Allogene Therapeutics (ALLO) 10-Q2024 Q1 Quarterly report

Pursuant to the Share Purchase Agreement, the Company acquired Seed Preferred Shares in Allogene Overland representing 49% of Allogene Overland's outstanding stock as partial consideration for the License Agreement, and Overland acquired Seed Preferred Shares representing 51% of Allogene Overland's outstanding stock for $117.0 million in upfront and certain quarterly cash payments, to support operations of Allogene Overland. As of March 31, 2024, the Company and Overland are the sole equity holders in Allogene Overland. The Company received $40 million from Allogene Overland as partial consideration for the License Agreement.

Pursuant to the License Agreement, the Company granted Allogene Overland an exclusive license to develop, manufacture and commercialize certain allogeneic CAR T cell candidates directed at four targets, BCMA, CD70, FLT3, and DLL3, in the JV Territory. As consideration, the Company would also be entitled to additional regulatory milestone payments of up to $40.0 million and, subject to certain conditions, tiered low-to-mid single-digit sales royalties. Subsequent to entering into the License Agreement, Allogene Overland assigned the License Agreement to a wholly-owned subsidiary, Allogene Overland BioPharm (HK) Limited (Allogene Overland HK). On April 1, 2022, Allogene Overland HK assigned the License Agreement to Allogene Overland Biopharm (PRC) Co., Limited.

Promises that the Company concluded were distinct performance obligations in the License Agreement included: (1) the license of intellectual property and delivery of know-how, (2) the manufacturing license, related know-how and support, (3) know-how developed in future periods, and (4) participation in the joint steering committee.

The Company has determined that Allogene Overland is a variable interest entity as of March 31, 2024 and December 31, 2023. The Company does not have the power to direct the activities which most significantly affect Allogene Overland's economic performance. Accordingly, the Company did not consolidate Allogene Overland because the Company determined that it was not the primary beneficiary. The Company's total equity investment in Allogene Overland as of March 31, 2024 and December 31, 2023 was zero (see Note 8).

In July 2023, the Company and Antion entered into an amendment to the Antion Collaboration and License Agreement. Under the terms of this amendment, Antion's exclusivity obligation relating to the collaboration was terminated; however, Antion agreed to certain restrictions on its ability to pursue products directed against specific targets. Also, in lieu of the Company's prior obligation to make a $3.0 million investment in Antion following the completion of certain milestones, the Company agreed to make a $2.0 million investment in Antion's preferred stock and acquired warrants to purchase an additional $3.0 million of Antion's preferred stock.

Under the Antion Collaboration and License Agreement, Antion will be eligible to receive up to $35.3 million for four products upon achievement of certain development and regulatory milestones. For each additional product, Antion will be eligible to receive $2.0 million upon achievement of a regulatory milestone. Antion is also entitled to receive a low single-digit royalty on the Company’s sales of licensed products, subject to certain reductions.

The aggregate intrinsic values of options outstanding, exercisable, vested and expected to vest were calculated as the difference between the exercise price of the options and the closing price of the Company’s common stock on the Nasdaq Global Select Market on March 31, 2024. For the three months ended March 31, 2024, the estimated weighted-average grant-date fair value of employee options granted was $2.15 per share. As of March 31, 2024, there was $54.0 million of unrecognized stock-based compensation related to unvested stock options, which is expected to be recognized over a weighted-average period of 2.4 years.

As of March 31, 2024, there was $52.4 million of unrecognized stock-based compensation related to unvested restricted stock units, which is expected to be recognized over a weighted-average period of 2.4 years.

On May 10, 2024, the Company and Servier entered into the Servier Amendment which settles all existing disputes (as described in Note 6) between the Company and Servier relating to each party’s performance under the Servier Agreement. The Servier Amendment also restructures the parties’ relationship on the following terms:

We are currently focused on developing cemacabtagene ansegedleucel (cema-cel, previously ALLO-501A) in large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). We plan to initiate a pivotal Phase 2 clinical trial (ALPHA3) in mid-2024 for cema-cel as part of a first line (1L) treatment plan for newly diagnosed and treated LBCL patients who are likely to relapse and need further therapy. The design of the ALPHA3 1L consolidation trial builds upon the results demonstrated in the Phase 1 ALPHA2 trial and leverages an investigational diagnostic test developed by Foresight Diagnostics, Inc. that we believe will identify patients who have achieved remission by standard disease assessment but who have minimal residual disease (MRD) at the completion of 1L chemoimmunotherapy. The ALPHA3 trial is designed to study the impact of treating MRD positive patients with cema-cel. The study will randomize approximately 240 patients who achieve a complete response or partial response to 1L therapy, but who are MRD positive. The patients will be randomized to either consolidation with cema-cel or the current standard of care, which is observation. The design, with a primary endpoint of event free survival (EFS), will initially include two lymphodepletion arms (one with standard fludarabine and cyclophosphamide plus ALLO-647 and one with standard fludarabine and cyclophosphamide but without ALLO-647). One lymphodepletion arm will be discontinued following a planned interim analysis in mid-2025 designed to select the most appropriate regimen for this patient population. The efficacy analysis is expected to occur in 2026 and will include the Independent Data Safety Monitoring Board (IDSMB) interim efficacy analysis in the first half of 2026 and the data readout of the primary analysis is expected in the second half of 2026 with a biologics license application (BLA) submission targeted for 2027. In view of the potential of the earlier line ALPHA3 trial, we have deprioritized the third line (3L) LBCL ALPHA2 and EXPAND trials.

In May 2024 we entered into the Servier Amendment with Servier under which the parties settled disputes relating to each party’s performance under the Servier Agreement. The parties agreed to waive any and all outstanding claims that were asserted relating to alleged violations of the Servier Agreement, including all claims that such party was entitled to various payments or refunds from the other party under the Servier Agreement, and mutual releases with respect to such claims were granted.

Additionally, the Servier Amendment expanded our territory under the Servier Agreement to include the European Union and the United Kingdom, and provides for an option to further expand our territory to include China and Japan

Additionally, under the Servier Amendment all of our future milestone payments (regulatory and sales) under the Servier Agreement are modified to be the same as, and to coincide with, Servier’s milestone payments to Cellectis under the Servier-Cellectis Agreement. As amended by the Servier Amendment, the Servier Agreement provides for aggregate potential payments by us to Servier of up to €75 million, of which €60 million remains, upon successful completion of various regulatory milestones in the United States, European Union and the United Kingdom for the initial indication of each licensed product, with additional payments of €55 million due for each subsequent indication, and aggregate potential payments by us to Servier of up to €80 million upon achievement of certain net sales milestones for each licensed product. Should Servier’s rights and obligations under the Servier-Cellectis Agreement be assigned to us, these milestone payments would terminate, and we would assume Servier’s milestone payment obligation to Cellectis. In the absence of any such assignment, Servier will remain responsible for making milestone payments that may be due to Cellectis under the Servier-Cellectis Agreement.

As part of the settlement, we agreed to transfer €20 million into an escrow account in connection with a potential future milestone payment, which is included in the remaining €60 million in milestone payments referenced above. The

The royalties under the Servier Agreement were also amended. The amended royalties include tiered royalties on annual net sales in the United States and a flat royalty on annual net sales in territories outside the United States. The United States royalty rates are in a range from the low tens to the mid teen percentages, and the ex-U.S. royalty rate is 10%. Such royalties may be reduced for interchangeable drug entry, expiration of patent rights and amounts paid pursuant to licenses of third-party patents. This royalty obligation begins upon the first commercial sale of such product in a given country and ends after the later of a defined number of years or the expiration of the last to expire licensed patent covering the product in such country. The net effect of the Servier Amendment is that our royalty rate in the United States for the first half of the first tier of net sales was increased by a low single digit percentage. Should Servier’s rights and obligations under Servier-Cellectis Agreement be assigned to us, each tier of royalty rates in the United States to Servier would be reduced by 10%, the ex-U.S. royalties to Servier would terminate, and we would assume Servier’s royalty obligations to Cellectis. In the absence of any such assignment, Servier will remain responsible for making royalty payments that may be due to Cellectis under Servier-Cellectis Agreement.

General and Administrative

Other Expenses

Collaboration revenue - related party

Research and Development Expenses

General and Administrative Expenses

Interest and Other Income, Net

Other Expenses

To date, we have incurred significant net losses and negative cash flows from operations. As of March 31, 2024, we had $397.3 million in cash and cash equivalents and investments. We anticipate that the aggregate of our current cash and cash equivalents and investments available for operations will be sufficient to fund our operations for at least the next 12 months from the date this Quarterly Report is filed with the SEC.

Our operations have been financed primarily by net proceeds from the sale and issuance of our convertible preferred stock, the issuance of convertible promissory notes, net proceeds from our IPO, our at-the-market (ATM) offerings, our June 2020 underwritten public offering, and upfront cash payment of $40.0 million received in December 2020 pursuant to our License Agreement with Allogene Overland. In November 2019, we entered into a sales agreement with Cowen and Company, LLC (Cowen), as amended on November 2, 2022 and November 2, 2023, under which we may from time to time issue and sell shares of our common stock through Cowen in ATM offerings. During the three months ended March 31, 2024, we did not sell any shares of common stock in ATM offerings. The specified dollar limit on the amount of common stock that may be sold under the sales agreement was removed pursuant to the November 2, 2023 amendment to the sales agreement. In March 2024, we filed a sales agreement prospectus within a registration statement on Form S-3, registering the offering, issuance and sale of up to $250.0 million of our common stock in ATM offerings.

Operating Activities

Investing Activities

Financing Activities

Foreign Exchange Rate Risk

To remediate this material weakness, during the three months ended March 31, 2024, we continue to improve the operation of our controls over financial reporting with respect to the technical accounting analysis of significant non-routine transactions, which includes engaging third-party subject matter experts with significant relevant experience. While we believe that these efforts will improve our internal control over financial reporting, the implementation of our remediation is ongoing and we will not consider the material weakness remediated until our controls are operational for a sufficient period of time and tested, enabling management to conclude that the controls are operating effectively.

While the foregoing measures are intended to effectively remediate the material weakness described in this Item 4, it is possible that additional remediation steps will be necessary. As such, as we continue to evaluate and implement our plan to remediate the material weakness, our management may decide to take additional measures to address the material weakness or modify the remediation steps described above. Until this material weakness is remediated, we plan to continue to perform additional analyses and other procedures to help ensure that our condensed consolidated financial statements are prepared in accordance with GAAP.

PART II-OTHER INFORMATION

We may encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays and other unknown factors that may adversely affect our business. For instance, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) placed our clinical trials on hold in October 2021, which suspended our clinical programs prior to resolution of the hold in January 2022. Even if we succeed in advancing our clinical trials and commercializing one or more of our product candidates, we will continue to incur substantial research and development and other expenditures to develop and market additional product candidates. The size of our future net losses will depend, in part, on the rate of future growth of our expenses and our ability to generate revenue. Our prior losses and expected future losses have had and will continue to have an adverse effect on our stockholders’ equity and working capital.

We expect to spend a substantial amount of capital in the development and manufacture of our product candidates. We will need substantial additional financing to develop our products and implement our operating plans. In particular, we will require substantial additional financing to enable commercial production of our products and initiate and complete registrational trials for multiple products in multiple regions. Further, if approved, we will require significant additional capital in order to launch and commercialize our product candidates.

As of March 31, 2024, we had $397.3 million in cash and cash equivalents and investments. Changing circumstances may cause us to consume capital significantly faster than we currently anticipate, and we may need to spend more money than currently expected because of circumstances beyond our control. We may also need to raise additional capital sooner than we currently anticipate if we choose to expand more rapidly than we presently plan. In any event, we will require additional capital for the further development and commercialization of our product candidates, including funding our internal manufacturing capabilities.

We cannot be certain that additional funding will be available on acceptable terms, or at all. We have no committed source of additional capital and our stock price has faced extreme volatility and has declined. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities or to the extent that we may issue equity securities in connection with a strategic transaction, the ownership interest of our stockholders will be diluted. If we are unable to raise additional capital in sufficient amounts or on terms acceptable to us, we may have to significantly delay, scale back or discontinue the development or commercialization of our product candidates or other research and development initiatives. Our license agreements may also be terminated if we are unable to meet the payment obligations under the agreements. We could be required to seek collaborators for our product candidates at an earlier stage than otherwise would be desirable or on terms that

Any of the above events could significantly harm our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations and cause the price of our common stock to decline.

We may provide guidance regarding our expected financial and business performance, such as projections regarding our cash runway. Correctly identifying key factors affecting business conditions and predicting future events is an inherently uncertain process and our guidance may not ultimately be accurate. Our guidance is based on certain assumptions relating to our expenses which may fluctuate based on how quickly we are able to execute on our operational initiatives, such as the timing of initiation of clinical trials and the rate of enrollment in such trials, and the timing of certain milestone payments, manufacturing expenses, employee expenses, facility expenses, and potential modifications of existing or the establishment of new partnership agreements. If our assumptions are not met or are impacted as a result of various risks and uncertainties, we may have to raise additional capital sooner than we currently expect and the market value of our common stock could decline significantly.

Our operations, and those of our CDMOs, contract research organizations (CROs), clinical trial sites and other contractors and consultants, could be subject to business disruptions, including those caused by earthquakes, power shortages, telecommunications failures, cybersecurity attacks, water shortages, floods, hurricanes, tsunamis, typhoons, fires, extreme weather conditions, medical epidemics or pandemics, wars and other geopolitical conflicts (such as Russia's military action against Ukraine and the Israel–Hamas conflict), bank failures, adverse legislative actions and other natural or man-made disasters or business interruptions, for which we are predominantly self-insured. The occurrence of any of these business disruptions could seriously harm our operations and financial condition and increase our costs and expenses.

Our ability to manufacture our product candidates could be disrupted if our operations or those of our suppliers are affected by a man-made or natural disaster or other business interruption. Our corporate headquarters and manufacturing facility are located in California near major earthquake faults and fire and flood zones. The ultimate impact on us, our significant suppliers and our general infrastructure of being located near major earthquake faults and fire and flood zones and being consolidated in certain geographical areas is unknown, but our operations and financial condition could suffer in the event of a major earthquake, fire, flood or other natural disaster.

