incentivized at the parent company level, these employees and management team members may not be sufficiently incentivized to maximize the overall value of our entire organization. If our centralized team fails to provide adequate administrative, research and development, or other services across our entire organization, our business, financial condition, and results of operations could be harmed.

Some of our officers and directors currently serve, and in the future may serve, as directors or officers of our subsidiaries, and, as a result, have and may continue to have, fiduciary and other duties to our subsidiaries causing conflicts of interest with respect to their duties to us and their duties to our subsidiaries and in determining how to devote themselves to our affairs and the affairs of our subsidiaries. Our subsidiaries’ partners may also disagree with the sufficiency of resources that we provide to each subsidiary.

Certain of our officers, including our Chief Executive Officer, or CEO and director, Owen Hughes, our Chief Legal Officer, Raymond Keane, and our Chief Scientific Officer, Small Molecules, Leigh Zawel, are also directors and/or officers of one or more of our subsidiaries and, as a result, have fiduciary or other duties both to us and our subsidiaries. The conflicts of interest that arise from such duties could interfere with the management of our subsidiaries and their programs and product candidates, or result in disagreements with our subsidiaries’ partners. For example, an individual who is both a director of one of our subsidiaries and a director of Cullinan Oncology, Inc. owes fiduciary duties to the subsidiary and to the Company as a whole, and such individual may encounter circumstances in which his or her decision or action may benefit the subsidiary while having a detrimental impact on the Company, or vice versa, or on another subsidiary, including one for which he or she also serves as a director. Further, our officers and directors who are also officers and directors of our subsidiaries will need to allocate his or her time to responsibilities owed to Cullinan Oncology, Inc., and each of the subsidiaries for which he or she serves as an officer or director, and will make decisions on behalf of one entity that may negatively impact others. In addition, while most of our subsidiaries have waived any interest or expectation of corporate opportunities that is presented to, or acquired, created or developed by, or which otherwise comes into possession of any director or officer who is also a director or officer of Cullinan Oncology, Inc., disputes could arise between us and our subsidiary’s partners regarding a conflict of interest. These partners also may disagree with the amount and quality of resources that our officers and employees devote to

the subsidiary they are invested in. Any such disputes or disagreements could distract our management, interfere with our relations with our partners, and take significant time to resolve, which could disrupt the development of our product candidates, delay our potential commercialization efforts, result in increased costs or make it less likely that other third parties will choose to partner with us in the future.

We currently outsource, and intend to continue to outsource, nearly all our discovery, clinical development, and manufacturing functions to third-party providers or consultants. Outsourcing these functions has significant risks, and our failure to manage these risks successfully could materially adversely affect our business, results of operations, and financial condition.

Our business model relies upon the use of third parties, such as vendors and consultants, to conduct our drug discovery, preclinical testing, clinical trials, manufacturing, and all other aspects of clinical development. While our reliance on third parties allows us to purposely employ a small number of full–time employees, we may not effectively manage and oversee the third parties that our business depends upon and we have less control over our operations due to our reliance on third parties. While we believe our business model significantly reduces overhead cost, we may not realize the efficiencies of this arrangement if we are unable to effectively manage third parties or if our limited number of employees are unable to manage the operations of each of our subsidiaries, including the development of their programs and product candidates. The failure to successfully and efficiently outsource operational functions or appropriately manage the operations of our subsidiaries could materially adversely affect our business, results of operations, and financial condition.

Risks Related to the Development of Our Product Candidates

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

Before obtaining regulatory approvals for the commercial sale of our product candidates, including CLN-081, CLN-049, and CLN-619, we must demonstrate the safety and efficacy of our investigational product candidates for use in each target indication through lengthy, complex, and expensive preclinical studies and clinical trials. Failure can occur at any time during the preclinical study and clinical trial processes, and, because our product candidates are in an early stage of development, there is a high risk of failure and we may never succeed in developing marketable products. Any preclinical studies or clinical trials that we may conduct may not demonstrate the safety and efficacy necessary to obtain regulatory approval to market any of our product candidates. If the results of our ongoing or future preclinical studies and clinical trials are inconclusive with respect to the safety and efficacy of our product candidates, if we do not meet the clinical endpoints with statistical and clinically meaningful significance, or if there are safety concerns associated with our product candidates, we may be prevented or delayed in obtaining marketing approval for such product candidates. In some instances, there can be significant variability in safety or efficacy results between different preclinical studies and clinical trials of the same product candidate due to numerous factors, including changes in trial procedures set forth in protocols, differences in the size and type of the patient populations, changes in and adherence to the clinical trial protocols and the rate of dropout among clinical trial participants. While we have not yet initiated clinical trials for certain of our product candidates and are in early stages of clinical trials for CLN-081, it is likely, as is the case with many oncology therapies, that there may be side effects associated with their use. Results of our trials could reveal a high and unacceptable severity and prevalence of side effects. In such an event, our trials could be suspended or terminated and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities could order us to cease further development of or deny approval of our product candidates for any or all targeted indications. Treatment-related side effects could also affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled patients to complete the trial or result in potential product liability claims. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly.

Further, our product candidates could cause undesirable side effects in clinical trials related to on-target toxicity. If on-target toxicity is observed, or if our product candidates have characteristics that are unexpected, we may need to abandon their development or limit development to more narrow uses or subpopulations in which the undesirable side effects or other characteristics are less prevalent, less severe or more acceptable from a risk-benefit perspective. In addition, our product candidates could cause undesirable side effects that we have not observed yet to date. Many compounds that initially showed promise in early stage testing for treating cancer have later been found to cause side effects that prevented further development of the compound. In addition to our ongoing clinical trial of CLN-081, patients have been, and will likely continue to be, treated with CLN-081 under an expanded access or “compassionate use” program. To the extent the experiences of patients being treated in this program are inconsistent with or less favorable than the results of our ongoing or planned company-sponsored trials with CLN-081, it may negatively affect perceptions of CLN-081, our other product candidates, or our business. In addition, the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities may require us to obtain and submit additional clinical data due to these inconsistent or unfavorable results, which could delay clinical development or marketing approval of CLN-081 or potentially our other product candidates.

Our discovery, preclinical, and clinical development is focused on the development of targeted oncology and immuno-oncology therapeutic candidates for cancer patients, and our approach to the identification, discovery, and development of product candidates is novel and may never lead to marketable products.

The scientific discoveries that form the basis for our efforts to discover and develop targeted oncology and immuno-oncology therapeutic candidates for cancer patients are relatively new. The scientific evidence to support the feasibility of developing product candidates based on these discoveries is both preliminary and limited. The patient populations for certain of our product candidates are limited to those with specific target mutations, and we will need to screen and identify these patients with the targeted mutations. Successful identification of patients is dependent on several factors, including achieving certainty as to how specific genetic alterations and larger classes of mutations, such as epidermal growth factor receptor, or EGFR, Exon 20 mutations, respond to our product candidates, and developing companion diagnostics to identify such genetic alterations. Furthermore, even if we are successful in identifying patients, we cannot be certain that the resulting patient populations for each mutation or class of mutations will be large enough to allow us to successfully obtain indications for each mutation type and to commercialize our products and achieve profitability. The FDA and other regulatory authorities may not agree with our approach to seek labeling for groups of related mutations, rather than individual mutations, and may require us to conduct additional trials and obtain separate approvals for each individual mutation, which may further affect our ability to successfully commercialize our products, if approved. In addition, even if our approach is successful in showing clinical benefit for tumors harboring certain targeted mutations, we may never successfully identify additional oncogenic mutations. Therefore, we do not know if our approach of treating patients with targeted oncology and immuno-oncology therapies will be successful, and if our approach is unsuccessful, our business will suffer.

If we are unable to successfully validate, develop, and obtain regulatory approval for any required companion diagnostic tests for our product candidates or experience significant delays in doing so, we may fail to obtain approval or may not realize the full commercial potential of these product candidates.

In connection with the clinical development of our product candidates for certain indications, we may engage third parties to develop or obtain access to in vitro companion diagnostic tests to identify patient subsets within a disease category who may derive benefit from our product candidates, as we are targeting certain genetically defined populations for our treatments. Such companion diagnostics may be used during our clinical trials and may be required in connection with the FDA approval of our product candidates. To be successful, we or our collaborators will need to address a number of scientific, technical, regulatory, and logistical challenges. Companion diagnostics are subject to regulation by the FDA, European Medicines Agency, or EMA, and other regulatory authorities as medical devices and require separate regulatory approval prior to commercialization.

Given our limited experience in developing and commercializing diagnostics, we may rely on third parties for the design, development, and manufacture of companion diagnostic tests for our therapeutic product candidates that may require such tests. If we enter into such collaborative agreements, we will be dependent on the sustained cooperation and effort of our future collaborators in developing and obtaining approval for these companion diagnostics. We and our future collaborators may encounter difficulties in developing and obtaining approval for the companion diagnostics, including issues relating to selectivity/specificity, analytical validation, reproducibility, or clinical validation of companion diagnostics. We and our future collaborators also may encounter difficulties in developing, obtaining regulatory approval for, manufacturing, and commercializing companion diagnostics similar to those we face with respect to our therapeutic product candidates themselves, including issues with achieving regulatory clearance or approval, production of sufficient quantities at commercial scale and with appropriate quality standards, and in gaining market acceptance. If we are unable to successfully develop companion diagnostics for these therapeutic product candidates, or experience delays in doing so, the development of these therapeutic product candidates may be adversely affected or these therapeutic product candidates may not obtain marketing approval or such approval may be delayed, and we may not realize the full commercial potential of any of these therapeutics that obtain marketing approval. As a result, our business, results of operations, and financial condition could be materially harmed. In addition, a diagnostic company with whom we contract may decide to discontinue developing, selling or manufacturing the companion diagnostic test that we anticipate using in connection with development and commercialization of our product candidates or our relationship with such diagnostic company may otherwise terminate. We may not be able to enter into arrangements with another diagnostic company to obtain supplies of an alternative diagnostic test for use in connection with the development and commercialization of our product candidates or do so on commercially reasonable terms, which could adversely affect and/or delay the development or commercialization of our therapeutic product candidates.

