PHAXIAM Therapeutics (PHXM) 20-F2020 FY Annual report (foreign)

Unless otherwise indicated in this Annual Report, “ERYTECH,” “the company,” “our company,” “we,” “us” and “our” refer to ERYTECH Pharma S.A. and its consolidated subsidiary.

Our audited consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards, or IFRS, as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board, or IASB. Our consolidated financial statements are presented in euros, and unless otherwise specified, all monetary amounts are in euros. All references in this Annual Report to “$,” “US$,” “U.S.$,” “U.S. dollars,” “dollars” and “USD” mean U.S. dollars and all references to “€” and “euros” mean euros, unless otherwise noted. Throughout this Annual Report, references to ADSs mean American Depositary Shares or ordinary shares represented by such ADSs, as the case may be.

This Annual Report contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, that are based on our management’s beliefs and assumptions and on information currently available to our management. All statements other than present and historical facts and conditions contained in this Annual Report, including statements regarding our future results of operations and financial positions, business strategy, plans and our objectives for future operations, are forward-looking statements. When used in this Annual Report, the words “anticipate,” “believe,” “can,” “could,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intend,” “is designed to,” “may,” “might,” “plan,” “potential,” “predict,” “objective,” “should,” or the negative of these and similar expressions identify forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements about:

You should refer to the section of this Annual Report titled “Item 3.D—Risk Factors” for a discussion of important factors that may cause our actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied by our forward-looking statements. As a result of these

factors, we cannot assure you that the forward-looking statements in this Annual Report will prove to be accurate. Furthermore, if our forward-looking statements prove to be inaccurate, the inaccuracy may be material. In light of the significant uncertainties in these forward-looking statements, you should not regard these statements as a representation or warranty by us or any other person that we will achieve our objectives and plans in any specified time frame or at all. We undertake no obligation to publicly update any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by law.

You should read this Annual Report and the documents that we reference in this Annual Report and have filed as exhibits to this Annual Report completely and with the understanding that our actual future results, levels of activity, performance and events and circumstances may be materially different from what we expect. We qualify all of our forward-looking statements by these cautionary statements.

In addition, statements that “we believe” and similar statements reflect our beliefs and opinions on the relevant subject. These statements are based upon information available to us as of the date of this Annual Report, and while we believe such information forms a reasonable basis for such statements, such information may be limited or incomplete. Our statements should not be read to indicate that we have conducted an exhaustive inquiry into, or review of, all potentially available relevant information. These statements are inherently uncertain and investors are cautioned not to unduly rely upon these statements.

Unless otherwise indicated, information contained in this Annual Report concerning our industry and the markets in which we operate, including our general expectations and market position, market opportunity and market size estimates, is based on information from independent industry analysts, third-party sources and management estimates. Management estimates are derived from publicly available information released by independent industry analysts and third-party sources, as well as data from our internal research, and are based on assumptions made by us based on such data and our knowledge of such industry and market, which we believe to be reasonable. In addition, while we believe the market opportunity information included in this Annual Report is generally reliable and is based on reasonable assumptions, such data involve risks and uncertainties and are subject to change based on various factors, including those discussed under the section of this Annual Report titled “Item 3.D—Risk Factors.”

Investing in our shares involves numerous risks, including the risks described in “Item 3.D—Risk Factors” of this Annual Report on Form 20-F. Below are some of our principal risks, any one of which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects:

Not applicable.

Not applicable.

We have elected to comply with Item 3.A of Form 20-F (Selected Financial Data), as amended February 10, 2021 and are omitting this disclosure in reliance thereon.

Not applicable.

Not applicable.

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 or any current or future collaborators may never generate the necessary data or results required to obtain regulatory approval and achieve product sales. In addition, eryaspase or any of our product candidates, if approved, may not achieve commercial success. Our commercial revenue, if any, will be derived from the sale of drugs that we do not

expect to be commercially available for several years, if at all. Accordingly, we will need to continue to rely on additional financing to achieve our business objectives. While we are pursuing various financing strategies, adequate additional financing may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all. If we are unable to raise capital when needed or on attractive terms, we could be forced to delay, reduce or eliminate our research and development programs or any future commercialization efforts.

To date, we have financed our operations primarily through a combination of sale of equity securities, debt financings, including, but not limited to, the ATM offering program in the United States, the convertible bond financing pursuant to the OCABSA Agreement, state-guaranteed loans in France, or PGE loans, and public assistance programs in support of innovation, such as the conditional advances and subsidies from the Banque Publique d’Investissement, or Bpifrance, and research tax credits. Until such time, if ever, as we can generate substantial revenue from the sale of our product candidates, we expect to continue to finance our cash needs through a combination of equity offerings, debt financings, collaborations, strategic alliances and licensing arrangements. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity securities or convertible debt securities, your ownership interest will be diluted, and the terms of these securities may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect your rights as a shareholder. Debt financing and preferred equity financing, if available, may involve agreements that include covenants limiting or restricting our ability to take specific actions, such as incurring additional debt, making capital expenditures or declaring dividends.

We also implemented a convertible bond financing with European High Growth Opportunities Fund in June 2020 and an At the Market Program (ATM) in the United States, it being specified that the total number of new shares that may be issued in connection with these two instruments is capped at 20% of the number of shares admitted to trading on Euronext Paris, including shares admitted without a prospectus during the twelve months prior to their issuance.

If we raise additional funds through collaborations, strategic alliances or marketing, distribution or licensing arrangements with third parties, we may be required to relinquish valuable rights to our research programs or product candidates or grant licenses on terms that may not be favorable to us. If we are unable to raise additional funds through equity or debt financings or other arrangements with third parties when needed, we may be required to delay, limit, reduce or terminate our drug development or future commercialization efforts or grant rights to third parties to develop and market product candidates that we would otherwise prefer to develop and market ourselves.

We have not yet generated significant revenues and have incurred significant operating losses since our inception. We incurred net losses of €38.2 million, €62.7 million and €73.3 million for the years ended December 31, 2018, 2019 and 2020, respectively; these losses have adversely impacted, and will continue to adversely impact, our equity attributable to shareholders and net assets. These losses are principally the result of our research expenditures and development costs for conducting preclinical studies and clinical trials, as well as general and administrative expenses associated with our operations. We anticipate that our operating losses will continue for at least the next several years as we continue our research and development activities and until we generate substantial revenues from any approved product candidates. As of December 31, 2020, we had a total shareholders' equity of €26.5 million.

We have devoted most of our financial resources to research and development, including our clinical and preclinical development activities. The amount of our future net losses will depend, in part, on the pace and amount of our future expenditures and our ability to obtain funding through equity or debt financings, strategic collaborations or tax credits until such time, if ever, as we can generate substantial product revenue. We have not yet received marketing approval for any of our product candidates. Even if we obtain regulatory approval to market a product candidate, our future revenues will depend upon the size of any markets in which our product candidates have received approval, and our ability to achieve sufficient market acceptance, reimbursement from third-party payors and adequate market share for our product candidates in those markets.

We anticipate that our expenses will increase substantially as we:

Our operating results may fluctuate significantly from year to year, such that a period-to-period comparison of our results of operations may not be a good indication of our future performance. In any particular period or periods, our operating results could be below the expectations of securities analysts or investors, which could cause the price of the ordinary shares and ADSs to decline.

Through December 31, 2020, we have received €2.4 million in non-refundable grants and €5.0 million in conditional advances from Bpifrance. To date, TEDAC is the only ongoing program funded by non-refundable grants and conditional advances. If we fail to comply with our contractual obligations under the applicable innovation grant agreements, including if we lose our exclusive right to commercially develop our product candidates, we could be forced to repay the conditional advances (amounting to €4.2 million at the date of this Annual Report) ahead of schedule. Such premature repayment could adversely affect our ability to finance our research and development projects, in which case we would need to locate alternative sources of capital, which may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all.

On June 24, 2020, we entered into the OCABSA Agreement, pursuant to which we may raise up to €60 million in the aggregate from the exercise of convertible notes, subject to the regulatory limit of 20% dilution, unless further authorized. The share warrants attached to the notes represent 10% of the nominal amount of the issued notes and have an exercise price of €8.91 per share. This exercise price represents a 20% premium over the lowest volume-weighted average daily price of the share over the reference period preceding the issue of the first tranche.

By using this financing program, we may encounter the following adverse effects:

A key element of our strategy is to use and expand our proprietary ERYCAPS platform to build a pipeline of innovative product candidates and to progress these drug candidates through clinical development for the treatment of severe forms of cancer and orphan diseases. The discovery of therapeutic drugs based on encapsulating molecules inside red blood cells is an emerging field, and the scientific discoveries that form the basis for our efforts to discover and develop drug candidates are relatively new. The scientific evidence to support the feasibility of developing drug candidates based on these discoveries is both preliminary and limited. Although our research and development efforts to date have resulted in a pipeline of product candidates, we have not yet obtained approval for any products, we have not yet generated any revenues from the sale of approved products and we may not be able to develop product candidates that are considered to be safe and effective. Our operations to date have been limited to developing our ERYCAPS platform technology and undertaking preclinical studies and clinical trials of our product candidates, including our lead product candidate, eryaspase, also known as GRASPA, the approved trade name for eryaspase in Europe. However, we have not yet demonstrated an ability to overcome many of the risks and uncertainties frequently encountered by companies in new and rapidly evolving fields, particularly in the pharmaceutical industry. Consequently, the ability to predict our future operating results or business prospects is more limited than if we had a longer operating history or approved products on the market.

Our business and future success depends on our ability to obtain regulatory approval for and, together with third-party collaborators, to successfully commercialize our lead product candidate, eryaspase, which is under clinical development for oncology indications. Eryaspase is our only product candidate in late-stage clinical development, and our business currently depends heavily on its successful development. Eryaspase will require additional clinical and non-clinical development, regulatory review and approval in multiple jurisdictions, substantial investment, access to sufficient commercial manufacturing capacity and significant marketing efforts before we can generate any revenue from product sales. We cannot be certain eryaspase will receive regulatory approval or be successfully commercialized even if we receive regulatory approval. In addition, because eryaspase is our most advanced product candidate, and because our other product candidates are based on the same ERYCAPS platform technology, if eryaspase encounters safety or efficacy problems, developmental delays or regulatory issues or other problems, our development plans and business would be significantly harmed.

We believe that our ERYCAPS platform has broad potential application and can be used to encapsulate a wide range of therapeutic agents within red blood cells for which long-circulating therapeutic activity and rapid and specific targeting is desired. However, we are at an early stage of development and our platform has not yet, and may never, lead to approved or marketable products. Even if we are successful in continuing to build our product pipeline, the potential product candidates that we identify may not be suitable for clinical development, including for reasons related to their harmful side effects, limited efficacy or other characteristics that indicate that they are unlikely to be products that will receive marketing approval and achieve market acceptance. Use of red blood cells as the basis for our ERYCAPS platform may result in similar risks that affect the ability of our products to receive marketing approval and achieve market acceptance. If we do not successfully develop and commercialize product candidates based upon our technological approach, we may not be able to obtain product or collaboration revenues in future periods, which would harm our business and our prospects.

The biopharmaceuticals industry is highly competitive. Numerous biopharmaceutical laboratories, biotechnology companies, institutions, universities and other research entities are actively involved in the discovery, research, development and marketing of therapeutics to treat severe forms of cancer and orphan diseases, making it a highly competitive field. We have competitors in a number of jurisdictions, many of which have substantially greater name recognition, commercial infrastructures and financial, technical and personnel resources than we have.

L-asparaginase is currently available in four forms, and the current market primarily includes several products marketed by large pharmaceutical companies, including Jazz Pharmaceuticals PLC and Servier. To our knowledge, there is no potential treatment being developed using non encapsulated L-asparaginase for the treatment of pancreatic cancer or other solid tumor indications, but this may change and current marketed asparaginase products may attempt to broaden their indications. Our products and product candidates may also have to compete with other products and product candidates in development by established pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology companies.

Established competitors may invest heavily to quickly discover and develop novel compounds that could make our product candidates obsolete or uneconomical. Any new product that competes with an approved product may need to demonstrate compelling advantages in efficacy, convenience, tolerability and safety to be commercially successful. Any of our product candidates that are approved in the future will also face other competitive factors, including generic competition, which could force us to lower prices or could result in reduced sales. In addition, new products developed by others could emerge as competitors to our product candidates. If we are not able to compete effectively against our current and future competitors, our business will not grow and our financial condition and operations will suffer.

Our product candidates must be intravenously injected and are therefore subject to risks associated with blood transfusions and the blood type compatibility of the donor. We currently acquire red blood cells from blood donations prepared and tested by blood banks, notably the Établissement Français du Sang, the New York Blood Center, the American Red Cross and the German Red Cross Blood Donor Service. However, using donor-derived red blood cells presents risks associated with the potential transmission of infectious agents, such as viruses, bacteria, prions and parasites, as well as risks associated with the development of allergies or other complications, such as allo-immunization, post-transfusion graft-versus-host disease, anaphylactic shock or death. Risks associated with the encapsulation of molecules inside red blood cells may vary and will depend on their toxicity. Although the blood banks that supply our red blood cells follow a strict preparation process, approved by health authorities, to detect and reduce possible risks for contamination by infectious agents, we cannot guarantee that our product candidates will not be contaminated, which could be detrimental to our product development and commercialization efforts.

The European Commission (following review by the European Medicines Agency, or EMA) in Europe, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, in the United States and comparable regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions must approve new drug or biologic candidates before they can be commercialized, marketed, promoted or sold in those territories. We must provide these regulatory authorities with data from preclinical studies and clinical trials that demonstrate that our product candidates are safe and effective for a defined indication before they can be approved for commercial distribution. Clinical testing is expensive, difficult to design and implement, can take many years to complete and is inherently uncertain as to outcome. We must provide data to ensure the identity, strength, quality and purity of the drug substance and drug product. Also, we must assure the regulatory authorities that the characteristics and performance of the clinical batches will be replicated consistently in the commercial batches. We have focused our development and planned commercialization efforts on Europe and the United States.

The processes by which regulatory approvals are obtained from the EMA and FDA to market and sell a new product are complex, require a number of years and involve the expenditure of substantial resources. We cannot assure you that eryaspase or any of our future product candidates will receive EMA or FDA approval. For example, in September 2015, we submitted a Marketing Authorization Application, or MAA, to the EMA for the approval of GRASPA as a treatment for acute lymphoblastic leukemia, or ALL. However, in November 2016, we announced our withdrawal of the MAA for GRASPA. In October 2017, we resubmitted to the EMA our MAA for GRASPA for relapsed or refractory ALL and subsequently announced our withdrawal of the MAA for GRASPA in June 2018. Even if we obtain marketing approval of any of our product candidates in a major pharmaceutical market such as the United States or Europe, we may never obtain approval or commercialize our products in other major markets, due to varying approval procedures or otherwise, which would limit our ability to realize their full market potential.

Preclinical testing and clinical trials are long, expensive and unpredictable processes that can be subject to extensive delays. We cannot guarantee that any clinical trials will be conducted as planned or completed on schedule, if at all. It may take several years to complete the preclinical testing and clinical development necessary to commercialize a product candidate, and delays or failure can occur at any stage. Interim results of clinical trials do not necessarily predict final results, and success in preclinical testing and early clinical trials does not ensure that later clinical trials will be successful. A number of companies in the pharmaceutical, biopharmaceutical and biotechnology industries have suffered significant setbacks in advanced clinical trials even after promising results in earlier trials, and we cannot be certain that we will not face similar setbacks. The design of a clinical trial can determine whether its results will support approval of a product, and flaws in the design of a clinical trial may not become apparent until the clinical trial is well advanced. An unfavorable outcome in one or more trials would be a major setback for our product candidates and

for us. Due to our limited financial resources, an unfavorable outcome in one or more trials may require us to delay, reduce the scope of, or eliminate one or more product development programs, which could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition and on the value of our securities.

In connection with clinical testing and trials, we face a number of risks, including risks that:

The results of preclinical studies do not necessarily predict clinical success, and larger and later-stage clinical trials may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy results despite having progressed through preclinical studies and initial clinical trials. Furthermore, there can be no assurance that any of our clinical trials will ultimately be successful or support further clinical development of any of our product candidates. Our clinical trials of eryaspase conducted to date have generated favorable safety and efficacy data, other than our Phase 2b clinical trial in acute myeloid leukemia for which we did not achieve the primary endpoint. However, we may have different results in other indications. Differences in enrollment criteria and different combinations with other treatment modalities may also lead to different outcomes in our future clinical trials. As a result, we may not observe a similarly favorable safety or efficacy profile as in our prior clinical trials. There is a high failure rate for drugs proceeding through clinical trials. Many companies in the pharmaceutical, biopharmaceutical and biotechnology industries have suffered significant setbacks in late-stage clinical trials after achieving positive results in early-stage development and we cannot be certain that we will not face similar setbacks. These setbacks have been caused by, among other things, preclinical findings made while clinical trials were underway, or safety or efficacy observations made in preclinical studies and clinical trials, including previously unreported adverse events. Moreover, preclinical and clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses and many companies that believed their product candidates performed satisfactorily in preclinical studies and clinical trials nonetheless failed to obtain FDA or EMA approval. In addition, we cannot assure you that in the course of potential widespread use in the future, we will not suffer setbacks in maintaining production quality or stability.

If we do not successfully complete preclinical and clinical development, we will be unable to market and sell our product candidates and generate revenues. Even if we do successfully complete clinical trials, those results are not necessarily predictive of results of additional trials that may be needed before marketing applications may be submitted to the EMA or FDA, as applicable. For instance, despite having observed favorable results and safety profile in multiple clinical trials of eryaspase in patients with ALL, based on feedback from the regulatory agencies requiring additional investment, increasingly competitive landscape and the limited market opportunity for eryaspase with ALL, we decided in June 2018 to cease further clinical developments efforts in ALL. In addition, our research and development costs amounted to €33.5 million, €52.2 million and €57.6 million during the years ended December 31, 2018, 2019 and 2020, respectively. Although there are a large number of drugs and biologics in development in Europe, the United States and other countries, only a small percentage result in the submission of a marketing application, even fewer are approved for commercialization, and only a small number achieve widespread physician and consumer acceptance following regulatory approval. If our clinical trials are substantially delayed or fail to prove the safety and effectiveness of our product candidates in development, we may not receive regulatory approval of any of these product candidates and our business and financial condition will be materially harmed.

Human clinical trials are very expensive, time-consuming, and difficult to design, implement and complete. The completion of trials for eryaspase or our other product candidates may be delayed for a variety of reasons, including delays in:

For example, in our Phase 1 clinical trial in the United States in adult ALL patients, patient enrollment took longer than expected.

The commencement and completion of clinical trials for our product candidates may be delayed, suspended or terminated due to a number of factors, including:

For example, our Investigational New Drug application, or IND, submitted to the FDA for eryaspase was on clinical hold from its original submission in July 2011 until March 21, 2013. Although we received acceptance from the FDA of our IND to extend our pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial of eryaspase for the treatment of second-line pancreatic cancer patients to the United States in May 2019, we cannot assure you that any future IND will not be subject to clinical holds.

Many of these factors may also ultimately lead to denial of our marketing application for eryaspase or our other product candidates. If we experience delay, suspensions or terminations in a clinical trial, the commercial prospects for the related product candidate will be harmed, and our ability to generate product revenues will be delayed or such revenues could be reduced or fail to materialize.

Identifying and qualifying patients to participate in clinical trials of our product candidates is critical to our success. The timing of our clinical trials depends on our ability to recruit patients to participate, as well as completion of required follow-up periods. If patients are unwilling to enroll in our clinical trials because of competitive clinical trials for similar patient populations or for other reasons, the timeline for recruiting patients, conducting studies and obtaining regulatory approval of our product candidates may be delayed. These delays could result in increased costs, delays in advancing our product candidates, delays in testing the effectiveness of our product candidates or termination of clinical trials altogether.

Some of our current product candidates are being developed to treat severe forms of cancer and other orphan diseases, which are generally defined as having a patient population of fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States. For example, 150,000 new cases of pancreatic cancer are diagnosed each year in the United States and Europe. We may not be able to initiate or continue clinical trials if we cannot enroll a sufficient number of eligible patients to participate in the clinical trials required by the FDA, EMA or other regulatory authorities. Also, we may not be able to identify, recruit and enroll a sufficient number of patients, or those with required or

desired characteristics, to complete our clinical trials in a timely manner. Patient enrollment can be affected by many factors, including:

Our ability to successfully initiate, enroll and complete clinical trials in any foreign country is subject to numerous risks unique to conducting business in foreign countries, including:

If we have difficulty enrolling a sufficient number of patients or finding additional clinical trial sites to conduct our clinical trials as planned, we may need to delay, limit or terminate ongoing or planned clinical trials, any of which could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Changes in regulatory requirements, FDA guidance or guidance from the EMA or other European regulatory authorities, or unanticipated events during our clinical trials, may force us to amend clinical trial protocols. The regulatory authorities could also impose additional clinical trial requirements. Amendments to our clinical trial protocols would require resubmission to the FDA, EMA, national clinical trial regulators and IRBs for review and approval, which may adversely impact the cost, timing or successful completion of a clinical trial. If we experience delays completing, or if we terminate, any of our clinical trials, or if we are required to conduct additional clinical trials, the commercial prospects for our product candidates may be harmed and our ability to generate product revenue will be delayed.

The formulations of eryaspase used to conduct clinical trials in the United States and Europe have differed in composition, manufacturing process and release specifications. After seeking feedback from regulatory agencies, we have conducted studies to harmonize the formulation of eryaspase, including in vitro comparability studies and stability studies. Even with this additional data, regulatory authorities may not find it acceptable to support the approval of eryaspase. If regulatory authorities require us to generate

additional nonclinical or clinical data, the generation of additional data could result in submission delays and additional costs in order to obtain marketing approval of eryaspase.