Adverse developments that affect financial institutions, such as events involving liquidity that are rumored or actual, have in the past and may in the future lead to bank failures and market-wide liquidity problems. For example, on March 10, 2023, Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) was closed by the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation, which appointed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) as receiver. Similarly, on March 12, 2023, Signature Bank and Silvergate Capital Corp. were each swept into receivership. In addition, on May 1, 2023, the FDIC seized First Republic Bank and sold its assets to JPMorgan Chase & Co. It is uncertain whether the U.S. Department of Treasury, FDIC and Federal Reserve Board will provide access to uninsured funds in the future in the event of the closure of other banks or financial institutions, or that they would do so in a timely fashion. We maintain the majority of our cash and cash equivalents in accounts at banking institutions in the United States that we believe are of high quality. Cash held in these accounts often exceed the FDIC insurance limits. If such banking institutions were to fail, we could lose all or a portion of amounts held in excess of such insurance limitations. In the event of failure of any of the financial institutions where we maintain our cash and cash equivalents, there can be no assurance that we would be able to access uninsured funds in a timely manner or at all. Any inability to access or delay in accessing these funds could adversely affect our business and financial position.

Although we assess our banking relationships as we believe necessary or appropriate, our access to cash in amounts adequate to finance or capitalize our current and projected future business operations could be significantly impaired by factors that affect the financial institutions with which we have banking relationships. These factors could include, among others, events such as liquidity constraints or failures, the ability to perform obligations under various types of financial, credit or liquidity agreements or arrangements, disruptions or instability in the financial services industry or financial markets, or

In addition, widespread investor concerns regarding the U.S. or international financial systems could result in less favorable commercial financing terms, including higher interest rates or costs and tighter financial and operating covenants, or systemic limitations on access to credit and liquidity sources, thereby making it more difficult for us to acquire financing on acceptable terms or at all. Any decline in available funding or access to our cash and liquidity resources could, among other risks, adversely impact our ability to meet our operating expenses, financial obligations or fulfill our other obligations, result in breaches of our financial and/or contractual obligations or result in violations of federal or state wage and hour laws. Any of these impacts, or any other impacts resulting from the factors described above or other related or similar factors not described above, could have material adverse impacts on our liquidity and our current and/or projected business operations and financial condition and results of operations.

Under current law, federal net operating losses incurred in tax years beginning after December 31, 2017, may be carried forward indefinitely, but the deductibility of such federal net operating loss carryforwards in a taxable year is limited to 80% of taxable income in such year. Under Sections 382 and 383 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and corresponding provisions of state law, if a corporation undergoes an “ownership change” (generally defined as a greater than 50 percentage point change (by value) in the equity ownership of certain stockholders over a rolling three-year period), the corporation’s ability to use its pre-change net operating loss carryforwards and other pre-change tax attributes to offset its post-change income or taxes may be limited. As a result of our initial public offering (IPO) in October 2018 and private placements and other transactions that have occurred since our incorporation, we may have experienced an “ownership change”. We may also experience ownership changes in the future as a result of subsequent shifts in our stock ownership. We anticipate incurring significant additional net losses for the foreseeable future, and our ability to utilize net operating loss carryforwards associated with any such losses to offset future taxable income may be limited to the extent we incur future ownership changes. In addition, at the state level, there may be periods during which the use of net operating loss carryforwards is suspended or otherwise limited, which could accelerate or permanently increase state taxes owed. As a result, we may be unable to use all or a material portion of our net operating loss carryforwards and other tax attributes, which could adversely affect our future cash flows.

We have concentrated our research, development and manufacturing efforts on our engineered allogeneic T cell therapy and our future success depends on the successful development of this therapeutic approach. We are in the early stages of developing our platform and we have experienced significant development challenges, such as with the prior clinical hold by the FDA, and there can be no assurance that any development problems we have now or experience in the future will not cause significant delays or unanticipated costs, or that such development problems can be overcome. We may also experience delays in developing a sustainable, reproducible and scalable manufacturing process or transferring that process to commercial facilities or partners, which may prevent us from completing our clinical studies or commercializing our products on a timely or profitable basis, if at all. For instance, it will take additional time and expense to transfer any product manufacturing to our own manufacturing facility for cell products (CF1), which may be further delayed if we are unable to meet regulatory conditions.

In addition, since we are in the early stages of clinical development, we do not know all the doses to be evaluated in pivotal trials or, if approved, commercially. Finding a suitable dose for our cell therapy product candidates as well as ALLO-647 may delay our anticipated clinical development timelines. These unknowns and other emerging findings from our clinical trials may result in protocol amendments, which may result in additional costs and may also delay our anticipated clinical development timelines. In addition, our expectations with regard to our scalability and costs of manufacturing may vary significantly as we develop our product candidates and understand these critical factors.

We are also advancing product candidates against unexplored targets and with new technology. For example, in our TRAVERSE trial we are advancing ALLO-316 against a target, CD70. ALLO-316 may have limited efficacy, even accounting for the selection of patients with CD70 positive tumors, or have off-target toxicities. Since CD70 is found on activated T and other immune cells, ALLO-316 may also cause fratricide resulting in the loss of ALLO-316 cells, either during the ALLO-316 manufacturing process or after ALLO-316 is administered to patients, or may deplete host T or other immune cells.

The clinical study requirements of the FDA, European Medicines Agency (EMA) and other comparable foreign regulatory authorities and the criteria these regulators use to determine the safety and efficacy of a product candidate are determined according to the type, complexity, novelty and intended use and market of the potential products. The regulatory approval process for novel product candidates such as ours can be more complex and consequently more expensive and take longer than for other, better known or extensively studied pharmaceutical or other product candidates. For example, the regulatory approval process for cema-cel based on our ALPHA3 trial is more complex because it incorporates a companion diagnostic. We also face additional challenges in obtaining regulatory approval for ALLO-647, which we use as part of our lymphodepletion regimen, and for which we would seek to obtain approval concurrently with approval of a CAR T cell product candidate. Approvals by the European Commission and FDA for existing autologous CAR T therapies, such as Kymriah and Yescarta, may not be indicative of what these regulators may require for approval of our therapies. Also, the use of healthy donor material in our allogeneic CAR T product candidates may create product variability challenges for us, and we do not yet fully understand the impact of donor variability on clinical outcomes.

More generally, approvals by any regulatory agency may not be indicative of what any other regulatory agency may require for approval or what such regulatory agencies may require for approval in connection with new product candidates. Moreover, our product candidates may not perform successfully in clinical trials or may be associated with adverse events that distinguish them from the autologous CAR T therapies that have previously been approved. For instance, allogeneic product candidates may result in graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) or chromosomal abnormalities not experienced with autologous products. Additionally, any Phase 2 trial results, such as in the ALPHA3 trial, may not be representative of Phase 1 results, which were based on limited patients and a patient population in an advanced stage or LBCL. Even if we collect promising initial clinical data of our product candidates, longer-term data may reveal new adverse events or responses that are not durable. Unexpected clinical outcomes would significantly impact our business.

All of our product candidates, including our lead product candidates, 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. In addition, because our other product candidates are based on similar technology as our lead product candidates, if any of the lead product candidates encounters additional safety issues, efficacy problems, manufacturing problems, developmental delays, regulatory issues or other problems, our development plans and business would be significantly harmed.

We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action, either in the U.S. or abroad. The policies of the FDA, the competent authorities of the European Union Member States (EU Member States), the EMA, the European Commission and other comparable regulatory authorities responsible for clinical trials may change and additional government regulations may be enacted. For instance, the regulatory landscape related to clinical trials in the European Union recently evolved. The European Union Clinical Trials Regulation (CTR), which was adopted in April 2014 and repeals the European Union Clinical Trials Directive, became applicable on January 31, 2022. The CTR allows sponsors to make a single submission to both the competent authority and an ethics committee in each EU Member State, leading to a single decision for each EU Member State. The assessment procedure for the authorization of clinical trials has been harmonized as well, including a joint assessment by all EU Member States concerned, and a separate assessment by each EU Member State with respect to specific requirements related to its own territory, including ethics rules. Each EU Member State’s decision is communicated to the sponsor via the centralized European Union portal. Once the clinical trial approved, clinical study development may proceed. The CTR foresees a three-year transition period. The extent to which ongoing and new clinical trials will be governed by the CTR varies. The CTR will apply to clinical trials from an earlier date if the related clinical trial application was made on the basis of the CTR or if the clinical trial has already transitioned to the CTR framework before January 31, 2025. Compliance with the CTR requirements by us and our third-party service providers, such as CROs, may impact our developments plans.

In January 2024 the FDA sent letters to all companies with approved autologous CAR T therapies requesting them to add a black box warning on the label of their autologous CAR T therapies. The FDA is requiring label updates to include a black box warning that T-cell malignancies may occur following treatment with BCMA- and CD19-directed genetically modified autologous T-cell immunotherapies. The required warnings are specific to autologous therapies. Such T-cell malignancies have been observed in approximately 1 patient for every 1,000 patients treated with autologous therapies. Because our allogeneic therapies are based on similar technology, until we have treated more patients, there is a risk that we may find similar T-cell malignancies following treatment with our allogeneic CAR T product candidates. If such malignancies are observed, regulatory authorities, such as the FDA, may require a similar black box warning or other safety-related labeling statements on our products’ label, if approved, which could prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Our allogeneic CAR T cell product candidates may also cause unique adverse events related to the differences between the donor and patients, such as GvHD or infusion reactions. In addition, we utilize a lymphodepletion regimen, which generally includes fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and ALLO-647, that may cause serious adverse events. For instance, because the

In our and Servier's clinical trials of allogeneic CAR T product candidates, the most common severe or life-threatening adverse events resulted from CRS, serious infections, febrile neutropenia, prolonged cytopenia including prolonged pancytopenia, haemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis, hypokalemia, multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, neutropenic sepsis and aplastic anemia. As reported, patients have died from adverse events and future patients may also experience toxicity resulting in death. For additional safety data, please see the section entitled "Business—Product Pipeline and Development Strategy" included in our Annual Report.

As we treat and re-treat more patients with our product candidates in our clinical trials, new less common side effects may also emerge or increased incidence of previously observed side effects may occur. There is a risk that the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities may not agree that sufficient mitigating procedures are included in our protocols to address such side effects, and FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities may impose a clinical hold as it evaluates risks associated with such side effects and/or as we work with the agency to implement protocol amendments to appropriately manage such side effects. For instance, we observed a chromosomal abnormality that led to a previous clinical hold on our clinical trials. While our investigation concluded that the chromosomal abnormality had no clinical significance and was unrelated to our manufacturing process, our oncology manufacturing process includes gene engineering by using lentivirus and TALEN nucleases that may in the future cause insertion, deletion, or chromosomal translocation that may result in allogeneic CAR T cells to proliferate uncontrollably and adverse events. In addition, we have observed liver enzyme elevations, including one adverse event – autoimmune hepatitis – that qualified as a dose-limiting toxicity in our TRAVERSE trial.

We may also combine the use of our product candidates with other investigational therapies that may cause separate adverse events or events related to the combination.

If unacceptable toxicities arise in the development of our product candidates, we could suspend or terminate our trials or the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities could order us to cease clinical trials or deny approval of our product candidates for any or all targeted indications. Any data safety monitoring board may also suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk, including risks inferred from other unrelated immunotherapy trials. Treatment-related side effects could also affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled subjects to complete the trial or result in potential product liability claims. In addition, these side effects may not be appropriately recognized or managed by the treating medical staff, as toxicities resulting from T cell therapy are not normally encountered in the general patient population and by medical personnel. We have trained and expect to have to train medical personnel using CAR T cell product candidates to understand the side effect profile of our product candidates for both our clinical trials and upon any commercialization of any of our product candidates. Inadequate training in recognizing or managing the potential side effects of our product candidates could result in patient deaths. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly.

Before obtaining regulatory approvals for the commercial sale of our product candidates, we must demonstrate through lengthy, complex and expensive preclinical testing and clinical trials that our product candidates are both safe and effective for use in each target indication. Clinical testing is expensive and can take many years to complete, and its outcome is inherently uncertain. Failure can occur at any time during the clinical trial process. The results of preclinical studies and early clinical trials of our product candidates may not be predictive of the results of later-stage clinical trials, including in any post-approval studies.

There is typically an extremely high rate of attrition from the failure of product candidates proceeding through clinical trials. Product candidates in later stages of clinical trials may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy profile despite having progressed through preclinical studies and initial clinical trials. A number of companies in the biopharmaceutical industry have suffered significant setbacks in advanced clinical trials due to lack of efficacy, insufficient durability of efficacy or unacceptable safety issues, notwithstanding promising results in earlier trials. Most product candidates that commence clinical trials are never approved as products.

In addition, for any trials that may be completed, we cannot guarantee that the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities will interpret the results as we do, and more trials could be required before we submit our product candidates for approval. To the extent that the results of the trials are not satisfactory to the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities for support of a marketing application, approval of our product candidates may be significantly delayed, or we may be required to expend significant additional resources, which may not be available to us, to conduct additional trials in support of potential approval of our product candidates.

Data from clinical trials that we may complete are subject to the risk that one or more of the clinical outcomes may materially change as patient enrollment continues and more patient data becomes available. Phase 1 results are preliminary in nature and should not be viewed as predictive of ultimate success. It is possible that such results will not continue or may not be repeated in any clinical trial of our product candidates. For instance, our Phase 2 ALPHA3 trial design is based in part on Phase 1 data from a limited number of patients treated with various doses of ALLO-501 or cema-cel manufactured using the Alloy process, and the larger Phase 2 ALPHA3 trial, which we anticipate may include both cema-cel manufactured internally at CF1 and cema-cel manufactured at a contract manufacturer, may not be consistent with the Phase 1 results. Furthermore, because ALPHA3 will include a different patient population versus our Phase 1 ALPHA2 trial, i.e, patients having MRD after front-line treatment versus patients with radiographically measurable disease after a minimum of two prior lines of treatment, it is possible that cema-cel may behave differently in terms of expansion, persistence and the ability to eradicate residual disease. In addition, our experience with our CD19 and BCMA programs indicates that manufacturing can impact clinical outcomes. The manufacturing runs we have completed and tested in the clinic are limited across our product candidates and any manufacturing variability that impacts clinical outcomes would significantly harm our business and prospects. We may also fail to develop any optimized manufacturing processes for any of our programs. Ultimately, if we cannot manufacture our product candidates with consistent and reproducible product characteristics, our ability to develop and commercialize any product candidate would be significantly impacted.