Preclinical and clinical development involves a lengthy and expensive process with an uncertain outcome, and results of earlier studies and trials may not be predictive of future preclinical studies or clinical trial results. We may encounter substantial delays in preclinical and clinical trials, or may not be able to conduct or complete preclinical or clinical trials on the expected timelines, if at all. If our preclinical studies and clinical trials are not sufficient to support regulatory approval of any of our product candidates, we may incur additional costs or experience delays in completing, or ultimately be unable to complete, the development of such product candidate.

It is impossible to predict when or if any of our product candidates will prove effective and safe in humans or will receive regulatory approval. Before obtaining marketing approval from regulatory authorities for the sale of any product candidate, we must complete preclinical studies and then conduct extensive clinical trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of our product candidates in humans. A failure of one or more clinical trials can occur at any stage of testing. The outcome of preclinical development 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. A number of companies in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries have suffered significant setbacks in later stage clinical trials even after achieving promising results in earlier stage clinical trials. Moreover, preclinical and clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses, and many companies that have believed their product candidates performed satisfactorily in preclinical studies and clinical trials have nonetheless failed to obtain marketing approval of their product candidates. Our preclinical studies and future clinical trials may not be successful.

Additionally, some of the clinical trials we conduct may be open-label in study design and may be conducted at a limited number of clinical sites on a limited number of patients. An “open-label” clinical trial is one where both the patient and investigator know whether the patient is receiving the investigational product candidate or either an existing approved drug or placebo. Most typically, open-label clinical trials test only the investigational product candidate and sometimes may do so at different dose levels. Open-label clinical trials are subject to various limitations that may exaggerate any therapeutic effect, as patients in open-label clinical trials are aware when they are receiving treatment. Open-label clinical trials may be subject to a “patient bias” where patients perceive their symptoms to have improved merely due to their awareness of receiving an experimental treatment. Moreover, patients selected for early clinical studies often include the most severe sufferers and their symptoms may have been bound to improve notwithstanding the new treatment. In addition, open-label clinical trials may be subject to an “investigator bias” where those assessing and reviewing the physiological outcomes of the clinical trials are aware of which patients have received treatment and may interpret the information of the treated group more favorably given this knowledge. Given that our Phase 1/2a clinical trial of CLN-081 includes an open-label dosing design, the results from this clinical trial may not be predictive of future clinical trial results with this or other product candidates for which we conduct an open-label clinical trial when studied in a controlled environment with a placebo or active control.

We may experience delays in initiating or completing preclinical studies or clinical trials, including as a result of delays in obtaining, or failure to obtain, the FDA’s clearance to initiate clinical trials under future INDs. Additionally, we cannot be certain that preclinical studies or clinical trials for our product candidates will not require redesign, enroll an adequate number of subjects on time, or be completed on schedule, if at all. We may experience numerous adverse or unforeseen events during, or as a result of, preclinical studies and clinical trials that could delay or terminate our trials, or delay or prevent our ability to receive marketing approval or commercialize our product candidates, including:

If we are required to conduct additional preclinical studies or clinical trials or other testing of our product candidates beyond those that we currently contemplate, if we are unable to successfully complete clinical trials of our product candidates or other testing, if the results of these studies, trials or tests are not positive or are only moderately positive or if there are safety concerns, our business and results of operations may be adversely affected and we may incur significant additional costs.

We could also encounter delays if a clinical trial is suspended or terminated by us, by the IRBs, or ethics committees of the institutions in which such clinical trials are being conducted, by the Data Safety Monitoring Board, if any, for such clinical trial or by the FDA or other regulatory authorities. Such authorities may suspend, place on clinical hold, or terminate a clinical trial due to a number of factors, including failure to conduct the clinical trial in accordance with regulatory requirements or our clinical trial protocols, inspection of the clinical trial operations or trial site by the FDA or other regulatory authorities, unforeseen safety issues or adverse side effects, failure to demonstrate a benefit from the product candidates, changes in governmental regulations or administrative actions or lack of adequate funding to continue the clinical trial.

Moreover, principal investigators for our current and future clinical trials may serve as scientific advisors or consultants to us from time to time and receive compensation in connection with such services. Under certain circumstances, we may be required to report some of these relationships to the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. The FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authority may conclude that a financial relationship between us and a principal investigator has created a conflict of interest or otherwise affected interpretation of the study. The FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authority may therefore question the integrity of the data generated at the applicable clinical trial site and the utility of the clinical trial itself may be jeopardized. This could result in a delay in approval, or rejection, of our marketing applications by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authority, as the case may be, and may ultimately lead to the denial of marketing approval of one or more of our product candidates.

If a sufficient number of our product candidates generally prove to be ineffective, unsafe or commercially unviable, our entire pipeline may have little, if any, value, which would have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We are early in our development efforts and are substantially dependent on our lead targeted oncology product candidate, CLN-081, and our most advanced immuno-oncology product candidates, CLN-049 and CLN-619. If we are unable to advance CLN-081, CLN-049, or CLN-619, or any of our other product candidates through clinical development, or to obtain regulatory approval and ultimately commercialize CLN-081, CLN-049, or CLN-619, or any of our other product candidates, either by ourselves or with or by third parties or if we experience significant delays in doing so, our business will be materially harmed.

We are early in our development efforts. Our lead targeted oncology program, CLN-081 is in a Phase 1/2a clinical trial. Our most advanced immuno-oncology programs, CLN-049 and CLN-619, are currently in preclinical development. Our ability to generate product revenues, which we do not expect will occur for many years, if ever, will depend heavily on the successful clinical development and eventual commercialization of CLN-081, CLN-049, and CLN-619, and one or more of our other product candidates, if approved. The success of our product candidates will depend on several factors, including the following:

• successful completion of preclinical studies;

• successful initiation of clinical trials;

• successful patient enrollment in and completion of clinical trials;

• effectively competing with other cancer therapies;

• obtaining and maintaining third-party coverage and adequate reimbursement; and

If we do not succeed in one or more of these factors in a timely manner or at all, we could experience significant delays in our ability to successfully commercialize product candidates, or be unable to commercialize product candidates at all. If we are unable to advance our preclinical stage product candidates, including CLN-049 and CLN-619, to clinical development, successfully complete clinical trials for our product candidates, obtain regulatory approval, and ultimately commercialize our product candidates, our business will be materially harmed.

There is no guarantee that the results obtained in current preclinical studies, our ongoing and planned clinical trials in EGFR exon 20 insertion mutation non-small-cell lung carcinoma, or NSCLC patients for CLN-081 or, subject to submission to and receipt of authorization from applicable regulatory authorities, our planned dose escalation trials in patients with hematological cancer and solid tumors in CLN-049 and CLN-619, respectively, will be sufficient to obtain regulatory approval or marketing authorization for such product candidates. For example, the FDA may require us to complete trials in addition to our ongoing Phase 1/2a trial prior to granting regulatory approval. Although we believe our product candidates and programs are uncorrelated, negative results in the development process of one product candidate could impact other product candidates or programs. For each of our product candidates, antitumor activity may be different in each of the different tumor types we plan on evaluating in our clinical trials. Even as we build clinical experience with our product candidates, we may need to further discuss or meet with the FDA to agree on the optimal patient population, study design, and size for each trial in order to obtain regulatory approval, any of which may require significant additional resources and delay the timing of our clinical trials and ultimately the approval, if any, of any of our product candidates.

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

Identifying and qualifying patients to participate in clinical trials of our product candidates is critical to our success. The timing of completion of our clinical trials depends in part on the speed at which we can recruit patients to participate in testing our product candidates, and we may experience delays in our clinical trials if we encounter difficulties in enrollment. We may not be able to initiate or continue clinical trials for our product candidates if we are unable to locate and enroll a sufficient number of eligible patients to participate in these trials as required by the FDA or similar regulatory authorities outside the United States, or as needed to provide appropriate statistical power for a given trial. In particular, because we are focused on patients with specific genetic mutations for the development of CLN-081, our ability to enroll eligible patients may be limited or enrollment may be slower than we anticipate due to the small eligible patient population. In addition, the target population we are seeking to treat may be smaller than expected, as we cannot be certain how many patients will harbor the EGFR exon 20 insertion mutations that CLN-081 is designed to target. In addition, our ability to enroll patients may be significantly delayed by the evolving COVID-19 pandemic and we do not know the extent and scope of such delays at this point.

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

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

• the proximity of patients to clinical trial sites;

• the design of the clinical trial;

• our ability to obtain and maintain patient consents;

• reporting of the preliminary results of any of our clinical trials;

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

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

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

From time to time, we may publicly disclose preliminary or topline data from our preclinical studies and clinical trials, which is based on a preliminary analysis of then-available data, and the results and related findings and conclusions are subject to change following a more comprehensive review of the data related to the particular study or trial. We also make assumptions, estimations, calculations, and conclusions as part of our analyses of data, and we may not have received or had the opportunity to fully and carefully evaluate all data. As a result, the topline or preliminary results that we report may differ from future results of the same studies, or different conclusions or considerations may qualify such results, once additional data have been received and fully evaluated. Topline data also remain subject to audit and verification procedures that may result in the final data being materially different from the preliminary data we previously published. As a result, topline data should be viewed with caution until the final data are available. From time to time, we may also disclose interim data from our clinical trials. Interim or preliminary data from clinical trials are subject to the risk that one or more of the clinical outcomes may materially change as patient enrollment and treatment continues and more patient data become available or as patients from our clinical trials continue other treatments for their disease. Adverse differences between preliminary or interim data and final data could significantly harm our business prospects. Further, disclosure of interim data by us or by our competitors could result in volatility in the price of our common stock.