The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, or BPCIA, was enacted as part of the 2010 enactments of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, or collectively, the ACA, to establish an abbreviated licensure pathway for biological products shown to be biosimilar to, or interchangeable with, an FDA-licensed biological reference product. “Biosimilarity” means that the biological product is highly similar to the reference product notwithstanding minor differences in clinically inactive components and there are no clinically meaningful differences between the biological product and the reference product in terms of safety, purity, and potency of the product. To meet the higher standard of “interchangeability,” an applicant must provide sufficient information to show biosimilarity and demonstrate that the biological product can be expected to produce the same clinical result as the reference product in any given patient and, if the biological product is administrated more than once to an individual, the risk in terms of safety or diminished efficacy of alternating or switching between the use of the biological product and the reference product is not greater than the risk of using the reference product without such alternation or switch.

Under the BPCIA, an application for a biosimilar or interchangeable product cannot be approved by the FDA until 12 years after the reference product was first licensed, and the FDA will not even accept an application for review until four years after the date of first licensure. The law is evolving, complex and is still being interpreted and implemented by the FDA. As a result, its ultimate impact, implementation, and meaning are subject to uncertainty. While it is uncertain when such processes intended to implement BPCIA may be fully adopted by the FDA, any such processes could have a material adverse effect on the future commercial prospects for our biological products.

We believe that any of our product candidates approved as a biological product under a Biologics License Application, or 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, potentially creating the opportunity for biosimilar or interchangeable competition sooner than we currently anticipate. Moreover, the process by which an interchangeable product, once approved, will be substituted for any one of our reference products in a way that is similar to traditional generic substitution for non-biological products, such as drugs, is not yet clear, and will depend on a number of marketplace and regulatory factors that are still developing and subject to interpretation.

Regulatory authorities in some jurisdictions, including the United States and the European Union, may designate drugs for relatively small patient populations as orphan drugs. Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may designate a drug as an orphan drug if it is intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally defined as a patient population of fewer than 200,000 individuals annually in the United States. Similarly, in Europe, a medicinal product may receive orphan designation under Article 3 of Regulation (EC) 141/2000, as amended. This applies to products that are intended for a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition and either the condition affects no more than five in 10,000 persons in the European Union when the application is made or the product, without the benefits derived from orphan status, would unlikely generate sufficient return in the European Union to justify the necessary investment. Moreover, in order to obtain orphan designation in the European Union, it is necessary to demonstrate that there exists no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment of the condition authorized for marketing in the European Union, or if such a method exists, that the product will be of significant benefit to those affected by the condition. The EMA will reassess whether GRASPA continues to meet the criteria for orphan drug designation in the European Union at the time it reviews a marketing authorization application for the product. If the EMA considers that GRASPA no longer meets these criteria, for example, because it does not offer a significant benefit over existing therapies, it may revoke GRASPA’s orphan drug designation prior to approval.

The EMA has granted orphan drug designation for GRASPA for the treatment of pancreatic cancer, ALL and AML, and the FDA has granted orphan drug designation for eryaspase for the same indications. We may seek orphan drug designation for our other product candidates, and with respect to other indications. Generally, if a drug with an orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first marketing approval for the indication for which it has such designation, the drug is entitled to a period of marketing exclusivity, which precludes the FDA from approving another marketing application for the same drug for that time period or the EMA or any other medicines regulator in the European Union from approving a similar medicinal product. The applicable period is seven years in the United States and usually 10 years in the European Union. The European Union exclusivity period can be reduced to six years if a drug no longer meets the criteria for orphan drug designation or if the drug is sufficiently profitable so that market exclusivity is no longer justified. This exclusivity period may increase to 12 years if, among other things, the MAA includes the results of studies from an agreed pediatric investigation plan. Orphan drug exclusivity may be lost if the FDA or EMA determines that the request for

designation was materially defective or if the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient quantity of the drug to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition.

Even if we obtain orphan drug exclusivity for a product candidate, that exclusivity may not effectively protect the candidate from competition because different drugs can be approved for the same condition. Even after an orphan drug is approved, the applicable regulatory authority can subsequently approve another drug for the same condition if it concludes that the later drug is clinically superior in that it is shown to be safer, more effective or makes a major contribution to patient care. Similarly, if our competitors are able to obtain orphan product exclusivity for their products in the same indications for which we are developing our product candidates, we may not be able to have our products approved by the applicable regulatory authority for a significant period of time.

In the European Union, data exclusivity refers to the period of time during which another company cannot refer to our data held in the authority’s files in support of its marketing authorization. The subsequent market exclusivity refers to the period of time during which another company may use our data in support of its marketing authorization for a generic, hybrid or biosimilar product, but the product in question may not be placed on the market. For products containing new active substances, this effectively prevents certain products, such as generics and similar biological products, from being placed on the market during the combined data and marketing exclusivity period. This combined period usually lasts for 10 years from the date of approval of the product containing the new active substance.

Because the active ingredient in GRASPA is not a new active substance, the 10-year period of protection against generics and similar biological products is undermined. Competitors developing such products could receive European Union marketing authorizations and place their products on the European Union market within 10 years of GRASPA’s own marketing authorization, if obtained.

However, if we still have orphan drug designation for GRASPA in the treatments of pancreatic cancer, ALL and AML in Europe at the time we receive marketing approval from the EMA in these indications, we would still benefit from the independent period of market exclusivity afforded to orphan products. In the European Union, this is usually a period of 10 years from the date of marketing approval. The exclusivity period can be reduced to six years if a drug no longer meets the criteria for orphan drug designation or if the drug is sufficiently profitable so that market exclusivity is no longer justified. The exclusivity period may increase to 12 years if, among other things, the MAA includes the results of studies from an agreed pediatric investigation plan. During the orphan exclusivity period, regulators should not accept or approve applications for the approval of a similar medicine for the same therapeutic indication, unless the second product is demonstrably safer, more effective or otherwise clinically superior. Regulators may approve different products for the same condition as GRASPA.

We currently have and expect to continue to depend on collaborations with public and private research institutions to conduct some of our early-stage drug discovery activities. If we are unable to enter into research collaborations with these institutions, or if any one of these institutions fails to work efficiently with us, the research, development or marketing of our product candidates planned as part of the research collaboration could be delayed or canceled. In the event a research agreement is terminated or we become no longer in a position to renew the arrangement under acceptable conditions, our drug discovery and development activities may also be delayed.

We rely, and will rely in the future, on medical institutions, clinical investigators, CROs, contract laboratories and collaborators to perform data collection and analysis and to carry out our clinical trials.

Our development activities or clinical trials conducted in reliance on third parties may be delayed, suspended, or terminated if:

We generally would not have the ability to control the performance of third parties in their conduct of development activities. In the event of a default, bankruptcy or shutdown of, or a dispute with, a third party, we may be unable to enter into a new agreement with another third party on commercially acceptable terms. Further, third-party performance failures may increase our development costs, delay our ability to obtain regulatory approval, and delay or prevent the commercialization of our product candidates. In addition, our third-party agreements usually contain a clause limiting such third party’s liability, such that we may not be able to obtain full compensation for any losses we may incur in connection with the third party’s performance failures. While we believe that there are numerous alternative sources to provide these services, in the event that we seek such alternative sources, we may not be able to enter into replacement arrangements without incurring delays or additional costs.

We have limited capabilities for product development and may seek to enter into collaborations with third parties for the development and potential commercialization of our product candidates. For example, in June 2019, we entered into a collaboration with SQZ Biotechnologies to focus on the development of novel red blood-cell based therapeutics for the treatment of immuno-oncology and tolerance induction. Should we seek to collaborate with any additional third parties with respect to a prospective development program, we may not be able to locate a suitable collaborator and may not be able to enter into an agreement on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Even if we succeed in securing collaborators for the development and commercialization of our product candidates, we will have limited control over the amount and timing that our collaborators may dedicate to the development or commercialization of our product candidates. These collaborations pose a number of risks, including the following:

Thus, collaboration agreements may not lead to development or commercialization of product candidates in the most efficient manner or at all.

Some collaboration agreements are terminable without cause on short notice. Once a collaboration agreement is signed, it may not lead to commercialization of a product candidate. We also face competition in seeking out collaborators. If we are unable to secure new collaborations that achieve the collaborator’s objectives and meet our expectations, we may be unable to advance our product candidates and may not generate meaningful revenues.

Because we have limited resources and access to capital to fund our operations, we must decide which product candidates to pursue and the amount of resources to allocate to each. As such, we are currently primarily focused on the development of eryaspase for the treatment of pancreatic cancer and other solid tumors. Our decisions concerning the allocation of research, collaboration, management and financial resources toward particular compounds, product candidates or therapeutic areas may not lead to the development of viable commercial products and may divert resources away from more promising opportunities. Similarly, our potential decisions to delay, terminate or collaborate with third parties with respect to some of our product development programs may also prove not to be optimal and could cause us to miss valuable opportunities. If we do not accurately evaluate the commercial potential or target market for a particular product candidate, we may relinquish valuable rights to that product candidate through collaboration, licensing or other arrangements in cases in which it would have been more advantageous for us to retain sole development and commercialization rights. If we make incorrect determinations regarding the market potential of our product candidates or misread trends in the pharmaceutical industry, our business prospects could be harmed.

Even if we successfully complete clinical trials for one or more of our product candidates and obtain relevant regulatory approvals, those candidates may not be commercialized for other reasons, including:

Even if the medical community accepts a product as safe and efficacious for its indicated use, physicians may choose to restrict the use of the product if we are unable to demonstrate that, based on experience, clinical data, side-effect profiles and other factors, our product is preferable to any existing drugs or treatments. We cannot predict the degree of market acceptance of any product candidate that receives marketing approval, which will depend on a number of factors, including, but not limited to:

We do not have a sales or marketing infrastructure and have no experience in the sale, marketing or distribution of pharmaceutical drugs. To achieve commercial success for eryaspase, including in the United States, for the treatment of pancreatic cancer, as well as eryaspase for the treatment of other indications and any other product candidates for which we may obtain marketing approval, we will need to establish a sales and marketing organization to market or co-promote those products. There are risks involved with establishing our own sales, marketing and distribution capabilities. For example, recruiting and training a sales force in competition with other pharmaceutical or biotechnology companies is expensive and time-consuming and could delay any product launch. If the commercial launch of a product candidate for which we recruit a sales force and establish marketing capabilities is delayed or does not occur for any reason, we would have prematurely or unnecessarily incurred these commercialization expenses. This may be costly, and our investment would be lost if we cannot retain or reposition our sales and marketing personnel.

Factors that may inhibit our efforts to commercialize products on our own include:

If we are unable to establish our own sales, marketing and distribution capabilities and enter into arrangements with third parties to perform these services, our revenue and our profitability, if any, are likely to be lower than if we were to sell, market and distribute any products that we develop ourselves.

Even if we receive regulatory approval for a product candidate, this approval may carry conditions that limit the market for the product or put the product at a competitive disadvantage relative to alternative therapies. For instance, a regulatory approval may limit the indicated uses for which we can market a product or the patient population that may utilize the product or may be required to carry a warning in its labeling and on its packaging. Products with boxed warnings are subject to more restrictive advertising regulations than products without such warnings. These restrictions could make it more difficult to market any product candidate effectively. Accordingly, assuming we receive marketing approval for one or more of our product candidates, we will continue to expend time, money and effort in all areas of regulatory compliance.

Our ability to commercialize any products successfully also 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, determine which medications they will cover and establish reimbursement levels. Assuming we obtain coverage for a given product by a third-party payor, the resulting reimbursement payment rates may not be adequate or may require co-payments that patients find unacceptably high. Patients who are prescribed medications for the treatment of their conditions, and their prescribing physicians, generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the costs associated with their prescription drugs. Patients are unlikely to use our products unless coverage is provided and reimbursement is adequate to cover all or a significant portion of the cost of our products. Therefore, coverage and adequate reimbursement is critical to new product acceptance. Coverage decisions may depend upon clinical and economic standards that disfavor new drug products when more established or lower cost therapeutic alternatives are already available or subsequently become available.

Government authorities and other third-party payors are developing increasingly sophisticated methods of controlling healthcare costs, such as by limiting coverage and the amount of reimbursement for particular medications. Increasingly, third-party payors are requiring that drug companies provide them with predetermined discounts from list prices as a condition of coverage, are using restrictive formularies and preferred drug lists to leverage greater discounts in competitive classes and are challenging the prices charged for medical products. In addition, in the United States, federal programs impose penalties on drug manufacturers in the form of mandatory additional rebates and/or discounts if commercial prices increase at a rate greater than the Consumer Price Index-Urban, and these rebates and/or discounts, which can be substantial, may impact our ability to raise commercial prices. Further, no uniform policy requirement for coverage and reimbursement for drug products exists among third-party payors in the United States. Therefore, coverage and reimbursement for drug products can differ significantly from payor to payor. As a result, the coverage determination process is often a time-consuming and costly process that will require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of our products to each payor separately, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be applied consistently or obtained in the first instance.

The continuing efforts of governments, insurance companies, managed care organizations and other payors of healthcare costs to contain or reduce costs of healthcare may negatively affect our commercialization prospects, including:

We cannot be sure that coverage and reimbursement will be available for any potential product candidate that we may commercialize and, if reimbursement is available, what the level of reimbursement will be. Coverage and reimbursement may impact the demand for, or the price of, any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval. If coverage and reimbursement are not available or reimbursement is available only to limited levels, we may not successfully commercialize any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval.

In the United States, the ACA is significantly impacting the provision of, and payment for, healthcare. Various provisions of the ACA are designed to expand Medicaid eligibility, subsidize insurance premiums, provide incentives for businesses to provide healthcare

benefits, prohibit denials of coverage due to pre-existing conditions, establish health insurance exchanges, and provide additional support for medical research. With regard to pharmaceutical products specifically, the ACA, among other things, expanded and increased industry rebates for drugs covered under Medicaid programs and made changes to the coverage requirements under the Medicare prescription drug benefit.

There have been executive, judicial and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA. For example, since January 2017, President Trump signed several Executive Orders and other directives designed to delay the implementation of certain provisions of the ACA or otherwise circumvent some of the requirements for health insurance mandated by the ACA. Concurrently, the U.S. Congress has considered legislation that would repeal or repeal and replace all or part of the ACA. While Congress has not passed comprehensive repeal legislation, several bills affecting the implementation of certain taxes under the ACA have been signed into law. Legislation enacted in 2017, informally titled the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, or the Tax Act, included a provision which repealed, effective January 1, 2019, 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 that is commonly referred to as the “individual mandate.” The 2020 federal spending package permanently eliminated, effective January 1, 2020, the ACA-mandated “Cadillac” tax on high-cost employer-sponsored health coverage and medical device tax and, effective January 1, 2021, also eliminates the health insurer tax. The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, or the BBA, among other things, amended the ACA, effective January 1, 2019, to increase from 50 percent to 70 percent the point-of-sale discount that is owed by pharmaceutical manufacturers who participate in Medicare Part D and to close the coverage gap in most Medicare drug plans, commonly referred to as the “donut hole.” On December 14, 2018, a Texas U.S. District Court Judge ruled that ACA is unconstitutional in its entirety because the “individual mandate” was repealed by Congress as part of the Tax Act. Additionally, on December 18, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld the District Court ruling that the individual mandate was unconstitutional and remanded the case back to the District Court to determine whether the remaining provisions of the ACA are invalid as well. The U.S. Supreme Court is currently reviewing this case, although it is uncertain when a decision will be made. Although the U.S. Supreme Court has yet ruled on the constitutionality of the ACA, on January 28, 2021, President Biden issued an executive order to initiate a special enrollment period from February 15, 2021 through May 15, 2021 for purposes of obtaining health insurance coverage through the ACA marketplace. The executive order also instructs certain governmental agencies to review and reconsider their existing policies and rules that limit access to healthcare, including among others, reexamining Medicaid demonstration projects and waiver programs that include work requirements, and policies that create unnecessary barriers to obtaining access to health insurance coverage through Medicaid or the ACA. It is also unclear how the Supreme Court ruling, other litigation and healthcare reform measures of the Biden administration will impact ACA and our business.

In addition, both the Budget Control Act of 2011 and the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 have instituted, among other things, mandatory reductions in Medicare payments to certain providers. The Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, includes reductions to Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect on April 1, 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute will remain in effect through 2030, except for a temporary suspension from May 1, 2020 through March 31, 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, unless additional Congressional action is taken. On January 2, 2013, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was signed into law, which, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to several providers, including hospitals, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. Additional legislative proposals to reform healthcare and government insurance programs, along with the trend toward managed healthcare in the United States, could influence the purchase of medicines and reduce reimbursement and/or coverage of our product candidates, if approved.

Recently, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products. Such scrutiny has resulted in several recent U.S. Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, reduce the costs of drugs under Medicare and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug products. At the federal level, the Trump administration’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2021 included a $135 billion allowance to support legislative proposals seeking to reduce drug prices, increase competition, lower out-of-pocket drug costs for patients, and increase patient access to lower-cost generic and biosimilar drugs. On July 24, 2020 and September 13, 2020, the Trump administration announced several executive orders related to prescription drug pricing that seek to implement several of the administration’s proposals. As a result, the FDA released a final rule on September 24, 2020, effective November 30, 2020, providing guidance for states to build and submit importation plans for drugs from Canada. Further, on November 20, 2020, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services finalized a regulation removing safe harbor protection for price reductions from pharmaceutical manufacturers to plan sponsors under Part D, either directly or through pharmacy benefit managers, unless the price reduction is required by law. The implementation of the rule has been delayed by the Biden administration from January 1, 2022 to January 1, 2023 in response to ongoing litigation. 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, the implementation of which have also been delayed pending review by the Biden administration until March 22, 2021. On November 20, 2020, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, issued an interim final rule implementing President Trump’s Most Favored Nation executive order, which would tie Medicare Part B payments for certain physician-administered drugs to the lowest price paid in other economically advanced countries, effective January 1, 2021. On December 28, 2020, the United States District Court in Northern

California issued a nationwide preliminary injunction against implementation of the interim final rule. The likelihood of implementation of any of the other Trump administration reform initiatives is uncertain as it is unclear whether the Biden administration will work to reverse these measures or pursue similar policy initiatives. At the state level, legislatures have increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing.

We expect that the ACA, as well as other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future, may result in more rigorous coverage criteria and lower reimbursement, and in additional downward pressure on the price that we receive for any approved product candidate. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government-funded programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability or commercialize our drugs. Moreover, we cannot predict what healthcare reform initiatives may be adopted in the future.

In some foreign countries, the proposed pricing for a drug must be approved before it may be lawfully marketed. In addition, in some foreign markets, the pricing of prescription drugs is subject to government control and reimbursement may in some cases be unavailable. The requirements governing drug pricing vary widely from country to country. For example, the European Union provides options for its member states to restrict the range of medicinal products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices of medicinal products for human use. A member state may approve a specific price for the medicinal product, may refuse to reimburse a product at the price set by the manufacturer or may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the medicinal product on the market. There can be no assurance that any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for biopharmaceutical products will allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements for eryaspase or any of our other product candidates that may be approved. Historically, biopharmaceutical products launched in the European Union do not follow price structures of the United States and generally tend to have significantly lower prices.

We believe that pricing pressures at the federal and state levels in the United States, as well as internationally, will continue and may increase, which may make it difficult for us to sell our potential product candidates that may be approved in the future at a price acceptable to us or any third parties with whom we may choose to collaborate. Further, it is possible that additional governmental action is taken in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Any of our product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval, as well as the manufacturing processes, post-approval studies and measures, labeling, advertising and promotional activities for such products, among other things, will be subject to continual requirements of and review by the EMA, FDA and other regulatory authorities. These requirements include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, registration and listing requirements, requirements relating to manufacturing, quality control, quality assurance and corresponding maintenance of records and documents, requirements regarding the distribution of samples to physicians and recordkeeping. 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, including the FDA requirement to implement a REMS to ensure that the benefits of a drug or biological product outweigh its risks.

The EMA and FDA may also impose requirements for costly post-marketing studies or clinical trials and surveillance to monitor the safety or efficacy of a product, such as long-term observational studies on natural exposure. The FDA and other agencies, including the Department of Justice, closely regulate and monitor the post-approval marketing and promotion of products to ensure that they are manufactured, marketed and distributed only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved labeling. The EMA and FDA impose stringent restrictions on manufacturers’ communications regarding off-label use and if we do not market any of our product candidates for which we receive marketing approval for only their approved indications, we may be subject to warnings or enforcement action for off-label marketing. Violation of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, or FDCA, and other statutes, including the civil False Claims Act, relating to the promotion and advertising of prescription drugs may lead to investigations or allegations of violations of federal and state health care fraud and abuse laws and state consumer protection laws.

Post marketing regulations in the EU and in State Members also require specifications regarding promotion and advertising of prescription drugs.

The EMA, FDA and other regulatory agencies strictly regulate the promotional claims that may be made about prescription drug products, such as our product candidates, if approved. In particular, a product may not be promoted for uses that are not approved by the EMA, FDA or such other regulatory agencies as reflected in the product’s approved labeling. However, we may share truthful and not misleading information that is otherwise consistent with the product’s approved labeling. For example, if we receive marketing approval for eryaspase, physicians, in their professional medical judgment, may nevertheless prescribe eryaspase to their patients in a manner that is inconsistent with the approved label. If we are found to have promoted such off-label use, we may become subject to significant liability under the FDCA and other statutory authorities, such as laws prohibiting false claims for reimbursement. The federal government has levied large civil and criminal fines against companies for alleged improper promotion and has enjoined several companies from engaging in off-label promotion. The FDA has also requested that companies enter into consent decrees or permanent injunctions under which specified promotional conduct is changed or curtailed. If we cannot successfully manage the promotion of our products, if approved, we could become subject to significant liability, which would harm our reputation and negatively impact our financial condition. In addition to European legislation, each Member State of the European Union also enforce specific laws regarding the regulation of promotional claims which may change depending of the country marketing.