Phase 1 trials of novel products also commonly include a dose exploration phase during which adverse effects of treatment may emerge at higher doses that are new, unexpected, or occur at higher-than-expected frequencies or severity and may limit our ability to develop such products in one or more target indications or patient populations. Similarly, in dose expansion phase, we may discover that adverse effects, either known or novel, may negatively impact the emerging overall benefit-risk profile of our product candidates and may lead to the discontinuation or other significant alteration to the development plan.

Preliminary data also remain subject to audit and verification procedures that may result in the final data being materially different from the preliminary data we previously published. As a result, initial, interim and preliminary data should be viewed with caution until the final data are available. Adverse differences between preliminary or interim data and final data could significantly harm our business prospects.

We plan to submit INDs or IND amendments and equivalent foreign applications for additional product candidates or indications in the future. We cannot be sure that submission of an IND or IND amendment or an equivalent foreign application will result in the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities allowing testing and clinical trials to begin, or that, once begun, issues will not arise that suspend or terminate such clinical trials. The manufacturing of allogeneic CAR T cell therapy remains an emerging and evolving field. Accordingly, we expect Chemistry, Manufacturing and Controls (CMC) related topics, including product specification, will be a focus of IND reviews, which may delay the clearance of INDs or IND amendments. For instance, if we introduce changes to the manufacturing of our product candidates, regulatory authorities may require additional studies or clinical data to support the changes, which could delay our clinical trial timelines. Additionally, even if such regulatory authorities agree with the design and implementation of the clinical trials set forth in an IND, IND amendment or clinical trial application, we cannot guarantee that such regulatory authorities will not change their requirements in the future.

In addition, we have an open IND for ALLO-647, which is being used as part of lymphodepletion in all our clinical trials. Any regulatory issues related to ALLO-647 or to the development of ALLO-647, if it is used as part of a lymphodepletion regimen in a clinical study, could delay such study and delay the development of our allogeneic CAR T cell product candidates and significantly affect our business.

Clinical testing is expensive, time consuming and subject to uncertainty. We cannot guarantee that any clinical studies will be conducted as planned or completed on schedule, if at all. Even if our trials begin as planned, issues may arise that could suspend or terminate such clinical trials. A failure of one or more clinical studies can occur at any stage of testing, and our future clinical studies may not be successful. Events that may prevent successful or timely completion of clinical development include:

A pandemic or epidemic may also increase the risk of certain of the events described above and delay our development timelines. Any inability to successfully complete preclinical and clinical development could result in additional costs to us or impair our ability to generate revenue. In addition, in order to transition manufacturing of certain of our product candidates from our CDMO to our manufacturing facility, we will be required to meet certain regulatory conditions, such as establishing comparability with the product candidates manufactured at our CDMO, and our inability to meet such conditions would result in investment of additional resources, a delay in using our manufacturing facility for production and extend our clinical trial timelines. Similar conditions may apply if we make manufacturing or formulation changes to our product candidates. Clinical study delays could also shorten any periods during which our products have patent protection and may allow our competitors to bring products to market before we do, which could impair our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates and may harm our business and results of operations.

Our clinical trials may also be delayed because of the availability of drugs required to be used under our protocols. For example, in some of our clinical trials, the study participants receive commercially available drugs for lymphodepletion before our allogeneic CAR T product candidates are administered, and receive other drugs to prevent infections and manage the treatment emergent adverse events. Shortage or lack of availability of these commercially available drugs that are necessary to conduct our clinical trials may cause delays in our clinical trials.

For our clinical trials of our product candidates, we contract or will contract with academic medical centers and hospitals experienced in the assessment and management of toxicities arising during clinical trials. Nonetheless, these centers and hospitals may have difficulty observing patients and treating toxicities, which may be more challenging due to personnel changes, inexperience, shift changes, house staff coverage or related issues. This could lead to more severe or prolonged toxicities or even patient deaths, which could result in us or the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities delaying, suspending, varying, or terminating one or more of our clinical trials, and which could jeopardize regulatory approval. We also expect the centers using our product candidates, if approved, on a commercial basis could have similar difficulty in managing adverse events. Medicines used at centers to help manage adverse side effects of our product candidates may not adequately control the side effects and/or may have a detrimental impact on the efficacy of the treatment. Challenges associated with the use of these medicines may increase with new physicians and centers administering our product candidates.

We may experience difficulties in patient enrollment in our clinical trials for a variety of reasons. For example, as we progress the ALPHA2 CLL cohort, ALPHA3 and TRAVERSE trials, we may face enrollment challenges, including an unwillingness of sites to participate, the exclusion of patients with certain disease characteristics or the ineligibility of patients that have received prior autologous CAR T therapies, which continue to gain adoption. The timely completion of clinical trials in accordance with their protocols depends, among other things, on our ability to enroll a sufficient number of patients. Because we anticipate a minority of the 1L patients we will test for MRD as part of screening for the ALPHA3 trial will be MRD positive, we will likely experience a very high screen failure rate, which will require screening a large number of patients to complete enrollment in the study. Because of the anticipated high screen failure rate, certain clinical trial sites may decline to participate in ALPHA3 or completion of enrollment may be significantly delayed. Future epidemics or pandemics may result in reduced enrollment and challenges to related clinical trial activities. The enrollment of patients may be more difficult, such as due to the perceptions of the safety of our clinical trials due to the previous clinical hold, and will depend on many factors, including:

Since we only need to conduct a limited number of manufacturing runs to generate clinical supply, the diversity of our supply is limited during clinical trials. As a result, some patients may have antibodies to certain donor specific antigens at titers that could negatively impact the activity of our product candidates and which would render the patients ineligible for treatment. Furthermore, cellular mechanisms of allogeneic tissue rejection may limit the efficacy of our products. In addition, we have introduced an in vitro companion diagnostic (IVD) assay in the TRAVERSE trial to screen for patients with CD70+ tumors and will utilize an MRD assay in the ALPHA3 trial to screen for patients who are MRD positive, both of which are restricting or will restrict the number of patients eligible for the trials.

Development and research use of an experimental diagnostic assay or test, such as that we are using to determine CD70 expression on tumor tissue of potential participants in the TRAVERSE trial or to identify MRD positive patients in the ALPHA3 trial, may influence results of the study in expected or unexpected ways. For example, emerging safety and efficacy outcomes could lead us to impose, tighten or expand “cutoff” values of CD70 expression to determine enrollment eligibility for TRAVERSE. Assay performance or necessary changes we or our partners make to the assay(s) during development may reduce the pace of enrollment or may lead to alterations in the expected benefit risk profile as compared to results collected prior to the change. The diagnostic assay itself may not perform as expected due to identifiable or obscure factors. It is also possible that we may not be aware of such underperformance of the assay which could lead to incorrect conclusions. This could, in turn, impact enrollment and interpretation of the clinical trial results.

Our clinical trials will also compete with other clinical trials for product candidates that are in the same therapeutic areas as our product candidates, and this competition will reduce the number and types of patients available to us because some patients who might have opted to enroll in our trials may instead opt to enroll in a trial being conducted by one of our competitors. For example, our collaboration with Foresight Diagnostics is nonexclusive. As a result, there is a risk that Foresight Diagnostics might work with our competitors to enable a competing clinical trial involving the same MRD positive patient population that we plan to enroll in ALPHA3, which would reduce the number of patients who are available to participate in ALPHA3, and potentially delay completion of ALPHA3. Since the number of qualified clinical investigators is limited, some of our clinical trial sites are also being used by some of our competitors, which may reduce the number of patients who are available for our clinical trials in that clinical trial site.

As our clinical trials require conditioning patients with chemotherapy, including agents such as cyclophosphamide and fludarabine, and physicians use other drugs prophylactically or to manage adverse events, our ability to enroll may be impacted by the shortage of such agents or drugs. For instance, the FDA has reported a shortage of fludarabine and any failure or delays by us or by our clinical trial sites to obtain sufficient quantities of fludarabine may delay our ability to enroll and treat patients in our clinical trials.

Moreover, because our product candidates represent a departure from more commonly used methods for cancer treatment, potential patients and their doctors may be inclined to use conventional therapies, such as chemotherapy, monoclonal antibodies, hematopoietic cell transplantation as well as autologous CAR T cell therapies, rather than enroll patients in our clinical trial, including if our product candidates have or are perceived to have additional safety or efficacy risks or if using our product candidates may affect insurance coverage of conventional therapies. For instance, the development of autologous CAR T cell therapies continues to rapidly advance, including into earlier lines of treatment of LBCL and treatment of relapsed/refractory (R/R) multiple myeloma, as described under the section entitled "Business—Competition" included in our Annual Report. We also may experience risks associated with a new class of therapies, bispecific antibodies, which have been approved for multiple myeloma and LBCL. The compelling results and related approvals impact our ability to enroll patients with R/R multiple myeloma or LBCL in our clinical trials. Moreover, patients eligible for allogeneic CAR T cell therapies but ineligible for autologous CAR T cell therapies due to aggressive cancer and inability to wait for autologous CAR T cell therapies may be at greater risk for complications and death from therapy or may experience a reduction in efficacy as compared to patients who are well enough and whose disease is sufficiently slow growing as to be eligible for autologous CAR T cell therapy.

Delays in patient enrollment may result in increased costs or may affect the timing or outcome of our clinical trials, which could prevent completion of these trials and adversely affect our ability to advance the development of our product candidates.

The FDA often approves new therapies initially only for use in patients with R/R metastatic disease. We may initially seek approval of certain of our product candidates in this setting. Subsequently, for those products that prove to be sufficiently beneficial, if any, we would expect to seek further approval in earlier lines of treatment, and for cema-cel we expect to initially seek approval in the first line consolidation setting. There is no guarantee that our product candidates, even if approved, would be approved for earlier lines of therapy, and, prior to any such approvals, we will have to conduct additional clinical trials, including potentially comparative trials against the then-current standard of care, which in some cases may include comparative trials against approved therapies. We may also target a similar patient population as autologous CAR T product candidates, including approved autologous CAR T products. Our therapies may not be as safe and effective as autologous CAR T therapies and may only be approved for patients who are ineligible for autologous CAR T therapy.

Our projections of both the number of patients who have the cancers we are targeting, as well as the subset of patients with these cancers who have the potential to benefit from treatment with our product candidates, are based on our beliefs and estimates. These estimates have been derived from a variety of sources, including scientific literature, surveys of clinics, patient foundations, or market research and may prove to be incorrect. Further, new studies or therapies may change the estimated incidence or prevalence of these cancers. The number of patients may turn out to be lower than expected. Additionally, the potentially addressable patient population for our product candidates may be limited, such as due to the eligibility criteria of our trials, or may not be amenable to treatment with our product candidates.

We may not be able to achieve clinical or commercial manufacturing of our products on our own or at a CDMO, including the inability to satisfy demands for any of our product candidates. We have limited experience in managing the allogeneic T cell engineering process, and our allogeneic processes may be more difficult or more expensive than the approaches taken by our competitors. Until we complete our clinical trials, we cannot be sure that the manufacturing processes employed by us or the technologies that we incorporate for manufacturing will result in consistent T cell production that will be safe and effective.

We operate a manufacturing facility located in Newark, California that is designed to support our clinical trials and potential commercial production and worldwide distribution of allogeneic CAR T cell products for blood cancers and solid tumors. Introducing any product manufactured at our manufacturing facility into an ongoing clinical trial would be subject to FDA review, and may result in increased costs and delays in conducting such trial, submitting a biologics license application (BLA) and/or gaining FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authority approval. Similar conditions may apply if we make process changes to our product candidates, as we plan to do for our BCMA program. In addition, any process or raw material change could introduce unacceptable product variability and impact our ability to manufacture on a consistent and reproducible basis. Ultimately, any failure or delays in manufacturing and qualification of our product candidates at our CDMO or at our own manufacturing facility could delay our clinical trials.

We do not yet have sufficient information to reliably estimate the cost of the commercial manufacturing of our product candidates, and the actual cost to manufacture our product candidates could materially and adversely affect the commercial viability of our product candidates. The commercial dose and treatment regimen may affect our ability to scale and will affect our cost per dose. For instance, because our anti-BCMA product candidates may require a higher dose than ALLO-501A, it is possible that it may be more difficult to scale production of our anti-BCMA product candidates to meet demand. As a result, we may never be able to develop a commercially viable product. Our manufacturing facility will also require FDA approval, and possibly similar approval from comparable foreign regulatory authorities before it can be used for commercial production, which we may never obtain. Even if approved, we would be subject to ongoing periodic unannounced inspection by the FDA, EMA, the Drug Enforcement Administration and corresponding state agencies to ensure strict compliance with current good manufacturing practices (cGMP), and other government regulations.

The manufacture of biopharmaceutical products is complex and requires significant expertise, including the development of advanced manufacturing techniques and process controls. Manufacturers of cell therapy products often encounter difficulties in production, particularly in validating initial production and ensuring the absence of contamination. Other problems can include difficulties with production costs and yields, quality control, including stability of the product, operator error, shortages of qualified personnel, as well as compliance with strictly enforced federal, state and foreign regulations. The application of new regulatory guidelines or parameters, such as those related to release testing, may also

We or any of our vendors may fail to manage the logistics of storing and shipping our raw materials and product candidates. Storage failures and shipment delays and problems caused by us, our vendors or other factors not in our control, such as weather, could result in the inability to manufacture product, the loss of usable product or prevent or delay the delivery of product candidates to patients.

We may also experience manufacturing difficulties due to resource constraints or as a result of labor disruptions, such as due to a future pandemic, epidemic or disputes. If we were to encounter any of these difficulties, our ability to provide our product candidates to patients would be jeopardized.

As a company, we have no experience in marketing products. We intend to develop an in-house marketing organization and sales force, which will require significant capital expenditures, management resources and time. We will have to compete with other pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies to recruit, hire, train and retain marketing and sales personnel.

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

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

We plan to globally develop our product candidates. Accordingly, we expect that we will be subject to additional risks related to operating in foreign countries, including:

These and other risks associated with our collaborations with Servier and Cellectis, each based in France, our collaboration with Notch, based in Canada, and our joint venture for China, Taiwan, South Korea and Singapore with Overland Pharmaceuticals (CY) Inc., may materially adversely affect our ability to attain or maintain profitable operations.