Further, others, including regulatory agencies, may not accept or agree with our assumptions, estimates, calculations, conclusions or analyses or may interpret or weigh the importance of data differently, which could impact the potential of the particular program, the likelihood of marketing approval or commercialization of the particular product candidate, any approved product, and our company in general. In addition, the information we choose to publicly disclose regarding a particular study or clinical trial is derived from information that is typically extensive, and you or others may not agree with what we determine is material or otherwise appropriate information to include in our disclosure.

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

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

We submitted our IND for CLN-081 in May 2019, which was allowed to proceed by the FDA in June 2019; however, we may not be able to file or receive FDA acceptance of future INDs for our product candidates, including CLN-049 and CLN-619, on the timelines we expect. For example,we submitted an IND for a Phase 1/2a clinical trial evaluating CLN-049 in January 2021, but based on FDA feedback, we elected to withdraw the IND to determine the most efficient path forward. Additionally, we may experience manufacturing delays or other delays with IND-enabling studies or FDA or other regulatory authorities may require additional preclinical studies that we did not anticipate. Moreover, we cannot be sure that submission of an IND will result in the FDA allowing clinical trials to begin, or that, once begun, issues will not arise that result in a decision by us, by IRBs or independent ethics committees, or by the FDA or other regulatory authorities to suspend or terminate clinical trials, including as a result of a clinical hold. Additionally, even if FDA or other regulatory authorities agree with the design and implementation of the clinical trials set forth in an IND, we cannot guarantee that they will not change their requirements or expectations in the future. These considerations also apply to new clinical trials we may submit as amendments to existing INDs or to a new IND. Any failure to file INDs on the timelines we expect or to obtain regulatory approvals for our trials may prevent us from completing our clinical trials or commercializing our products on a timely basis, if at all.

We intend to develop CLN-619 and potentially other product candidates in combination with other therapies, which exposes us to additional risks.

We intend to develop CLN-619 and potentially other product candidates in combination with one or more approved or unapproved therapies to treat cancer or other diseases. Even if any product candidate we develop were to receive marketing approval for use in combination with other approved therapies, the FDA, the EMA, or comparable foreign regulatory authorities outside of the United States could still revoke approval of the therapy used in combination with our product. If the therapies used in combination with our product candidates are replaced as the standard of care for the indications, we choose for any of our product candidates, the FDA, EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require us to conduct additional clinical trials. The occurrence of any of these risks could result in our own products, if approved, being removed from the market or being less successful commercially.

Further, we will not be able to market and sell any product candidate we develop in combination with an unapproved cancer therapy for a combination indication if that unapproved therapy does not ultimately obtain marketing approval either alone or in combination with our product. In addition, unapproved cancer therapies face the same risks described with respect to our product candidates currently in development and clinical trials, including the potential for serious adverse effects, delay in their clinical trials and lack of FDA approval.

If the FDA, EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities do not approve these other products or revoke their approval of, or if safety, efficacy, quality, manufacturing or supply issues arise with, the products we choose to evaluate in combination with our product candidate we develop, we may be unable to obtain approval of or market such combination therapy.

Our product candidates may cause undesirable side effects or have other properties that delay or prevent their regulatory approval, limit their commercial potential or result in significant negative consequences following any potential marketing approval.

Our product candidates may cause undesirable side effects. Additionally, the administration process or related procedures also can cause adverse side effects. Adverse events that occur in our trials may cause us, or cause the FDA, the EMA or other regulatory authorities, or IRBs to order us to halt, delay or amend preclinical development or clinical development of our product candidates and could result in more restrictive labelling or the denial of regulatory approval of our product candidates for any or all targeted indications. Even if serious adverse events are unrelated to study treatment, such occurrences could affect patient enrollment or the ability of enrolled patients to complete the trial. In addition, if any of our product candidates are tested or used in combination with other drugs, such as our plans to potentially use CLN-619 in combination with other agents, these combinations may have additional side effects, which could be more severe than those caused by either therapy alone.

Furthermore, clinical trials by their nature utilize a sample of the potential patient population. With a limited number of patients and limited duration of exposure, rare and severe side effects of our product candidates or those of our competitors may only be uncovered when a significantly larger number of patients have been exposed to the drug. For example, while we believe that CLN-081 has demonstrated a manageable tolerability profile thus far, there can be no assurance that it or any of our other product candidates will not cause more severe side effects in a greater proportion of patients.

Moreover, if we elect, or are required, to delay, suspend or terminate any clinical trial of any of our product candidates, the commercial prospects of such product candidates or our other product candidates may be harmed, and our ability to generate product revenues from any of these product candidates may be delayed or eliminated. Any of these occurrences may harm our ability to develop other product candidates and may harm our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects significantly.

If our product candidates receive marketing approval and we or others identify undesirable side effects caused by such product candidates (or any other similar drugs or biologics) after such approval, a number of potentially significant negative consequences could result, including:

• we may decide to remove such product candidates from the marketplace;

• our reputation may suffer.

We believe that any of these events could prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of the affected product candidates and could substantially increase the costs of commercializing our product candidates, if approved, and significantly impact our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates and generate revenues.

Since the number of patients that have been and will be dosed in our Phase 1/2a clinical trial of CLN-081, and that we plan to dose in our future clinical trials, is small, the results from such clinical trials, once completed, may be less reliable than results achieved in larger clinical trials, which may hinder our efforts to obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates.

The preliminary results of clinical trials with smaller sample sizes, such as our Phase 1/2a clinical trial of CLN-081, can be disproportionately influenced by various biases associated with the conduct of small clinical trials, such as the potential failure of the smaller sample size to accurately depict the characteristics of the broader patient population, which limits the ability to generalize the results across a broader community, thus making the clinical trial results less reliable than clinical trials with a larger number of patients. As a result, there may be less certainty that such product candidates would achieve a statistically significant effect in any future clinical trials. Further, the FDA or other regulatory authorities may require us to conduct additional and larger trials than we may plan to support applications for marketing authorization. If we conduct any future clinical trials of CLN-081 or other of our product candidates, we may not achieve a positive or statistically significant result or the same level of statistical significance, if any, that we might have anticipated based on prior results.

We are currently conducting and may in the future conduct clinical trials for product candidates outside the United States, and the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities may not accept data from such trials.

We are evaluating CLN-081 in a global Phase 1/2a trial in patients with NSCLC harboring EGFR exon 20 insertion mutations. We may also in the future choose to conduct one or more additional clinical trials outside the United States, including in Europe. The acceptance of study data from clinical trials conducted outside the United States or another jurisdiction by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authority may be subject to certain conditions or may not be accepted at all. If data from foreign clinical trials are intended to serve as the basis for marketing approval in the United States, the FDA will generally not approve the application on the basis of foreign data alone unless (i) the data are applicable to the U.S. population and U.S. medical practice, and (ii) the trials were performed by clinical investigators of recognized competence and pursuant to good clinical practice, or GCP, regulations. Additionally, the FDA’s clinical trial requirements, including sufficient size of patient populations and statistical powering, must be met. Many foreign regulatory authorities have similar approval requirements. In addition, foreign trials are subject to the applicable local laws of the foreign jurisdictions where the trials are conducted. We would need to conduct additional trials if the FDA or any comparable foreign regulatory authority does not accept data from trials conducted outside of the United States or the applicable foreign jurisdiction, which could be costly and time-consuming, and which may result in product candidates that we may develop not receiving approval for commercialization in the United States or any such foreign jurisdiction.

Risks Related to Potential Commercialization

Even if we obtain regulatory approval of our product candidates, the products may not gain market acceptance among physicians, patients, hospitals, cancer treatment centers, and others in the medical community.

The use of precision medicines or immuno-oncology medicines as a potential cancer treatment is a recent development and may not become broadly accepted by physicians, patients, hospitals, cancer treatment centers, and others in the medical community. Various factors will influence whether our product candidates are accepted in the market, including:

• the clinical indications for which our product candidates are licensed;

• limitations or warnings contained in the labeling approved by the FDA;

• the cost of treatment in relation to alternative treatments;

• the effectiveness of our sales and marketing efforts.

If our product candidates are licensed but fail to achieve market acceptance among physicians, patients, hospitals, cancer treatment centers or others in the medical community, we will not be able to generate significant revenue.

In addition, although our product candidates differ in certain ways from other precision medicine or immuno-oncology medicine approaches, serious adverse events or deaths in other clinical trials involving precision medicines, even if not ultimately attributable to our product or product candidates, could result in increased government regulation, unfavorable public perception and publicity, potential regulatory delays in the testing or licensing of our product candidates, stricter labeling requirements for those product candidates that are licensed, and a decrease in demand for any such product candidates.

Even if our products achieve market acceptance, we may not be able to maintain that market acceptance over time if new products or technologies are introduced that are more favorably received than our products, are more cost effective or render our products obsolete.