Our future profitability will depend, in part, on our ability to commercialize our product candidates in markets within and without the United States and Europe. If we commercialize our product candidates in foreign markets, we would be subject to additional risks and uncertainties, including:

Foreign sales of our products could also be adversely affected by the imposition of governmental controls, political and economic instability, trade restrictions and changes in tariffs.

Future sales of our product candidates, it they are approved, will be dependent on purchasing decisions of and reimbursement from government health administration authorities, distributors and other organizations. As a result of adverse conditions affecting the

global economy and credit and financial markets, including disruptions due to political instability or otherwise, these organizations may defer purchases, may be unable to satisfy their purchasing or reimbursement obligations, or may delay payment for eryaspase or any of our product candidates that are approved for commercialization in the future. In addition, there have been concerns for the overall stability and suitability of the euro as a single currency given the economic and political challenges facing individual Eurozone countries. Continuing deterioration in the creditworthiness of Eurozone countries, the withdrawal of one or more member countries from the European Union, or the failure of the euro as a common European currency or an otherwise diminished value of the euro could materially and adversely affect our future product revenue from European sales of our products.

Our production capacity may prove insufficient in the future to meet the growth of our business, including producing sufficient quantities of product candidates for preclinical studies, clinical trials and, ultimately, our customers and distributors. For instance, we have initiated a Phase 3 clinical trial in Europe and the United States in patients with second-line metastatic pancreatic cancer. Although we have extended our production capacity for our current clinical trials and a potential commercial launch, if approved, with the construction of a manufacturing facility in Princeton, New Jersey and the extension of our manufacturing facility in Lyon, France, there is no guarantee that we will or have properly estimated our required manufacturing capacities in or outside of the United States and Europe or that the third parties we rely on to provide required machinery and materials for the manufacturing process will be able to perform on our proposed timelines or meet our manufacturing demands, if at all. Also, if we must increase production capacity for any reason, we may need to make considerable investments that could lead to significant financing needs or require us to enter into subcontracting agreements in order to outsource part of the production.

We are dependent on third parties for the supply of various materials that are necessary to produce our product candidates for clinical trials.

With respect to eryaspase, we rely on Medac GmbH, or Medac, for the supply of asparaginase. Since we rely on a single-source supplier for asparaginase, if our agreement with Medac GmbH were to be terminated or if this supplier is unable to meet our demands for asparaginase, we could experience delays in our research or planned clinical trials or commercialization. We could be unable to find alternative suppliers of acceptable quality, in the appropriate volumes and at an acceptable cost.

In addition, these materials are subject to stringent manufacturing processes and rigorous testing. Delays in the completion and validation of facilities and manufacturing processes of these materials could adversely affect our ability to complete trials and commercialize our products in a cost-effective and timely manner. If we encounter difficulties in the supply of these materials, chemicals or biological products, or if we were not able to maintain our supply agreements or establish new supply agreements in the future, our product development and our business prospects could be significantly compromised.

other regulatory bodies to ensure compliance with current Good Manufacturing Practices, or cGMP, as part of our clinical trials. Any failure to follow and document our or their adherence to such cGMP regulations or other regulatory requirements may lead to significant delays in the availability of products for commercial sale or clinical trials, may result in the termination of or a hold on a clinical trial, or may delay or prevent filing or approval of marketing applications for our products.

Failure to comply with applicable regulations could also result in the EMA, FDA or other applicable regulatory authorities taking various actions, including:

Any of the foregoing actions could be detrimental to our reputation, business, financial condition or operating results. Furthermore, our key suppliers may not continue to be in compliance with all applicable regulatory requirements, which could result in our failure to produce our products on a timely basis and in the required quantities, if at all. In addition, before any additional products would be considered for marketing approval in the United States, Europe or elsewhere, our suppliers will have to pass an audit by the applicable regulatory agencies. We are dependent on our suppliers’ cooperation and ability to pass such audits, and the audits and any audit remediation may be costly. Failure to pass such audits by us or any of our suppliers would affect our ability to commercialize our product candidates in the United States, Europe or elsewhere.

We manufacture our product candidates according to manufacturing best practices applicable to drugs for clinical trials and to specifications approved by the applicable regulatory authorities. If any of our products are found to be non-compliant, we would be required to manufacture the product again, which would entail additional costs and may prevent delivery of the product to patients on time.

Other risks inherent in the production process may have the same effect, such as:

In addition, a rise in direct or indirect energy rates may increase product manufacturing and logistical costs. Any of these risks, should they occur, could disrupt our activities and compromise our financial position, results, reputation or growth.

As of December 31, 2020, we had 206 employees, and we expect to increase our number of employees and the scope of our operations. To manage our development and expansion, including the potential commercialization of our product candidates in Europe and the United States, we will need to implement and improve our managerial, operational and financial systems, expand our facilities and continue to recruit and train additional qualified personnel. Also, our management may need to divert a disproportionate amount of its attention away from its day-to-day activities and devote a substantial amount of time to managing these development activities. Due to our limited resources, we may not be able to effectively manage the expansion of our operations or recruit and train additional qualified personnel. This may result in weaknesses in our infrastructure, give rise to operational mistakes, loss of business opportunities, loss of employees and reduced productivity among remaining employees. The physical expansion of our operations may lead to significant costs and may divert financial resources from other projects, such as the development of our product candidates. If our management is unable to effectively manage our expected development and expansion, our expenses may increase more than expected, our ability to generate or increase our revenue could be reduced and we may not be able to implement our business strategy. Our future financial performance and our ability to commercialize our product candidates, if approved, and compete effectively will depend, in part, on our ability to effectively manage the future development and expansion of our company.

Our success depends to a significant degree upon the technical and management skills of our senior management team. The loss of the services of any of these individuals could have a material adverse effect on our ability to achieve our corporate objectives and successfully execute our business plan. Although we have implemented an executive compensation policy that includes variable compensation based on performance as well as share-based compensation plans for the benefit of our key employees, we cannot guarantee that this policy will be sufficient to retain these key employees. Our success also will depend upon our ability to attract and retain additional qualified management, marketing, technical, and sales executives and personnel. We compete for key personnel against numerous companies, including larger, more established companies with significantly greater financial resources than we possess. There can be no assurance that we will be successful in attracting or retaining such personnel, and the failure to do so, could harm our operations and our growth prospects.

As a French biopharmaceutical company, we have benefited from certain tax advantages, including, for example, the CIR, which is a French tax credit aimed at stimulating research and development. The CIR can be offset against French corporate income tax due and the portion in excess, if any, may be refunded. The CIR is calculated based on our claimed amount of eligible research and development expenditures in France and amounted to €4.4 million, €3.9 million and €3.4 million for the years ended December 31, 2018, 2019 and 2020, respectively. The French tax authorities, with the assistance of the Research and Higher Education Ministry, may audit each research and development program in respect of which a CIR benefit has been claimed and assess whether such program qualifies in its view for the CIR benefit. The French tax authorities may challenge our eligibility for, or our calculation of, certain tax reductions or deductions in respect of our research and development activities. Should the French tax authorities be successful, the CIR representing the majority of the our operating revenues (74% of revenues for the year ended December 31, 2019 and more than 90% for the years ended December 31, 2018 and December 31, 2020), our credits may be reduced, which would have a negative impact on our results of operations and future cash flows. We believe, due to the nature of our business operations, that we will continue to be eligible to receive the CIR tax credit. However, if the French Parliament decides to eliminate, or to reduce the scope or the rate of, the CIR benefit, either of which it could decide to do at any time, our results of operations could be adversely affected.

In December 2019, a novel strain of coronavirus, COVID-19, was reported to have surfaced in Wuhan, China. Since then, the COVID-19 coronavirus has spread globally, including to France, the United States and many of the countries in which we have planned or ongoing clinical trials. If the COVID-19 coronavirus continues to spread in France and the United States, we may experience disruptions that could severely impact our business and clinical trials, including:

We experienced a 3 to 4 months delay in patient enrollment in the TRYbeCA1 study which has been completed to date, and therefore in the intermediary analysis of this study. With the exception of this delay, we did not suffer any delay in other studies that would be related to the economic and health effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.

For our clinical trials that are being conducted in countries which are experiencing heightened impact from the COVID-19 coronavirus, in addition to the risks listed above, we may also experience the following adverse impacts:

The global outbreak of the COVID-19 coronavirus and the virus variants continues to rapidly evolve. The extent to which the COVID-19 coronavirus may impact our business and clinical trials will depend on future developments, which are highly uncertain and cannot be predicted with confidence, such as the ultimate geographic spread of the disease, the duration of the outbreak, travel restrictions and social distancing in the European Union, the United States and other countries, business closures or business disruptions and the effectiveness of actions taken in the European Union, the United States and other countries to contain and treat the disease such as the lockdown measures put in place in most countries. Further, the adverse effect on the financial markets, on the market price of our ADSs and/or ordinary shares, is unknown. To date, the global economy remains heavily impacted by the outbreak of the COVID-19 coronavirus. We believe that the recently emerged variants of the Covid-19 coronavirus are not likely to modify the risks as described above..

We are a company based in France with international operations, including in the United States. A significant portion of our suppliers and collaborative and clinical trial relationships are located outside the United States. Accordingly, our future results could be harmed by a variety of factors, including:

Owing to the international scope of our operations, fluctuations in exchange rates, particularly between the euro and the U.S. dollar, may adversely affect us. Although we are based in the France, we source research and development, manufacturing, consulting and other services from the United States as well as other countries outside the European Union. We incur some of our expenses, and may in the future derive revenues, in currencies other than the euro.

As we advance our clinical development in the United States and potentially commercialize our product candidates in that market, we expect to face greater exposure to exchange rate risk.. We cannot predict the impact of foreign currency fluctuations, and foreign currency fluctuations in the future may adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. Therefore, fluctuations in the exchange rate between the euro and the U.S. dollar will also affect, among other matters, the value of our ordinary shares and ADSs.

Our research and development processes involve the controlled use of hazardous materials, including chemicals and biological materials. We cannot eliminate the risk of accidental contamination or discharge and any resultant injury from these materials. We may be sued for any injury or contamination that results from our use or the use by third parties of these materials, and our liability may exceed any insurance coverage and our total assets. French and U.S. federal, state, local or foreign laws and regulations govern the use, manufacture, storage, handling and disposal of these hazardous materials and specified waste products, as well as the discharge of pollutants into the environment and human health and safety matters. Compliance with environmental laws and regulations may be expensive and may impair our research and development efforts. If we fail to comply with these requirements, we could incur substantial costs, including civil or criminal fines and penalties, clean-up costs or capital expenditures for control equipment or operational changes necessary to achieve and maintain compliance. In addition, we cannot predict the impact on our business of new or amended environmental laws or regulations or any changes in the way existing and future laws and regulations are interpreted and enforced.

Once a product is approved for sale and commercialized, the likelihood of product liability lawsuits increases. Criminal or civil proceedings might be filed against us by patients, regulatory authorities, biopharmaceutical companies and any other third party using or marketing our products. These actions could include claims resulting from acts by our partners, licensees and subcontractors, over which we have little or no control. These lawsuits may divert our management from pursuing our business strategy and may be costly to defend. In addition, if we are held liable in any of these lawsuits, we may incur substantial liabilities and may be forced to limit or forgo further commercialization of the affected products.

We maintain product liability insurance coverage for our clinical trials at levels which we believe are appropriate for our clinical trials. Nevertheless, our insurance coverage may be insufficient to reimburse us for any expenses or losses we may suffer. In addition, in the future, we may not be able to obtain or maintain sufficient insurance coverage at an acceptable cost or to otherwise protect against potential product or other legal or administrative liability claims by us or our collaborators, licensees or subcontractors, which could prevent or inhibit the commercial production and sale of any of our product candidates that receive regulatory approval. Product liability claims could also harm our reputation, which may adversely affect our ability to commercialize our products successfully.

Despite the implementation of security measures, our internal computer systems and those of our third-party contractors and consultants are vulnerable to damage from computer viruses, unauthorized access, natural disasters, terrorism, war and telecommunication and electrical failures. While we do not believe that we have experienced any such system failure, accident or security breach to date, including cybersecurity incidents, if such an event were to occur and cause interruptions in our operations, it could result in a material disruption of our programs. For example, the loss of clinical trial data for our product candidates could result in delays in our regulatory approval efforts and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the lost data. To the extent that any disruption or security breach results in a loss of or damage to our data or applications or other data or applications relating to our technology or product candidates, or inappropriate disclosure of confidential or proprietary information, we could incur liabilities and the further development of our product candidates could be delayed. As these threats continue to evolve, particularly around cybersecurity, we may be required to expend significant resources to enhance our control environment, processes, practices and other protective measures. Despite these efforts, such events could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Our current growth strategy does not involve plans to acquire companies or technologies facilitating or enabling us to access to new medicines, new research projects, or new geographical areas, or enabling us to express synergies with our existing operations. However, if such acquisitions were to become necessary in the future, we may not be able to identify appropriate targets or make acquisitions under satisfactory conditions, in particular, satisfactory price conditions. In addition, we may be unable to obtain the financing for these acquisitions on favorable terms, which could require us to finance these acquisitions using our existing cash resources that could have been allocated to other purposes. If we acquire businesses with promising markets or technologies, we may not be able to realize the benefit of acquiring such businesses if we are unable to successfully integrate them with our existing operations and company culture. We may encounter numerous difficulties in developing, manufacturing and marketing any new products resulting from a strategic alliance or acquisition that delay or prevent us from realizing their expected benefits or enhancing our business. We cannot assure you that, following any such acquisition, we will achieve the expected synergies to justify the transaction.

The collection and use of personal data in the European Union is governed by the provisions of the General Data Protection Regulation ((EU) 2016/679), or GDPR. This legislation imposes requirements relating to having legal bases for processing personal data relating to identifiable individuals and securing transfers of such data outside the European Economic Area including to the United States, providing information to those individuals regarding the processing of their personal data, keeping personal data secure, having data processing agreements with third parties who process personal data, responding to individuals’ requests to exercise their rights in respect of their personal data, reporting security breaches involving personal data to the competent national data protection authority and affected individuals, conducting record-keeping and,where applicable, appointing data protection officers, conducting data protection impact assessments. The GDPR imposes additional responsibilities and liabilities in relation to personal data that we process and we may be required to put in place additional mechanisms ensuring compliance with the new data protection rules. The GDPR applies across the EEA and, by virtue of the UK GDPR in the United Kingdom, in a broadly uniform manner. However, the GDPR provides that EEA member states can make their own further laws and regulations to introduce specific requirements related to the processing of ‘special categories of personal data,’ including personal data related to health, biometric data used for unique

identification purposes and genetic information; as well as personal data related to criminal offences or convictions – in the United Kingdom, the United Kingdom Data Protection Act 2018 complements the UK GDPR in this regard. This fact may lead to greater divergence on the law that applies to the processing of such data types across the EEA and/or United Kingdom, compliance with which, as and where applicable, may increase our costs and could increase our overall compliance risk. Such country-specific regulations could also limit our ability to collect, use and share data in the context of our EEA and/or United Kingdom establishments (regardless of where any processing in question occurs), and/or could cause our compliance costs to increase, ultimately having an adverse impact on our business, and harming our business and financial condition. Failure to comply with the requirements of the GDPR and related national data protection laws of the member states of the European Union may result in substantial fines, other administrative penalties and civil claims being brought against us, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. Moreover, in some European countries, including France, the hosting of personal health data must be carried out by specifically certified hosting service providers. The absence or suspension of the appropriate certification of such hosting service provider may adversely affect our business, or even lead to penalties related to breach of security of personal data.

We are subject to export control and import laws and regulations, including the U.S. Export Administration Regulations, U.S. Customs regulations, various economic and trade sanctions regulations administered by the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Controls, the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, as amended, the U.S. domestic bribery statute contained in 18 U.S.C. § 201, the U.S. Travel Act, the USA PATRIOT Act, and other state and national anti-bribery and anti-money laundering laws in the countries in which we conduct activities. Anti-corruption laws are interpreted broadly and prohibit companies and their employees, agents, contractors, and other collaborators from authorizing, promising, offering, or providing, directly or indirectly, improper payments or anything else of value to recipients in the public or private sector. We may engage third parties to sell our products sell our products outside the United States, to conduct clinical trials, and/or to obtain necessary permits, licenses, patent registrations, and other regulatory approvals. We have direct or indirect interactions with officials and employees of government agencies or government-affiliated hospitals, universities, and other organizations. We can be held liable for the corrupt or other illegal activities of our employees, agents, contractors, and other collaborators, even if we do not explicitly authorize or have actual knowledge of such activities. Any violations of the laws and regulations described above may result in substantial civil and criminal fines and penalties, imprisonment, the loss of export or import privileges, debarment, tax reassessments, breach of contract and fraud litigation, reputational harm, and other consequences.

Healthcare providers, physicians and others will play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of our products, if approved. Our business operations in the United States and our arrangements with clinical investigators, healthcare providers, consultants, third party payors and patients may expose us to broadly applicable federal and state anti-bribery fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws. These laws may impact, among other things, our research, proposed sales, marketing and education programs of our product candidates that obtain marketing approval. Restrictions under applicable U.S. federal, state and foreign healthcare laws and regulations include, but are not limited to, the following:

Ensuring that our business arrangements with third parties comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations will likely be costly. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices do 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 were 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 civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, imprisonment, possible exclusion from government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, additional reporting requirements and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or similar agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, and curtailment of our operations, any of which could substantially disrupt our operations. If the physicians or other providers or entities with whom we expect to do business are found not to be in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to significant criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government funded healthcare programs.

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 research and development activities

involve the use of biological and hazardous materials and 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, which could cause an interruption of our commercialization efforts, research and development efforts and business operations, environmental damage resulting in costly clean-up and liabilities under applicable laws and regulations governing the use, storage, handling and disposal of these materials and specified waste products. Although we believe that the safety procedures utilized by our third-party manufacturers for handling and disposing of these materials generally comply with the standards prescribed by these laws and regulations, we cannot guarantee that this is the case or eliminate the risk of accidental contamination or injury from these materials. In such an event, we may be held liable for any resulting damages and such liability could exceed our resources and state or federal or other applicable authorities may curtail our use of certain materials and/or interrupt our business operations. Furthermore, environmental laws and regulations are complex, change frequently and have tended to become more stringent. We cannot predict the impact of such changes and cannot be certain of our future compliance. In addition, we may incur substantial costs in order to comply with current or future environmental, health and safety laws and regulations. These current or future laws and regulations may impair our research, development or production efforts. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations also may result in substantial fines, penalties or other sanctions.

Although we maintain professional liability insurance which cover for costs and expenses we may incur due to environmental liability that may be asserted against us or due to injuries to our employees resulting from the use of hazardous materials, may not provide adequate coverage against potential liabilities.

We are exposed to the risk of employee fraud or other misconduct. Misconduct by employees could include intentional failures to comply with legal requirements or the requirements of CMS, EMA, FDA and other government regulators, provide accurate information to applicable government authorities, comply with fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations in the United States and abroad, report financial information or data accurately or disclose unauthorized activities to us. In particular, sales, marketing and business arrangements in the healthcare industry are subject to extensive laws and regulations intended to prevent fraud, misconduct, kickbacks, self-dealing and other abusive practices. These laws and regulations restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, sales commission, customer incentive programs and other business arrangements. Employee misconduct could also involve the improper use of, including trading on, information obtained in the course of clinical trials, which could result in regulatory sanctions and serious harm to our reputation. We have 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 this activity may be ineffective 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 comply with these laws or regulations. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business, including the imposition of significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, imprisonment, possible exclusion from government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, additional reporting requirements and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or similar agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, and curtailment of our operations.

As a result of the implementation of Regulation (EU) 2019/452 of the European Parliament and of the Council of March 19, 2019 establishing a framework for the screening of foreign direct investments into the European Union, the list of sectors of activity which are subject to a control by the French authorities has been extended to cover foreign investments in additional economic sectors. Prior authorization of the Minister of Economy is required for investments in: (i) businesses participating, even occasionally, under the exercise of French public authority, (ii) businesses that would be liable to negatively impact public order, public security or the national defense interest, as well as (iii) business focused on research, production or trade of arms, ammunition, gunpowder and explosive substances.

A foreign direct investment will be subject to authorization where there is an (i) acquisition of control, under article L.233-3 of the French Commercial Code, of an entity subject to French law, (ii) where a party acquires all or part of a branch of activity of an entity subject to French law, (iii) or where a party crosses directly or indirectly, and acting alone or in concert, the 25% voting rights threshold of an entity subject to French law.

The Decree of July 22, 2020, as amended by the decree of December 28, 2020, currently provides that this new 10% threshold will be effective until December 31, 2021 and a fast-track review procedure for foreign investments exceeding this threshold.

If an investment in the company subject to prior authorization is realized without this authorization having been granted, the Minister will be able to order the investor, subject to a fine for non-performance, to: (i) file an authorization application, (ii) restore the previous situation, or (iii) amend the investment and, if he considers that the conditions for the authorization have not been met, the Minister may also revoke the authorization or order the investor, subject to a fine for non-performance, to comply with the authorization. In both cases, he may also take provisional measures.

Furthermore, an investor who has carried out a transaction without prior authorization or has not complied with the orders or measures set by the French Minister of Economy will be liable to a fine of up to the greater of the following amounts: (i) double the amount of the irregular investment, (ii) 10% of the turnover (excluding taxes) of the company, (iii) five million euros for legal entities, and (iv) one million euros for individuals.

Inclusion of biotechnologies in the list of critical technologies subject to foreign investment control procedure could discourage foreign investment in the Company's securities, thereby limiting access to foreign sources of financing. If interested investors do not or cannot obtain such authorization, their investment could be cancelled and be subject to additional fees and/or monetary penalties.