The biopharmaceutical industry, and the immuno-oncology industry specifically, is characterized by intense competition and rapid innovation. Our competitors may be able to develop other compounds or drugs that are able to achieve similar or better results. Our potential competitors include major multinational pharmaceutical companies, established biotechnology companies, specialty pharmaceutical companies and universities and other research institutions. Many of our competitors have substantially greater financial, technical and other resources, such as larger research and development staff and experienced marketing and manufacturing organizations and well-established sales forces. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large, established companies. Mergers and acquisitions in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries may result in even more resources being concentrated in our competitors. Competition may increase further as a result of advances in the commercial applicability of technologies and greater availability of capital for investment in these industries. Our competitors, either alone or with collaborative partners, may succeed in developing, acquiring or licensing on an exclusive basis drug or biologic products that are more effective, safer, more easily commercialized or less costly than our product candidates or may develop proprietary technologies or secure patent protection that we may need for the development of our technologies and products.

Specifically, engineered T cells face significant competition from multiple companies. Success of other therapies could impact our regulatory strategy and delay or prevent regulatory approval of our product candidates. Even if we obtain regulatory approval of our product candidates, the availability and price of our competitors’ products could limit the demand and the price we are able to charge for our product candidates. We may not be able to implement our business plan if the acceptance of our product candidates is inhibited by price competition or the reluctance of physicians to switch from existing methods of treatment to our product candidates, or if physicians switch to other new drug or biologic products or choose to reserve our product candidates for use in limited circumstances. For additional information regarding our competition, see the section entitled “Business—Competition” included in our Annual Report.

Our ability to compete in the highly competitive biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries depends upon our ability to attract and retain highly qualified managerial, scientific, medical and other personnel. We are highly dependent on our management, including our Executive Chair, our President and Chief Executive Officer, our Executive Vice President, Research & Development and Chief Medical Officer, our Executive Vice President, Chief Technical Officer, our Chief Financial Officer, and our General Counsel. The loss of the services of any of our executive officers, other key employees, and other scientific and medical advisors, and our inability to find suitable replacements could result in delays in product development and harm our business.

We conduct substantially all of our operations at our facilities in the San Francisco Bay area. This region is headquarters to many other biopharmaceutical companies and many academic and research institutions. Competition for skilled personnel in our market is intense and may limit our ability to hire and retain highly qualified personnel on acceptable terms or at all. Attrition may lead to higher costs for hiring and retention, diversion of management time to address retention matters and disrupt the business.

To induce valuable employees to remain at our company, in addition to salary and cash incentives, we have provided stock options and restricted stock unit (RSU) awards that vest over time or upon the achievement of certain key strategic goals. The value to employees of stock options and RSU awards that vest over time or upon achieving goals have been significantly affected by movements in our stock price that are beyond our control and may at any time be insufficient to counteract more lucrative offers from other companies. We completed an option exchange program in July 2022 to alleviate the significant number of employee options that were underwater at that time. Our stock price has significantly declined since the option exchange program and a significant number of our employee options remain underwater and may not provide the intended incentive for employees to remain at our company. Despite our efforts to retain valuable employees, members of our management, scientific and development teams may terminate their employment with us on short notice. Although we have employment agreements with our key employees, these employment agreements provide for at-will employment, which means that any of our employees could leave our employment at any time, with or without notice. We do not maintain “key person” insurance policies on the lives of these individuals or the lives of any of our other employees. Our success also depends on our ability to continue to attract, retain and motivate highly skilled junior, mid-level and senior managers as well as junior, mid-level and senior scientific and medical personnel.

In January 2024, our board of directors approved a reduction in force affecting approximately 22% of our workforce, in order to preserve cash and prioritize investment in our core clinical programs. The reduction in force may result in unintended consequences and costs, such as the loss of institutional knowledge and expertise, attrition beyond the intended number of employees, decreased morale among our remaining employees, and the risk that we may not achieve the anticipated benefits of the reduction in force. In addition, while positions have been eliminated, certain functions necessary to our operations remain, and we might not successfully distribute the duties and obligations of our terminated employees among our remaining employees. The reduction in workforce could also make it difficult for us to pursue, or prevent us from pursuing, new opportunities and initiatives due to insufficient personnel, or require us to incur additional and unanticipated costs to hire new personnel to pursue such opportunities or initiatives. If we are unable to realize the anticipated benefits from the reduction in force, or if we experience significant adverse consequences from the reduction in force, our business, financial condition and results of operations may be materially adversely affected.

Our future financial performance and our ability to commercialize our product candidates will depend, in part, on our ability to effectively manage our growth, and our management may also have to divert a disproportionate amount of its attention away from day-to-day activities in order to devote a substantial amount of time to managing these growth activities.

We currently rely, and for the foreseeable future will continue to rely, in substantial part on certain independent organizations, advisors and consultants. There can be no assurance that the services of independent organizations, advisors and consultants will continue to be available to us on a timely basis when needed, or that we can find qualified replacements. We may also be subject to penalties or other liabilities if we mis-classify employees as consultants. In addition, if we are unable to effectively manage our outsourced activities or if the quality or accuracy of the services provided by consultants is compromised for any reason, our clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated, and we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval of our product candidates or otherwise advance our business. There can be no assurance that we will be able to manage our existing consultants or find other competent outside contractors and consultants on economically reasonable terms, or at all.

If we are not able to effectively expand our organization by hiring and retaining employees and expanding our groups of consultants and contractors, we may not be able to successfully implement the tasks necessary to further develop, manufacture and commercialize our product candidates and, accordingly, may not achieve our research, development, manufacturing and commercialization goals. Conversely, if we expand ahead of our business progress, we may take on unnecessary costs.

We may form or seek additional strategic alliances, create joint ventures or collaborations or enter into additional licensing arrangements with third parties that we believe will complement or augment our development and commercialization efforts with respect to our product candidates and any future product candidates that we may develop. Any of these relationships may require us to incur non-recurring and other charges, increase our near and long-term expenditures, issue securities that dilute our existing stockholders or disrupt our management and business. In addition, we face significant competition in seeking appropriate strategic partners and the negotiation process is time-consuming and complex. Moreover, we may not be successful in our efforts to establish a strategic partnership or other alternative arrangements for our product candidates because they may be deemed to be at too early of a stage of development for collaborative effort and third parties may not view our product candidates as having the requisite potential to demonstrate safety and efficacy. Any delays in entering into new strategic partnership agreements related to our product candidates could delay the development and commercialization of our product candidates in certain geographies for certain indications, which would harm our business prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

If we license products or new technologies or acquire businesses, we may not be able to realize the benefit of such transactions if we are unable to successfully integrate them with our existing operations and company culture. For instance, our agreements with Cellectis, Servier, Notch, Antion, and Foresight Diagnostics require significant research and development that may not result in the development and commercialization of product candidates. We cannot be certain that, following a strategic transaction or license, we will achieve the results, revenue or specific net income that justifies such transaction.

We actively evaluate various strategic transactions on an ongoing basis. We may acquire other businesses, products or technologies as well as pursue joint ventures or investments in complementary businesses. The success of our strategic transactions, including our acquisition of CAR T cell assets from Pfizer, licenses with Cellectis, Servier, Notch, Antion, our strategic collaboration with Foresight Diagnostics, and our joint venture with Overland Pharmaceuticals (CY) Inc. and any future strategic transactions depends on the risks and uncertainties involved including:

If any of these risks or uncertainties occur, we may not realize the anticipated benefit of any acquisition or strategic transaction.

Additionally, foreign acquisitions and joint ventures are subject to additional risks, including those related to integration of operations across different cultures and languages, currency risks, potentially adverse tax consequences of overseas operations and the particular economic, political and regulatory risks associated with specific countries. For instance, our joint venture with Overland Pharmaceuticals (CY) Inc. has faced challenges relating to the regulatory and competitive environment in China for allogeneic CAR T products, as well as challenges within the capital markets for financing allogeneic CAR T development. Our joint venture may face manufacturing difficulties, such as from changes in raw materials or processes

Future acquisitions or dispositions could result in potentially dilutive issuances of our equity securities, the incurrence of debt, contingent liabilities or amortization expenses or write-offs of goodwill, any of which could harm our financial condition.

In the ordinary course of our business, we and the third parties with whom we work collect, process, receive, store, use, generate, transfer, disclose, make accessible, protect, secure, dispose of, transmit, and share (collectively, process) proprietary, confidential and sensitive information, including personal data (including health information), intellectual property, trade secrets, information we collect about patients in connection with clinical trials, and proprietary business information owned or controlled by ourselves or other parties (collectively, sensitive information). We work with certain third parties, such as CROs and CDMOs, to process our proprietary, confidential and sensitive information. We may also share or receive sensitive information with our partners, CROs, CDMOs, or other third parties. Our ability to monitor these third parties’ information security practices is limited, and these third parties may not have adequate information security measures in place. If we (or a third party with whom we work) experience a security incident or are perceived to have experienced a security incident, we may also experience adverse consequences.

Cyberattacks, malicious internet-based activity, online and offline fraud and other similar activities threaten the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of our sensitive information and information technology systems, and those of the third parties with whom we work. Such threats are prevalent and are increasing in their frequency, sophistication and intensity, and have become increasingly difficult to detect. These threats come from a variety of sources, including traditional computer “hackers,” “hacktivists,” organized criminal threat actors, threat actors, personnel (such as through theft or misuse), sophisticated nation-states, and nation-state-supported actors. Some actors now engage and are expected to continue to engage in cyber-attacks, including without limitation nation-state actors for geopolitical reasons and in conjunction with military conflicts and defense activities. During times of war and other major conflicts, we, and the third parties with whom we work, may be vulnerable to a heightened risk of these attacks, including retaliatory cyber-attacks, that could materially disrupt our systems and operations, supply chain, and ability to produce and distribute our product candidates. We and the third parties with whom we work are subject to a variety of evolving threats, including but not limited to social-engineering attacks (including through deep fakes, which may be increasingly more difficult to identify as fake, and phishing attacks), malicious code (such as viruses and worms), malware (including as a result of advanced persistent threat intrusions), denial-of-service credential stuffing attacks, credential harvesting, adware, ransomware, supply chain attacks, personnel misconduct or error, attacks enhanced or facilitated by AI, and other similar threats. Our information technology systems and data may also be subject to failure or disruption from software bugs, server malfunction, software or hardware failures, loss of data or other information technology assets, telecommunications failures, natural disasters such as earthquakes, fires, and floods, and other similar issues.

In particular, severe ransomware attacks are becoming increasingly prevalent and severe and can lead to significant interruptions, delays, or outages in our operations, disruptions to our clinical trials, loss of data (including data related to clinical trials), significant expense to restore data or systems, reputational loss and the diversion of funds. Extortion payments may alleviate the negative impact of a ransomware attack, but we may be unwilling or unable to make such payments due to, for example, applicable laws or regulations prohibiting such payments. In addition, our reliance on third-party service providers could introduce new cybersecurity risks and vulnerabilities, including supply-chain attacks, and other threats to our business operations. Such supply chain attacks have increased in frequency and severity, and we cannot guarantee that third parties and infrastructure in our supply chain have not been compromised or that they do not contain exploitable defects or bugs that could result in a breach to our information technology systems or the third-party information technology systems that support us and our services. Additionally, future or past business transactions (such as acquisitions or integrations) could expose us to additional cybersecurity risks and vulnerabilities, as our systems could be negatively affected by vulnerabilities present in acquired or integrated entities’ systems and technologies. Furthermore, we may discover security issues that were not found during due diligence of such acquired or integrated entities, and it may be difficult to integrate companies into our information technology environment and security program.

We may expend significant resources, or modify our business activities and operations, including our clinical trial activities, in an effort to protect against security incidents. Certain data privacy and security obligations may require us to implement and maintain specific security measures or use industry-standard or reasonable security measures to protect our information technology systems and sensitive information.

We take steps designed to detect, mitigate, and remediate vulnerabilities in our information systems (such as our hardware and/or software, including that of third parties with whom we work). We may, however, be unable to detect and remediate vulnerabilities in our information technology systems because such threats and techniques change frequently, are often sophisticated in nature, and may not be detected until after a security incident has occurred, meaning that such vulnerabilities could be exploited. Unremediated high risk or critical vulnerabilities pose material risks to our business they may be exploited and could result in a security incident. Further, we may experience delays in developing and deploying remedial measures designed to address any such identified vulnerabilities. We may also face heightened physical and information technology risks due to our sharing office space with other tenants at certain of our sites. Any failure to prevent or mitigate security incidents or improper access to, use of, or disclosure of our clinical data or patients’ personal data could result in significant liability under state, federal, and international law and may cause a material adverse impact to our reputation, affect our ability to conduct our clinical trials and potentially disrupt our business. In addition, as many of our employees work from home at least part of the time and utilize network connections outside our premises, including while at home, or in transit, this poses increased risks to our information technology systems and data.

Applicable data protection laws, privacy policies, data protection obligations and public company disclosure obligations may require us to notify relevant stakeholders, including affected individuals, regulators and investors, of certain security incidents, or to implement other requirements, such as providing credit monitoring. Such disclosures and compliance with such requirements are costly, and the disclosures or the failure to comply with such requirements could lead to adverse consequences. If we (or a third party with whom we work) experience a security incident or are perceived to have experienced a security incident, we may also experience adverse consequences. These consequences may include: government enforcement actions (for example, investigations, fines, penalties, audits, and inspections); additional reporting requirements and/or oversight; restrictions on processing sensitive information (including personal data); litigation (including class claims) and mass arbitration; indemnification obligations; negative publicity; reputational harm; monetary fund diversions; interruptions in our operations (including availability of data); financial loss; and other similar harms. Whether a cybersecurity incident is reportable to our investors may not be straightforward, may take considerable time to determine, and may be subject to change as the investigation of the incident progresses, including changes that may significantly alter any initial disclosure that we provide. Moreover, experiencing a material cybersecurity incident and any mandatory disclosures could lead to negative publicity, loss of investor or partner confidence in the effectiveness of our cybersecurity measures, diversion of management’s attention, governmental investigations, lawsuits, and the expenditure of significant capital and other resources.

Our contracts may not contain limitations of liability, and even where they do, there can be no assurance that the limitations of liability in our contracts are sufficient to protect us from liabilities, damages, or claims related to our data privacy and security obligations.

We cannot be sure that our insurance coverage will be adequate or sufficient to protect us from or adequately mitigate liabilities arising out of our privacy and security practices, or that such coverage will continue to be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all, or that such coverage will pay future claims.

In addition to experiencing a security incident, third parties may gather, collect, or infer sensitive information about us from public sources, data brokers, or other means that reveals competitively sensitive details about our organization and could be used to undermine our competitive advantage or market position. Additionally, sensitive information could be leaked, disclosed, or revealed as a result of or in connection with the use of generative artificial intelligence technologies by our employees, personnel, or vendors.