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

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by the rapid evolution of technologies and understanding of disease etiology, intense competition, and a strong emphasis on intellectual property. We face, and will continue to face, competition from companies focused on more traditional therapeutic modalities, such as small molecule inhibitors. We believe that our differentiated business model, approach, scientific capabilities, know-how, and experience provide us with competitive advantages. However, we expect substantial competition from multiple sources, including major pharmaceutical, specialty pharmaceutical, and existing or emerging biotechnology companies, academic research institutions, governmental agencies, and public and private research institutions worldwide. Many of our competitors, either alone or through collaborations, have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals, and marketing approved products than we do. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. These companies also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel, establishing clinical trial sites and recruiting patients in clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs. As a result, our competitors may discover, develop, license or commercialize products before or more successfully than we do.

Product candidates that we successfully develop and commercialize will compete with existing therapies and new therapies that may become available in the future. We expect that CLN-081 will compete against small molecule EGFR inhibitors poziotinib from Spectrum Pharmaceuticals and mobocertinib (TAK-788) from Takeda Pharmaceuticals. CLN-081 may also compete against Black Diamond’s BDTX-189, an EGFR inhibitor. CLN-081 may also compete with amivantamab from Johnson & Johnson, an EGFR / cMET bispecific antibody. We expect that CLN-049 will compete against bispecifics for the treatment of AML, including those targeting CD3 and CD33 (Amgen, Amphivena), CD123 (Macrogenics, Xencor), FLT3 (Amgen), and CCL1/CLEC12A (Merus, Genentech). We expect that CLN-619 will compete against cancer therapies targeting MICA/B as a monotherapy and/or in combination with other agents, including: Innate Pharma, Inc. (in collaboration with AstraZeneca Inc.), CanCure LLC, Genentech Inc., and Bristol-Myers Squibb.

If our product candidates, including CLN-081, CLN-049, and CLN-619, are approved for their currently proposed target indication, they will likely compete with the competitor products mentioned above and with other products that are currently in development. The key competitive factors affecting the success of all of our therapeutic candidates, if approved, are likely to be their efficacy, safety, convenience, price, the level of generic competition, and the availability of reimbursement from government and other third-party payors. Our competitors may obtain patent protection or other intellectual property rights that limit our ability to develop or commercialize our product candidates. The availability of reimbursement from government and other third-party payors will also significantly affect the pricing and competitiveness of our products. Our competitors may also obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market. If our competitors develop and commercialize drugs that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, are more convenient to administer, are less expensive or with a more favorable label than our therapeutic candidates, we could see a reduction or elimination in our commercial opportunity. For additional information regarding our competition, see the section of this Annual Report titled “Business—Competition.”

The insurance coverage and reimbursement status of newly-approved products is uncertain. Our product candidates may become subject to unfavorable pricing regulations, third-party coverage and reimbursement practices, or healthcare reform initiatives, which would harm our business. Failure to obtain or maintain adequate coverage and reimbursement for new or current products could limit our ability to market those products and decrease our ability to generate revenue.

The regulations that govern marketing approvals, pricing, coverage, and reimbursement for new drugs vary widely from country to country. In the United States, recently enacted legislation may significantly change the approval requirements in ways that could involve additional costs and cause delays in obtaining approvals. Some countries require approval of the sale price of a drug before it can be marketed. In many countries, the pricing review period begins after marketing or product licensing approval is granted. In some foreign markets, prescription pharmaceutical pricing remains subject to continuing governmental control even after initial approval is granted. As a result, we might obtain marketing approval for a product in a particular country, but then be subject to price regulations that delay our commercial launch of the product, possibly for lengthy time periods, and negatively impact the revenue we are able to generate from the sale of the product in that country. Adverse pricing limitations may hinder our ability to recoup our investment in one or more product candidates, even if any product candidates we may develop obtain marketing approval.

In the United States and markets in other countries, patients generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the costs associated with their treatment. Adequate coverage and reimbursement from governmental healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and commercial payors is critical to new product acceptance. Our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates will depend in part on the extent to which coverage and adequate reimbursement for these products and related treatments will be available from government health administration authorities, private health insurers and other organizations. Government authorities and other third-party payors, such as private health insurers and health maintenance organizations, decide which medications they will pay for and establish reimbursement levels. The availability of coverage and extent of reimbursement by governmental and private payors is essential for most patients to be able to afford treatments such as gene therapy products. Sales of these or other product candidates that we may identify will depend substantially, both domestically and abroad, on the extent to which the costs of our product candidates will be paid by health maintenance, managed care, pharmacy benefit and similar healthcare management organizations, or reimbursed by government health administration authorities, private health coverage insurers and other third-party payors. If coverage and adequate reimbursement is not available, or is available only to limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize our product candidates. Even if coverage is provided, the approved reimbursement amount may not be high enough to allow us to establish or maintain pricing sufficient to realize a sufficient return on our investment.

Reimbursement by a third-party payor may depend upon a number of factors, including, but not limited to, the third-party payor’s determination that use of a product is:

• a covered benefit under its health plan;

• safe, effective and medically necessary;

• appropriate for the specific patient;

• cost-effective; and

• neither experimental nor investigational.

A primary trend in the U.S. healthcare industry and elsewhere is cost containment. Governmental authorities and other third-party payors have attempted to control costs by limiting coverage and the amount of reimbursement for particular medications. In many countries, the prices of medical products are subject to varying price control mechanisms as part of national health systems. In general, the prices of medicines under such systems are substantially lower than in the United States. Other countries allow companies to fix their own prices for medicines, but monitor and control company profits. Additional foreign price controls or other changes in pricing regulation could restrict the amount that we are able to charge for our product candidates. Accordingly, in markets outside the United States, the reimbursement for products may be reduced compared with the United States and may be insufficient to generate commercially reasonable revenues and profits.

There is also significant uncertainty related to the insurance coverage and reimbursement of newly approved products and coverage may be more limited than the purposes for which the medicine is approved by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. In the United States, the principal decisions about reimbursement for new medicines are typically made by CMS, an agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services or HHS. CMS decides whether and to what extent a new medicine will be covered and reimbursed under Medicare and private payors tend to follow CMS to a substantial degree. No uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for products exists among third-party payors and coverage and reimbursement levels for products can differ significantly from payor to payor. As a result, the coverage determination process is often a time consuming and costly process that may require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of our products to each payor separately, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be applied consistently or obtained in the first instance. It is difficult to predict what CMS will decide with respect to reimbursement for fundamentally novel products such as ours. Reimbursement agencies in Europe may be more conservative than CMS. For example, a number of cancer drugs have been approved for reimbursement in the United States and have not been approved for reimbursement in certain European countries. Moreover, eligibility for reimbursement does not imply that any drug will be paid for in all cases or at a rate that covers our costs, including research, development, manufacture, sale, and distribution. Interim reimbursement levels for new drugs, if applicable, may also not be sufficient to cover our costs and may 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. Our inability to promptly obtain coverage and profitable payment rates from both government-funded and private payors for any approved products we may develop could have a material adverse effect on our operating results, our ability to raise capital needed to commercialize product candidates, and our overall financial condition.

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. Our inability to promptly obtain coverage and profitable reimbursement rates third-party payors for any approved products that we develop could have a material adverse effect on our operating results, our ability to raise capital needed to commercialize products and our overall financial condition.

Increasingly, third-party payors are requiring that drug companies provide them with predetermined discounts from list prices and are challenging the prices charged for medical products. We cannot be sure that reimbursement will be available for any product candidate that we commercialize and, if reimbursement is available, the level of reimbursement. Reimbursement may impact the demand for, or the price of, any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval. In order to obtain reimbursement, physicians may need to show that patients have superior treatment outcomes with our products compared to standard of care drugs, including lower-priced generic versions of standard of care drugs. We expect to experience pricing pressures in connection with the sale of any of our product candidates due to the trend toward managed healthcare, the increasing influence of health maintenance organizations and additional legislative changes. The downward pressure on healthcare costs in general, particularly prescription drugs and surgical procedures and other treatments, has become very intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products.

Additionally, we may develop companion diagnostic tests for use with our product candidates. We, or our collaborators, may be required to obtain coverage and reimbursement for these tests separate and apart from the coverage and reimbursement we seek for our product candidates, once approved. Even if we obtain regulatory approval or clearance for such companion diagnostics, there is significant uncertainty regarding our ability to obtain coverage and adequate reimbursement for the same reasons applicable to our product candidates. Medicare reimbursement methodologies, whether under Part A, Part B, or clinical laboratory fee schedule may be amended from time to time, and we cannot predict what effect any change to these methodologies would have on any product candidate or companion diagnostic for which we receive approval. Our inability to promptly obtain coverage and adequate reimbursement from both third-party payors for the companion diagnostic tests that we develop and for which we obtain regulatory approval could have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Healthcare legislative measures aimed at reducing healthcare costs may have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

The United States and many foreign jurisdictions have enacted or proposed legislative and regulatory changes affecting the healthcare system that could prevent or delay marketing approval of our product candidates or any future product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities and affect our ability to profitably sell a product for which we obtain marketing approval. Changes in regulations, statutes or the interpretation of existing regulations could impact our business in the future by requiring, for example: (i) changes to our manufacturing arrangements; (ii) additions or modifications to product labeling; (iii) the recall or discontinuation of our products; or (iv) additional record-keeping requirements. If any such changes were to be imposed, they could adversely affect the operation of our business.