Our tax treatment is subject to the enactment of, or changes in, tax laws, regulations and treaties, or the interpretation thereof, tax policy initiatives and reforms under consideration and the practices of tax authorities in jurisdictions in which we operate, including those related to the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development’s Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project, the European Commission’s state aid investigations and other initiatives. Such changes may include (but are not limited to) the taxation of operating income, investment income, dividends received or (in the specific context of withholding tax) dividends paid. We are unable to predict what tax reform may be proposed or enacted in the future or what effect such changes would have on our business, but such changes, to the extent they are brought into tax legislation, regulations, policies or practices, could affect our financial position and overall or effective tax rates in the future in countries where we have operations, reduce post-tax returns to our shareholders, and increase the complexity, burden and cost of tax compliance.

For example, the Tax Act enacted many significant changes to the U.S. tax laws. Future guidance from the Internal Revenue Service and other tax authorities with respect to the Tax Act may affect us, and certain aspects of the Tax Act could be repealed or modified in future legislation. In addition, it is uncertain if and to what extent various states will conform to the Tax Act or any newly enacted federal tax legislation. Changes in corporate tax rates, the realization of net deferred tax assets relating to our operations, the taxation of foreign earnings, and the deductibility of expenses under the Tax Act or future reform legislation could have a material impact on the value of our deferred tax assets, could result in significant one-time charges, and could increase our future U.S. tax expense. We urge you to consult with your legal and tax advisors with respect to this legislation and the potential tax consequences of investing in or holding our common shares.

A tax authority may disagree with tax positions that we have taken, which could result in increased tax liabilities. For example, the U.S. Internal Revenue Service or another tax authority could challenge our allocation of income by tax jurisdiction and the amounts paid between our affiliated companies pursuant to our intercompany arrangements and transfer pricing policies, including amounts paid with respect to our intellectual property development. Similarly, a tax authority could assert that we are subject to tax in a jurisdiction where we believe we have not established a taxable connection, often referred to as a “permanent establishment” under international tax treaties, and such an assertion, if successful, could increase our expected tax liability in one or more jurisdictions. A tax authority may take the position that material income tax liabilities, interest and penalties are payable by us, in which case, we expect that we might contest such assessment. Contesting such an assessment may be lengthy and costly and if we were unsuccessful in disputing the assessment, the implications could increase our anticipated effective tax rate, where applicable.

In general, under Section 382 of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, or the Code, a corporation that undergoes an “ownership change” is subject to limitations on its ability to utilize its pre-change net operating loss carryforwards, or NOLs, to offset future taxable income. We have not performed a detailed analysis to determine whether an ownership change under Section 382 of the Code has occurred after each of our previous issuances of ordinary shares. In addition, if we underwent an ownership change in the past, our ability to utilize NOLs could be limited by Section 382 of the Code. Future changes in our share ownership, some of which are outside of our

control, could result in an ownership change under Section 382 of the Code. Furthermore, our ability to utilize NOLs of companies that we may acquire in the future may be subject to limitations. As a result, even if we attain profitability, we may be unable to use a material portion of our NOLs and other tax attributes, which could negatively impact our future cash flows.

Our commercial success depends on obtaining and maintaining proprietary rights to our product candidates and defending these rights against third-party challenges. We will only be able to protect our product candidates and their uses from unauthorized use by third parties to the extent that valid and enforceable patents, or effectively protected trade secrets, cover them. Our ability to obtain patent protection for our product candidates is uncertain due to a number of factors, including:

Even if we have or obtain patents covering our product candidates or compositions, we may still be barred from making, using and selling our product candidates or technologies because of the patent rights of others. Others may have filed, and in the future, may file, patent applications covering compositions or products that are similar or identical to ours. There are many issued U.S. and foreign patents relating to chemical compounds and therapeutic products, and some of these relate to compounds we intend to commercialize. Numerous U.S. and foreign issued patents and pending patent applications owned by others exist in the cancer treatment field in which we are developing products. These could materially affect our ability to develop our product candidates or sell our products if approved. Because patent applications can take many years to issue, there may be currently pending applications unknown to us that may later result in issued patents that our product candidates or compositions may infringe. These patent applications may have priority over patent applications filed by us.

Obtaining and maintaining a patent portfolio entails significant expense and resources. Part of the expense includes periodic maintenance fees, renewal fees, annuity fees, various other governmental fees on patents and/or applications due in several stages over the lifetime of patents and/or applications, as well as the cost associated with complying with numerous procedural provisions during the patent application process. We may not choose to pursue or maintain protection for particular inventions. In addition, there are situations in which failure to make certain payments or noncompliance with certain requirements in the patent process can result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. If we choose to forgo patent protection or allow a patent application or patent to lapse purposefully or inadvertently, our competitive position could suffer.

Legal actions to enforce our patent rights can be expensive and may involve the diversion of significant management time. In addition, these legal actions could be unsuccessful and could also result in the invalidation of our patents or a finding that they are unenforceable. We may or may not choose to pursue litigation or other actions against those that have infringed on our patents, or used them without authorization, due to the associated expense and time commitment of monitoring these activities. If we fail to protect or to enforce our intellectual property rights successfully, our competitive position could suffer, which could harm our results of operations.

If we initiate legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent covering our product candidate or technology, the defendant could counterclaim that the patent covering our product candidate or technology is invalid or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity and unenforceability are commonplace. Grounds for a validity challenge include alleged failures to meet any of several statutory requirements, including lack of novelty, obviousness or non-enablement. Grounds for unenforceability assertions include allegations that someone connected with prosecution of the patent withheld relevant information from the USPTO, or made a misleading statement, during prosecution. Third parties may also raise similar claims before administrative bodies in the United States or abroad, even outside the context of litigation. Such mechanisms include re-examination, post-grant review and/or inter partes review and equivalent proceedings in foreign jurisdictions, and opposition proceedings. Such proceedings could result in revocation or amendment of our patents in such a way that they no longer cover our product candidates or competitive products. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. With respect to validity, for example, we cannot be certain that there is no invalidating prior art, of which we and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution. If a defendant were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity or unenforceability, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection on our product candidates.

The patent positions of biopharmaceutical companies can be highly uncertain and involve complex legal and factual questions. The interpretation and breadth of claims allowed in some patents covering biopharmaceutical compositions may be uncertain and difficult to determine and are often affected materially by the facts and circumstances that pertain to the patented compositions and the related patent claims. The standards of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, are evolving and could change in the future. Consequently, we cannot predict the issuance and scope of patents with certainty. Patents, if issued, may be challenged, invalidated or circumvented. U.S. patents and patent applications may also be subject to interference proceedings, and U.S. patents may be subject to reexamination proceedings, post-grant review and/or inter partes review in the USPTO. Foreign patents may be subject also to opposition or comparable proceedings in the corresponding foreign patent office, which could result in either loss of the patent or denial of the patent application or loss or reduction in the scope of one or more of the claims of the patent or patent application. In addition, such interference, reexamination, post-grant review, inter partes review and opposition proceedings may be costly. Accordingly, rights under any issued patents may not provide us with sufficient protection against competitive products or processes.

In addition, changes in or different interpretations of patent laws in the United States and foreign countries may permit others to use our or our licensors’ discoveries or to develop and commercialize our technology and products without providing any compensation to us, or may limit the number of patents or claims we can obtain. The laws of some countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as U.S. laws and those countries may lack adequate rules and procedures for defending our intellectual property rights.

If we fail to obtain and maintain patent protection and trade secret protection for our product candidates, we could lose our competitive advantage and competition we face would increase, reducing any potential revenues and adversely affecting our ability to attain or maintain profitability.

From time to time, the U.S. Supreme Court, other federal courts, the U.S. Congress, the USPTO or similar foreign authorities may change the standards of patentability and any such changes could have a negative impact on our business. In addition, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or the America Invents Act, which was signed into law in 2011, includes a number of significant changes to U.S. patent law. These changes include a transition from a “first-to-invent” system to a “first-to-file” system, changes to the way issued patents are challenged, and changes to the way patent applications are disputed during the examination process. These changes may favor larger and more established companies that have greater resources to devote to patent application filing and prosecution. The USPTO has developed new regulations and procedures to govern the full implementation of the America Invents Act, and many of the substantive changes to patent law associated with the America Invents Act, and, in particular, the first-to-file provisions, became effective on March 16, 2013. Substantive changes to patent law associated with the America Invents Act, or any subsequent U.S. legislation regarding patents, may affect our ability to obtain patents, and if obtained, to enforce or defend them. Accordingly, it is not clear what, if any, impact the America Invents Act will have on the cost of prosecuting our U.S. patent applications, our ability to obtain U.S. patents based on our discoveries and our ability to enforce or defend any patents that may issue from our patent applications, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Depending upon the timing, duration and conditions of FDA marketing approval of our product candidates, one or more of our U.S. patents may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, referred to as the Hatch-Waxman Amendments, and similar legislation in the European Union. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments permit a patent term extension of up to five years for a patent covering an approved product as compensation for effective patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review process. However, we may not receive an extension if we fail to apply within applicable deadlines, fail to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents or otherwise fail to satisfy applicable requirements. Moreover, the length of the extension could be less than we request. If we are unable to obtain patent term extension or the term of any such extension is less than we request, the period during which we can enforce our patent rights for that product will be shortened and our competitors may obtain approval to market competing products sooner. As a result, our revenue from applicable products could be reduced, possibly materially.

In addition to patent protection, because we operate in the highly technical field of development of therapies, we rely in part on trade secret protection in order to protect our proprietary technology and processes. However, trade secrets are difficult to protect. We have entered into confidentiality and intellectual property assignment agreements with our employees, consultants, outside scientific collaborators, sponsored researchers, and other advisors. These agreements generally require that the other party keep confidential and not disclose to third parties all confidential information developed by the party or made known to the party by us during the course of the party’s relationship with us. These agreements also generally provide that inventions conceived by the party in the course of rendering services to us will be our exclusive property. However, these agreements may not be honored and may not effectively assign intellectual property rights to us.

In addition to contractual measures, we try to protect the confidential nature of our proprietary information using physical and technological security measures. Such measures may not, for example, in the case of misappropriation of a trade secret by an employee or third party with authorized access, provide adequate protection for our proprietary information. Our security measures may not prevent an employee or consultant from misappropriating our trade secrets and providing them to a competitor, and recourse we take against such misconduct may not provide an adequate remedy to protect our interests fully. Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret can be difficult, expensive, and time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, courts outside the United States may be less willing to protect trade secrets. Trade secrets may be independently developed by others in a manner that could prevent legal recourse by us. If any of our confidential or proprietary information, such as our trade secrets, were to be disclosed or misappropriated, or if any such information was independently developed by a competitor, our competitive position could be harmed.

Filing, prosecuting and defending patents on our product candidates in all countries and jurisdictions throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and our intellectual property rights in some countries outside the United States could be less extensive than those in the United States, assuming that rights are obtained in the United States. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we do not pursue and obtain patent protection to develop their own products and further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we have patent protection, but enforcement is not as strong as that in the United States. These products may compete with our products and our patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing. Even if we pursue and obtain issued patents in particular jurisdictions, our patent claims or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent third parties from so competing.

In addition, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as the federal and state laws in the United States. Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in certain foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of some countries, particularly developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents and other intellectual property protection, especially those relating to biopharmaceuticals or biotechnologies. This could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patents, if obtained, or the misappropriation of our other intellectual property rights. For example, many foreign countries have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner must grant licenses to third parties. In addition, many countries limit the enforceability of patents against third parties, including government agencies or government contractors. In these countries, patents may provide limited or no benefit. Patent protection must ultimately be sought on a country-by-country basis, which is an expensive and time-consuming process with uncertain outcomes. Accordingly, we may choose not to seek patent protection in certain countries, and we will not have the benefit of patent protection in such countries.

Proceedings to enforce our patent rights in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, could put our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly, could put our patent applications at risk of not issuing and could provoke third parties to assert claims against us. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. In addition, changes in the law and legal decisions by courts in the United States and foreign countries may affect our ability to obtain adequate protection for our technology and the enforcement of intellectual property. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce our intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop or license.

Collaborators or third party partners may in the future make claims challenging the inventorship or ownership of our intellectual property developed in the context of their collaboration with us. We have written agreements with collaborators and third party partners that provide us the ownership of intellectual property or provide that we must negotiate certain intellectual property rights with collaborators and third party partners with respect to joint inventions or inventions made by them that arise from the results of the collaboration. In some instances, written provisions or conditions may be challenged or may not be adequate to address clearly the resolution of intellectual property rights that may arise from a collaboration. If we cannot successfully negotiate ownership of intellectual property to the inventions that result from our use of a third-party partner or collaborator’s materials where required, or if disputes otherwise arise with respect to the intellectual property developed with the use of a third-party partner or collaborator’s samples, we may be limited in our ability to capitalize on the market potential of these inventions. In addition, we may face claims by third parties that our agreements with employees, contractors, or consultants obligating them to assign intellectual property to us are ineffective, or in conflict with prior or competing contractual obligations of assignment, which could result in ownership disputes regarding intellectual property we have developed or will develop and interfere with our ability to capture the commercial value of such inventions. Litigation may be necessary to resolve an ownership dispute, and if we are not successful, we may be precluded from using certain intellectual property, or may lose our exclusive rights in that intellectual property. Either outcome could have an adverse impact on our business.

We license intellectual property that is critical to our business, including licenses underlying the technology in our diagnostic tests, and in the future, we may enter into additional agreements that provide us with licenses to valuable intellectual property or technology. These licenses impose various royalty payments, milestones, and other obligations on us. If we fail to comply with any of these obligations, the licensor may have the right to terminate the license. Termination by the licensor would cause us to lose valuable rights, and could prevent us from distributing our current tests, or inhibit our ability to commercialize future test candidates. Our business would suffer if any current or future licenses terminate, if the licensors fail to abide by the terms of the license, if the licensors fail to prevent infringement by third parties, if the licensed patents or other rights are found to be invalid or unenforceable, or if we are unable to enter into necessary licenses on acceptable terms.

We employ individuals who were previously employed at universities or other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. Although we try to ensure that our employees and consultants do not use the proprietary information or know-how of others in their work for us, and no such claims against us are currently pending, we may be subject to claims that we or our employees, consultants or independent contractors have used or disclosed intellectual property, including trade secrets or other proprietary information, of a former employer or other third parties. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management and other employees.

There is significant litigation in the biopharmaceutical industry regarding patent and other intellectual property rights. While we are not currently subject to any pending intellectual property litigation, and are not aware of any such threatened litigation, we may be exposed to future litigation by third parties based on claims that our product candidates, technologies or activities infringe the intellectual property rights of others. If our development activities are found to infringe any such patents, we may have to pay significant damages or seek licenses to such patents. A patentee could prevent us from using the patented drugs or compositions. We may need to resort to litigation to enforce a patent issued to us, to protect our trade secrets, or to determine the scope and validity of third-party proprietary rights. From time to time, we may hire scientific personnel or consultants formerly employed by other

companies involved in one or more areas similar to the activities conducted by us. Either we or these individuals may be subject to allegations of trade secret misappropriation or other similar claims as a result of prior affiliations. If we become involved in litigation, it could consume a substantial portion of our managerial and financial resources, regardless of whether we win or lose. We may not be able to afford the costs of litigation. Any adverse ruling or perception of an adverse ruling in defending ourselves against these claims could have a negative impact on our cash position. Any legal action against us or our collaborators could lead to:

Any of these outcomes could hurt our cash position and financial condition and our ability to develop and commercialize our product candidates.

Our registered or unregistered trademarks or trade names may be challenged, infringed, circumvented or declared generic or determined to be infringing on other marks. We may not be able to protect our rights to these trademarks and trade names, which we will need to build name recognition by potential partners or customers in our markets of interest. Over the long term, if we are unable to establish name recognition based on our trademarks and trade names, we may not be able to compete effectively.

The market price for our ADSs and ordinary shares has fluctuated and is likely to continue to fluctuate, substantially. The stock market in general and the market for biopharmaceutical companies in particular have experienced extreme volatility that in some instances is unrelated to the operating performance of particular companies. For example, on the day we announced our positive Phase 2b clinical trial results evaluating eryaspase in metastatic pancreatic cancer in March 2017, the closing price per ordinary share on Euronext Paris increased by 71% compared to the average of the closing price per ordinary share for the previous 20 trading days. Conversely, on the day we announced the discontinuation of our developments in AML in June 2018, the closing price per ordinary share on Euronext Paris decreased by 31% compared to the average of the closing price per ordinary share for the previous 20 trading days. A significant decrease in our share price could have a significant adverse effect on our financial condition, reputation and prospects.

As a result of this volatility in our market and industry, holders of our equity securities may not be able to sell their ADSs or ordinary shares at or above the price originally paid for the security. The market price for our ADSs and ordinary shares may be influenced by numerous factors, some of which are beyond our control, including:

These and other market and industry factors may cause the market price and demand for our ordinary shares and ADSs to fluctuate substantially, regardless of our actual operating performance, which may limit or prevent holders of our equity securities from readily selling their ordinary shares or ADSs and may otherwise negatively affect the liquidity of the trading market for the ordinary shares and ADSs.

In addition, in the past, stockholders have initiated class action lawsuits against pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies following periods of volatility in the market prices of these companies’ stock. Such litigation, if instituted against us, could cause us to incur substantial costs and divert management’s attention and resources from our business.

Our ADSs are listed on Nasdaq, and our ordinary shares are listed on Euronext Paris. We cannot predict the effect our dual listing will have on the value of our ADSs and ordinary shares. However, the dual listing of our ADSs and ordinary shares may dilute the liquidity of these securities in one or both markets and may adversely affect the trading market or price for our ADSs or ordinary shares.

We sometimes estimate for planning purposes the timing of the accomplishment of various scientific, clinical, regulatory and other product development objectives. These milestones may include our expectations regarding the commencement or completion of scientific studies, clinical trials, the submission of regulatory filings, or commercialization objectives. From time to time, we may publicly announce the expected timing of some of these milestones, such as the completion of an ongoing clinical trial, the initiation of other clinical programs, receipt of marketing approval, or a commercial launch of a product. The achievement of many of these milestones may be outside of our control. All of these milestones are based on a variety of assumptions which may cause the timing of achievement of the milestones to vary considerably from our estimates, including:

If we fail to achieve announced milestones in the timeframes we expect, the commercialization of our product candidates may be delayed, our business and results of operations may be harmed, and the trading price of the ordinary shares and ADSs may decline as a result.

significant influence over all matters that require approval by our shareholders, including the election of directors and approval of significant corporate transactions. Corporate action might be taken even if other shareholders oppose them. This concentration of ownership might also have the effect of delaying or preventing a change of control of our company that other shareholders may view as beneficial.

The trading market for the ADSs and ordinary shares depends in part on the research and reports that securities or industry analysts publish about us or our business. If no or few securities or industry analysts cover our company, the trading price for our ADSs and ordinary shares would be negatively impacted. If one or more of the analysts who covers us downgrades our equity securities or publishes incorrect or unfavorable research about our business, the price of the ordinary shares and ADSs would likely decline. If one or more of these analysts ceases coverage of our company or fails to publish reports on us regularly, or downgrades our securities, demand for the ordinary shares and ADSs could decrease, which could cause the price of the ordinary shares and ADSs or their trading volume to decline.

We have never declared or paid any cash dividends on our share capital and do not currently intend to do so for the foreseeable future. We currently intend to invest our future earnings, if any, to fund our growth. Therefore, our shareholders and ADS holders are not likely to receive any dividends for the foreseeable future and any increase in value will depend solely upon future appreciation. Consequently, holders of our equity securities may need to sell all or part of their holdings of ordinary shares or ADSs after price appreciation, which may never occur, as the only way to realize any future gains.

Further, under French law, the determination of whether we have been sufficiently profitable to pay dividends is made on the basis of our statutory financial statements prepared and presented in accordance with accounting standards applicable in France. In addition, payment of dividends may subject us to additional taxes under French law. Please see the section of this Annual Report titled “Item 10.B—Memorandum and Articles of Association” for further details on the limitations on our ability to declare and pay dividends and the taxes that may become payable by us if we elect to pay a dividend. Therefore, we may be more restricted in our ability to declare dividends than companies not based in France.

In addition, exchange rate fluctuations may affect the amount of euros that we are able to distribute, and the amount in U.S. dollars that our shareholders receive upon the payment of cash dividends or other distributions we declare and pay in euros, if any. These factors could harm the value of our equity securities, and, in turn, the U.S. dollar proceeds that holders receive from the sale of ADSs.

As of December 31, 2020, 20,057,562 ordinary shares were issued and outstanding. Sales of a substantial number of shares of our ordinary shares or ADSs in the public market, or the perception that these sales might occur, could depress the market price of our securities and could impair our ability to raise capital through the sale of additional equity securities. A substantial number of our shares are now generally freely tradable, subject, in the case of sales by our affiliates, to the volume limitations and other provisions of Rule 144 under the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Act. If holders of these shares sell, or indicate an intent to sell, substantial amounts of our securities in the public market, the trading price of our securities could decline significantly.

We have also filed a registration statement with the SEC to register the ordinary shares that may be issued under our equity incentive plans. The ordinary shares subject to outstanding options under our equity incentive plans, ordinary shares reserved for future issuance under our equity incentive plans and ordinary shares subject to outstanding warrants will become eligible for sale in the public market in the future, subject to certain legal and contractual limitations. Sales of a large number of the shares issued under these plans in the public market could have an adverse effect on the market price of our securities. In addition, pursuant to the OCABSA Agreement, we may issue ordinary shares upon conversion of convertible notes and/or exercise of share warrants. In the event that such ordinary shares are sold in the public market, such sales of ordinary shares pursuant to the OCABSA Agreement could also have an adverse effect on the market price of our securities.