The ability of the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities to review and approve new products can be affected by a variety of factors, including government budget and funding levels, ability to hire and retain key personnel and accept payment of user fees, statutory, regulatory and policy changes, and business disruptions, such as those caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Average review times at the agency and comparable foreign regulatory authorities have fluctuated in recent years as a result. In addition, government funding of the SEC and other government agencies on which our operations may rely, including those that fund research and development activities is subject to the political process, which is inherently fluid and unpredictable.

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

These laws may impact, among other things, our clinical research program, as well as our proposed and future sales, marketing and education programs. In particular, the promotion, sales and marketing of healthcare items and services is subject to extensive laws and regulations designed to prevent fraud, kickbacks, self-dealing and other abusive practices. These laws and regulations may restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, sales commission, customer incentive and other business arrangements. We may also be subject to federal, state and foreign laws governing the privacy and security of identifiable patient information, price reporting, false claims and provider transparency. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of these laws that apply to us, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties.

In the ordinary course of business, we process sensitive information. Accordingly, we are, or may become, subject to numerous data privacy and security obligations, such as various federal, state, local and foreign data privacy and security laws, regulations, guidance, and industry standards as well as external and internal privacy and security policies, contracts and other obligations that apply to data privacy and security and our processing of personal data and the processing of personal data on our behalf.

In the United States, federal, state, and local governments have enacted numerous data privacy and security laws, including data breach notification laws, personal data privacy laws, consumer protection laws (e.g., Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act) and other similar laws (e.g., wiretapping laws). For example, the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH), and their respective implementing regulations, imposes requirements relating to the privacy, security and

For example, under the GDPR, companies may face temporary or definitive bans on data processing and other corrective actions; fines of up to €20,000,000 under the EU GDPR / 17.5 million pounds sterling under the UK GDPR, or up to 4% annual total revenue, in each case, whichever is greater; or private litigation related to processing of personal data brought by classes of data subjects or consumer protection organizations authorized at law to represent their interests.

In addition, privacy advocates and industry groups have proposed, and may propose, standards with which we are legally or contractually bound to comply. We are also bound by contractual obligations related to data privacy and security, and our efforts to comply with such obligations may not be successful. We publish privacy notices and other statements regarding data privacy and security. If any of our privacy notices or related materials or statements are found to be deficient, lacking in transparency, deceptive, unfair, or misrepresentative of our practices, we may be subject to investigation, enforcement actions by regulators or other adverse consequences. Furthermore, our employees and personnel may use generative artificial intelligence technologies to perform their work, and the disclosure and use of personal data in such technologies is subject to various privacy laws and other privacy obligations.

Our obligations related to data privacy and security are quickly changing, becoming increasingly stringent fashion, and creating uncertainty. Additionally, these obligations may be subject to differing applications and interpretations, which may be inconsistent or conflict among jurisdictions. As a result, preparing for and complying with these obligations requires significant resources and may necessitate changes to our information technologies, systems and practices, as well as those of any third-party collaborators, service providers, contractors, consultants or other third parties that process personal data on our behalf.

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

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

We are developing a pipeline of allogeneic T cell product candidates that are engineered from healthy donor T cells to express CARs and are intended for use in any eligible patient with certain cancers. Advancing these novel product candidates creates significant challenges for us, including:

Cellectis’ TALEN technology, which we use in our oncology programs, and Arbor’s CRISPR technology, which we use in our AID program, both involve relatively new approaches to gene editing, using sequence-specific DNA-cutting enzymes, or nucleases, to perform precise and stable modifications in the DNA of living-cells and organisms, and we have very little experience with Arbor’s CRISPR technology. Cellectis and Arbor have not created nucleases for all gene sequences that we may seek to target, and they may not agree to or have difficulty creating nucleases for other gene sequences that we may seek to target, which could limit the usefulness of this technology. This technology may also not be shown to be effective in clinical studies that Cellectis, we or other licensees of Cellectis technology or Arbor’s CRISPR technology may conduct, or may be associated with safety issues that may negatively affect our development programs. For instance, gene-editing may create unintended changes to the DNA such as a non-target site gene-editing, a large deletion, or a DNA translocation, any of which could lead to oncogenesis. In our ALPHA2 trial, we observed a chromosomal abnormality, and the FDA placed our clinical trials on hold following this observation. While our investigation concluded that gene editing was not responsible for the chromosomal abnormality and the hold was resolved, we may discover future abnormalities caused by gene editing or other factors that would impact our development plans. The gene editing of our product candidates may also not be successful in limiting the risk of GvHD or premature rejection by the patient.

In addition, the gene-editing industry is rapidly developing, and our competitors may introduce new technologies that render our technology obsolete or less attractive. New technology could emerge at any point in the development cycle of our product candidates. As competitors use or develop new technologies, any failures of such technology could adversely impact our program. We also may be placed at a competitive disadvantage, and competitive pressures may force us to implement new technologies at a substantial cost, and which would delay our development programs. In addition, our competitors may have greater financial, technical and personnel resources that allow them to enjoy technological advantages and may in the future allow them to implement new technologies before we can. We cannot be certain that we will be able to implement technologies on a timely basis or at a cost that is acceptable to us. If we are unable to maintain technological advancements consistent with industry standards, our operations and financial condition may be adversely affected.

A critical aspect to manufacturing allogeneic T cell product candidates involves gene editing the healthy donor T cells in an effort to avoid GvHD and to limit the patient’s immune system from attacking the allogeneic T cells. GvHD results when allogeneic T cells start recognizing the patient’s normal tissue as foreign. For our oncology product candidates, we use Cellectis’ TALEN gene-editing technology to inactivate a gene coding for TCRα, a key component of the natural antigen receptor of T cells, to cause the engineered T cells to be incapable of recognizing foreign antigens. Accordingly, when injected into a patient, the intent is for the engineered T cell not to recognize the tissue of the patient as foreign and thus avoid attacking the patient’s tissue. In addition, we use TALEN gene editing in our oncology product candidates to inactivate the CD52 gene in donor T cells, which codes for the target of an anti-CD52 monoclonal antibody. Anti-CD52 monoclonal antibodies deplete CD52 expressing T cells in patients while sparing therapeutic allogeneic T cells lacking CD52. By administering an anti-CD52 antibody prior to infusing our oncology product candidates, we believe we have the potential to reduce the likelihood of a patient’s immune system from rejecting the engineered allogeneic T cells for a sufficient period of time to enable a window of persistence during which the engineered allogeneic T cells can actively target and destroy the cancer cells. However, the antibody may not have the benefits that we anticipate and could have adverse effects.

We rely on an agreement with Cellectis for exclusive rights to use TALEN technology for 15 select cancer targets, including BCMA, FLT3, CD70, DLL3, Claudin 18.2 and other targets included in our pipeline. We also rely on Cellectis, through our agreement with Servier, for exclusive rights to UCART19, ALLO-501 and cema-cel. Any other gene-editing technology used to research and develop product candidates directed at targets not covered by our existing agreements with Cellectis and Servier will require significant investment and time for advancement. In addition, the Cellectis gene-editing technology may fail to produce viable product candidates. Moreover, both Servier and Cellectis may terminate our respective agreements in the event of a material breach of the agreements, or upon certain insolvency events. Cellectis has challenged and may in the future challenge certain performance by Servier, such as its development of products licensed under the Cellectis-Servier Agreement in ALL, and any failure by those parties to resolve such matters may have an adverse impact on us. If our agreements were terminated or we required other gene editing technology, such a license or technology may not be available to us on reasonable terms, or at all, and advancing other gene editing technology would require significant resources.

On September 15, 2022, Servier sent a notice of discontinuation (Discontinuation) of its involvement in the development of CD19, including the CD19 Products pursuant to the Servier Agreement. Additionally, in December 2022, Servier sent us a notice for material breach due to our purported refusal to allow an audit of certain manufacturing costs under our cost share arrangement. We subsequently agreed to a review of our manufacturing costs of CD19 Products. In July 2023, Servier sent us a second notice for material breach alleging that we overcharged Servier based on Servier and its accounting firm’s review of costs eligible for cost-sharing under the Servier Agreement.

In May 2024 we entered into the Servier Amendment which we believe resolves all current disputes with Servier including those raised in Servier’s December 2022 and July 2023 correspondence, and which includes mutual waivers and releases with respect to such disputes. In addition, under the Servier Amendment Servier agreed to expand our licensed territory under the Servier Agreement to include the European Union and the United Kingdom, and granted us an option, under certain circumstances, to expand the territory further to include China (including Hong Kong) and Japan. Although we have resolved all current disputes with Servier, there can be no assurance that we will not have future disputes with Servier regarding our respective rights and obligations under our agreements and any future dispute could jeopardize our CD19 Products license, the loss of which would have a significant adverse impact on our business, financial condition, and prospects.

Our oncology product candidates utilize an anti-CD52 monoclonal antibody as part of a lymphodepletion regimen to be infused prior to infusing our product candidates. The anti-CD52 antibody may reduce the likelihood of a patient’s immune system rejecting the engineered allogeneic T cells for a sufficient period of time to enable a window of persistence during which such engineered allogeneic T cells can actively target and destroy cancer cells. However, the antibody may not have the benefits that we anticipate and could have adverse effects. For instance, our lymphodepletion regimen, including using an anti-CD52 antibody, will cause immune suppression that can be of unpredictable depth and duration and that may be associated with an increased risk of infection, such as to common viral or bacterial or opportunistic pathogens, that may be unable to be cleared and ultimately lead to other serious adverse events or death.

In the prior CALM and PALL trials, a commercially available monoclonal antibody, alemtuzumab, that binds CD52 was used. Alemtuzumab is known to have risk of causing certain adverse events. In 2020, within the context of a procedure based on Article 20 of Regulation 726/2204 (EMA Regulation), the EMA completed a pharmacovigilance review of alemtuzumab in the context of the treatment of multiple sclerosis following reports of immune-mediated conditions and problems affecting the heart and blood vessels, including fatal cases. The EMA recommended that alemtuzumab should not be used in patients with certain heart, circulation or bleeding disorders or in patients who have autoimmune disorders other than multiple sclerosis. The EMA also recommended that alemtuzumab only be given in a hospital with ready access to intensive care facilities and specialists who can manage serious adverse reactions. The use of our anti-CD52 antibody may result in the same or similar adverse events as alemtuzumab, and we have chosen to administer our product candidates at trial centers experienced at managing patients with advanced malignancies as well as toxicities associated with immunomodulatory therapies, which significantly limits the sites that are eligible to participate in our clinical trials. If the EMA or other regulatory agencies further limit the use of alemtuzumab or anti-CD52 antibodies, our clinical program would be adversely affected.

To secure our own readily available source of anti-CD52 antibody, we are developing our own monoclonal anti-CD52 antibody, ALLO-647, which we use in our clinical trials. ALLO-647 may cause serious adverse events that alemtuzumab may cause, including fatal adverse events, infusion related reactions, immune thrombocytopenia, glomerular nephropathies, thyroid disorders, autoimmune cytopenias, autoimmune hepatitis, hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis, acquired hemophilia, infections, stroke, and progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy. In addition, we are exploring various dosing strategies for lymphodepletion in our clinical trials, such as including varying doses of the chemotherapy agents and/or ALLO-647 or eliminating one or more of the agents, which may alter the risk of serious adverse events or have other undesirable outcomes such as a reduction of the efficacy of treatment. Additionally, our experimental lymphodepletion regimens may show different safety profiles when paired with different allogeneic CAR T product candidates such that regimens deemed safe with one CAR T product candidate may be determined to be associated with unacceptable toxicity when combined with another CAR T candidate or with the same candidate in a different patient population. If observed, these differences may require additional

If we are unable to successfully develop and manufacture ALLO-647 in the timeframe we anticipate, or at all, such as if regulatory authorities do not agree with our selected dose or approve of the use of ALLO-647 in combination with our allogeneic T cell product candidates, our clinical trial timelines and ability to commercialize any of our oncology product candidates would be significantly delayed.

We depend and will continue to depend upon independent investigators and collaborators, such as universities, medical institutions, CROs and strategic partners to conduct our preclinical and clinical trials under agreements with us.

We negotiate budgets and contracts with CROs and study sites, which may result in delays to our development timelines and increased costs. We will rely heavily on these third parties over the course of our clinical trials, and we control only certain aspects of their activities. Nevertheless, we are responsible for ensuring that each of our studies is conducted in accordance with applicable protocol, legal, regulatory and scientific standards, and our reliance on third parties does not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities. We and these third parties are required to comply with GCPs, which are regulations and guidelines enforced by the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities for product candidates in clinical development. Regulatory authorities enforce these GCPs through periodic inspections of trial sponsors, principal investigators and trial sites. If we or any of these third parties fail to comply with applicable GCP regulations, the clinical data generated in our clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require us to perform additional clinical trials before approving our marketing applications. We cannot assure you that, upon inspection, such regulatory authorities will determine that any of our clinical trials comply with the GCP regulations. In addition, our clinical trials must be conducted with biologic product produced under cGMPs and will require a large number of test patients. Our failure or any failure by these third parties to comply with these regulations or to recruit a sufficient number of patients may require us to repeat clinical trials, which would delay the regulatory approval process. Moreover, our business may be implicated if any of these third parties violates federal or state fraud and abuse or false claims laws and regulations or healthcare privacy and security laws.

Any third parties conducting our clinical trials are not and will not be our employees and, except for remedies available to us under our agreements with such third parties, we cannot control whether or not they devote sufficient time and resources to our ongoing preclinical, clinical and nonclinical programs. These third parties may also have relationships with other commercial entities, including our competitors, for whom they may also be conducting clinical studies or other drug development activities, which could affect their performance on our behalf. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or obligations or meet expected deadlines, if they need to be replaced or if the quality or accuracy of the clinical data they obtain is compromised due to the failure to adhere to our clinical protocols or regulatory requirements or for other reasons, our clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated and we may not be able to complete development of, obtain regulatory approval of or successfully commercialize our product candidates. As a result, our financial results and the commercial prospects for our product candidates would be harmed, our costs could increase and our ability to generate revenue could be delayed.

If any of our relationships with trial sites, or any CRO that we may use in the future, terminates, we may not be able to enter into arrangements with alternative trial sites or CROs or do so on commercially reasonable terms. Switching or adding third parties to conduct our clinical trials involves substantial cost and requires extensive management time and focus. In addition, there is a natural transition period when a new third party commences work. As a result, delays occur, which can materially impact our ability to meet our desired clinical development timelines.