In the United States, there have been and continue to be a number of legislative initiatives to contain healthcare costs. For example, in March 2010, the ACA was passed, which substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers, and significantly impacted the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. The ACA, among other things, subjects biological products to potential competition by lower-cost biosimilars, addresses a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for drugs that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted or injected, increases the minimum Medicaid rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program and extends the rebate program to individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations, establishes annual fees and taxes on manufacturers of certain branded prescription drugs, and creates a new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program, in which manufacturers must agree to offer 50% (increased to 70% pursuant to the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, effective as of 2019) point-of-sale discounts off negotiated prices of applicable brand drugs to eligible beneficiaries during their coverage gap period, as a condition for the manufacturer’s outpatient drugs to be covered under Medicare Part D.

Since its enactment, there have been numerous judicial, administrative, executive, and legislative challenges to certain aspects of the ACA, and we expect there will be additional challenges and amendments to the ACA in the future. Various portions of the ACA are currently undergoing legal and constitutional challenges in the United States Supreme Court and members of Congress have introduced several pieces of legislation aimed at significantly revising or repealing the ACA. The United States Supreme Court is expected to rule on a legal challenge to the constitutionality of the ACA in early 2021. The implementation of the ACA is ongoing, the law appears likely to continue the downward pressure on pharmaceutical pricing, especially under the Medicare program, and may also increase our regulatory burdens and operating costs. Litigation and legislation related to the ACA are likely to continue, with unpredictable and uncertain results.

U.S. federal government agencies currently face potentially significant spending reductions. The Budget Control Act of 2011, or the BCA, established a Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, which was tasked with achieving a reduction in the federal debt level of at least $1.2 trillion. That committee did not draft a proposal by the BCA’s deadline. As a result, automatic cuts, referred to as sequestration, in various federal programs were scheduled to take place, beginning in January 2013, although the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 delayed the BCA’s automatic cuts until March 1, 2013. While the Medicare program’s eligibility and scope of benefits are generally exempt from these cuts, Medicare payments to providers and Part D health plans are not exempt. The BCA did, however, provide that the Medicare cuts to providers and Part D health plans would not exceed two percent unless additional Congressional action is taken. President Obama issued the sequestration order on March 1, 2013, and cuts went into effect on April 1, 2013. Pursuant to the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, also known as the CARES Act, these reductions were suspended from May 1, 2020 through March 31, 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. As the legislation currently stands, the reductions will go back into effect April 2021 and will remain in effect through 2030 unless additional Congressional action is taken. Proposed legislation, if passed, would extend this suspension until the end of the pandemic.

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 state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, reduce the cost of prescription drugs under Medicare, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs. On March 10, 2020, the Trump administration sent “principles” for drug pricing to Congress, calling for legislation that would, among other things, cap Medicare Part D beneficiary out-of-pocket pharmacy expenses, provide an option to cap Medicare Part D beneficiary monthly out-of-pocket expenses, and place limits on pharmaceutical price increases. Additionally, the Trump administration released a “Blueprint” to lower drug prices and reduce out of pocket costs of drugs that contains additional proposals to increase manufacturer competition, increase the negotiating power of certain federal healthcare programs, incentivize manufacturers to lower the list price of their products and reduce the out of pocket costs of drug products paid by consumers.

In 2020, former President Trump signed four Executive Orders aimed at lowering drug prices. In response, the FDA released a final rule on September 24, 2020, which went into effect on November 30, 2020, providing guidance for states to build and submit importation plans for drugs from Canada. Further, on November 20, 2020 CMS issued an Interim Final Rule implementing the Most Favored Nation, or MFN, Model under which Medicare Part B reimbursement rates will be calculated for certain drugs and biologicals based on the lowest price drug manufacturers receive in Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries with a similar gross domestic product per capita. The MFN Model regulations mandate participation by identified Part B providers and would have applied to all U.S. states and territories for a seven-year period beginning January 1, 2021, and ending December 31, 2027. However, in response to a lawsuit filed by several industry groups, on December 28, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a nationwide preliminary injunction enjoining government defendants from implementing the MFN Rule pending completion of notice-and-comment procedures under the Administrative Procedure Act. On January 13, 2021, in a separate lawsuit brought by industry groups in the U.S. District of Maryland, the government defendants entered a joint motion to stay litigation on the condition that the government would not appeal the preliminary injunction granted in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and that performance for any final regulation stemming from the MFN Interim Final Rule shall not commence earlier than 60 days after publication of that regulation in the Federal Register. Further, authorities in Canada have passed rules designed to safeguard the Canadian drug supply from shortages. If implemented, importation of drugs from Canada and the MFN Model may materially and adversely affect the price we receive for any of our product candidates. Additionally, on December 2, 2020, HHS published a regulation removing safe harbor protection for price reductions from pharmaceutical manufacturers to plan sponsors under Part D, either directly or through pharmacy benefit managers, unless the price reduction is required by law. The rule also creates a new safe harbor for price reductions reflected at the point-of-sale, as well as a safe harbor for certain fixed fee arrangements between pharmacy benefit managers and manufacturers. Pursuant to an order entered by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the portion of the rule eliminating safe harbor protection for certain rebates related to the sale or purchase of a pharmaceutical product from a manufacturer to a plan sponsor under Medicare Part D has been delayed to January 1, 2023. Further, implementation of this change and new safe harbors for point-of-sale reductions in price for prescription pharmaceutical products and pharmacy benefit manager service fees are currently under review by the Biden administration and may be amended or repealed.

HHS has already implemented certain measures. For example, in May 2019, CMS issued a final rule to allow Medicare Advantage Plans the option of using step therapy, a type of prior authorization, for Part B drugs beginning January 1, 2020. This final rule codified CMS’s policy change that was effective January 1, 2019.

Further, on May 30, 2018, the Right to Try Act was signed into law. The law, among other things, provides a federal framework for certain patients to access certain investigational new drug products that have completed a Phase 1 clinical trial and that are undergoing investigation for FDA approval. Under certain circumstances, eligible patients can seek treatment without enrolling in clinical trials and without obtaining FDA permission under the FDA expanded access program. There is no obligation for a pharmaceutical manufacturer to make its drug products available to eligible patients as a result of the Right to Try Act.

At the state level, individual states are increasingly aggressive in 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. In addition, regional health care authorities and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and which suppliers will be included in their prescription drug and other health care programs. These measures could reduce the ultimate demand for our products, once approved, or put pressure on our product pricing.

We expect that additional state and federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand for our product candidates or additional pricing pressures.

Our revenue prospects could be affected by changes in healthcare spending and policy in the United States and abroad. We operate in a highly regulated industry and new laws, regulations or judicial decisions, or new interpretations of existing laws, regulations or decisions, related to healthcare availability, the method of delivery or payment for healthcare products and services could negatively impact our business, operations and financial condition.

There have been, and likely will continue to be, legislative and regulatory proposals at the foreign, federal and state levels directed at broadening the availability of healthcare and containing or lowering the cost of healthcare. We cannot predict the initiatives that may be adopted in the future, including repeal, replacement or significant revisions to the ACA. The continuing efforts of the government, insurance companies, managed care organizations and other payors of healthcare services to contain or reduce costs of healthcare and/or impose price controls may adversely affect:

• the demand for our product candidates, if we obtain regulatory approval;

• our ability to set a price that we believe is fair for our products;

• our ability to obtain coverage and reimbursement approval for a product;

• our ability to generate revenue and achieve or maintain profitability;

• the level of taxes that we are required to pay; and

• the availability of capital.

Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors, which may adversely affect our future profitability.

If product liability lawsuits are brought against us, we may incur substantial liabilities and may be required to limit commercialization of our product candidates.

We face an inherent risk of product liability as a result of the clinical testing of our product candidates and will face an even greater risk if we commercialize any products. For example, we may be sued if our product candidates cause or are perceived to cause injury or are found to be otherwise unsuitable during clinical testing, manufacturing, marketing or sale. Any such product liability claims may include allegations of defects in manufacturing, defects in design, a failure to warn of dangers inherent in the product, negligence, strict liability or a breach of warranties. Claims could also be asserted under state consumer protection acts. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against product liability claims, we may incur substantial liabilities or be required to limit commercialization of our product candidates. Even successful defense would require significant financial and management resources. Regardless of the merits or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in:

• decreased demand for our product candidates or products that we may develop;

• injury to our reputation;

• withdrawal of clinical trial participants;

• initiation of investigations by regulators;

• costs to defend the related litigation;

• a diversion of management’s time and our resources;

• substantial monetary awards to trial participants or patients;

• loss of revenue;

• exhaustion of any available insurance and our capital resources;

• the inability to commercialize any product candidate; and

• a decline in our share price.

Failure to obtain or retain sufficient product liability insurance at an acceptable cost to protect against potential product liability claims could prevent or inhibit the commercialization of products we develop, alone or with corporate collaborators. Although we have clinical trial insurance, our insurance policies also have various exclusions, and we may be subject to a product liability claim for which we have no coverage. We may have to pay any amounts awarded by a court or negotiated in a settlement that exceed our coverage limitations or that are not covered by our insurance, and we may not have, or be able to obtain, sufficient capital to pay such amounts. Even if our agreements with any future corporate collaborators entitle us to indemnification against losses, such indemnification may not be available or adequate should any claim arise.

If we fail to comply with environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, we could become subject to fines or penalties or incur costs that could have a material adverse effect on the success of our business.

We are subject to numerous environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, including those governing laboratory procedures and the handling, use, storage, treatment and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes. Our operations involve the use of hazardous and flammable materials, including chemicals and biological and radioactive materials. Our operations also produce hazardous waste products. We generally contract with third parties for the disposal of these materials and wastes. We cannot eliminate the risk of contamination or injury from these materials. In the event of contamination or injury resulting from our use of hazardous materials, we could be held liable for any resulting damages, and any liability could exceed our resources. We also could incur significant costs associated with civil or criminal fines and penalties.