We are a French company with limited liability. Our corporate affairs are governed by our bylaws and by the laws governing companies incorporated in France. The rights of shareholders and the responsibilities of members of our board of directors are in many ways different from the rights and obligations of shareholders in companies governed by the laws of U.S. jurisdictions. For example, in the performance of its duties, our board of directors is required by French law to consider the interests of our company, its shareholders, its employees and other stakeholders, rather than solely our shareholders and/or creditors. It is possible that some of these parties will have interests that are different from, or in addition to, the interests of our shareholders or holders of our ADSs. See the sections of this Annual Report titled “Item 10. B—Memorandum and Articles of Association” and “Item 16.G—Corporate Governance.”

Certain members of our board of directors and senior management and certain experts named herein are non-residents of the United States, and all or a substantial portion of our assets and the assets of such persons are located outside the United States. As a result, it may not be possible to serve process on such persons or us in the United States or to enforce judgments obtained in U.S. courts against them or us based on civil liability provisions of the securities laws of the United States. Additionally, it may be difficult to assert U.S. securities law claims in actions originally instituted outside of the United States. Foreign courts may refuse to hear a U.S. securities law claim because foreign courts may not be the most appropriate forums in which to bring such a claim. Even if a foreign court agrees to hear a claim, it may determine that the law of the jurisdiction in which the foreign court resides, and not U.S. law, is applicable to the claim. Further, if U.S. law is found to be applicable, the content of applicable U.S. law must be proved as a fact, which can be a time-consuming and costly process, and certain matters of procedure would still be governed by the law of the jurisdiction in which the foreign court resides. In particular, there is some doubt as to whether French courts would recognize and enforce certain civil liabilities under U.S. securities laws in original actions or judgments of U.S. courts based upon these civil liability provisions. In addition, awards of punitive damages in actions brought in the United States or elsewhere may be unenforceable in France. An award for monetary damages under the U.S. securities laws would be considered punitive if it does not seek to compensate the claimant for loss or damage suffered but is intended to punish the defendant. French law provides that a shareholder, or a group of shareholders, may initiate a legal action to seek indemnification from the directors of a corporation in the corporation’s interest if it fails to bring such legal action itself. If so, any damages awarded by the court are paid to the corporation and any legal fees relating to such action may be borne by the relevant shareholder or the group of shareholders.

The enforceability of any judgment in France will depend on the particular facts of the case as well as the laws and treaties in effect at the time. The United States and France do not currently have a treaty providing for recognition and enforcement of judgments (other than arbitration awards) in civil and commercial matters.

Provisions contained in our bylaws and French corporate law could make it more difficult for a third-party to acquire us, even if doing so might be beneficial to our shareholders. In addition, provisions of our bylaws impose various procedural and other requirements, which could make it more difficult for shareholders to effect certain corporate actions. These provisions include the following:

Holders of our ADSs may exercise voting rights with respect to the ordinary shares represented by the ADSs only in accordance with the provisions of the amended and restated deposit agreement. The amended and restated deposit agreement provides that, upon receipt of notice of any meeting of holders of our ordinary shares, the depositary will fix a record date for the determination of ADS holders who shall be entitled to give instructions for the exercise of voting rights. Upon timely receipt of notice from us, if we so request, the depositary shall distribute to the holders as of the record date (1) the notice of the meeting or solicitation of consent or proxy sent by us and (2) a statement as to the manner in which instructions may be given by the holders.

Holders of our ADSs may instruct the depositary of their ADSs to vote the ordinary shares underlying such ADSs. Otherwise, holders of our ADSs will not be able to exercise voting rights unless they withdraw the ordinary shares underlying the ADSs they hold. However, a holder of our ADSs may not know about the meeting far enough in advance to withdraw those ordinary shares. If we ask for a holder of our ADSs’ instructions, the depositary, upon timely notice from us, will notify him or her of the upcoming vote and

arrange to deliver our voting materials to him or her. We cannot guarantee to any holder of ADSs that he or she will receive the voting materials in time to ensure that he or she can instruct the depositary to vote his or her ordinary shares or to withdraw his or her ordinary shares so that he or she can vote them directly. Pursuant to the terms of our amended deposit agreement, in certain situations if, in the opinion of our management, the matter is not materially adverse to the interests of our shareholders, we may request that if the depositary does not receive timely voting instructions from a holder of ADSs, the depositary may give a proxy to a person designated by us to vote, in its discretion, the ordinary shares underlying the unvoted ADSs, as long as the matter is endorsed by our board. In addition, the depositary and its agents are not responsible for failing to carry out voting instructions or for the manner of carrying out voting instructions. This means that a holder of ADSs may not be able to exercise his or her right to vote, and there may be nothing he or she can do if the ordinary shares underlying his or her ADSs are not voted as he or she requested.

Under French law, if we issue additional securities for cash, current shareholders will have preferential subscription rights for these securities on a pro rata basis unless they waive those rights at an extraordinary meeting of our shareholders (by a two-thirds majority vote) or individually by each shareholder. However, our ADS holders in the United States will not be entitled to exercise or sell such rights unless we register the rights and the securities to which the rights relate under the Securities Act or an exemption from the registration requirements is available. In addition, the amended and restated deposit agreement provides that the depositary will not make rights available to holders of our ADSs unless the distribution to ADS holders of both the rights and any related securities are either registered under the Securities Act or exempted from registration under the Securities Act. Further, if we offer holders of our ordinary shares the option to receive dividends in either cash or shares, under the amended and restated deposit agreement the depositary may require satisfactory assurances from us that extending the offer to holders of our ADSs does not require registration of any securities under the Securities Act before making the option available to holders of our ADSs. We are under no obligation to file a registration statement with respect to any such rights or securities or to endeavor to cause such a registration statement to be declared effective. Moreover, we may not be able to establish an exemption from registration under the Securities Act. Accordingly, ADS holders may be unable to participate in our rights offerings or to elect to receive dividends in shares and may experience dilution in their holdings. In addition, if the depositary is unable to sell rights that are not exercised or not distributed or if the sale is not lawful or reasonably practicable, it will allow the rights to lapse, in which case holders of our ADSs will receive no value for these rights.

ADSs, which may be evidenced by ADRs, are transferable on the books of the depositary. However, the depositary may close its books at any time or from time to time when it deems expedient in connection with the performance of its duties. The depositary may refuse to deliver, transfer or register transfers of ADSs generally when our books or the books of the depositary are closed, or at any time if we or the depositary think it is advisable to do so because of any requirement of law, government or governmental body, or under any provision of the amended and restated deposit agreement, or for any other reason subject to an ADS holder’s right to cancel such ADSs and withdraw the underlying ordinary shares. Temporary delays in the cancellation of such ADSs and withdrawal of the underlying ordinary shares may arise because the depositary has closed its transfer books or we have closed our transfer books, the transfer of ordinary shares is blocked to permit voting at a shareholders’ meeting or we are paying a dividend on our ordinary shares. In addition, a holder of ADSs may not be able to cancel his or her ADSs and withdraw the underlying ordinary shares when he or she owes money for fees, taxes and similar charges and when it is necessary to prohibit withdrawals in order to comply with any laws or governmental regulations that apply to ADSs or to the withdrawal of ordinary shares or other deposited securities.

We are a foreign private issuer, as defined in the SEC’s rules and regulations and, consequently, we are not subject to all of the disclosure requirements applicable to public companies organized within the United States. For example, we are exempt from certain rules under the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, that regulate disclosure obligations and procedural requirements related to the solicitation of proxies, consents or authorizations applicable to a security registered under the Exchange Act, including the U.S. proxy rules under Section 14 of the Exchange Act. In addition, our officers and directors are exempt from the reporting and “short-swing” profit recovery provisions of Section 16 of the Exchange Act and related rules with respect to their purchases and sales of our securities. Moreover, while we currently make annual and semi-annual filings with respect to our listing on Euronext Paris and expect to continue to file such reports, we are not required to file periodic reports and financial statements with the SEC as frequently or as promptly as U.S. public companies and we are not required to file quarterly reports on

Form 10-Q or current reports on Form 8-K under the Exchange Act. Accordingly, there is less publicly available information concerning our company than there would be if we were a U.S. domestic issuer.

As a foreign private issuer listed on the Nasdaq Global Select Market, we are subject to Nasdaq’s corporate governance standards. However, Nasdaq rules provide that foreign private issuers are permitted to follow home country corporate governance practices in lieu of Nasdaq’s corporate governance standards as long as notification is provided to Nasdaq of the intention to take advantage of such exemptions. We currently rely on exemptions for foreign private issuers and follow French corporate governance practices in lieu of Nasdaq’s corporate governance standards, to the extent possible. Certain corporate governance practices in France, which is our home country, may differ significantly from Nasdaq corporate governance standards. For example, as a French company, neither the corporate laws of France nor our bylaws require a majority of our directors to be independent and we can include non-independent directors as members of our remuneration committee, and our independent directors are not required to hold regularly scheduled meetings at which only independent directors are present.

We are also exempt from provisions set forth in Nasdaq rules which require an issuer to provide in its bylaws for a generally applicable quorum, and that such quorum may not be less than one-third of the outstanding voting stock. Consistent with French law, our bylaws provide that a quorum requires the presence of shareholders having at least (1) 20% of the shares entitled to vote in the case of an ordinary shareholders’ general meeting or at an extraordinary shareholders’ general meeting where shareholders are voting on a capital increase by capitalization of reserves, profits or share premium, or (2) 25% of the shares entitled to vote in the case of any other extraordinary shareholders’ general meeting.

As a foreign private issuer, we are required to comply with Rule 10A-3 of the Exchange Act, relating to audit committee composition and responsibilities. Under French law, the audit committee may only have an advisory role and appointment of our statutory auditors, in particular, must be decided by the shareholders at our annual meeting.

Therefore, our shareholders may be afforded less protection than they otherwise would have under Nasdaq’s corporate governance standards applicable to U.S. domestic issuers.

We are an “emerging growth company,” as defined in the U.S. Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 2012, or the JOBS Act, and we intend to take advantage of certain exemptions from various reporting requirements that are applicable to other public companies that are not “emerging growth companies,” including not being required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, or the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, and exemptions from the requirements of holding a nonbinding advisory vote on executive compensation and shareholder approval of any golden parachute payments not previously approved. In addition, Section 107 of the JOBS Act also provides that an emerging growth company can take advantage of the extended transition period provided in Section 7(a)(2)(B) of the Securities Act for complying with new or revised accounting standards. We have elected not to take advantage of the extended transition period provided under Section 7(a)(2)(B) of the Securities Act for complying with new or revised accounting standards. Since IFRS makes no distinction between public and private companies for purposes of compliance with new or revised accounting standards, the requirements for our compliance as a private company and as a public company are the same.

We cannot predict if holders of our ADSs will find the ADSs less attractive because we may rely on these exemptions. If some holders find the ADSs less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for the ADSs and the price of the ADSs may be more volatile. We may take advantage of these reporting exemptions until we are no longer an emerging growth company. We will remain an emerging growth company until the earliest of (i) the last day of the fiscal year in which we have total annual gross revenue of $1.07 billion or more; (ii) December 31, 2022, which is the last day of our fiscal year following the fifth anniversary of the date of the completion of our November 2017 global offering; (iii) the date on which we have issued more than $1.0 billion in nonconvertible debt during the previous three years; and (iv) the date on which we are deemed to be a large accelerated filer under the rules of the SEC.

While we currently qualify as a foreign private issuer, the determination of foreign private issuer status is made annually on the last business day of our most recently completed second fiscal quarter and, accordingly, the next determination will be made with respect

to us on June 30, 2021. In the future, we would lose our foreign private issuer status if we fail to meet the requirements necessary to maintain our foreign private issuer status as of the relevant determination date. We will remain a foreign private issuer until such time that more than 50% of our outstanding voting securities are held by U.S. residents and any of the following three circumstances applies: (i) the majority of our executive officers or directors are U.S. citizens or residents; (ii) more than 50% of our assets are located in the United States; or (iii) our business is administered principally in the United States.

The regulatory and compliance costs to us under U.S. securities laws as a U.S. domestic issuer would likely be significantly more than costs we incur as a foreign private issuer. If we lost our foreign private issuer status, we would be required to file periodic reports and registration statements on U.S. domestic issuer forms with the SEC, which are more detailed and extensive in certain respects than the forms available to a foreign private issuer. We would be required under current SEC rules to prepare our financial statements in accordance with U.S. GAAP, rather than IFRS, and modify certain of our policies to comply with corporate governance practices associated with U.S. domestic issuers. Such conversion of our financial statements to U.S. GAAP would involve significant time and cost. In addition, we would lose our ability to rely upon exemptions from certain corporate governance requirements on U.S. stock exchanges that are available to foreign private issuers such as the ones described herein and exemptions from procedural requirements related to the solicitation of proxies.

Based on the composition of our gross income, assets, activities and market capitalization in 2020, the nature of our business and due to fluctuations in our stock price, we believe that we may have been characterized as a passive foreign investment company, or PFIC, for our taxable year ending December 31, 2020. However, because our PFIC status is subject to a number of uncertainties and it is very early in the year, neither we nor our tax advisors can provide any assurances with respect to our PFIC status for the prior, current, or any future taxable year. Moreover, because the calculation of the value of our assets may be based in part on the value of our ADSs, the value of which may fluctuate considerably, our PFIC status may change from year to year and is difficult to predict. A separate determination must be made after the close of each taxable year as to whether we are a PFIC for that year. As a result, our PFIC status may change from year to year and we have not yet made any determination as to our expected PFIC status for the current year. Our status as a PFIC will depend on the composition of our income (including whether we receive certain non-refundable grants or subsidies and whether such amounts and reimbursements of certain refundable research tax credits will constitute gross income for purposes of the PFIC income test) and the composition and value of our assets, which may be determined in large part by reference to the market value of the ADSs and our ordinary shares, which may be volatile, from time to time. Our status may also depend, in part, on how quickly we utilize the cash proceeds from our global offerings in our business. Our U.S. counsel expresses no opinion regarding our conclusions or our expectations regarding our PFIC status.

Generally, if, for any taxable year, at least 75% of our gross income is passive income, or at least 50% of the value of our assets is attributable to assets that produce passive income or are held for the production of passive income, including cash, we will be characterized as a PFIC for U.S. federal income tax purposes. For purposes of these tests, passive income includes dividends, allocations of income with respect to any partnership, interest, and gains from the sale or exchange of investment property and rents and royalties other than rents and royalties which are received from unrelated parties in connection with the active conduct of a trade or business. If we are characterized as a PFIC, U.S. holders of the ADSs may suffer adverse tax consequences, including having gains realized on the sale of the ADSs treated as ordinary income, rather than capital gain, the loss of the preferential rate applicable to dividends received on the ADSs by individuals who are U.S. holders, and having interest charges apply to distributions by us and the proceeds of sales of the ADSs. See “Item 10. E. Taxation—Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Considerations—Passive Foreign Investment Company Considerations.”

If a U.S. holder (as defined below under “Item 10. E. Taxation—Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Considerations”) is treated as owning (directly, indirectly or constructively) at least 10% of the value or voting power of our ADSs or ordinary shares, such U.S. holder will be treated as a “United States shareholder” with respect to each “controlled foreign corporation” in our group (if any). Because our group includes at least one U.S. subsidiary (ERYTECH Pharma, Inc.), if we were to form or acquire any non-U.S. subsidiaries in the future, they may be treated as controlled foreign corporations. A U.S. shareholder of a controlled foreign corporation will be required to annually report and include in its U.S. taxable income its pro rata share of “Subpart F income,” “global intangible low-taxed income” and investments in U.S. property by the controlled foreign corporations, regardless of whether we make any distributions. An individual that is a U.S. shareholder with respect to a controlled foreign corporation generally would not be allowed certain tax deductions or foreign tax credits that would be allowed to a U.S. shareholder that is a U.S. corporation. We cannot provide any assurances that we will assist investors in determining whether any non-U.S. subsidiaries that we may form or acquire in the future would be treated as a controlled foreign corporation or whether such investor would be treated as a U.S. shareholder with respect to any of such controlled foreign corporations. Further, we cannot provide any assurances that we will furnish to any U.S.

shareholder the information that may be necessary to comply with the reporting and tax paying obligations discussed above. Failure to comply with these reporting and tax paying obligations may subject you to significant monetary penalties and may prevent the statute of limitations with respect to your U.S. federal income tax return for the year for which reporting was due from starting. U.S. holders should consult their tax advisors regarding the potential application of these rules to their investment in our ADSs or ordinary shares.

We have identified two material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2018, which have not been remediated as of December 31, 2020. A material weakness is a deficiency, or combination of deficiencies, in internal control over financial reporting such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of our financial statements will not be prevented or detected on a timely basis.

If we are unable to remediate these material weaknesses, or if we experience additional material weaknesses in the future or otherwise fail to maintain an effective system of internal controls, we may not be able to accurately or timely report our financial condition or results of operations, which may adversely affect investor confidence in us and, as a result, the value of our securities.

In connection with the preparation of our financial results for the year ended December 31, 2018, our management concluded that, as of December 31, 2018, our internal control over financial reporting was not effective as a result of two material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting related to: (i) the monitoring of research and development projects, as controls designed to track actual costs incurred against invoices received were not operating at a sufficient level of precision due to insufficient personnel with an appropriate level of knowledge and training in internal control over complex processes; and (ii) the lack of sufficiently developed and documented internal controls for our U.S. subsidiary. We believe these two material weaknesses concerning (i) the monitoring of research and development projects and (ii) the lack of sufficiently developed and documented internal controls for our U.S. subsidiary were not fully remediated as of December 31, 2020.

During the year 2020, we have deployed the following remediation efforts focused on improving our internal control over financial reporting and to specifically address the control deficiencies that led to our material weaknesses:

We plan to continue to deploy the following remediation efforts focused on improving our internal control over financial reporting and to specifically address the control deficiencies that led to our material weaknesses:

We are required, pursuant to Section 404(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, or Section 404(a), to furnish a report by management on, among other things the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting on an annual basis. This assessment includes disclosure of any material weaknesses identified by our management in our internal control over financial reporting. In connection with the preparation of our financial results for the year ended December 31, 2020, we identified two material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting. Our Management’s Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting included in this Annual Report describes these material weaknesses and includes our conclusion that our internal controls were not effective as of the end of the period covered by this Annual Report. While we have established certain procedures and control over our financial reporting processes, including initiating remediation efforts with respect to the material weaknesses, we cannot assure you that these efforts will prevent restatements of our financial statements in the future. Although Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, or Section 404(b), requires our independent registered public accounting firm to issue an annual report that addresses the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting, we have opted to rely on the exemptions provided in the JOBS Act, and consequently will not be required to comply with SEC rules that implement Section 404(b) until such time as we are no longer an EGC.

The presence of material weaknesses could result in financial statement errors which, in turn, could lead to errors in our financial reports, delays in our financial reporting, which could require us to restate our operating results or our auditors may be required to issue a qualified audit report. We might not identify one or more material weaknesses in our internal controls in connection with evaluating our compliance with Section 404(a). In order to maintain and improve the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting, we will need to expend significant resources and provide significant management oversight. Implementing any appropriate changes to our internal control may require specific compliance training of our directors and employees, entail substantial costs in order to modify our existing accounting systems, take a significant period of time to complete and divert management’s attention from other business concerns. These changes may not, however, be effective in achieving and maintaining the adequacy of our internal control.

If either we are unable to conclude that we have effective internal control over financial reporting, as is the case currently, or, at the appropriate time, our independent auditors are unwilling or unable to provide us with an unqualified report on the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting as required by Section 404(b), investors may lose confidence in the accuracy or completeness of our financial reports, the price of our ADSs or ordinary shares could decline and we may be subject to litigation, sanctions or investigations by regulatory authorities, including the SEC and Nasdaq. Failure to remediate any material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting, or to maintain other effective control systems required of public companies, could also restrict our future access to the capital markets. In addition, if we are unable to meet the requirements of Section 404, we may not be able to remain listed on Nasdaq.

Our principal executive offices are located at 60 Avenue Rockefeller, 69008 Lyon, France. Our telephone number at our principal executive offices is +33 4 78 74 44 38. Our agent for service of process in the United States is ERYTECH Pharma, Inc. Our website address is www.erytech.com. The reference to our website is an inactive textual reference only and information contained in, or that can be accessed through, our website or any other website cited herein is not part of this Annual Report. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission maintains a website (www.sec.gov) that contains reports, proxy and information statements and other information regarding registrants, such as ERYTECH, that file electronically with the SEC. We expect our capital expenditures to

increase in absolute terms in the near term as we continue to advance our research and development programs, prepare for commercialization, if approved, and grow our operations. For the near future, these investments will be located in France where our corporate headquarters and our primary production facility are currently located, and in the United States for our secondary production facility.

Our actual capital expenditures for the years ended December 31, 2018, 2019 and 2020 amounted to €14.2 million, €12.1 million and €0.4 million, respectively. These capital expenditures were related primarily to the buildup of our fixed assets for our pharmaceutical facility and laboratory and to a lesser extent to the purchase of office and computer equipment. We do not capitalize clinical research and development costs until we obtain marketing authorization for a product candidate.

We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company developing innovative therapies for severe forms of cancer and orphan diseases. Leveraging our proprietary ERYCAPS platform, which uses a novel technology to encapsulate therapeutic drug substances inside erythrocytes, or red blood cells, or RBC. We are developing a pipeline of product candidates for patients with high unmet medical needs. Our lead product candidate eryaspase, which we also refer to as GRASPA, targets the metabolism of cancer cells by depriving the cells of asparagine, an amino acid necessary for their survival and critical in maintaining the cells’ rapid growth rate. We are currently developing eryaspase for the treatment of severe tumors, including pancreatic cancer, acute lymphoblastic leukemia, or ALL, and triple negative breast cancer, or TNBC.