While we utilize CF1 for clinical manufacturing of our product candidates, we may continue to use CDMOs from time to time to manufacture product candidates in the United States while we manage all other aspects of the supply, including planning, CDMO oversight, disposition and distribution logistics. For example, in the past, Servier was responsible for

We do not have long-term agreements in place with CDMOs for the manufacture of our cell therapies or of ALLO-647. If we are unable to contract with CDMOs on acceptable terms or at all, our clinical development program would be delayed and our business would be significantly harmed. For example, in February 2024 Catalent, Inc. and Novo Holdings announced that they have entered into a merger agreement under which Novo Holdings will acquire Catalent. The merger is expected to close towards the end of 2024, and shortly thereafter Novo Holdings intends to sell three Catalent fill-finish sites and related assets acquired in the merger to Novo Nordisk. ALLO-647 is manufactured at one of these sites, and there is a risk that the pendency of the merger and/or the merger itself could impact our ability to utilize the Catalent site for manufacturing ALLO-647. If we are unable to manufacture ALLO-647 at Catalent, we would be required to identify, qualify and establish an alternative manufacturing site and we may be unable to do so in a timely manner, if at all, which could significantly delay our clinical development timelines.

We have built CF1 and are in the process of transitioning the manufacturing of certain product candidates to our manufacturing facility. Manufacturing product candidates in our own facility requires that we meet certain regulatory conditions, which may delay or extend our clinical trial timelines. As we transition more manufacturing to CF1, there is a risk that we may need to re-engage our CDMO to manufacture material, which would be costly and there is a risk that the CDMO may be unavailable or may fail in manufacturing, such as due to the CDMO having to retrain its personnel, or train new personnel, to manufacture our material.

We have not yet caused our product candidates to be manufactured or processed on a commercial scale and may not be able to achieve manufacturing and processing and may be unable to create an inventory of mass-produced, off-the-shelf product to satisfy demands for any of our product candidates. Our clinical supply is also limited to small quantities and any latent defects discovered in our supply could significantly delay our development timelines.

In addition, our actual and potential future reliance on a limited number of third-party manufacturers exposes us to the following risks:

Our contract manufacturers would also be subject to the same risks we face in developing our own manufacturing capabilities, as described above. Our current and potential future CDMOs may also be required to shut down in response to health epidemics or pandemics, or they may prioritize manufacturing for therapies or vaccines for other diseases. In addition, our CDMOs have certain responsibilities for storage of raw materials and in the past have lost or failed to adequately store our raw materials. We also rely on third parties to store our released product candidates, and any failure to adequately store our product candidates could result in significant delay to our development timelines. Any additional or future damage or loss of raw materials or product candidates could materially impact our ability to manufacture and supply our product candidates. Each of these risks could delay our clinical trials, the approval, if any, of our product candidates by the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities or the commercialization of our product candidates or result in higher costs or deprive us of potential product revenue.

In addition, we rely on third parties to perform release tests on our product candidates prior to delivery to patients. If these tests are not appropriately done and test data are not reliable, patients could be put at risk of serious harm.

Unlike autologous CAR T companies, we are reliant on receiving healthy donor material to manufacture our product candidates. Healthy donor T cells vary in type and quality, and this variation makes producing standardized product candidates more difficult and makes the development and commercialization pathway of those product candidates more uncertain. We have developed a screening process designed to enhance the quality and consistency of T cells used in the manufacture of our CAR T cell product candidates, but the manufacturing runs we have completed and tested in the clinic are limited across our product candidates. As we gain experience, we may find that our screening process fails to identify suitable donor material and we may discover unacceptable variability with the material after production. We may also have to update our specifications for new risks that may emerge, such as to screen for new viruses or chromosomal abnormalities.

We have strict specifications for donor material, which include specifications required by regulatory authorities. If we are unable to identify and obtain donor material that satisfy specifications, agree with regulatory authorities on appropriate specifications, or address variability in donor T cells, there may be inconsistencies in the product candidates we produce or we may be unable to initiate or continue clinical trials on the timelines we expect, which could harm our reputation and adversely impact our business and prospects.

In addition, vendors face challenges in obtaining donor material. While we have donor material on hand, if our vendors are unable to secure donor material, we may no longer have sufficient donor material to manufacture our product candidates.

In addition, many of our suppliers normally support blood-based hospital businesses and generally do not have the capacity to support commercial products manufactured under cGMP by biopharmaceutical firms. The suppliers may be ill-equipped to support our needs, including generating data required for a BLA and in non-routine circumstances like an FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities inspection or medical crisis, such as widespread contamination.

We also face competition for supplies from other cell therapy companies. Such competition may make it difficult for us to secure raw materials or the testing of such materials on commercially reasonable terms or in a timely manner.

Some raw materials are currently available from a single supplier, or a small number of suppliers. We cannot be sure that these suppliers will remain in business or that they will not be purchased by one of our competitors or another company that is not interested in continuing to produce these materials for our intended purpose. In addition, the lead time needed to establish a relationship with a new supplier can be lengthy, and we may experience delays in meeting demand in the event we must switch to a new supplier. For example, for certain raw materials we previously had to find an alternative supplier, which required qualifying the new supplier, which required meeting regulatory requirements for such qualification. If we need to transition to an alternative supplier in the future, it could result in additional costs, delays, diversion of resources or reduced manufacturing yields, any of which would negatively impact our operating results. Further, we may be unable to enter into agreements with a new supplier on commercially reasonable terms, which could have a material adverse impact on our business.

Our research and development activities involve the controlled use of potentially hazardous substances, including chemical and biological materials. We and our suppliers are subject to federal, state and local laws and regulations in the United States governing the use, manufacture, storage, handling and disposal of medical and hazardous materials, and there is a risk of contamination or injury resulting from medical or hazardous materials. For instance, we have had and may continue to have environmental notice of violations at our manufacturing facility. As a result of any such contamination or injury, we may incur liability or local, city, state or federal authorities may curtail the use of these materials and interrupt our business operations. In the event of an accident, we could be held liable for damages or penalized with fines, and the liability could exceed our resources. We do not have any insurance for liabilities arising from medical or hazardous materials. In addition, we have previously shipped certain materials to our joint venture with Overland Pharmaceuticals (CY) Inc. in China and may do so again in the future. Any violation by our joint venture in the use, manufacture, storage, handling and disposal under foreign law may subject us to additional liability.

Compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations is expensive, and current or future environmental regulations may impair our research, development and production efforts, which could harm our business, prospects, financial condition or results of operations.

The research, testing, manufacturing, labeling, approval, selling, import, export, marketing, and distribution of drug products, including biologics, are subject to extensive regulation by the FDA and other regulatory authorities in the United States and comparable foreign regulatory authorities. We are not permitted to market any biological drug product in the United States or elsewhere until we receive approval of a BLA from the FDA or equivalent approvals from other comparable foreign regulatory authorities. We have not previously submitted a BLA to the FDA, or similar approval filings to comparable foreign regulatory authorities. A BLA or equivalent foreign application must include extensive preclinical and clinical data and supporting information to establish the product candidate’s safety and effectiveness for each desired indication. The BLA or equivalent foreign application must also include significant information regarding CMC matters for the product, and any delay or failure in generating such data to meet the evolving CMC regulatory requirements would delay any BLA filing or equivalent foreign application.

We expect the novel nature of our product candidates to create further challenges in obtaining regulatory approval. For example, the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities have limited experience with commercial development of allogeneic T cell therapies for cancer. We may also request clinical trial initiation or regulatory approval of future CAR-based product candidates by target, regardless of cancer type or origin, which the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities may have difficulty accepting. The FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities may also require a panel of experts, referred to as an Advisory Committee, to deliberate on the adequacy of the safety and efficacy data to support licensure. The opinion of the Advisory Committee, although not binding, may have a significant impact on our ability to obtain licensure of the product candidates based on the completed clinical trials, as the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities often adheres to the Advisory Committee’s recommendations. Accordingly, the regulatory approval pathway for our product candidates may be uncertain, complex, expensive and lengthy, and approval may not be obtained.

We have previously experienced a delay in our clinical trials due to a clinical hold, and may experience future delays in completing planned clinical trials for a variety of reasons, including delays related to:

We could also encounter future delays if physicians encounter unresolved ethical issues associated with enrolling patients in clinical trials of our product candidates in lieu of prescribing existing treatments that have established safety and efficacy profiles, or with respect to the ALPHA3 trial, in lieu of observation alone. Further, a clinical trial may be suspended or terminated by us, the Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) or Ethics Committees for the institutions in which such trials are being conducted or by the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities due to a number of factors, including failure to conduct the clinical trial in accordance with regulatory requirements or our clinical protocols, inspection of the clinical trial operations or trial site by the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities resulting in the imposition of a clinical hold, safety issues or adverse side effects, failure to demonstrate a benefit from using a product candidate, changes in governmental regulations or administrative actions, lack of adequate funding to continue the clinical trial, or based on a recommendation by any Data Safety Monitoring Committee. The FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities’ review of our data of our clinical trials may, depending on the data, also result in the delay, suspension or termination of one or more of our clinical trials, which would also delay or prevent the initiation of our other planned clinical trials. If we experience termination of, or delays in the completion of, any clinical trial of our product candidates, the commercial prospects for our product candidates will be harmed, and our ability to generate product revenue will be delayed. In addition, any delays in completing our clinical trials will increase our costs, slow down our product development and approval process and jeopardize our ability to commence product sales and generate revenue.

Many of the factors that cause, or lead to, a delay in the commencement or completion of clinical trials may ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval of our product candidates.

Because we are developing novel CAR T cell immunotherapy product candidates that are unique biological entities, the regulatory requirements that we will be subject to are not entirely clear. Even with respect to more established products that fit into the categories of gene therapies or cell therapies, the regulatory landscape is still developing and guidance from regulatory authorities may continue to change in the future.

Moreover, there is substantial, and sometimes uncoordinated, overlap in those responsible for regulation of existing gene therapy products and cell therapy products. For example, in the United States, the FDA has established the Office of Tissues and Advanced Therapies (OTAT), formerly known as the Office of Cellular, Tissue and Gene Therapies (OCTGT), within its Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) to consolidate the review of gene therapy and related products, and the Cellular, Tissue and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee to advise CBER on its review. Gene therapy clinical trials are also subject to review and oversight by an institutional biosafety committee (IBC), a local institutional committee that reviews and oversees basic and clinical research conducted at the institution participating in the clinical trial. Although the FDA decides whether individual gene therapy protocols may proceed, review process and determinations of other reviewing bodies can impede or delay the initiation of a clinical study, even if the FDA has reviewed the study and approved its initiation. Conversely, the FDA can place an IND application on clinical hold even if such other entities have provided a favorable review. Furthermore, each clinical trial must be reviewed and approved by an independent IRB at or servicing each institution at which a clinical trial will be conducted. In addition, adverse developments in clinical trials of gene therapy products conducted by others may cause the FDA or other regulatory bodies to change the requirements for approval of any of our product candidates.

Complex regulatory environments exist in other jurisdictions in which we might consider seeking regulatory approvals for our product candidates, further complicating the regulatory landscape. For example, in the European Union a special committee called the Committee for Advanced Therapies (CAT) was established within the EMA in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007 on advanced-therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) to assess the quality, safety and efficacy of ATMPs, and to follow scientific developments in the field. ATMPs include gene therapy products as well as somatic cell therapy products and tissue engineered products. In this regard, on May 28, 2014, the EMA issued a recommendation that UCART19 be considered a gene therapy product under Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007 on ATMPs. We cannot conclude that our product candidates will receive a similar recommendation.

These various regulatory review committees and advisory groups and new or revised guidelines that they promulgate from time to time may lengthen the regulatory review process, require us to perform additional studies, increase our development costs, lead to changes in regulatory positions and interpretations, delay or prevent approval and commercialization of our product candidates or lead to significant post-approval limitations or restrictions. Because the regulatory landscape for our CAR T cell immunotherapy product candidates is new, we may face even more cumbersome and complex regulations than those emerging for gene therapy products and cell therapy products. Furthermore, even if our product candidates obtain required regulatory approvals, such approvals may later be withdrawn as a result of changes in regulations or the interpretation of regulations by applicable regulatory agencies.

Delay or failure to obtain, or unexpected costs in obtaining, the regulatory approval necessary to bring a potential product to market could decrease our ability to generate sufficient product revenue to maintain our business.

If the FDA or European Commission grant accelerated approval for our product candidates, as a condition for accelerated approval, the FDA or the European Commission may require us to perform post-marketing studies to verify and describe the predicted effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical endpoint, and the drug or biologic may be subject to withdrawal procedures by the FDA that are more accelerated than those available for regular approvals. The FDA or European Commission may ultimately refuse to grant accelerated approval for our product candidates and require a Phase 3 clinical trial prior to approval, particularly since our product candidates represent a novel treatment. In addition, the standard of care may change with the approval of new products in the same indications that we are studying. This may result in the FDA, the European Commission, or other regulatory agencies requesting additional studies to show that our product candidate is superior to the new products.

Our clinical trial results may also not support approval. In addition, our product candidates could be delayed in receiving approval or fail to receive regulatory approval for many reasons, including the following:

As we are concurrently developing ALLO-647 to be used as part of the lymphodepletion regimen for our allogeneic CAR T cell product candidates, mapping a co-development path for dual approval of ALLO-647 and any of our CAR T cell product candidates and coordinating concurrent review with different divisions of competent regulatory authorities. As an example, the divisions of the FDA create additional regulatory uncertainty for us and may delay the development of our product candidates. We expect the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research division of the FDA to exercise authority over the regulatory approval of ALLO-647 while the CBER division will oversee the regulatory approval of our allogeneic CAR T cell product candidates.

In addition, the FDA is requiring us to demonstrate the overall contribution of ALLO-647 to the benefit to risk ratio of the lymphodepletion regimen for cema-cel. We plan to assess ALLO-647 through part one of the ALPHA3 trail. Some clinical trial sites may elect not to participate, and we cannot be certain when or whether we will be able to successfully enroll the ALPHA3 trial in a timely manner or that the outcome of this study will support FDA approval of both cema-cel and ALLO-647. Any delays to ALLO-647 approval could delay any approval or commercialization of our allogeneic CAR T cell product candidates. We anticipate that the EMA, or comparable foreign regulatory authorities will impose equivalent obligations as part of the marketing authorization process in their territory.