Although we maintain workers’ compensation insurance to cover us for costs and expenses, we may incur due to injuries to our employees resulting from the use of hazardous materials, this insurance may not provide adequate coverage against potential liabilities. We do not maintain insurance for environmental liability or toxic tort claims that may be asserted against us in connection with our storage or disposal of biological, hazardous or radioactive materials.

The market opportunities for our product candidates may be relatively small since the patients who may potentially be treated with our product candidates are those who are ineligible for or have failed prior treatments, and our estimates of the prevalence of our target patient populations may be inaccurate.

Cancer therapies are sometimes characterized by line of therapy (first line, second line, third line, fourth line, etc.), and the FDA often approves new therapies initially only for a particular line or lines of use. When cancer is detected early enough, first line therapy is sometimes adequate to cure the cancer or prolong life without a cure. Whenever first line therapy, usually chemotherapy, antibody drugs, tumor-targeted small molecules, hormone therapy, radiation therapy, surgery, or a combination of these, proves unsuccessful, second line therapy may be administered. Second line therapies often consist of more chemotherapy, radiation, antibody drugs, tumor-targeted small molecules, or a combination of these. Third line therapies can include chemotherapy, antibody drugs and small molecule tumor-targeted therapies, more invasive forms of surgery, and new technologies. There is no guarantee that our product candidates, even if approved as a second or third or subsequent line of therapy, would be approved for an earlier line of therapy, and, prior to any such approvals, we may have to conduct additional clinical trials.

Our projections of both the number of people who have the cancers we are targeting, who may have their tumors genetically sequenced, as well as the subset of people with these cancers in a position to receive a particular line of therapy and who have the potential to benefit from treatment with our product candidates, are based on our beliefs and estimates. These estimates have been derived from a variety of sources, including scientific literature, surveys of clinics, patient foundations or market research, and may prove to be incorrect. Further, new therapies may change the estimated incidence or prevalence of the cancers that we are targeting. Consequently, even if our product candidates are approved for a second or third line of therapy, the number of patients that may be eligible for treatment with our product candidates may turn out to be much lower than expected. In addition, we have not yet conducted market research to determine how treating physicians would expect to prescribe a product that is approved for multiple tumor types if there are different lines of approved therapies for each such tumor type.

We currently have no marketing and sales organization and have no experience in marketing products. If we are unable to establish marketing and sales capabilities or enter into agreements with third parties to market and sell our product candidates, if approved, we may not be able to generate product revenue.

We currently have no sales, marketing or distribution capabilities and have no experience in marketing products. If we commercialize ourselves any of our product candidates that may be approved, we will need to develop an in-house marketing organization and sales force, which will require significant capital expenditures, management resources and time. We will have to compete with other pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies to recruit, hire, train and retain marketing and sales personnel.

If we are unable or decide not to establish internal sales, marketing and distribution capabilities, we will pursue arrangements with third-party sales, marketing, and distribution collaborators regarding the sales and marketing of our products, if approved. However, there can be no assurance that we will be able to establish or maintain such arrangements on favorable terms or at all, or if we are able to do so, that these third-party arrangements will provide effective sales forces or marketing and distribution capabilities. Any revenue we receive will depend upon the efforts of such third parties, which may not be successful. We may have little or no control over the marketing and sales efforts of such third parties and our revenue from product sales may be lower than if we had commercialized our product candidates ourselves. We also face competition in our search for third parties to assist us with the sales and marketing efforts of our product candidates.

There can be no assurance that we will be able to develop in-house sales and distribution capabilities or establish or maintain relationships with third-party collaborators to commercialize any product in the United States or overseas.

A variety of risks associated with marketing our product candidates internationally could materially adversely affect our business.

We plan to seek regulatory approval of our product candidates outside of the United States and, accordingly, we expect that we will be subject to additional risks related to operating in foreign countries if we obtain the necessary approvals, including:

• foreign taxes, including withholding of payroll taxes;

• difficulties staffing and managing foreign operations;

These and other risks associated with international operations may materially adversely affect our ability to attain or maintain profitable operations.

Risks Related to Government Regulation

If we are not able to obtain, or are delayed in obtaining, required regulatory approvals for our product candidates, we will not be able to commercialize, or will be delayed in commercializing, our product candidates, and our ability to generate revenue will be materially impaired.

Our product candidates and the activities associated with their development and commercialization, including their design, testing, manufacture, safety, efficacy, recordkeeping, labeling, storage, approval, advertising, promotion, sale, distribution, import and export are subject to comprehensive regulation by the FDA and other regulatory agencies in the United States and by comparable authorities in other countries. Before we can commercialize any of our product candidates, we must obtain marketing approval. Whether the results from our current ongoing clinical trials and other trials will suffice to obtain approval will be a review issue and the FDA may not grant approval and may require that we conduct one or more controlled clinical trials to obtain approval. Additionally, even if FDA does grant approval for one or more of our product candidates, it may be for a more narrow indication than we seek. For example, we intend to develop our product candidates and seek approval for a tumor-agnostic indication based on a biomarker. FDA has approved only a small number of oncology products with tumor-agnostic indications, and there is a risk that FDA may disagree with or strategy or data and approve only a more narrow indication. Regulatory authorities, including the FDA, also may impose significant limitations in the form of narrow indications, warnings or a REMS. These regulatory authorities may require labeling that includes precautions or contra-indications with respect to conditions of use, or they may grant approval subject to the performance of costly post-marketing clinical trials. In addition, regulatory authorities may not approve the labeling claims that are necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of any product candidates we may develop.

To date, we have had interactions with regulatory authorities outside of the United States in France, the Netherlands, China, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Taiwan. We intend to engage with EMA regarding regulatory requirements for registration in the European Union, or EU for our CLN-081, CLN-049, and CLN-619 programs. There is limited experience of regulatory authorities outside of the United States with the approval of tumor-agnostic precision cancer medicines.

Securing regulatory approval also requires the submission of information about the product manufacturing process to, and inspection of manufacturing facilities by, the relevant regulatory authority. Further, our product candidates may not be effective, may be only moderately effective or may prove to have undesirable or unintended side effects, toxicities or other characteristics that may preclude our obtaining marketing approval or prevent or limit commercial use.

The process of obtaining regulatory approvals, both in the United States and abroad, is expensive, may take many years if additional clinical trials are required, if approval is obtained at all, and can vary substantially based upon a variety of factors, including the type, complexity, and novelty of the product candidates involved. Changes in marketing approval policies during the development period, changes in or the enactment of additional statutes or regulations, or changes in regulatory review for each submitted IND, Biologics License Application, or BLA, New Drug Application, or NDA, or equivalent application types, may cause delays in the approval or rejection of an application. The FDA and comparable authorities in other countries have substantial discretion in the approval process and may refuse to accept any application or may decide that our data are insufficient for approval and require additional preclinical, clinical or other studies. Our product candidates could be delayed in receiving, or fail to receive, regulatory approval for many reasons, including the following:

Of the large number of therapeutic candidates in development, only a small percentage successfully complete the FDA or foreign regulatory approval processes and are commercialized. The lengthy approval process as well as the unpredictability of future clinical trial results may result in our failing to obtain regulatory approval to market our product candidates, which would significantly harm our business, results of operations, and prospects.

We may in the future seek orphan drug status for CLN-081, CLN-049, and some of our other future product candidates, but we may be unable to obtain such designations or to maintain the benefits associated with orphan drug status, including market exclusivity, which may cause our revenue, if any, to be reduced.

Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan designation to a drug or biologic intended to treat a rare disease or condition, defined as a disease or condition with a patient population of fewer than 200,000 in the United States, or a patient population greater than 200,000 in the United States when there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making available the drug or biologic in the United States will be recovered from sales in the United States for that drug or biologic. Orphan drug designation must be requested before submitting a BLA or NDA. In the United States, orphan drug designation entitles a party to financial incentives such as opportunities for grant funding towards clinical trial costs, tax advantages, and user-fee waivers. After the FDA grants orphan drug designation, the generic identity of the drug or biologic and its potential orphan use are disclosed publicly by the FDA. Orphan drug designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process.

If a product that has orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for a particular drug for the disease for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan product exclusivity, which means that the FDA may not approve any other applications, including a BLA or NDA, to market the same drug for the same indication for seven years, except in limited circumstances such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan drug exclusivity or if the FDA finds that the holder of the orphan drug exclusivity has not shown that it can assure the availability of sufficient quantities of the orphan drug to meet the needs of patients with the disease or condition for which the drug was designated. As a result, even if one of our product candidates receives orphan exclusivity, that exclusivity may not effectively protect the product candidate from competition because different product candidates can be approved for the same condition. In addition, even after an orphan drug is approved, the FDA can subsequently approve a later product candidate that is the same drug as the drug with orphan exclusivity for the same condition if the FDA concludes that the later product candidate is clinically superior in that it is shown to be safer, more effective or makes a major contribution to patient care compared with the product that has orphan exclusivity. Orphan drug exclusivity may also be lost if the FDA determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient quantity of the product to meet the needs of the patients with the rare disease or condition.

We may seek orphan drug designation for CLN-081, CLN-049, and some or all of our other future product candidates in additional orphan indications in which there is a medically plausible basis for the use of these products. Even when we obtain orphan drug designation, exclusive marketing rights in the United States may be limited if we seek approval for an indication broader than the orphan designated indication and may be lost if the FDA later determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient quantities of the product to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition. In addition, although we intend to seek orphan drug designation for other product candidates, we may never receive such designations. For example, the FDA has expressed concerns regarding the regulatory considerations for orphan drug designation as applied to tumor-agnostic therapies, and the FDA may interpret the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, as amended, or the FDCA, and regulations promulgated thereunder in a way that limits or blocks our ability to obtain orphan drug designation or orphan drug exclusivity, if our product candidates are approved, for our targeted indications.