In 2018, we initiated a pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial of eryaspase for the treatment of second-line advanced pancreatic cancer patients. Patient enrollment in this trial, which we refer to as the TRYbeCA-1 trial, began in September 2018 in Europe. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, approved our Investigational New Drug, or IND, application in May 2019, and the TRYbeCA-1 trial opened for patient enrollment in the United States in October 2019. We have obtained clinical trial authorizations in the United States and from 11 European countries and have conducted the clinical trial at close to 90 clinical sites in Europe and in the United States. In April 2020, the FDA granted eryaspase Fast Track Designation as a potential second-line treatment for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. Eryaspase has also received orphan drug designation, or ODD, for pancreatic cancer in both the United States and Europe. We completed the patient enrollment in the TRYbeCA-1 trial in December 2020. A total of 512 patients participated in the trial, slightly above the target enrollment of 482 patients. The trial recently accrued the required number of events for the planned interim superiority analysis, to be performed by an Independent Data Monitoring Committee, or IDMC. We published the results from the interim superiority analysis from the TRYbeCA-1 trial on February 8, 2021. Based on such analysis, the trial will continue toward a final analysis, expected in the fourth quarter 2021.

We launched a proof-of-concept Phase 2 clinical trial in TNBC in Europe, which we refer to as the TRYbeCA-2 trial, in the fourth quarter of 2018. The trial is enrolling patients in three European countries. We expect to report first results from the TRYbeCA-2 trial in the fourth quarter of 2021.

We are also supporting a Phase 2 clinical trial initiated and sponsored by investigators of the Nordic Society of Pediatric Hematology and Oncology, or NOPHO. This trial is evaluating the safety and pharmacological profile of eryaspase in ALL patients, who developed hypersensitivity reactions to pegylated L-asparaginase. In December 2020, positive results from the trial were presented at the American Society of Hematology 2020 Annual Meeting. The trial was conducted at 21 clinical sites in the Nordic and Baltic countries of Europe and enrolled 55 patients. The primary objective of the trial was enzyme activity of eryaspase. The endpoint was met. We are in discussions with the FDA to evaluate the possibility of pursuing regulatory approval for eryaspase in the United States in this indication based on this investigator sponsored Phase 2 trial. We expect to provide an update in the first half of 2021. If the potential for an approval can be confirmed, we anticipate filing a BLA in the second half of 2021.

In addition to the encapsulation of L-asparaginase, we believe that our ERYCAPS platform has broad potential application and can be used to encapsulate a wide range of therapeutic agents for which long-circulating therapeutic activity or rapid and specific targeting is desired. For example, we developed erymethionase, a preclinical product candidate which encapsulates methionine-γ-lyase in RBC and is designed to target the amino acid metabolism of cancer cells and induce tumor starvation. We intend to continue to work on the development of erymethionase as well as potential other therapeutic strategies based on methionine depletion, depending on financial resources and business strategy.We have also developed two preclinical programs aimed at maximizing the value creation potential of

our ERYCAPS program, which we believe may result in attractive partnering opportunities: enzyme replacement and immune modulation. As part of our value creation strategy, in June 2019, we entered into a collaboration with SQZ Biotechnologies, a cell therapy company developing novel treatments in multiple therapeutic areas, to focus on the development of novel red blood cell-based therapeutics for the treatment of immuno-oncology and tolerance induction.

We were incorporated in 2004. In May 2013, we completed the initial public offering of our ordinary shares on Euronext Paris. In November 2017, we completed a global public offering, consisting of a U.S. initial public offering of American Depositary Shares, or ADSs, each representing one ordinary share, and a concurrent private placement in Europe and other countries outside of the United States and Canada of our ordinary shares. Our ordinary shares are listed on Euronext Paris under the ticker symbol “ERYP” and our ADSs are listed on the Nasdaq Global Select Market under the symbol “ERYP.”

Our mission is to help patients live better, longer. Our vision is to be the leader in red blood-cell based therapeutics to treat severe forms of cancer and orphan diseases. The key elements of our strategy to achieve this goal include the following:

evaluate and pursue collaborative arrangements with third parties for the development and distribution of our product candidates for specified indications and in specified territories where appropriate. For example, in June 2019, we entered into a collaboration with SQZ Biotechnologies for the immune modulation program. We may also explore co-development or out-licenses of our platform technology to third parties and the creation of spin-out companies. As we move our product candidates through development toward regulatory approval in the United States and Europe, we will evaluate several options for each product candidate’s commercialization strategy. These options include building our own internal sales force and distribution units or entering into collaborations with third parties for the distribution and marketing of approved products.

Our ERYCAPS platform uses our proprietary technology to entrap active drug substances inside red blood cells using reversible hypotonic and hypertonic osmotic stress. Our platform technology uses transfusion-grade, standard packed red blood cells of all four blood groups (O, A, B and AB) from blood donors with a specific blood type which we obtain from blood banks. We match the red blood cells used to the blood type of the patient receiving treatment. To allow the therapeutic compounds to enter into the red blood cells, we subject the red blood cells to a hypotonic solution. This causes swelling of cells and opening of pores in the cellular membrane. At this time, therapeutic molecules can enter the red blood cells. Once the desired concentration of molecules is reached inside the red blood cells, we subject the red blood cells to a hypertonic solution to restore the osmotic pressure to normal. This step causes water to flow out of the cell and the pores to close, rendering the cellular membrane impermeable to molecules above a specific size, including the molecules that have been trapped inside the cell.

The extent to which a red blood cell can swell, known as osmotic fragility, is not uniform and varies between packages of red blood cells. When we obtain a package of red blood cells from a blood bank, we measure a number of key hematological parameters, including the osmotic fragility of the particular sample. Based on the level of osmotic fragility measured, we are able to calculate the specific amount of osmotic pressure to apply in order to achieve the desired concentration of drug substance in each production batch. This patent-protected process allows us to reduce variations in the amount of drug substance to be encapsulated, which ensures that quantifiable amounts of drug substance can be captured in each batch. Our expertise in understanding osmotic fragility and optimizing the red blood cell encapsulation parameters is the cornerstone of our proprietary ERYCAPS platform.

We believe that our ERYCAPS platform technology is an innovative approach that offers several key potential benefits:

treatment, and related diagnostic tests. Our core patent covers eryaspase in the United States until the end of 2029, with potential extension to the end of 2034, and in Europe until 2025, with a potential extension to 2030. We have exclusively in-licensed one patent family from Radboud University in the Netherlands relating to synergistic combinations of amino acid depletion agents.

Eryaspase is administered by intravenous infusion. Once administered, the red blood cells containing L-asparaginase circulate in the bloodstream and remove asparagine mainly through a mechanism of active transportation of asparagine into the red blood cells. Active transporters for asparagine are present in the membrane of red blood cells. They cause normal red blood cells to contain two to three times more asparagine within the cell than in the surrounding plasma. When L-asparaginase is encapsulated in the red blood cells, it causes the inner concentration of asparagine to decrease, which activates the natural mechanism of the red blood cell to draw asparagine circulating in the blood plasma into the red blood cell. This asparagine is rapidly degraded inside the red blood cells as well. When maintained long enough, this pumping and degradation activity leads to a systemic depletion of asparagine levels in the bloodstream without releasing L-asparaginase into the bloodstream. The red blood cell membrane also protects the encapsulated L-asparaginase from antibodies present in the patient’s blood that would substantially lessen or neutralize the enzyme’s activity or cause

allergic reactions. As a result, the enzyme can remain active and potentially effective in the red blood cell for a longer period of time, while at the same time reducing the potential for toxicity and related side effects. Our research indicates that the encapsulation process does not significantly alter the life span of the red blood cell.

The following diagram illustrates the main mode of action of eryaspase:

Researchers have investigated the potential to target asparagine metabolism in solid tumor indications, and based on the observation that many solid tumors, like lymphoblasts, lack the asparagine synthetase, or ASNS, enzyme, a rationale for the use of asparaginase in solid tumors exists. L-asparaginase has been shown to have growth inhibitory effects in different solid tumor cell lines and in xenograft models. The toxicity profile of existing asparaginase products has, however, been prohibitive for their use in patients. Historically, Phase 1 clinical trials conducted by researchers have been modified or halted because of excess toxicity.

The baseline characteristics and demographics in the patient population were balanced, and overall survival and progression-free survival results appeared to be consistent across different sub-groups, including age, gender and prior treatment.

An unexpected finding from these results was that the ASNS expression level in the patients did not appear to be predictive of treatment efficacy. However, the ASNS expression level does appear to be a prognostic factor. Patients with high ASNS expression levels appear to have a worse prognosis, and their relative response to eryaspase seems to be relatively higher in this group than the patients with no, low or normal ASNS expression levels. Based on this finding, we believe future clinical trials may be conducted in the entire patient population, independent of ASNS expression levels.

The interim analysis was triggered when two-thirds of the total number of events had occurred (i.e. two-thirds of the number of deaths required to make the final analysis of the overall survival in the trial) have occurred. Those events have been reached in October 2020. We published the results from the interim superiority analysis on February 8, 2021. This is the third review by the IDMC of the safety data of the patients enrolled and treated in the trial. The prior reviews took place at 150, 199 and 320 patients, respectively. No safety issues were identified and the IDMC recommended that we continue the trial as planned. We remain blinded to the primary and secondary endpoint efficacy data. The trial will continue toward a final analysis, expected in the fourth quarter of 2021.

rESPECt (STUDY00002008) is a proof-of-concept investigator initiated Phase 1 clinical trial evaluating the safety of eryaspase in combination with FOLFIRINOX for the treatment of first-line pancreatic cancer patients. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reviewed IND/Investigational New Drug application and cleared the study to proceed enrolling patients in December 2019. It is planned to enrol approximately 12 to 18 patients. The study is open for enrollment.

We will pursue our clinical development strategy in the treatment of pancreatic cancer as follows:

Both the FDA and EMA have granted orphan drug designation for eryaspase or GRASPA for the treatment of pancreatic cancer. Orphan drug designation provides manufacturers with research grants, tax credits and eligibility for marketing exclusivity of up to seven years in the United States and 10 years in Europe.

We retain worldwide rights to commercialize eryaspase for the pancreatic cancer indication.

Treatment with GRASPA was generally well tolerated. Drug-related adverse events generally consisted of allergic reactions, clotting problems, liver toxicities and pancreas disorders. None of the 52 patients receiving GRASPA during the Phase 2/3 trial had an adverse event leading to discontinuation of the trial, as compared to 13 out of the 28 patients, or 46%, in the control arm. A total of three patients out of the 52 patients treated with GRASPA during the trial experienced serious adverse events determined to be drug-related.

Based on the positive efficacy and safety results from our Phase 2/3 pivotal trial, we submitted a Marketing Authorization Application, or MAA, to the EMA for GRASPA for the treatment of relapsed or refractory ALL in September 2015. Following discussions with the EMA, we withdrew the MAA in November 2016. We conducted activities designed to provide data regarding immunogenicity and pharmacodynamics of eryaspase, as well as comparability of eryaspase produced with native versus recombinant L-asparaginase, and resubmitted an MAA in October 2017. In June 2018, based on feedback from the EMA and FDA, it appeared that significant additional investment would be required in order to seek regulatory approval of eryaspase for the treatment of ALL. In the context of the rapidly changing and increasingly competitive landscape with newly-approved treatment options for ALL, the regulatory feedback and what we observed to be a limited market opportunity for eryaspase in ALL, we elected to cease further clinical development efforts in ALL. Accordingly, we withdrew our MAA in the second half of 2018.

In addition to eryaspase, our product candidate based on L-asparaginase treatment, we believe that our ERYCAPS platform has broad potential application and can be used to encapsulate within red blood cells a wide range of therapeutic agents for which long-circulating therapeutic activity or rapid and specific targeting is desired.

In addition to our product pipeline centered on L-asparaginase treatment, we are using our proprietary patent-protected ERYCAPS platform to identify additional enzymes that could induce tumor starvation. The TEDAC program intended to identify additional tumor starvation agents and to identify companion diagnostic tests. In preclinical studies performed under the TEDAC program, we have identified two other amino acids, methionine and arginine, and their respective enzymes, methionine-γ-lyase, or MGL, and arginine deiminase, or ADI, that we believe may be promising treatments when encapsulated inside red blood cells.

In 2017, we presented preclinical data with our product candidate erymethionase, which consists of MGL in red blood cells, at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium and the American Association for Cancer Research conferences. We intend to continue to work on the development of erymethionase as well as potential other therapeutic strategies based on methionine depletion, depending on financial resources and business strategy. We are also evaluating eryminase, which consists of ADI encapsulated inside red blood cells, as a potential product candidate for further clinical development. In 2017, we entered into a research collaboration with the Fox Chase Cancer Center to advance the preclinical development of erymethionase for the treatment of homocystinuria and with Queen’s University of Canada to advance the preclinical development of eryminase for the treatment of arginase-1-deficiency. In September 2017, we presented early preclinical data on both programs at the 13th International Congress of Inborn Errors of Metabolism (ICIEM).

Outside of the oncology field, we also are studying the use of our ERYCAPS platform to promote long-acting enzyme activity

Enzyme replacement is a preclinical development program designed to use our proprietary ERYCAPS platform for enzyme-based therapies beyond oncology. We encapsulate therapeutic enzymes inside donor-derived red blood cells using our proprietary ERYCAPS platform in order to create product candidates to target certain metabolic diseases. We believe that the encapsulation of the therapeutic enzymes in the red blood cells may be able to reduce the potential for allergic reactions and to allow the therapeutic substance to remain in the body longer as compared to non-encapsulated enzymes.

We demonstrated the proof of concept to encapsulate tumor antigens or adjuvants within red blood cells as an innovative approach to cancer immunotherapy.

Based on our preclinical research on immune modulation, we believe that encapsulated tumor antigens can be targeted to the spleen or to the liver, in order to induce an immune response, resulting in sustained activation of the body’s immune system to fight cancers or to tolerance induction. In preclinical studies with three different antigens loaded in red blood cells, we have observed promising proof-of-concept data in three different tumor models. In these studies, we observed significantly increased antigen-specific CD8+ and CD4+ T-cell responses and delays in tumor growth when the encapsulated antigens were injected in mice with tumors, as compared to the injection of the unloaded antigens alone. As part of our value creation strategy, in 2019, we have granted to SQZ Biotechnologies an exclusive worldwide licence to develop antigen-specific immune modulating therapies employing RBC-based approaches. Combining SQZ’s proprietary and versatile cell engineering platform, Cell Squeeze®, with our intellectual property related to RBC-based therapeutics, rapid development of a broad pipeline of novel immunomodulatory products addressing multiple indications is envisaged.

We currently operate two manufacturing facilities to manufacture our product candidates.

Our primary production facility for Europe is based in Lyon, France. This production facility complies with European cGMP. We have extended the capacity of our Lyon facility in July 2019 to ensure supply in our ongoing and future clinical trials, as well as anticipated early commercial needs, if eryaspase is approved for marketing. We believe our current leased space is sufficient to meet our current needs in Europe.

For our clinical trials in the United States, we started manufacturing GMP-compliant batches out of our manufacturing facility in Princeton, New Jersey in the fourth quarter of 2019. This manufacturing facility was designed with the ability to scale production to supply eryaspase to meet our anticipated clinical trial needs, including our supply requirements for U.S. patients in the TRYbeCA-1 trial, and for our anticipated initial commercial needs in the United States if eryaspase is approved. In connection with the transition to our Princeton facility, we closed our small production facility in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in January 2020.

We believe our production facilities will be sufficient to supply eryaspase for our ongoing Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trials and for our anticipated initial commercial needs of eryaspase in Europe and the United States, in the event we receive appropriate marketing authorizations.

In Europe, we purchase packed red blood cells from the French Blood Agency (Ėtablissement Français du Sang) and the German Red Cross Blood Donor Service. In the United States, we have supply agreements with the American Red Cross and the New York Blood Center.

In the case of eryaspase, we have the manufacturing and logistics in place to deliver eryaspase to patients in approximately 24 hours from the start of production to delivery of the product candidate to the hospital. Once a prescription is written, we receive an order for eryaspase from the hospital. We then source a pack of red blood cells, compatible with the patient’s blood type, from one of our partner blood banks. After identification of the key parameters of the red blood cell unit, we encapsulate the L-asparaginase into the red blood cells using an automated process that takes three to four hours. Before release, the product must meet a number of quality control specifications, including the number of red blood cells in the packed product, the level of L-asparaginase activity, the amount of extracellular L-asparaginase in the blood and the integrity of the container holding the red blood cells. We then deliver the product to the hospital using a third-party commercial overnight delivery service. We ship the product at a refrigerated temperature of between two and eight degrees Celsius, or approximately 36 to 46 degrees Fahrenheit. At this temperature, the product has been shown to remain stable for five days. Once removed and ready for administration, the product remains stable for six hours at room temperature.

In May 2011, we entered into a worldwide supply agreement, as subsequently amended on April 4, 2014 and July 25, 2016, which we refer to as the 2011 Medac Agreement, under which Medac has agreed to supply us with their new, recombinant free-form L-asparaginase, called Spectrila, for which Medac obtained a European marketing approval in 2016. The 2011 Medac Agreement includes an exclusivity period, starting from the date of commercial authorization of eryaspase/GRASPA for a duration of five years. The term of the 2011 Medac Agreement is until December 2028, provided, that Medac is entitled, upon expiration of the five-year exclusivity period, to terminate the agreement, upon five years’ notice, in the event its supplier of the recombinant formulation of L-asparaginase discontinues supplying to Medac. The July 2016 amendment nullified the clauses providing that we could have been forced to refrain from any form of promotion of eryaspase/GRASPA if such product was produced from a new formulation of asparaginase registered and marketed prior to eryaspase/GRASPA as a first-line treatment. We are exclusively using this new recombinant formulation of L-asparaginase in eryaspase for new indications, including our ongoing clinical trials for pancreatic cancer, and no longer intend to use the native form of asparaginase for eryaspase.

Our patent portfolio includes pending patent applications and issued patents in the United States and foreign countries. These patents and applications include 15 patent families we own in our own name with more than 290 granted patents, summarized below:

Of our 15 patent families, 13 patent families currently include at least one issued patent.

The term of a U.S. patent may be eligible for patent term restoration under the Hatch-Waxman Act to account for at least some of the time the drug or method of manufacture is under development and regulatory review after the patent is granted. With regard to a drug or method of manufacture for which FDA approval is the first permitted marketing of the active ingredient, the Hatch-Waxman Act allows for extension of the term of one U.S. patent. The extended patent term cannot exceed the shorter of five years beyond the non-extended expiration of the patent or 14 years from the date of the FDA approval of the drug or method of manufacture. Some foreign jurisdictions have analogous patent term extension provisions that allow for extension of the term of a patent that covers a device approved by the applicable foreign regulatory agency. In the future, if and when our product candidates receive FDA approval, we expect to apply for patent term extensions on the patents that we believe will provide the best exclusivity position if extended.

In addition to patent protection, we have trademark protection in many countries for our name, logo and several product candidates. None of our trademarks are subject to a third-party license.

Our competitors may also succeed in obtaining EMA, FDA or other regulatory approvals for their product candidates more rapidly than we are able to do, which could place us at a significant competitive disadvantage or deny us marketing exclusivity rights.

Market acceptance of our product candidates will depend on a number of factors, including:

Although we believe our product candidates possess attractive attributes, we cannot ensure that our product candidates will achieve regulatory or market acceptance, or that we will be able to compete effectively in the biopharmaceutical drug markets. If our product candidates fail to gain regulatory approvals and acceptance in their intended markets, we may not generate meaningful revenues or achieve profitability.

In general, eryaspase will be positioned as an add-on to standard chemotherapeutic regimens. In pancreatic adenocarcinoma, gemcitabine-based (e.g. gemcitabine and nab paclitaxel, Celgene’s Abraxane) and fluoropyrimidine-based (e.g. FOLFIRINOX, comprised of fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan and oxaliplatin) chemotherapy regimens are standards of care for the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic disease. Our ongoing TRYbeCA-1 trial in second-line metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma is evaluating the addition of eryaspase to both (i) gemcitabine and Celgene’s Abraxane in patients whose disease has progressed on a prior fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy and (ii) an irinotecan-based regimen, including the approved liposomal formulation of irinotecan, Ipsen/Servier’s Onivyde, in combination with flurouracil and leucovorin in patients whose disease has progressed on a prior gemcitabine-based regimen. If approved, we anticipate that eryaspase will be used in combination with gemcitabine-based and irinotecan-based regimens.

Depending on the results of the TRYbeCA-1 trial, we believe eryaspase has the potential to be seen as competitive to or as a combination partner for many of these agents. Eryaspase could potentially face competition from several investigational agents currently being evaluated in metastatic patients who have progressed on previous first-line chemotherapy. These include, but are not limited to, Eleison Pharmaceuticals’ glufosfamide, SynCore Biotechnology’s EndoTAG-1,Tyme Technologies’ SM-88, BioLineRx’s BL-8040, and NantKwest’s PD-L1.t-haNK combined with ImmunityBio’s N-803. Eryaspase could also potentially compete with agents being evaluated in combination with standard chemotherapy regimens for the first-line treatment of metastatic disease. These include, but are not limited to, Rafael Pharmaceuticals’ CPI-613, Apexigen’s APX005M and Astellas’ zolbetuximab.

In TNBC, we expect eryaspase to be used in combination with various chemotherapy agents that are used to treat metastatic triple negative disease, including taxanes (paclitaxel, docetaxel and Celgene’s Abraxane), capecitabine, and Eisai’s Halaven. Eryaspase could potentially face competition from small molecule poly-ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors, including, but not limited to, AstraZeneca/Merck’s Lynparza and Pfizer’s Talzenna, which received FDA approval for the treatment of germline BRCA mutant metastatic breast cancer in 2018; PD-1/PD-L1 antibodies, including, but not limited to, Roche’s Tecentriq and Merck’s Keytruda which were approved by the FDA for metastatic TNBC in 2019 and 2020 respectively; Trop-2 directed antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs), including, but not limited to, Gilead Science’s Trodelvy which was approved by the FDA for previously treated metastatic TNBC in 2020; and other molecules in development, including, but not limited to, Roche’s ipatasertib, Astrazeneca’ capivasertib, Seattle Genetics’ ladiratuzumab vedotin, and G1 Therapeutics’ trilaciclib.