According to FDA guidance, if the FDA determines that a companion diagnostic device is essential to the safe and effective use of a novel therapeutic product or indication, the FDA generally will not approve the therapeutic product or new therapeutic product indication if the companion diagnostic is not also approved or cleared for that indication. If a satisfactory companion diagnostic is not commercially available, we may be required to create or obtain one that would be subject to regulatory approval requirements. For example, we are collaborating with Foresight Diagnostics as part of our clinical trial enrollment process for ALPHA3 to identify patients with MRD that we believe may be most likely to benefit from treatment with cema-cel. The process of validating such diagnostic can be time consuming and costly.

Companion diagnostics are developed in conjunction with clinical programs for the associated product and are subject to regulation as medical devices by the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities, and, to date, the FDA has generally required premarket approval of companion diagnostics for cancer therapies. Generally, when a companion diagnostic is essential to the safe and effective use of a therapeutic product, the FDA requires that the companion diagnostic be approved before, or concurrent with, approval of the therapeutic product and before a product can be commercialized. In the EEA, companion diagnostics are deemed to be in vitro diagnostic medical devices (IVDs) and are governed by Regulation 2017/746 (IVDR). IVDs, including companion diagnostics, must conform with the general safety and performance requirements (GSPR)

If the FDA, or a comparable foreign regulatory authority, requires approval (or certification or clearance) of a companion diagnostic for any of our product candidates, whether before or after the product candidate obtains marketing approval, we and/or third-party collaborators may encounter difficulties in developing and obtaining approval (or clearance, or certification) for these companion diagnostics. Any delay or failure by us or third-party collaborators to develop or obtain regulatory approval (or clearance, or certification) of a companion diagnostic could delay or prevent approval or continued marketing of our related product candidates. We, or our collaborators, may also experience delays in developing a sustainable, reproducible, and scalable manufacturing process for the companion diagnostic or in transferring that process to commercial partners or negotiating insurance reimbursement plans, all of which may prevent us from completing our clinical trials or commercializing our product candidates, if approved, on a timely or profitable basis, if at all.

Our ALPHA3 trial design requires the use of Foresight Diagnostics’ PhasED-Seq Circulating Tumor DNA Platform as a companion diagnostic for cema-cel. Foresight Diagnostics intends to file an IDE with the FDA seeking approval of PhasEd-Seq as a companion diagnostic. There can be no assurance that Foresight Diagnostic will timely file its IDE, or that the FDA will approve Foresight Diagnostics’ IDE, which could significantly delay the start of our ALPHA3 trial. Additionally, Foresight Diagnostics has not sought approval of PhasEd-Seq in the EU, and there can be no assurance that Foresight Diagnostics will be able to do so in a timely manner, or at all, to support approval of cema-cel in the EU.

Furthermore, in order to commercialize cema-cel based on the outcome of our ALPHA3 trial, the Foresight Diagnostics’ MRD assay must be approved by regulatory agencies as a companion diagnostic test. A delay or failure by Foresight Diagnostics to obtain regulatory approval may delay the commercialization of cema-cel, if approved based on the outcome of our ALPHA3 trial.

We have received Regenerative Medicine Advanced Therapy (RMAT) designation for ALLO-715 and cema-cel and fast track designation for ALLO-605 and ALLO-316. There is no assurance that we will be able to obtain RMAT designation or fast track designation for any of our additional product candidates. RMAT designation and fast track designation do not change the FDA’s standards for product approval, and there is no assurance that such designation will result in expedited review or approval or that the approved indication will not be narrower than the indication covered by the designation. Additionally, RMAT designation and fast track designation can be revoked if the criteria for eligibility cease to be met as clinical data emerges.

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

If a product that has orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval of that particular product for the disease for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan product exclusivity, which means that the FDA may not approve any other applications, including a BLA, to market the same biologic (meaning, a product with the same principal molecular structural features) for the same indication for seven years, except in limited circumstances such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan drug exclusivity or if FDA finds that the holder of the orphan drug exclusivity has not shown that it can assure the availability of sufficient quantities of the orphan drug to meet the needs of patients with the disease or condition for which the drug was designated. As a result, even if one of our product candidates receives orphan exclusivity, the FDA can still approve other biologics that do not have the same principal molecular structural features for use in treating the same indication or disease or the same biologic for a different indication or disease during the exclusivity period. Furthermore, the FDA can waive orphan exclusivity if we are unable to manufacture sufficient supply of our product or if a subsequent applicant demonstrates clinical superiority over our product.

The FDA granted orphan drug designation to ALLO-605 and ALLO-715 for the treatment of multiple myeloma. We plan to seek orphan drug designation for additional product candidates in specific orphan indications in which there is a medically plausible basis for the use of these products, but may never receive such designations. Some of our product candidates target indications that are not orphan indications. In addition, even with orphan drug designation, exclusive marketing rights in the United States may be limited if we seek approval for an indication broader than the orphan designated indication and may be lost if the FDA later determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if we are unable to assure sufficient quantities of the product to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition, or if a subsequent applicant demonstrates clinical superiority over our products, if approved.

The gene-editing technologies that we use are novel. Public perception may be influenced by claims that gene editing is unsafe, and products incorporating gene editing may not gain the acceptance of the public or the medical community. Given the previous clinical hold involved a chromosomal abnormality, our manufacturing or gene editing may be further scrutinized or may be viewed as unsafe, even though our investigation found that the abnormality was not related to our manufacturing or gene editing. In particular, our success will depend upon physicians specializing in our targeted diseases prescribing our product candidates as treatments in lieu of, or in addition to, existing, more familiar, treatments for which greater clinical data may be available. Any increase in negative perceptions of gene editing may result in fewer physicians prescribing our treatments or may reduce the willingness of patients to utilize our treatments or participate in clinical trials for our product candidates.

In addition, given the novel nature of gene-editing and cell therapy technologies, governments may place import, export or other restrictions in order to retain control or limit the use of the technologies. For instance, any limits on exporting certain of our technology to China may adversely affect Allogene Overland, a joint venture established by us and Overland Pharmaceuticals (CY) Inc. Increased negative public opinion or more restrictive government regulations either in the United States or internationally, would have a negative effect on our business or financial condition and may delay or impair the development and commercialization of our product candidates or demand for such product candidates.

We believe that any of the product candidates we develop that is approved in the United States as a biological product under a BLA should qualify for the 12-year period of exclusivity. However, there is a risk that this exclusivity could be

If our product candidates are approved but fail to achieve market acceptance among physicians, patients, hospitals, cancer treatment centers or others in the medical community, we will not be able to generate significant revenue. Even if our products achieve market acceptance, we may not be able to maintain that market acceptance over time if new products or technologies are introduced that are more favorably received than our products, are more cost effective or render our products obsolete.

Successful sales of our product candidates, if approved, depend on the availability of coverage and adequate reimbursement from third-party payors including governmental healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, managed care organizations and commercial payors, among others. Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of any product candidates for which we obtain regulatory approval. In addition, because our product candidates represent new approaches to the treatment of cancer, we cannot accurately estimate the potential revenue from our product candidates.

Patients who are provided medical treatment for their conditions generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the costs associated with their treatment. Obtaining coverage and adequate reimbursement from third-party payors is critical to new product acceptance.

The marketability of any product candidates for which we receive regulatory approval for commercial sale may suffer if government and other third-party payors fail to provide coverage and adequate reimbursement. We expect downward pressure on pharmaceutical pricing to continue. Further, coverage policies and third-party reimbursement rates may change at any time. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for one or more products for which we receive regulatory approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future.

There have been, and likely will continue to be, legislative and regulatory proposals at the foreign, federal and state levels directed at broadening the availability of healthcare and containing or lowering the cost of healthcare. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability, or commercialize our products. Such reforms could have an adverse effect on anticipated revenue from product candidates that we may successfully develop and for which we may obtain regulatory approval and may affect our overall financial condition and ability to develop product candidates. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors, which may adversely affect our future profitability.

There is an increasing focus from certain investors, employees, partners, and other stakeholders concerning ESG matters. While we have internal efforts directed at ESG matters and preparations for any increased required future disclosures, we may be perceived to be not acting responsibly in connection with these matters, which could negatively impact us. Moreover, the SEC has recently proposed, and may continue to propose, certain mandated ESG reporting requirements, such as the SEC’s proposed rules designed to enhance and standardize climate-related disclosures, which, if finally approved, would significantly increase our compliance and reporting costs and may also result in disclosures that certain investors or other stakeholders deem to negatively impact our reputation or that harm our stock price. In addition, we currently do not report our environmental emissions, and lack of reporting could result in certain investors declining to invest in our common stock.

We are dependent on patents, know-how and proprietary technology, both our own and licensed from others. We depend substantially on our license agreements with Pfizer, Servier and Cellectis. These licenses may be terminated upon certain conditions. Any termination of these licenses could result in the loss of significant rights and could harm our ability to commercialize our product candidates. For example, we are dependent on our license with Cellectis for gene-editing technology that is necessary to produce certain of our engineered T cells. In addition, we are reliant on Servier in-licensing from Cellectis some of the intellectual property rights they are licensing to us, including certain intellectual property rights relating to ALLO-501 and cema-cel. To the extent these licensors fail to meet their obligations under their license agreements, which we are not in control of, we may lose the benefits of our license agreements with these licensors. For instance, Cellectis has challenged and may in the future challenge certain performance by Servier, such as its development of products licensed under the Cellectis-Servier Agreement in ALL, and any failure by those parties to resolve such matters may have an adverse impact

Disputes may also arise between us and our licensors regarding intellectual property subject to a license agreement, including those related to:

For example, we previously had a dispute with Servier regarding our respective rights and obligations under the Servier Agreement. In May 2024, we entered into the Servier Amendment with Servier which amended the Servier Agreement and resolved all pending disputes between us and Servier. There can be no assurance that further disputes with Servier will not arise or that we would be able to amicably settle any such further disputes. If other disputes arise over intellectual property that we have licensed, or license in the future, it could prevent or impair our ability to maintain our current licensing arrangements on acceptable terms, and we may be unable to successfully develop and commercialize the affected product candidates.

We are generally also subject to all of the same risks with respect to protection of intellectual property that we license, as we are for intellectual property that we own, which are described below. If we or our licensors fail to adequately protect this intellectual property, our ability to commercialize products could suffer.

We rely upon a combination of patents, trade secret protection and license agreements to protect the intellectual property related to our technologies. Any disclosure to or misappropriation by third parties of our confidential proprietary information could enable competitors to quickly duplicate or surpass our technological achievements, thus eroding our competitive position in our market.

Under the Servier Agreement, we have an exclusive license to develop and commercialize certain anti-CD19 allogeneic T cell product candidates, including cema-cel, and we hold the commercial rights to these product candidates in the United States, the European Union and the United Kingdom. We also have an exclusive worldwide license from Cellectis to its TALEN gene-editing technology for the development of allogeneic T cell product candidates directed against 15 different cancer antigens. The Servier Agreement gives us access to TALEN gene-editing technology for all product candidates under the agreement. Certain intellectual property which is covered by these agreements may have been developed with funding from the U.S. government. If so, our rights in this intellectual property may be subject to certain research and other rights of the government.

Additional patent applications have been filed, and we anticipate additional patent applications will be filed, both in the United States and in other countries, as appropriate. However, we cannot predict:

Composition of matter patents for biological and pharmaceutical products such as CAR-based product candidates often provide a strong form of intellectual property protection for those types of products, as such patents provide protection without regard to any method of use. We cannot be certain that the claims in our pending patent applications covering compositions of matter of our product candidates will be considered patentable by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) or

The strength of patents in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical fields involves complex legal and scientific questions and can be uncertain. The patent applications that we own or in-license may fail to result in issued patents with claims that cover our product candidates or uses thereof in the United States or in other foreign countries. Even if the patents do successfully issue, third parties may challenge the patentability, validity, enforceability or scope thereof, for example through inter partes review (IPR), post-grant review or ex parte reexamination before the USPTO, or oppositions and other comparable proceedings in foreign jurisdictions, which may result in such patents being cancelled, narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable. Furthermore, even if they are unchallenged, our patents and patent applications may not adequately protect our intellectual property or prevent others from designing their products to avoid being covered by our claims. If the breadth or strength of protection provided by the patents and patent applications we hold with respect to our product candidates is threatened, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to develop, and threaten our ability to commercialize, our product candidates. Further, if we encounter delays in our clinical trials, the period of time during which we could market our product candidates under patent protection would be reduced. United States patent applications containing or that at any time contained a claim not entitled to a priority date before March 16, 2013 are subject to the “first to file” system implemented by the America Invents Act (2011).

This first to file system will require us to be cognizant going forward of the time from invention to filing of a patent application. Since patent applications in the United States and most other countries are confidential for a period of time after filing, we cannot be certain that we were the first to file any patent application related to our product candidates. Furthermore, for United States applications in which all claims are entitled to a priority date before March 16, 2013, an interference proceeding can be provoked by a third-party or instituted by the USPTO, to determine who was the first to invent any of the subject matter covered by the patent claims of our applications. For United States applications containing a claim not entitled to priority before March 16, 2013, there is a greater level of uncertainty in the patent law in view of the passage of the America Invents Act, which brought into effect significant changes to the United States patent laws, including new procedures for challenging patent applications and issued patents.

In addition to the protection afforded by patents, we seek to rely on trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect proprietary know-how that is not patentable, processes for which patents are difficult to enforce and any other elements of our product discovery and development processes that involve proprietary know-how, information or technology that is not covered by patents. Trade secrets, however, may be difficult to protect. Although we require all of our employees to assign their inventions to us, and require all of our employees and key consultants who have access to our proprietary know-how, information, or technology to enter into confidentiality agreements, we cannot be certain that our trade secrets and other confidential proprietary information will not be disclosed or inappropriately used, or that competitors will not otherwise gain access to our trade secrets or independently develop substantially equivalent information and techniques. Furthermore, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect proprietary rights to the same extent or in the same manner as the laws of the United States. For example, we have and may continue to transfer technology to Allogene Overland or its affiliates in certain developing countries, and we cannot be certain that we or Allogene Overland or any of its affiliates will be able to protect or enforce any proprietary rights in these countries. As a result, we may encounter significant problems in protecting and defending our intellectual property both in the United States and abroad. If we are unable to prevent unauthorized material disclosure of our intellectual property to third parties, we will not be able to establish or maintain a competitive advantage in our market, which could materially adversely affect our business, operating results and financial condition.

Our commercial success depends in part on our avoiding infringement of the patents and proprietary rights of third parties. There is a substantial amount of litigation involving patents and other intellectual property rights in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries. Numerous U.S. and foreign issued patents and pending patent applications, which are owned by third parties, exist in the fields in which we are developing our product candidates. As the biotechnology and pharmaceutical

Third parties may assert that we infringe their patents or are otherwise employing their proprietary technology without authorization and may sue us. We are aware of several U.S. patents held by third parties that may be considered by those third parties to be relevant to cell-based therapies. Generally, conducting clinical trials and other development activities in the United States is not considered an act of infringement. If and when any of our product candidates is approved by the FDA, third parties may then seek to enforce their patents by filing a patent infringement lawsuit against us. Patents issued in the United States by law enjoy a presumption of validity that can be rebutted only with evidence that is “clear and convincing,” a heightened standard of proof. We may not be able to prove in litigation that any patent enforced against us is invalid.

Additionally, there may be third-party patents of which we are currently unaware with claims to materials, formulations, methods of manufacture or methods for treatment related to the use or manufacture of our product candidates. Because patent applications can take many years to issue, there may be currently pending patent applications which may later result in issued patents that our product candidates may be alleged to infringe. In addition, third parties may obtain patents in the future and claim that use of our technologies infringes upon these patents. If any third-party patents were held by a court of competent jurisdiction to cover the manufacturing process of our product candidates, constructs or molecules used in or formed during the manufacturing process, or any final product itself, the holders of any such patents may be able to block our ability to commercialize the product candidate unless we obtained a license under the applicable patents, or until such patents expire or they are finally determined to be held not infringed, unpatentable, invalid or unenforceable. Similarly, if any third-party patent were held by a court of competent jurisdiction to cover aspects of our formulations, processes for manufacture or methods of use, including combination therapy or patient selection methods, the holders of any such patent may be able to block our ability to develop and commercialize the product candidate unless we obtained a license or until such patent expires or is finally determined to be held not infringed, unpatentable, invalid or unenforceable. In either case, such a license may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all. If we are unable to obtain a necessary license to a third-party patent on commercially reasonable terms, or at all, our ability to commercialize our product candidates may be impaired or delayed, which could in turn significantly harm our business.

Parties who may make claims against us may seek and obtain injunctive or other equitable relief, which could effectively block our ability to further develop and commercialize our product candidates. Defense of these claims, regardless of their merit, would involve substantial litigation expense and would be a substantial diversion of employee resources from our business and may impact our reputation. In the event of a successful claim of infringement against us, we may have to pay substantial damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees for willful infringement, obtain one or more licenses from third parties, pay royalties or redesign any of our alleged infringing products, which may be impossible or require substantial time and monetary expenditure. We cannot predict whether any such license would be available at all or whether it would be available on commercially reasonable terms. Furthermore, even in the absence of litigation, we may need to obtain licenses from third parties to advance our research or allow commercialization of our product candidates. We may fail to obtain any of these licenses at a reasonable cost or on reasonable terms, if at all. In that event, we would be unable to further develop and commercialize our product candidates, which could harm our business significantly.

Presently we have rights to the intellectual property, through licenses from third parties and under patent applications that we own or will own, that we believe will facilitate the development of our product candidates. Because our programs may involve additional product candidates that may require the use of proprietary rights held by third parties, the growth of our business will likely depend in part on our ability to acquire, in-license or use these proprietary rights.

We may be unable to acquire or in-license any compositions, methods of use, processes or other third-party intellectual property rights from third parties that we identify. We may fail to acquire such rights or obtain any of these licenses at a reasonable cost or on reasonable terms, which would harm our business. Even if we are able to obtain a license, it may be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors access to the same technologies licensed to us. In that event, we may be required to expend significant time and resources to develop or license replacement technology. We may need to cease use of the compositions or methods covered by such third-party intellectual property rights.

The licensing and acquisition of third-party intellectual property rights is a competitive area, and companies, which may be more established, or have greater resources than we do, may also be pursuing strategies to license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights that we may consider necessary or attractive in order to commercialize our product candidates. More

Competitors may infringe our patents or the patents of our licensors. To counter infringement or unauthorized use, we may be required to file infringement claims, which can be expensive and time-consuming. In addition, in an infringement proceeding, a court may decide that one or more of our patents is not valid or is unenforceable or may refuse to stop the other party from using the technology at issue on the grounds that our patents do not cover the technology in question. An adverse result in any litigation or defense proceedings could put one or more of our patents at risk of being invalidated, held unenforceable or interpreted narrowly and could put one or more of our pending patent applications at risk of not issuing. Defense of these claims, regardless of their merit, would involve substantial litigation expense and would be a substantial diversion of employee resources from our business. In the event of a successful claim of infringement against us, we may have to pay substantial damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees for willful infringement, obtain one or more licenses from third parties, pay royalties or redesign our infringing products, which may be impossible or require substantial time and monetary expenditure.

Interference proceedings provoked by third parties or brought by the USPTO may be necessary to determine the priority of inventions with respect to our patents or patent applications or those of our licensors. An unfavorable outcome could result in a loss of our current patent rights and could require us to cease using the related technology or to attempt to license rights to it from the prevailing party. Our business could be harmed if the prevailing party does not offer us a license on commercially reasonable terms. Litigation or interference proceedings may result in a decision adverse to our interests and, even if we are successful, may result in substantial costs and distract our management and other employees. We may not be able to prevent, alone or with our licensors, misappropriation of our trade secrets or confidential information, particularly in countries where the laws may not protect those rights as fully as in the United States.

Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation. In addition, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments. If securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a substantial adverse effect on the price of our common stock.

Obtaining and maintaining our patent protection depends on compliance with various procedural, document submission, fee payment and other requirements imposed by governmental patent agencies, and our patent protection could be reduced or eliminated for non-compliance with these requirements.

Periodic maintenance fees on any issued patent are due to be paid to the USPTO and foreign patent agencies in several stages over the lifetime of the patent. The USPTO and various foreign governmental patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar provisions during the patent application process. While an inadvertent lapse can in many cases be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules, there are situations in which noncompliance can result in abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. Noncompliance events that could result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application include, but are not limited to, failure to respond to official actions within prescribed time limits, non-payment of fees and failure to properly legalize and submit formal documents. In such an event, our competitors might be able to enter the market, which would have a material adverse effect on our business.

Patents have a limited lifespan. In the United States, the natural expiration of a patent is generally 20 years after its first effective filing date. Although various extensions may be available, the life of a patent, and the protection it affords, is limited. Even if patents covering our product candidates are obtained, once the patent life has expired for a product, we may be open to competition from biosimilar or generic medications. In addition, although upon issuance in the United States a patent’s life can be increased based on certain delays caused by the USPTO, this increase can be reduced or eliminated based on certain delays caused by the patent applicant during patent prosecution. If we do not have sufficient patent life to protect our products, our business and results of operations will be adversely affected.

We or our licensors may in the future be subject to claims that former employees, collaborators, or other third parties have an interest in our patents or other intellectual property as an inventor or co-inventor. For example, we may have inventorship disputes arise from conflicting obligations of consultants or others who are involved in developing our product candidates. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these and other claims challenging inventorship. If we or our licensors fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights, such as exclusive ownership of, or right to use, valuable intellectual property. Such an outcome could have a material adverse effect on our business. Even if we or our licensors are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management and other employees.

If we or one of our licensing partners initiate legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent covering one of our product candidates, the defendant could counterclaim that the patent covering our product candidate, as applicable, is invalid and/or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity and/or unenforceability are commonplace, and there are numerous grounds upon which a third party can assert invalidity or unenforceability of a patent. 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 IPR, ex parte re-examination and post grant review in the United States, and equivalent proceedings in foreign jurisdictions (e.g., opposition proceedings). Such proceedings could result in revocation or amendment to our patents in such a way that they no longer cover and protect our product candidates. The outcome following legal assertions of unpatentability, invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. With respect to the validity question, for example, we cannot be certain that there is no invalidating prior art, of which we, our patent counsel and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution. If a defendant were to prevail on a legal assertion of unpatentability, invalidity and/or unenforceability, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection on our product candidates. Such a loss of patent protection could have a material adverse impact on our business.

We may not be able to protect our intellectual property rights outside the United States. Filing, prosecuting and defending patents on product candidates in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and our intellectual property rights in some countries outside the United States can be less extensive than those in the United States. In addition, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as federal and state laws in the United States. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in all countries outside the United States, or from selling or importing products made using our inventions in and into the United States or other jurisdictions. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained 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.

Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries where Allogene Overland or its affiliates may do business, do not favor the enforcement of patents, trade secrets and other intellectual property protection, particularly those relating to biopharmaceutical products, which could make it difficult for us or Allogene Overland or any of its affiliates to stop the infringement of our patents or marketing of competing products in violation of our proprietary rights generally. 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 and 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. 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.

We have received confidential and proprietary information from third parties. In addition, we employ individuals who were previously employed at other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies. We may be subject to claims that we or our employees, consultants or independent contractors have inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed confidential information of these third parties or our employees’ former employers. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. Even if we are successful in defending against these claims, litigation could result in substantial cost and be a distraction to our management and employees.

The trading price of our common stock following our IPO in October 2018 has been and is likely to continue to be highly volatile and could be subject to wide fluctuations in response to various factors, some of which are beyond our control, including limited trading volume. In addition to the factors discussed in this “Risk Factors” section, these factors include:

In addition, the stock market in general, and the Nasdaq Global Select Market and biopharmaceutical companies in particular, have experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have often been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of these companies. Broad market and industry factors may negatively affect the market price of our common stock, regardless of our actual operating performance. In the past, securities class action litigation has often been instituted against companies following periods of volatility in the market price of a company’s securities. This type of litigation, if instituted, could result in substantial costs and a diversion of management’s attention and resources, which would harm our business, operating results or financial condition.

Maintaining effective disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting are necessary for us to produce reliable financial statements. We are required, pursuant to Section 404 (Section 404) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Sarbanes-Oxley Act), to furnish a report by management on, among other things, the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting. Complying with Section 404 requires a rigorous compliance program as well as adequate time and resources. We may not be able to complete our internal control evaluation, testing and any required remediation in a timely fashion. Additionally, if we or our auditors identify one or more material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting, we will not be able to assert that our internal controls are effective. 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 the company’s annual or interim financial statements will not be prevented or detected on a timely basis.

In 2021, we implemented a new enterprise resource planning (ERP) system, which required the investment of significant financial and human resources. We plan to continue to implement new ERP modules, which we also expect will require significant resources. Any failure to maintain or implement new or improved internal controls related to our ERP system or otherwise could result in material weaknesses, result in material misstatements in our consolidated financial statements and cause us to fail to meet our reporting obligations. This could cause us to lose public confidence and could cause the trading price of our common stock to decline.

For so long as we remain a non-accelerated filer, our independent registered public accounting firm will not be required to attest to the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting pursuant to Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-

We currently anticipate that we will retain any future cash flow or earnings for the development, operation and expansion of our business and do not anticipate declaring or paying any cash dividends for the foreseeable future. Any return to stockholders will therefore be limited to the appreciation of their stock.

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws contain provisions that could delay or prevent a change of control of our company or changes in our board of directors that our stockholders might consider favorable. Some of these provisions include:

In addition, because we are incorporated in Delaware, we are governed by the provisions of Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporate Law, which may prohibit certain business combinations with stockholders owning 15% or more of our outstanding voting stock. These anti-takeover provisions and other provisions in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws could make it more difficult for stockholders or potential acquirors to obtain control of our board of directors or initiate actions that are opposed by the then-current board of directors and could also delay or impede a merger, tender offer or proxy contest involving our company. These provisions could also discourage proxy contests and make it more difficult for you and other stockholders to elect directors of your choosing or cause us to take other corporate actions you desire. Any delay or prevention of a change of control transaction or changes in our board of directors could cause the market price of our common stock to decline.

Other international and geo-political events could also have a serious adverse impact on our business. For instance, in February 2022, Russia initiated military action against Ukraine, and in October 2023, Hamas attacked Israel. In both cases, ongoing conflicts have ensued. In response to the Russian invasion, the United States and certain other countries imposed significant sanctions and trade actions against Russia and could impose further sanctions, trade restrictions, and other retaliatory actions. While we cannot predict the broader consequences, these conflicts and retaliatory and counter-retaliatory actions could materially adversely affect global trade, currency exchange rates, inflation, regional economies, and the global economy, which in turn may increase our costs, disrupt our supply chain, impair our ability to raise or access additional capital when needed on acceptable terms, if at all, or otherwise adversely affect our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

Sales of a substantial number of shares of our common stock in the public market or the perception that these sales might occur, including by any of our directors, officers or larger stockholders, could depress the market price of our common stock and could impair our ability to raise capital through the sale of additional equity securities. We are unable to predict the effect that sales may have on the prevailing market price of our common stock.

The trading market for our common stock could be influenced by the research and reports that industry or securities analysts publish about us or our business. If any of the analysts who cover us issue an adverse or misleading opinion regarding us, our business model, our intellectual property or our stock performance, or if the clinical trials and operating results fail to meet the expectations of analysts, our stock price would likely decline. If one or more analysts cease coverage of us or fail to publish reports on us regularly, we could lose visibility in the financial markets, which in turn could cause our stock price or trading volume to decline.

On May 10, 2024, we entered into the Servier Amendment with Servier, pursuant to which the parties settled their disputes relating to each party’s performance under the Servier Agreement. The parties agreed to waive any and all outstanding claims that were asserted relating to alleged violations of the Servier Agreement, including all claims that such party was entitled to various payments or refunds from the other party under the Servier Agreement, and any and all claims that either party now has or may have in the future related to such outstanding claims, and mutual releases with respect to such claims were granted.

Additionally, the Servier Amendment expanded our territory under the Servier Agreement to include the European Union and the United Kingdom, and provides for an option to further expand our territory to include China and Japan. Under the Servier Amendment all of our future milestone payments (regulatory and sales) under the Servier Agreement are modified to be the same as, and to coincide with, Servier’s milestone payments to Cellectis under the Servier-Cellectis Agreement. The Servier Amendment also modified the royalties payable under the Servier Agreement. See Note 13. Subsequent Events to our condensed consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this report for further description of the Servier Amendment.