On August 3, 2017, the United States Congress passed the FDA Reauthorization Act of 2017, or FDARA. FDARA, among other things, codified the FDA’s pre-existing regulatory interpretation, to require that a drug sponsor demonstrate the clinical superiority of an orphan drug that is otherwise the same as a previously approved drug for the same rare disease in order to receive orphan drug exclusivity. The legislation was made in response to a court ruling holding that the Orphan Drug Act unambiguously requires that the FDA recognize the orphan exclusivity period of a company obtains approval of a drug designated as an orphan drug, regardless of a showing of clinical superiority. Moreover, in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021, Congress did not further change this interpretation when it clarified that the interpretation codified in FDARA would apply in cases where FDA issued an orphan designation before the enactment of FDARA but where product approval came after the enactment of FDARA.The FDA and legislators may further reevaluate the Orphan Drug Act and its regulations and policies. We do not know if, when, or how the FDA may change the orphan drug regulations and policies in the future, and it is uncertain how any changes might affect our business. Depending on what changes the FDA may make to its orphan drug regulations and policies, our business could be adversely impacted.

A Fast Track designation by the FDA, even if granted for CLN-081, CLN-049, and CLN-619, or any other future product candidates, may not lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process, and does not increase the likelihood that our product candidates will receive marketing approval.

If a drug or biologic is intended for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening condition and the product demonstrates the potential to address unmet medical needs for this condition, the product sponsor may apply for FDA Fast Track designation for a particular indication. We may seek Fast Track designation for CLN-081, CLN-049, and CLN-619, and certain of our future product candidates, but there is no assurance that the FDA will grant this status to any of our proposed product candidates. Marketing applications filed by sponsors of products in Fast Track development may qualify for priority review under the policies and procedures offered by the FDA, but the Fast Track designation does not assure any such qualification or ultimate marketing approval by the FDA. The FDA has broad discretion whether or not to grant Fast Track designation, so even if we believe a particular product candidate is eligible for this designation, there can be no assurance that the FDA would decide to grant it. Even if we do receive Fast Track designation, we may not experience a faster development process, review or approval compared to conventional FDA procedures, and receiving a Fast Track designation does not provide assurance of ultimate FDA approval. In addition, the FDA may withdraw Fast Track designation if it believes that the designation is no longer supported by data from our clinical development program. In addition, the FDA may withdraw any Fast Track designation at any time.

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

We may seek Breakthrough Therapy designation for CLN-081, CLN-049, and CLN-619, and some or all of our future product candidates. A Breakthrough Therapy is defined as a drug or biologic that is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs or biologics, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug or biologic may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints. Sponsors of product candidates that have been designated as Breakthrough Therapies are eligible to receive more intensive FDA guidance on developing an efficient drug development program, an organizational commitment involving senior managers, and eligibility for rolling review and priority review. Drugs and biologics designated as Breakthrough Therapies by the FDA may also be eligible for other expedited approval programs, including accelerated approval.

Designation as a Breakthrough Therapy is within the discretion of the FDA. Accordingly, even if we believe one of our product candidates meets the criteria for designation as a Breakthrough Therapy, the FDA may disagree and instead determine not to make such designation. In any event, the receipt of a Breakthrough Therapy designation for a product candidate may not result in a faster development process, review or approval compared to candidate products developed and considered for approval that have not received Breakthrough Designation and does not assure ultimate approval by the FDA. In addition, even if one or more of our product candidates qualify as Breakthrough Therapies, the FDA may later decide that the product no longer meets the conditions for qualification. Thus, even though we may seek Breakthrough Therapy designation for CLN-081, CLN-049, and CLN-619, and some or all of our future product candidates for the treatment of various cancers, there can be no assurance that we will receive breakthrough therapy designation.

Accelerated approval by the FDA, even if granted for CLN-081 or any other future product candidates, may not lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process and it does not increase the likelihood that our product candidates will receive marketing approval.

We may seek approval of CLN-081, and certain of our other current and future product candidates using the FDA’s accelerated approval pathway. A product may be eligible for accelerated approval if it treats a serious or life-threatening condition, generally provides a meaningful advantage over available therapies, and demonstrates an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. As a condition of approval, the FDA requires that a sponsor of a product receiving accelerated approval perform a post-marketing confirmatory clinical trial or trials. These confirmatory trials must be completed with due diligence. In addition, the FDA currently requires as a condition for accelerated approval pre-approval of promotional materials, which could adversely impact the timing of the commercial launch of the product. Even if we do receive accelerated approval, we may not experience a faster development or regulatory review or approval process, and receiving accelerated approval does not provide assurance of ultimate full FDA approval. Accelerated approval may also be withdrawn if, among other things, a confirmatory trial required to verify the predicted clinical benefit of the product fails to verify such benefit or if such trial is not conducted with due diligence.

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

Most of our pipeline products, with the exception of CLN-081, will be regulated by the FDA as biologics, which must be licensed by FDA prior to marketing under a BLA. The ACA includes a subtitle called the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, or BPCIA, which created an abbreviated approval pathway for biologic products that are biosimilar to or interchangeable with an FDA-licensed reference biologic product. Under the BPCIA, a reference biological product is granted 12 years of data exclusivity from the time of first licensure of the product, and the FDA will not accept an application for a biosimilar or interchangeable product based on the reference biological product until four years after the date of first licensure of the reference product In addition, the approval of a biosimilar product may not be made effective by the FDA until 12 years from the date on which the reference product was first licensed. During this 12-year period of exclusivity, another company may still market a competing version of the reference product if the FDA approves a BLA for the competing product containing the sponsor’s own preclinical data and data from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to demonstrate the safety, purity, and potency of the other company’s product. The law is complex and is still being interpreted and implemented by the FDA. As a result, its ultimate impact, implementation, and meaning are subject to uncertainty.

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

The BPCIA was enacted in March 2010 as an unrelated part of the ACA. Since its enactment, there have been judicial and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA, and as a result certain sections of the ACA have not been fully implemented or effectively repealed. In particular, in December of 2018, a Texas U.S. District Court Judge ruled that the ACA is unconstitutional in its entirety because the tax-based shared responsibility payment imposed by the ACA on certain individuals who fail to maintain qualifying health coverage for all or part of a year, commonly referred to as the “individual mandate”, was repealed by Congress as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, effective January 1, 2019. In December 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the individual mandate was unconstitutional but remanded part of the case back to the District Court to determine whether other reforms enacted as part of the ACA but not specifically related to the individual mandate or health insurance, including the provisions comprising the BPCIA, could be severed from the rest of the ACA so as not to be declared invalid as well. In March 2020, the United States Supreme Court granted the petitions for writs of certiorari to review this case and has allocated one hour and twenty minutes for oral arguments, which are scheduled to occur on November 10, 2020, with a decision likely to follow in 2021. Pending resolution of the litigation, the ACA is still operational. It is unclear how such litigation and other efforts to repeal and replace the ACA will impact the ACA and our business. Complying with any new legislation or reversing changes implemented under the ACA could be time-intensive and expensive, resulting in a material adverse effect on our business.

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

If the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities approve generic versions of any of our small molecule investigational products that receive marketing approval, or such authorities do not grant our products appropriate periods of exclusivity before approving generic versions of those products, the sales of our products, if approved, could be adversely affected.

Once an NDA is approved, the product covered thereby becomes a “reference listed drug” in the FDA’s publication, “Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations,” commonly known as the Orange Book. Manufacturers may seek approval of generic versions of reference listed drugs through submission of abbreviated new drug applications, or ANDAs, in the United States. In support of an ANDA, a generic manufacturer need not conduct clinical trials to assess safety and efficacy. Rather, the applicant generally must show that its product has the same active ingredient(s), dosage form, strength, route of administration and conditions of use or labelling as the reference listed drug and that the generic version is bioequivalent to the reference listed drug, meaning it is absorbed in the body at the same rate and to the same extent. Generic products may be significantly less costly to bring to market than the reference listed drug and companies that produce generic products are generally able to offer them at lower prices. Thus, following the introduction of a generic drug, a significant percentage of the sales of any branded product or reference listed drug is typically lost to the generic product.

The FDA may not approve an ANDA for a generic product until any applicable period of non-patent exclusivity for the reference listed drug has expired. The FDCA provides a period of five years of non-patent exclusivity for a new drug containing a new chemical entity. Specifically, in cases where such exclusivity has been granted, an ANDA may not be submitted to the FDA until the expiration of five years unless the submission is accompanied by a Paragraph IV certification that a patent covering the reference listed drug is either invalid or will not be infringed by the generic product, in which case the applicant may submit its application four years following approval of the reference listed drug.

Generic drug manufacturers may seek to launch generic products following the expiration of any applicable exclusivity period we obtain if our products are approved, even if we still have patent protection for such products. Competition that our products could face from generic versions of our products could materially and adversely affect our future revenue, profitability, and cash flows and substantially limit our ability to obtain a return on the investments we have made in those product candidates.

Obtaining and maintaining regulatory approval of our product candidates in one jurisdiction does not mean that we will be successful in obtaining regulatory approval of our product candidates in other jurisdictions.