Though there are several L-asparaginase based products approved for use in ALL, we do not believe that these products are being evaluated in the solid tumor indications we are pursuing with eryaspase at this time.

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

Our product candidates must be approved by the FDA through the Biologics License Application, or BLA, process before they may be legally marketed in the United States. The process required by the FDA before a biologic may be marketed in the United States generally involves the following:

The data required to support a BLA is generated in two distinct development stages: preclinical and clinical. The preclinical development stage generally involves laboratory evaluations of drug chemistry, formulation and stability, as well as studies to evaluate toxicity in animals, which support subsequent clinical testing. The conduct of the preclinical studies must comply with federal regulations, including GLPs. The sponsor must submit the results of the preclinical studies, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature and a proposed clinical protocol, to the FDA as part of the IND. An IND is a request for authorization from the FDA to administer an investigational drug product to humans. The central focus of an IND submission is on the general investigational plan and the protocol(s) for human trials. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA raises concerns or questions regarding the proposed clinical trials and places the IND on clinical hold within that 30-day time period. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. The FDA may also impose clinical holds on a product candidate at any time before or during clinical trials due to safety concerns or non-compliance. Accordingly, 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 could cause the trial to be suspended or terminated.

The clinical stage of development involves the administration of the product candidate to healthy volunteers or patients under the supervision of qualified investigators, generally physicians not employed by or under the trial sponsor’s control, in accordance with GCPs, which include the requirement that all research subjects provide their informed consent for their participation in any clinical trial. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the clinical trial, dosing procedures, subject selection and exclusion criteria, and the parameters to be used to monitor subject safety and assess efficacy. Each protocol, and

any subsequent amendments to the protocol, must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. Further, each clinical trial must be reviewed and approved by an independent institutional review board, or IRB, at or servicing each institution at which the clinical trial will be conducted. An IRB is charged with protecting the welfare and rights of trial participants and considers such items as whether the risks to individuals participating in the clinical trials are minimized and are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits. The IRB also approves the informed consent form that must be provided to each clinical trial subject or his or her legal representative and must monitor the clinical trial until completed.

There are also requirements governing the reporting of ongoing clinical trials and completed clinical trial results to public registries. Sponsors of clinical trials of FDA-regulated products, including biologics, are required to register and disclose certain clinical trial information, which is publicly available at www.clinicaltrials.gov. Information related to the product, patient population, phase of investigation, study sites and investigators, and other aspects of the clinical trial is then made public as part of the registration. Sponsors are also obligated to discuss the results of their clinical trials after completion. Disclosure of the results of these trials can be delayed until the new product or new indication being studied has been approved.

Clinical trials are generally conducted in three sequential phases that may overlap, known as Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trials. Phase 1 clinical trials generally involve a small number of healthy volunteers who are initially exposed to a single dose and then multiple doses of the product candidate. The primary purpose of these clinical trials is to assess the metabolism, pharmacologic action, side effect tolerability and safety of the product candidate and, if possible, to gain early evidence on effectiveness. Phase 2 clinical trials typically involve studies in disease-affected patients to determine the dose required to produce the desired benefits. At the same time, safety and further pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic information is collected, as well as identification of possible adverse effects and safety risks and preliminary evaluation of efficacy. Phase 3 clinical trials generally involve large numbers of patients at multiple sites, in multiple countries, from several hundred to several thousand subjects, and are designed to provide the data necessary to demonstrate the efficacy of the product for its intended use and its safety in use, and to establish the overall benefit/risk relationship of the product and provide an adequate basis for product approval. Phase 3 clinical trials may include comparisons with placebo and/or other comparator treatments. The duration of treatment is often extended to mimic the actual use of a product during marketing. Generally, two adequate and well-controlled Phase 3 clinical trials are required by the FDA for approval of a BLA.

Post-approval trials, sometimes referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials, may be conducted after initial marketing approval. These trials are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication. In some instances, FDA may condition approval of a BLA on the sponsor’s agreement to conduct additional clinical trials to further assess the biologic’s safety and effectiveness after BLA approval.

Progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials must be submitted at least annually to the FDA and written IND safety reports must be submitted to the FDA and the investigators for serious and unexpected suspected adverse events or any finding from tests in laboratory animals that suggests a significant risk for human subjects. Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trials may not be completed successfully within any specified period, if at all. The FDA, the IRB, or the sponsor may suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research subjects or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the drug has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients. Additionally, some clinical trials are overseen by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the clinical trial sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board or committee. This group provides authorization for whether or not a trial may move forward at designated intervals based on access to certain data from the trial. We may also suspend or terminate a clinical trial based on evolving business objectives and/or competitive climate. Concurrent with clinical trials, companies usually complete additional animal studies and must also develop additional information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the product candidate as well as finalize a process for manufacturing the product in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the product candidate and, among other things, must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality and purity of the final product. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the product candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life.

Following trial completion, trial data is analyzed to assess safety and efficacy. The results of preclinical studies and clinical trials are then submitted to the FDA as part of a BLA, along with proposed labeling for the product and information about the manufacturing process and facilities that will be used to ensure product quality, results of analytical testing conducted on the chemistry of the product candidate, and other relevant information. The BLA is a request for approval to market the biologic for one or more specified indications and must contain proof of safety, purity, potency and efficacy, which is demonstrated by extensive preclinical and clinical testing. The application includes both negative or ambiguous results of preclinical and clinical trials, as well as positive findings. Data may come from company-sponsored clinical trials intended to test the safety and efficacy of a use of a product, or from a number of alternative sources, including studies initiated by investigators. To support marketing approval, the data submitted must be sufficient

in quality and quantity to establish the safety and efficacy of the investigational product to the satisfaction of the FDA. FDA approval of a BLA must be obtained before a biologic may be offered for sale in the United States.

Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or PDUFA, as amended, each BLA must be accompanied by a significant user fee, which is adjusted on an annual basis. PDUFA also imposes an annual product fee for human drugs and an annual establishment fee on facilities used to manufacture prescription drugs. Fee waivers or reductions are available in certain circumstances, including a waiver of the application fee for the first application filed by a small business.

Once a BLA has been accepted for filing, which occurs, if at all, 60 days after the BLA’s submission, the FDA’s goal is to review BLAs within 10 months of the filing date for standard review or six months of the filing date for priority review, if the application is for a product intended for a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and the product, if approved, would provide a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness. The review process is often significantly extended by FDA requests for additional information or clarification.

After the BLA submission is accepted for filing, the FDA reviews the BLA to determine, among other things, whether the proposed product candidate is safe and effective for its intended use, and whether the product candidate is being manufactured in accordance with cGMP to assure and preserve the product candidate’s identity, strength, quality, purity and potency. The FDA may refer applications for novel drug product candidates or drug product candidates which present difficult questions of safety or efficacy to an advisory committee, typically a panel that includes clinicians and other experts, for review, evaluation and a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions. The FDA will likely re-analyze the clinical trial data, which could result in extensive discussions between the FDA and us during the review process.

The review and evaluation of a BLA by the FDA is extensive and time consuming and may take longer than originally planned to complete, and we may not receive a timely approval, if at all.

Before approving a BLA, the FDA will conduct a pre-approval inspection of the manufacturing facilities for the new product to determine whether they comply with cGMP. The FDA will not approve the product unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. In addition, before approving a BLA, the FDA may also audit data from clinical trials to ensure compliance with GCP requirements. After the FDA evaluates the application, manufacturing process and manufacturing facilities, it may issue an approval letter or a Complete Response Letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the product with specific prescribing information for specific indications. A Complete Response Letter indicates that the review cycle of the application is complete and the application is not ready for approval. A Complete Response Letter usually describes all of the specific deficiencies in the BLA identified by the FDA. The Complete Response Letter may require additional clinical data and/or an additional pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial(s), and/or other significant and time-consuming requirements related to clinical trials, preclinical studies or manufacturing. If a Complete Response Letter is issued, the applicant may either resubmit the BLA, addressing all of the deficiencies identified in the letter, or withdraw the application. Even if such data and information is submitted, the FDA may ultimately decide that the BLA does not satisfy the criteria for approval. Data obtained from clinical trials are not always conclusive and the FDA may interpret data differently than we interpret the same data.

There is no assurance that the FDA will ultimately approve a product for marketing in the United States, and we may encounter significant difficulties or costs during the review process. If a product receives marketing approval, the approval may be significantly limited to specific populations, severities of allergies, and dosages or the indications for use may otherwise be limited, which could restrict the commercial value of the product. Further, the FDA may require that certain contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the product labeling or may condition the approval of the BLA on other changes to the proposed labeling, development of adequate controls and specifications, or a commitment to conduct post-market testing or clinical trials and surveillance to monitor the effects of approved products. For example, the FDA may require Phase 4 testing, which involves clinical trials designed to further assess the product’s safety and effectiveness and may require testing and surveillance programs to monitor the safety of approved products that have been commercialized. The FDA may also place other conditions on approvals including the requirement for a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, to assure the safe use of the product. If the FDA concludes a REMS is needed, the sponsor of the BLA must submit a proposed REMS. The FDA will not approve the NDA without an approved REMS, if required. A REMS could include medication guides, physician communication plans, or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. Any of these limitations on approval or marketing could restrict the commercial promotion, distribution, prescription or dispensing of products. Product approvals may be withdrawn for non-compliance with regulatory standards or if problems occur following initial marketing.

The failure to comply with regulatory requirements subjects’ entities to possible legal or regulatory action. Depending on the circumstances, failure to meet applicable regulatory requirements can result in criminal prosecution, fines or other penalties, injunctions, recall or seizure of products, total or partial suspension of production, denial or withdrawal of product approvals, or refusal to allow an entity to enter into supply contracts, including government contracts. In addition, even if an entity complies with FDA and other regulatory requirements, new information regarding the safety or efficacy of a product could lead the FDA to modify or withdraw product approval. Prohibitions or restrictions on sales or withdrawal of future products marketed by us could materially affect our business in an adverse way.

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, and/or our commercial operations; (ii) additions or modifications to product labeling; (iii) the recall or discontinuation of our products; or (iv) additional record-keeping and/or documentation requirements. If any such changes were to be imposed, they could adversely affect the operation of our business.

An abbreviated approval pathway for biological products shown to be similar to, or interchangeable with, an FDA-licensed reference biological product was created by the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009. Biosimilarity, which requires that the biological product is highly similar to the reference product notwithstanding minor differences in clinically inactive components and that there be no clinically meaningful differences between the product and the reference product in terms of safety, purity, and potency, can be shown through analytical studies, animal studies, and a clinical trial or trials. Interchangeability requires that a biological product is biosimilar to the reference product and the product can be expected to produce the same clinical results as the reference product and, for products administered multiple times, the product and the reference product may be switched after one has been previously administered without increasing safety risks or risks of diminished efficacy relative to exclusive use of the reference biological product. However, complexities associated with the larger, and often more complex, structure of biological products, as well as the process by which such products are manufactured, pose significant hurdles to implementation that are still being worked out by the FDA.

A reference biological product is granted 12 years of exclusivity from the time of first licensure of the reference product. The first biological product submitted under the abbreviated approval pathway that is determined to be interchangeable with the reference product has exclusivity against other biologics submitting applications under the abbreviated approval pathway for the lesser of one year after the first commercial marketing, 18 months after approval if there is no legal challenge, 18 months after the resolution in the applicant’s favor of a lawsuit challenging the biologic’s patents if an application has been submitted, or 42 months after the application has been approved if a lawsuit is ongoing within the 42-month period.

Pediatric exclusivity is another type of regulatory market exclusivity in the United States. Pediatric exclusivity, if granted, adds six months to existing exclusivity periods and patent terms. This six-month exclusivity, which runs from the end of other exclusivity protection or patent term, may be granted based on the voluntary completion of a pediatric trial in accordance with an FDA-issued “Written Request” for such a trial.

The Community MA is issued centrally by the European Commission through the Centralized Procedure, based on the opinion of the CHMP of the EMA and is valid throughout the entire territory of the EEA.

Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2014 provides for the Centralized authorization procedure. The centralized procedure results in a single marketing authorization, or MA, granted by the European Commission that is valid across the EEA. The centralized procedure is compulsory for human drugs that are: (i) derived from biotechnology processes, such as genetic engineering, (ii) contain a new active substance indicated for the treatment of certain diseases, such as HIV/AIDS, cancer, diabetes, neurodegenerative diseases, autoimmune and other immune dysfunctions and viral diseases, (iii) officially designated orphan medicines and (iv) advanced-therapy medicines, or ATMPs, such as gene therapy, somatic cell therapy or tissue-engineered medicines.

Under Article 3 of the Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, the Centralized procedure is optional for any medicinal product not appearing in the Annex if: (1) the medicinal product contains a new active substance which, on the date of entry into force of this Regulation, was not authorized in the Community; or (2) the applicant shows that the medicinal product constitutes a significant therapeutic, scientific or technical innovation or that the granting of authorization in accordance with this Regulation is in the interests of patients or animal health at Community level.

National MAs are issued nationally by the competent authorities of the Member States of the EEA and only cover their respective territory. National MAs are available for products not falling within the mandatory scope of the Centralized Procedure. National MAs may be applied for through the Mutual Recognition Procedure or Decentralized Procedure in order that multiple competent authorities in different member states of the EEA may each issue a national MA in their territory for the same product on the back of the same application. We do not foresee that any of our current product candidates will be suitable for a National MA as they fall within the mandatory criteria for the Centralized Procedure. Therefore, our product candidates will be approved through Community MAs.

Under the above-described procedures, before granting the MA, the EMA or the competent authorities of the Member States of the EEA make an assessment of the risk-benefit balance of the product on the basis of scientific criteria concerning its quality, safety and efficacy.

If granted, data exclusivity prevents regulatory authorities in the European Union from referencing the innovator’s data to assess a generic or biosimilar application. During the additional two-year period of market exclusivity, a generic or biosimilar marketing authorization can be submitted, and the innovator’s data may be referenced, but no generic or biosimilar product can be marketed until the expiration of the market exclusivity.

Pursuant to Regulation (EC) No. 1901/2006, all applications for MA for new medicines must include, in addition to the particulars and documents referred to in Directive 2001/83/EC, the results of all studies performed and details of all information collected in compliance with a PIP, agreed between regulatory authorities and the applicant, unless the medicine is exempt because of a deferral or waiver of the EMA. Before the EMA is able to begin its assessment of a Community MA application, it will validate that the applicant has complied with the agreed PIP. The applicant and the EMA may, where such a step is adequately justified, agree to modify a PIP to assist validation. Modifications are not always possible; may take longer to agree than the period of validation permits; and may still require the applicant to withdraw its marketing authorization application and to conduct additional non-clinical and clinical studies.

Products that are granted a MA on the basis of the pediatric clinical trials conducted in accordance with the PIP are eligible for a six-month extension of the protection under a supplementary protection certificate (if any is in effect at the time of approval) (Regulation No 1901/2006) or, in the case of orphan medicinal products, a two-year extension of the orphan market exclusivity (Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006, see above). This pediatric reward is subject to specific conditions and is not automatically available when data in compliance with the PIP are developed and submitted.

We do not currently know whether our product candidates will need to be covered by a PIP.

Under Article 8 of the Regulation (EC) No 141/2000, products receiving orphan designation in the European Union can receive ten years of market exclusivity, during which time no similar medicinal product may be placed on the market for the same therapeutic indication. Under Article 37 of the Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006, an orphan product can also obtain an additional two years of market exclusivity in the European Union for pediatric studies (in this case for orphan medicinal product no extension to any supplementary protection certificate can be granted, see further detail below).

Under Article 3 of the Regulation (EC) No 141/2000, a medicinal product may be designated as orphan if: (1) (a) it is intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition affecting not more than five in ten thousand persons in the European Union when the application is made, or (b) it is intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a life-threatening, seriously debilitating or serious and chronic condition in the European Union and that without incentives it is unlikely that the marketing of the medicinal product in the European Union would generate sufficient return to justify the necessary investment; and (2) that there exists no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment of the condition in question that has been authorized in the European Union or, if such method exists, that the medicinal product will be of significant benefit to those affected by that condition, as defined in Regulation (EC) 847/2000.

Pursuant to Regulation (EC) No. 847/2000 of April 27, 2000 laying down the provisions for implementation of the criteria for designation of a medicinal product as an orphan medicinal product and definitions of the concepts “similar medicinal product” and “clinical superiority”, an application for the designation of a medicinal product as an orphan drug may be submitted at any stage of development of the medicinal product before filing of an MA application.

Orphan medicinal products are eligible for financial incentives such as reduction of fees or fee waivers and scientific assistance for study proposals (Articles 6 and 9). The application for orphan medicinal product designation must be submitted before the application for marketing authorization (Article 5). The applicant will receive a fee reduction for the marketing authorization application if the orphan medicinal product designation has been granted, but not if the designation is still pending at the time the marketing authorization is submitted. Orphan medicinal product designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process.

The 10-year market exclusivity may be reduced to six years if, at the end of the fifth year, it is established, in respect of the medicinal product concerned, that the above-mentioned criteria for orphan medicinal product designation are no longer met, in other words, when it is shown on the basis of available evidence that the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify maintenance of market exclusivity (Article 8).

Notwithstanding the foregoing, an MA may be granted, for the same therapeutic indication, to a similar medicinal product if:

Also, the competent national authority can ask for interim PSURs outside the submission schedule.

If we fail to comply with applicable foreign regulatory requirements, we may be subject to, among other things, fines, suspension or withdrawal of regulatory approvals, product recalls, seizure of products, operating restrictions and criminal prosecution.

In France, for example, Directive No. 2001/20/EC has been implemented by Law 2004-806 of August 9, 2004 regarding the public health policy and Decree 2006-477 of April 26, 2006, modifying the section of the Public Health Code, or PHC, on biomedical

research. The Act of August 9, 2004 was notably amended by Law No. 2012-300 of March 5, 2012, or the “Loi Jardé,” related to biomedical research involving human subjects, and French Order No. 2016-800 of June 16, 2016 related to clinical trials of medicinal products for human use, which has recently adapted French law to the new provisions of Regulation No. 536/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of April 16, 2014 related to clinical trials of medicinal products for human use, which repealed Directive 2001/20/EC. The Jardé Act was inapplicable for a long time, and applicable since November 18, 2016, date of its enforcement decree.

This decree specifies the modalities for carrying out research involving the human person. In particular, it specifies the definitions applicable to the various categories of research falling within its scope, the operation of the committees for the protection of persons (CPP), the procedures for requesting an opinion from the CPP and authorization from the ANSM, as well as the rules applicable to vigilance.

The decision of the ANSM of November 24, 2006 sets the rules for Good Clinical Practice, or GCPs, for clinical trials on medicines for human use as referred to in Article L. 1121-3 of the PHC. GCPs aim to ensure both the reliability of data arising from clinical trials and the protection of the persons participating in these clinical trials. GCPs apply to all clinical trials, including pharmacokinetics, bioavailability and bioequivalence studies in healthy volunteers as well as Phase 2 to Phase 4 clinical trials.

Depending of the type of personal data processing carried out during clinical trials and the nature of such trials, it might be necessary to carry out formalities by the French Data Protection Authority, or the CNIL. The sponsor of the trial might have to file with the CNIL a compliance undertaking with one of CNIL's reference methodologies through a simplified notification procedure or file for a request of authorization. Patients then always shall have a right to access and correct their personal data, and to object to their processing/withdraw their consent, require their deletion or a limitation of the processing pursuant to the GDPR.

The main French legislative and regulatory texts relating to the conduct of clinical trials are as follows (which are mainly codified in the French Public Health Code (Articles L. 1121-1 to L. 1126-12 and Articles R. 1121-1 to R. 1125-26)):

A clinical trial (Article L. 1121-3 PHC) may be undertaken under the following technical conditions: (a) under the direction and the supervision of a qualified physician and (b) under adapted material and technical conditions, compatible with the rigorous imperatives of science and the safety of the clinical trial subjects.

Two documents must be provided to clinical trial subjects before the conduct of the trial. First, the patient must receive a patient information sheet which must contain in particular a description of the objective, the methodology and the time period of the research, as well as a description of the alternative treatments, the number of subjects expected to take part in the study, the anticipated benefits, the constraints and the foreseeable risks resulting from the administration of the products that are the object of the clinical trials but also the favorable opinion of the ethics committee and the authorization of the ANSM, and information on processing of personal data. The information communicated must be summarized in a written document delivered to the patient prior to any administration of products by the investigator or a physician (Article L. 1122-1 PHC).

Second, the patient must confirm his or her agreement to participate in the clinical study by signing an informed consent form (Article L. 1122-1-1 PHC). For each study, patient information must include a right to refuse to participate and to withdraw consent at any time and by any means without further consequences or prejudice. A clinical trial on a minor may be undertaken only if, in particular, the informed consent of the parents or legal representative has been obtained. Furthermore, a clinical trial on adults under guardianship requires the informed consent of the adult’s legal representative.

The sponsor shall indemnify the subject of the trial in case of damage arising as a consequence of the research, unless he proves that the damage does not result from his fault or the fault of any other person intervening in the trial (Article L.1121-10 PHC). The sponsor must have an insurance covering its civil liability and the liability of any person intervening in the research, for any damage arising from the trial for a minimum of 10 years as of the end of the trial (Article L.1121-10 PHC).

Any pharmaceutical product distributed in France will be subject to pervasive and continuing regulation by the ANSM, including, among other things, record-keeping requirements, reporting of adverse experiences with the product, providing updated safety and efficacy information, distribution requirements, complying with promotion and advertising requirements. French law strictly regulates labeling, advertising, promotion and other types of information on products that are placed on the market and imposes requirements and restrictions on drug manufacturers, such as those related to direct-to-consumer advertising, the prohibition on promoting products for uses or in patient populations that are not described in the product’s approved labeling (known as “off-label use”), industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities.