Obtaining and maintaining regulatory approval of our product candidates in one jurisdiction does not guarantee that we will be able to obtain or maintain regulatory approval in any other jurisdiction, while a failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one jurisdiction may have a negative effect on the regulatory approval process in others. For example, even if the FDA grants marketing approval of a product candidate, comparable regulatory authorities in foreign jurisdictions must also approve the manufacturing, marketing, and promotion of the product candidate in those countries. Approval procedures vary among jurisdictions and can involve requirements and administrative review periods different from, and greater than, those in the United States, including additional preclinical studies or clinical trials as clinical trials conducted in one jurisdiction may not be accepted by regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions. In many jurisdictions outside the United States, a product candidate must be approved for reimbursement before it can be approved for sale in that jurisdiction. In some cases, the price that we intend to charge for our products is also subject to approval.

We may also submit marketing applications in other countries. Regulatory authorities in jurisdictions outside of the United States have requirements for approval of product candidates with which we must comply prior to marketing in those jurisdictions. Obtaining foreign regulatory approvals and compliance with foreign regulatory requirements could result in significant delays, difficulties, and costs for us and could delay or prevent the introduction of our products in certain countries. If we fail to comply with the regulatory requirements in international markets and/or receive applicable marketing approvals, our target market will be reduced and our ability to realize the full market potential of our product candidates will be harmed.

Even if we receive regulatory approval of our product candidates, we will be subject to ongoing regulatory obligations and continued regulatory review, which may result in significant additional expense and we may be subject to penalties if we fail to comply with regulatory requirements or experience unanticipated problems with our product candidates.

Any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval will be subject to extensive and ongoing regulatory requirements governing, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacturing, labeling, packaging, distribution, storage, advertising, promotion, import, export, recordkeeping, monitoring, and reporting of our products. These requirements include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, facility registration and drug listing requirements, as well as continued compliance with cGMPs, good laboratory practice, or GLP, regulations, and GCPs, for any clinical trials that we conduct post-approval. Even if marketing approval of a product candidate is granted, the approval may be subject to limitations on the indicated uses for which the product may be marketed or to the conditions of approval, or contain requirements for costly post-marketing testing and surveillance to monitor the safety or efficacy of the product.

The FDA may require a REMS in order to approve our product candidates, which could entail requirements for a medication guide, physician communication plans or additional elements to ensure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with our product candidates, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with our third-party manufacturers or manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in, among other things:

• imposition of a REMS, which may include distribution or use restrictions;

• fines, warning letters or holds on clinical trials;

• injunctions or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties.

The FDA’s and other regulatory authorities’ policies may change and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of our product candidates. We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action, either in the United States or abroad. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may lose any marketing approval that we may have obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability.

The FDA and other regulatory agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses.

The FDA and other regulatory agencies closely regulate the post-approval marketing and promotion of products to ensure that they are marketed only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved labeling. The FDA and other regulatory agencies impose stringent restrictions on manufacturers’ communications regarding off-label use. If any of our product candidates are approved and we are found to have promoted such off-label uses, we may become subject to significant liability. The federal government has levied large civil and criminal fines against companies for alleged improper promotion of off-label use and has enjoined several companies from engaging in off-label promotion. Violation of the FDCA, and other statutes, including the False Claims Act, and equivalent legislation in other countries relating to the promotion and advertising of prescription products may also lead to investigations or allegations of violations of federal and state and other countries’ health care fraud and abuse laws and state consumer protection laws. Even if it is later determined we were not in violation of these laws, we may be faced with negative publicity, incur significant expenses defending our actions and have to divert significant management resources from other matters.

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

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

Disruptions at the FDA and other agencies may also slow the time necessary for new product candidates to be reviewed and/or approved by necessary government agencies, which would adversely affect our business. For example, over the last several years the U.S. government has shut down several times and certain regulatory agencies, such as the FDA and the SEC, have had to furlough critical FDA, SEC and other government employees and stop critical activities. If a prolonged government shutdown occurs, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. Further, future government shutdowns could impact our ability to access the public markets and obtain necessary capital in order to properly capitalize and continue our operations.

Separately, in response to theCOVID-19 pandemic, on March 10, 2020 the FDA announced its intention to postpone most inspections of foreign manufacturing facilities and products while local, national and international conditions warrant. On March 18, 2020, the FDA announced its intention to temporarily postpone routine surveillance inspections of domestic manufacturing facilities and provided guidance regarding the conduct of clinical trials,which the FDA continues to update. As of June 23, 2020, the FDA noted it was continuing to ensure timely reviews of applications for medical products during the COVID-19 pandemic in line with its user fee performance goals and conducting mission critical domestic and foreign inspections to ensure compliance of manufacturing facilities with FDA quality standards. On July 16, 2020, FDA noted that it is continuing to expedite oncology product development with its staff teleworking full-time. However, FDA may not be able to continue its current pace and approval timelines could be extended, including where a pre-approval inspection or an inspection of clinical sites is required and due to the COVID-19 pandemic and travel restrictions FDA is unable to complete such required inspections during the review period. As of July 2020, utilizing a rating system to assist in determining when and where it is safest to conduct such inspections based on data about the virus’ trajectory in a given state and locality and the rules and guidelines that are put in place by state and local governments, FDA is either continuing to, on a case-by-case basis, conduct only mission critical inspections, or, where possible to do so safely, resuming prioritized domestic inspections, which generally include pre-approval inspections. Foreign pre-approval inspections that are not deemed mission-critical remain postponed, while those deemed mission-critical will be considered for inspection on a case-by-case basis. FDA will use similar data to inform resumption of prioritized operations abroad as it becomes feasible and advisable to do so. The FDA may not be able to maintain this pace and delays or setbacks are possible in the future. Should FDA determine that an inspection is necessary for approval, and an inspection cannot be completed during the review cycle due to restrictions on travel, FDA has stated that it generally intends to issue a complete response letter. Further, if there is inadequate information to make a determination on the acceptability of a facility, FDA may defer action on the application until an inspection can be completed. Additionally,

regulatory authorities outside the U.S. may adopt similar restrictions or other policy measures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and may experience delays in their regulatory activities. If a prolonged government shutdown or other disruption occurs, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. Future shutdowns or other disruptions could also affect other government agencies such as the SEC, which may also impact our business by delaying review of our public filings, to the extent such review is necessary, and our ability to access the public markets.

Our employees, independent contractors, consultants, commercial partners and vendors may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including noncompliance with regulatory standards and requirements.

We are exposed to the risk of employee fraud or other illegal activity by our employees, independent contractors, consultants, commercial partners and vendors. Misconduct by these parties could include intentional, reckless and/or negligent conduct that fails to: comply with the regulations of the FDA and other similar foreign regulatory authorities, provide true, complete and accurate information to the FDA and other similar foreign regulatory authorities, comply with manufacturing standards we have established, comply with healthcare fraud and abuse laws in the United States and similar foreign fraudulent misconduct laws or report financial information or data accurately or to disclose unauthorized activities to us. If we obtain FDA approval of any of our product candidates and begin commercializing those products in the United States, our potential exposure under such laws and regulations will increase significantly, and our costs associated with compliance with such laws and regulations are also likely to increase. These laws may impact, among other things, our current activities with principal investigators and research patients, as well as proposed and future sales, marketing and education programs. In particular, the promotion, sales and marketing of healthcare items and services, as well as certain business arrangements in the healthcare industry, are subject to extensive laws designed to prevent fraud, kickbacks, self-dealing and other abusive practices. These laws and regulations may restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, structuring and commission(s), certain customer incentive programs and other business arrangements generally. Activities subject to these laws also involve the improper use of information obtained in the course of patient recruitment for clinical trials. The laws that may affect our ability to operate include, but are not limited to:

We adopted a code of business conduct and ethics, but it is not always possible to identify and deter employee misconduct, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent inappropriate conduct may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to be in compliance with such laws or regulations.

Efforts to ensure that our business arrangements with third parties will comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations will involve substantial costs. Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of the statutory exceptions and safe harbors available, it is possible that some of our business activities could be subject to challenge under one or more of such laws. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices may not comply with current or future statutes, regulations or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of these laws or any other governmental regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant criminal, civil and administrative sanctions including monetary penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, individual imprisonment, and exclusion from participation in government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, and we may be required to curtail or restructure our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations.

Any action against us for violation of these laws, even if we successfully defend against it, could cause us to incur significant legal expenses and divert our management’s attention from the operation of our business. The shifting compliance environment and the need to build and maintain robust and expandable systems to comply with multiple jurisdictions with different compliance and/or reporting requirements increases the possibility that a healthcare company may run afoul of one or more of the requirements.

The provision of benefits or advantages to physicians to induce or encourage the prescription, recommendation, endorsement, purchase, supply, order or use of medicinal products is also prohibited in the EU. The provision of benefits or advantages to induce or reward improper performance generally is usually governed by the national anti-bribery laws of EU Member States, and the Bribery Act 2010 in the U.K., or the Bribery Act. Infringement of these laws could result in substantial fines and imprisonment. EU Directive 2001/83/EC, which is the EU Directive governing medicinal products for human use, further provides that, where medicinal products are being promoted to persons qualified to prescribe or supply them, no gifts, pecuniary advantages or benefits in kind may be supplied, offered or promised to such persons unless they are inexpensive and relevant to the practice of medicine or pharmacy. This provision has been transposed into the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 and so remains applicable in the UK despite its departure from the EU. Payments made to physicians in certain EU Member States must be publicly disclosed.

CGEM US Equity

CGEM · 10-K · period ended 2020-12-31

Item 1A. Risk Factors.

CGEM US Equity☆

CGEM · 10-K · period ended 2020-12-31

Item 1A. Risk Factors.

CGEM US Equity