Failure to comply with the applicable regulatory requirements may result in restrictions on the marketing of a product or withdrawal of the product from the market as well as possible administrative or criminal sanctions.

To secure coverage and reimbursement for any product candidate that might be approved for sale, we may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of the product candidate, in addition to the costs required to obtain FDA or other comparable regulatory approvals. Whether or not we conduct such studies, our product candidates may not be considered medically necessary or cost-effective. A third-party payor’s decision to provide coverage for a drug product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Further, one payor’s determination to provide coverage for a product does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage, and adequate reimbursement, for the product. Third-party reimbursement may not be sufficient to enable us to maintain price levels high enough to realize an appropriate return on our investment in product development.

The containment of healthcare costs has become a priority of federal and state governments, and the prices of drugs have been a focus in this effort. The U.S. government, state legislatures and foreign governments have shown significant interest in implementing cost-containment programs, including price controls, restrictions on reimbursement, utilization management and requirements for substitution of generic products. Adoption of price controls and cost-containment measures, and adoption of more restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could further limit our net revenue and results. Decreases in third-party reimbursement for our product candidates or a decision by a third-party payor to not cover our product candidates could reduce physician usage of the product candidates and could have a material adverse effect on our sales, results of operations and financial condition.

For example, the ACA has already had, and is expected to continue to have, a significant impact on the health care industry. The ACA has expanded coverage for the uninsured while at the same time containing overall healthcare costs. With regard to pharmaceutical products, among other things, the ACA expanded and increased industry rebates for drugs covered under Medicaid programs and made changes to the coverage requirements under the Medicare Part D program. Some of the provisions of the ACA have yet to be implemented, and there have been judicial and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA, as well as recent efforts by the Trump administration to repeal or replace certain aspects of the ACA. Since January 2017, President Trump signed several Executive Orders and other directives designed to delay the implementation of certain provisions of the ACA or otherwise circumvent some of the requirements for health insurance mandated by the ACA. Concurrently, Congress considered legislation that would repeal or repeal and replace all or part of the ACA. While Congress has not passed comprehensive repeal legislation, several bills affecting the implementation of certain taxes under the ACA have been signed into law. The Tax Act included a provision which repealed, effective January 1, 2019, 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 that is commonly referred to as the “individual mandate.” The 2020 federal spending package permanently eliminated, effective January 1, 2020, the ACA-mandated “Cadillac” tax on high-cost employer-sponsored health coverage and medical device tax and, effective January 1, 2021, also eliminates the health insurer tax. Further, the BBA, among other things, amended the ACA, effective January 1, 2019, to increase from 50 percent to 70 percent the point-of-sale discount that is owed by pharmaceutical manufacturers who participate in Medicare Part D and to close the coverage gap in most Medicare drug plans, commonly referred to as the “donut hole.” On December 14, 2018, a Texas U.S. District Court Judge ruled that

ACA is unconstitutional in its entirety because the “individual mandate” was repealed by Congress as part of the Tax Act. Additionally, on December 18, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld the District Court ruling that the individual mandate was unconstitutional and remanded the case back to the District Court to determine whether the remaining provisions of the ACA are invalid as well. The U.S. Supreme Court is currently reviewing this case, although it is uncertain when a decision will be made. Although the U.S. Supreme Court has yet ruled on the constitutionality of the ACA, on January 28, 2021, President Biden issued an executive order to initiate a special enrollment period from February 15, 2021 through May 15, 2021 for purposes of obtaining health insurance coverage through the ACA marketplace. The executive order also instructs certain governmental agencies to review and reconsider their existing policies and rules that limit access to healthcare, including among others, reexamining Medicaid demonstration projects and waiver programs that include work requirements, and policies that create unnecessary barriers to obtaining access to health insurance coverage through Medicaid or the ACA. It is unclear how the Supreme Court ruling, other such litigation, and the healthcare reform measures of the Biden administration will impact ACA.

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA was enacted. For example, on August 2, 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011 among other things, created measures for spending reductions by Congress. Specifically, the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction was created to recommend to Congress proposals in spending reductions. The Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction did not achieve a targeted deficit reduction of at least $1.2 trillion for the years 2012 through 2021, thereby triggering the legislation’s automatic reduction to several government programs. This includes aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of up to 2% per fiscal year, started in April 2013 and which, due to subsequent legislative amendments, including the BBA, will stay in effect through 2030 unless additional Congressional action is taken. However, COVID-19 relief support legislation suspended the 2% Medicare sequester from May 1, 2020 through March 31, 2021. Additionally, on January 2, 2013, President Obama signed into law the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, which, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to several providers, including hospitals, imaging centers and cancer treatment centers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years.

Recently, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products. Such scrutiny has resulted in several recent U.S. Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, reduce the cost of drugs under Medicare and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug products. At the federal level, the Trump administration’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2021 includes a $135 billion allowance to support legislative proposals seeking to reduce drug prices, increase competition, lower out-of-pocket drug costs for patients, and increase patient access to lower-cost generic and biosimilar drugs. Further, the Trump administration released a “Blueprint”, or plan, to lower drug prices and reduce out of pocket costs of drugs that contained proposals to increase drug manufacturer competition, increase the negotiating power of certain federal healthcare programs, incentivize manufacturers to lower the list price of their products, and reduce the out of pocket costs of drug products paid by consumers.On July 24, 2020 and September 13, 2020, the Trump administration announced several executive orders related to prescription drug pricing that seek to implement several of the administration’s proposals. As a result, the FDA released a final rule on September 24, 2020, effective November 30, 2020, providing guidance for states to build and submit importation plans for drugs from Canada. Further, on November 20, 2020, HHS finalized a regulation removing safe harbor protection for price reductions from pharmaceutical manufacturers to plan sponsors under Part D, either directly or through pharmacy benefit managers, unless the price reduction is required by law. The implementation of the rule has been delayed by the Biden administration from January 1, 2022 to January 1, 2023 in response to ongoing litigation. 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 , the implementation of which have also been delayed pending review by the Biden administration until March 22, 2021. On November 20, 2020, CMS issued an interim final rule implementing President Trump’s Most Favored Nation executive order, which would tie Medicare Part B payments for certain physician-administered drugs to the lowest price paid in other economically advanced countries, effective January 1, 2021. On December 28, 2020, the U.S. District Court in Northern California issued a nationwide preliminary injunction against implementation of the interim final rule. The likelihood of implementation of any of the other Trump administration reform initiatives is uncertain as it is unclear whether the Biden administration will work to reverse these measures or pursue similar policy initiatives. At the state level, legislatures have increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing.

We expect that additional 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, and in turn could significantly reduce the projected value of certain development projects and reduce our profitability. Further, it is possible that additional action is taken in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

In addition, in some foreign countries, the proposed pricing for a drug must be approved before it may be lawfully marketed. The requirements governing drug pricing vary widely from country to country. For example, the European Union provides options for its

Member States to restrict the range of medicinal products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices of medicinal products for human use. A Member State may approve a specific price for the medicinal product or it may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the medicinal product on the market. For example, in France, effective market access will be supported by agreements with hospitals and products may be reimbursed by the Social Security Fund. The price of medicines is negotiated with the Economic Committee for Health Products, or CEPS. There can be no assurance that any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for pharmaceutical products will allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements for any of our product candidates. Historically, products launched in the European Union do not follow price structures of the United States and generally prices tend to be significantly lower.

Our business operations in the United States and our arrangements with clinical investigators, healthcare providers, consultants, third party payors and patients may expose us to broadly applicable federal and state fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws. These laws may impact, among other things, our research, proposed sales, marketing and education programs of our product candidates that obtain marketing approval. The laws that may affect our ability to operate include, among others:

The ACA broadened the reach of the federal fraud and abuse laws by, among other things, amending the intent requirement of the U.S. federal Anti-Kickback Statute and certain federal criminal healthcare fraud statutes. Pursuant to the statutory amendment, a person or

entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of those statutes or specific intent to violate them in order to have committed a violation. In addition, the ACA provides that the government may assert that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the U.S. federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the civil False Claims Act or the civil monetary penalties statute.

Efforts to ensure that our business arrangements with third parties will comply with applicable healthcare laws will involve substantial costs. 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. 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, for example, significant administrative, civil, and criminal penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, imprisonment, exclusion from government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, additional reporting requirements and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or similar agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations. If the physicians or other healthcare providers or entities with whom we expect to do business are found to be not in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to significant administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions, including exclusions from government funded healthcare programs.

The following diagram illustrates our corporate structure:

In February 2016, we opened our U.S. office in Cambridge, Massachusetts. We currently lease 6,289 square feet of office space in Cambridge, Massachusetts under a lease that expires in June 2029. In 2018, we entered into a lease for 3,000 square meters of manufacturing and office space in Princeton, New Jersey, under a lease that expires in June 2029. Our Princeton manufacturing facility in Princeton has been able to produce GMP-compliant batches since the fourth quarter of 2019. Additionally, our Princeton manufacturing facility was designed with the ability to scale production to supply eryaspase to meet our anticipated clinical trial needs, including for supply requirements for U.S. patients in the TRYbeCA-1 trial, and for our anticipated initial commercial needs in the United States, if eryaspase receives approval. Following the opening of our Princeton manufacturing facility, we terminated our agreement with the American Red Cross for the use of a manufacturing facility in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in January 2020.

We believe our production facilities will be sufficient to supply eryaspase for our ongoing Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trials and to meet our anticipated initial commercial needs for eryaspase in Europe and United States, if approved.

Not applicable.

Since our inception, we have devoted substantially all of our financial resources to research and development efforts, including conducting preclinical studies and clinical trials of our product candidates, providing general and administrative support for our operations and protecting our intellectual property.

Since our inception in 2004, we have incurred significant operating losses. Our net loss was €38.2 million, €62.7 million and €73.3 million for the years ended December 31, 2018, 2019 and 2020, respectively. We had a consolidated shareholders' equity of €26.5 million as of December 31, 2020, and we expect to incur significant expenses and substantial operating losses over the next several years as we continue our research and development efforts and advance our clinical development programs in Europe and the United States. Although it is difficult to predict future liquidity requirements, we believe that our existing cash and cash equivalents as of the date of this Annual Report will be sufficient to fund our operations until the fourth quarter 2021. If we take into account potential proceeds from the OCABSA Agreement, then we believe we could fund our operations until the first quarter 2022. Refer to "Item 3.D.1 Risks Related to our Financial Position and Capital Needs for further details.

Our net losses may fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter and year to year, depending on the timing of our clinical trials, the receipt of milestone payments, if any, and our expenditures on other research and development activities. We anticipate that our expenses will increase substantially in connection with our ongoing activities, as we:

Until such time that we can generate substantial revenue from product sales, we expect to finance these expenses and our operating activities through a combination of equity offerings, debt financings, government or other third-party funding, marketing and distribution arrangements and other collaborations, strategic alliances and licensing arrangements. However, we may be unable to raise additional funds or enter into other funding arrangements when needed on favorable terms, or at all, which would have a negative impact on our financial condition and could force us to delay, limit, reduce or terminate our development programs or commercialization efforts or grant rights to third parties to develop or market product candidates that we would otherwise prefer to develop and market ourselves. Moreover, no assurance can be given at this time as to whether we will be able to achieve these financing objectives. Our ability to successfully transition to profitability will be dependent upon achieving a level of revenues adequate to support our cost structure. We cannot assure you that we will ever be profitable or generate positive cash flow from operating activities.

The consolidated financial statements as of and for the years ended December 31, 2018, 2019 and 2020 included in this Annual Report have been prepared in accordance with IFRS as issued by the IASB with no difference with the statutory consolidated financial statements and were approved and authorized for issuance by our board of directors on March 5, 2021. Due to the listing of our ordinary shares on Euronext Paris and in accordance with the European Union’s regulation No. 1606/2002 of July 19, 2002 as amended, our consolidated financial statements have also been prepared in accordance with IFRS as adopted by the European Union, or EU.

Research and development expenses consist primarily of:

Some of the accounting methods and policies used in preparing our financial statements under IFRS are based on complex and subjective assessments by our management or on estimates based on past experience and assumptions deemed realistic and reasonable based on the circumstances concerned. The actual value of our assets, liabilities and shareholders’ equity and of our losses could differ from the value derived from these estimates if conditions changed and these changes had an impact on the assumptions adopted. We believe that the most significant management judgments and assumptions in the preparation of our financial statements are described below. For further details, see Notes to our consolidated financial statements.

using an option-pricing model is affected by assumptions regarding a number of complex and subjective variables. These variables include the expected term of the awards, expected volatility, risk-free interest rates and expected dividends. If any of the assumptions change significantly, share-based compensation for future awards may differ materially compared with the awards granted previously.

We generated operating income of €4,447 thousand in 2018, €5,283 thousand in 2019 and €3,718 thousand in 2020. The components of our operating income are set forth in the table below.

The CIR recognized for each of the years 2018 and 2019 ended were received in cash in 2019 and 2020, respectively. We expect to receive the CIR recognized for the 2020 year in 2021.

Revenues from licenses or other contracts in 2019 are primarily associated with our license agreement with SQZ Biotechnologies.

Our research and development expenses are broken down in the table below.

The increase in research and development expenses for periods presented is mainly due to:

Our general and administrative expenses are mainly composed of:

Our financial income (loss) amounted to €5,399 thousand in 2018, €1,414 thousand in 2019 and €(4,465) thousand in 2020. It is broken down as follows:

Our financial income related mainly to:

We have financed our operations since our inception through several rounds of public and private financings that could be summarized as follows:

In September 2020, we entered into a sales agreement with Cowen with respect to an ATM offering program pursuant to which we may issue and sell, from time to time at our sole discretion, ordinary shares in the form of ADSs to eligible investors at market prices, with aggregate gross sales proceeds of up to $30 million, subject to the regulatory limit of 20% dilution (this threshold is calculated based on the total number of shares listed on Euronext without prospectus during the twelve months before the issuance).

In February 2021, we sold shares under this ATM offering program resulting in gross proceeds of $8.0 million, or €6.6 million, resulting in net proceeds of $7.8 million or €6.4 million. As of the date of this Annual Report, $22.0 million remained available for future issuance until September 2023, subject to the regulatory limit of 20% dilution.

We have also received €5.0 million in three conditional advances from Bpifrance. To date, TEDAC is the only ongoing program funded by conditional advances. No repayment were made during the years presented.

The TEDAC research program, which is funded by non-refundable subsidies and conditional advances from Bpifrance, will be funded according to a specified schedule set forth in the contract, subject to completion of milestones. As the program advances, we will provide Bpifrance with interim progress reports and a final report when the funded project ends. Based on these reports, we are entitled to conditional advances and non-refundable subsidies, each award being made to help fund a specific development milestone.

In 2017, we subscribed an unsecured bank loan with Société Générale subscribed for a total amount of €1.9 million with a 0.4% interest rate and 36 monthly repayment terms. This loan is fully repaid as of December 31, 2020.

In November 2020, we received two loans of €5.0 million each, in the form of State-Guaranteed Loan (Prêt Garanti par l’Etat, or PGE in France), with Bpifrance and Société Générale in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The loans bear interest at fixed rates of 1.67% and 0.25% per annum respectively, with an initial term of one year and a five -year deferral option and the French government will guarantee 90% of the amount due.

The table below summarizes our sources and uses of cash for the years ended December 31, 2018, 2019 and 2020.

The increase in financial assets related mainly to deposits paid on commercial leases and advance payments to suppliers.

Our net cash flows from (used in) financing activities were €(818) thousand in 2018, €40 thousand in 2019 and €25,449 thousand in 2020.

The following table discloses aggregate information about our material contractual obligations and the periods in which payments were due as of December 31, 2020. Future events could cause actual payments and timing of payments to differ from the contractual cash flows set forth below.

The amounts of contractual obligations set forth in the table above are associated with contracts that are enforceable and legally binding and that specify all significant terms, fixed or minimum services to be used, fixed, minimum or variable price provisions, and the approximate timing of the actions under the contracts. The table does not include obligations under agreements that we can cancel without a significant penalty.

The following table sets forth information concerning our executive officers and directors as of the date of this Annual Report.

the ESC Clermont School of Management (France) and holds an M.B.A. from the University of Kansas and an Executive M.B.A. from the HEC Paris School of Management (France).

from January 2018 to November 2018. Prior to joining Syntimmune, Dr. Kress served as Executive Vice President, President of International and Head of Global Therapeutic Operations at Biogen Inc from June 2017 to January 2018. From September 2015 to June 2017, Dr. Kress served as Senior Vice President, Head of North America at Sanofi Genzyme. From July 2011 to September 2015, Dr. Kress served as President and Chief Executive Officer of Sanofi Pasteur MSD, a European vaccine company. Prior to then, Dr. Kress worked at Gilead, Abbvie and Eli Lilly in senior commercial and business development roles in the United States and in Europe. Dr. Kress holds an M.D. degree from Faculté Necker-Enfants Malades in Paris, and graduate and post-graduate degrees in pharmacology and immunology from École Normale Supérieure in Paris.

There are no family relationships among any of our executive officers or directors.

The aggregate compensation paid and benefits in kind granted by us to our current executive officers and directors was €2.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2020. The fair value of share-based compensation granted to our executive officers and director during the year ended December 31, 2020 amounted to €1.3 million. The total amount set aside or accrued to provide pension, retirement or similar benefits for our executive officers was €275 thousand for the year ended December 31, 2020 . We did not set aside any similar pension or retirement benefits for the benefit of our directors.

At our combined general meetings of shareholders held on June 28, 2018, June 21, 2019 and June 26, 2020, shareholders set the total annual amount of the remuneration to be distributed among non-employee directors at €280 thousand for 2018, €400 thousand for 2019 and €425 thousand for 2020. The following table sets forth information regarding the compensation allocated to our non-employee directors for service on our board of directors during the year ended December 31, 2020. Gil Beyen, our Chief Executive Officer, is a director but does not receive any additional compensation for his services as a director.

Our executive committee currently consists of (i) our Chief Executive Officer, (ii) our Chief Financial Officer, Chief Operating Officer and Deputy General Manager, (iii) our Chief Business Officer, (iv) our Chief Medical Officer (v) our Vice President and Director of Pharmaceutical Operations and Qualified Person, (vi) our Director of Research and Development Operations, (vii) our Human Resources Director, (viii) our VP, Legal Affairs & General Counsel and (ix) our Chief Technical Officer. The executive committee discusses and consults with the board and advises the board on our day-to-day management. The following table sets forth information regarding compensation allocated during the year ended December 31, 2020 to:

For a discussion of our employment arrangements with our executive officers, see “Item 7.B.—Related Party Transactions—Arrangements with Our Directors and Executive Officers.” Except the arrangements described in “Item 7.B.—Related Party Transactions—Agreements with Our Directors and Executive Officers,” there are no arrangements or understanding between us and any of our other executive officers providing for benefits upon termination of their employment, other than as required by applicable law.

We have obtained directors’ and officers’ liability insurance for our directors and officers, which includes coverage against liability under the Securities Act. We have entered into agreements with our directors and executive officers to provide contractual indemnification. With certain exceptions and subject to limitations on indemnification under French law, these agreements provide for indemnification for damages and expenses including, among other things, attorneys’ fees, judgments and settlement amounts incurred by any of these individuals in any action or proceeding arising out of his or her actions in that capacity.

These agreements may discourage shareholders from bringing a lawsuit against our directors and executive officers for breach of their fiduciary duty. These provisions also may have the effect of reducing the likelihood of derivative litigation against directors and executive officers, even though such an action, if successful, might otherwise benefit us and our shareholders. Furthermore, a shareholder’s investment in our equity securities may be adversely affected to the extent we pay the costs of settlement and damage awards against directors and officers pursuant to these insurance agreements.

We believe our ability to grant equity incentives is a valuable and necessary compensation tool that allows us to attract and retain the best available personnel for positions of substantial responsibility, provides additional incentives to employees and promotes the success of our business. Due to French corporate law and tax considerations, we have historically granted several different equity incentive instruments to our directors, executive officers, employees and other service providers, including:

Our board of directors’ authority to grant these equity incentive instruments and the aggregate amount authorized to be granted under these instruments must be approved by a two-thirds majority of the votes held by our shareholders present, represented or voting by authorized means, at the relevant extraordinary shareholders’ meeting. Once approved by our shareholders, our board of directors can grant share warrants (BSA) for up to 18 months, and restricted (free) shares and stock options for up to 38 months from the date of the applicable shareholders’ approval. The authority of our board of directors to grant equity incentives may be extended or increased only by extraordinary shareholders’ meetings. As a result, we typically request that our shareholders authorize new pools of equity incentive instruments at every annual shareholders’ meeting.

We have six share-based compensation plans for our executive officers, non-employee directors and employees: the 2014 Plan, the 2016 Plan, the 2017 Plan, the 2018 Plan, the 2019 Plan and the 2020 Plan, or the Plans. In general, founder’s share warrants and share warrants no longer continue to vest following termination of the employment, office or service of the holder and all vested shares must be exercised within post-termination exercise periods set forth in the grant documents. In the event of certain changes in our share capital structure, such as a consolidation or share split or dividend, French law and applicable grant documentation provides for appropriate adjustments of the numbers of shares issuable and/or the exercise price of the outstanding warrants.

Founder’s share warrants have traditionally been granted to certain of our employees who were French tax residents because the warrants carry favorable tax and social security treatment for French tax residents. Similar to options, founder’s share warrants entitle a holder to exercise the warrant for the underlying vested shares at an exercise price per share determined by our board of directors and at least equal to the fair market value of an ordinary share on the date of grant. However, unlike options, the exercise price per share is fixed as of the date of implementation of the plans pursuant to which the warrants may be granted, rather than as of the date of grant of the individual warrants.

We have issued two types of founder’s share warrants as follows: