Cabaletta Bio (CABA) Risk Analysis

Pursuant to our amended and restated bylaws, unless we consent in writing to the selection of an alternative forum, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (or, if the Chancery Court does not have jurisdiction, the federal district court for the District of Delaware or other state courts of the State of Delaware) will be the sole and exclusive forum for state law claims for: (i) any derivative action or proceeding brought on our behalf; (ii) any action asserting a claim of breach of a fiduciary duty or other wrongdoing by any of our directors, officers, employees or agents to us or our stockholders; (iii) any action asserting a claim against us arising pursuant to any provision of the Delaware General Corporation Law or our certificate of incorporation or bylaws; (iv) any action to interpret, apply, enforce or determine the validity of our certificate of incorporation or bylaws; or (v) any action asserting a claim governed by the internal affairs doctrine (the Delaware Forum Provision). The Delaware Forum Provision will not apply to any causes of action arising under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the Securities Act) or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In addition, our amended and restated bylaws provide that any person or entity purchasing or otherwise acquiring any interest in shares of our common stock is deemed to have notice of and consented to the foregoing provisions. We recognize that the forum selection clause in our bylaws may impose additional litigation costs on stockholders in pursuing any such claims, particularly if the stockholders do not reside in or near the State of Delaware. Additionally, the forum selection clauses in our amended and restated bylaws may limit our stockholders' ability to bring a claim in a forum that they find favorable for disputes with us or our directors, officers or employees, which may discourage such lawsuits against us and our directors, officers and employees even though an action, if successful, might benefit our stockholders. The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware may also reach different judgments or results than would other courts, including courts where a stockholder considering an action may be located or would otherwise choose to bring the action, and such judgments may be more or less favorable to us than our stockholders. Alternatively, if a court were to find the choice of forum provision contained in our amended and restated bylaws to be inapplicable or unenforceable in an action, we may incur additional costs associated with resolving such action in other jurisdictions, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and operating results.

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: - a board of directors divided into three classes serving staggered three-year terms, such that not all members of the board will be elected at one time;- a prohibition on stockholder action through written consent, which requires that all stockholder actions be taken at a meeting of our stockholders;- a requirement that special meetings of stockholders be called only by the chairman of the board of directors, the chief executive officer, or by a majority of the total number of authorized directors;- advance notice requirements for stockholder proposals and nominations for election to our board of directors;- a requirement that no member of our board of directors may be removed from office by our stockholders except for cause and, in addition to any other vote required by law, upon the approval of the holders of not less than 75% of the votes that all our stockholders would be entitled to cast in an annual election of directors;- a requirement of approval of not less than 75% of all outstanding shares of our voting stock to amend any bylaws by stockholder action or to amend specific provisions of our certificate of incorporation; and - the authority of the board of directors to issue preferred stock on terms determined by the board of directors without stockholder approval and which preferred stock may include rights superior to the rights of the holders of common stock. 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.

We may seek additional capital through a combination of public and private equity offerings, debt financings, strategic partnerships and alliances and licensing arrangements. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, your ownership interest will be diluted, and the terms may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect your rights as a stockholder. The incurrence of indebtedness would result in increased fixed payment obligations and could involve certain restrictive covenants, such as limitations on our ability to incur additional debt, limitations on our ability to acquire or license intellectual property rights and other operating restrictions that could adversely impact our ability to conduct our business. If we raise additional funds through strategic partnerships and alliances and licensing arrangements with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our technologies or product candidates or grant licenses on terms unfavorable to us.

The dual class structure of our common stock may limit your ability to influence corporate matters. Holders of our common stock are entitled to one vote per share, while holders of our non-voting common stock are not entitled to any votes. Nonetheless, each share of our non-voting common stock may be converted at any time into one share of our common stock at the option of its holder by providing written notice to us, subject to the limitations provided for in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation. Entities affiliated with or managed by Baker Brothers Life Sciences, L.P. and Adage Capital Partners, LP hold an aggregate of 6,409,519 shares of our non-voting common stock pursuant to our Third Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation. At any time, upon written notice, these entities could convert a portion of these shares of non-voting common stock into up to an aggregate of 27% of our shares of common stock. Upon 61 days' prior written notice, these entities could convert all of their respective shares of non-voting common stock into shares of common stock, which would result in such entities holding approximately 32% of the voting power of our outstanding common stock. Consequently, if holders of our non-voting common stock exercise their option to make this conversion, this will have the effect of increasing the relative voting power of those prior holders of our non-voting common stock, and correspondingly decreasing the voting power of the holders of our common stock, which may limit your ability to influence corporate matters. Additionally, stockholders who hold, in the aggregate, more than 10% of our common stock and non-voting common stock, but 10% or less of our common stock, and are not otherwise a company insider, may not be required to report changes in their ownership due to transactions in our non-voting common stock pursuant to Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act, and may not be subject to the short-swing profit provisions of Section 16(b) of the Exchange Act.

We are an emerging growth company, as defined in the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act, or JOBS Act. For as long as we continue to be an emerging growth company, we may take advantage of exemptions from various reporting requirements that are applicable to other public companies that are not emerging growth companies, including not being required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as amended, or the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation in our periodic reports and proxy statements and exemptions from the requirements of holding nonbinding advisory votes on executive compensation and stockholder approval of any golden parachute payments not previously approved. We could be an emerging growth company for up to five years following the date of completion of our initial public offering, although circumstances could cause us to lose that status earlier. We will remain an emerging growth company until the earlier of (1) the last day of the fiscal year (a) following the fifth anniversary of the completion of our initial public offering, (b) in which we have total annual gross revenue of at least $1.07 billion or (c) in which we are deemed to be a large accelerated filer, which requires the market value of our common stock that is held by non-affiliates to exceed $700 million as of the prior June 30th, and (2) the date on which we have issued more than $1 billion in non-convertible debt during the prior three-year period. Under the JOBS Act, emerging growth companies can also delay adopting new or revised accounting standards until such time as those standards apply to private companies. We have elected to use this extended transition period for complying with new or revised accounting standards that have different effective dates for public and private companies until the earlier of the date we (i) are no longer an emerging growth company or (ii) affirmatively and irrevocably opt out of the extended transition period provided in the JOBS Act. As a result, we are not subject to the same new or revised accounting standards as other public companies that are not emerging growth companies and our financial statements may not be comparable to other public companies that comply with new or revised accounting pronouncements as of public company effective dates. We are also a "smaller reporting company," as defined in Rule 12b-2 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. We would cease to be a smaller reporting company if we have a public float in excess of $250 million, or have annual revenues in excess of $100 million and a public float in excess of $700 million, determined on an annual basis. Consequently, even after we no longer qualify as an emerging growth company, we may still qualify as a "smaller reporting company" which would allow us to take advantage of many of the same exemptions from disclosure requirements including not being required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation in our periodic reports and proxy statements. We cannot predict if investors will find our common stock less attractive because we may rely on these exemptions. If some investors find our common stock less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for our common stock and our stock price may be more volatile.

Our executive officers, directors, and 5% stockholders beneficially owned, in the aggregate, approximately 85.0% of our outstanding voting common stock, or 89.0% of our common stock, assuming all shares of non-voting common stock are converted into voting common stock in accordance with the terms of our amended and restated certificate of incorporation. Accordingly, these stockholders will have the ability to influence us through this ownership position and significantly affect the outcome of all matters requiring stockholder approval. For example, these stockholders may be able to significantly affect the outcome of elections of directors, amendments of our organizational documents, or approval of any merger, sale of assets, or other major corporate transaction. This may prevent or discourage unsolicited acquisition proposals or offers for our common stock that you may feel are in your best interest as one of our stockholders.

The trading price of our common stock is likely 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: - the commencement, enrollment or results of our planned preclinical studies or clinical trials of our product candidates or any preclinical studies or future clinical trials we may conduct, or changes in the development status of our product candidates;- our decision to initiate a preclinical study or clinical trial, not to initiate a preclinical study or clinical trial or to terminate an existing preclinical study or clinical trial;- adverse results or delays in preclinical studies or clinical trials of our product candidates;- any delay in our regulatory filings for our product candidates and any adverse development or perceived adverse development with respect to the applicable regulatory authority's review of such filings, including, without limitation, the FDA's issuance of a "refusal to file" letter or a request for additional information;- our failure to commercialize our product candidates;- adverse regulatory decisions, including failure to receive regulatory approval of our product candidates;- changes in laws or regulations applicable to our product candidates, including, but not limited to, clinical trial requirements for approvals;- adverse developments concerning our manufacturers or suppliers;- our inability to obtain adequate product supply for any licensed product or inability to do so at acceptable prices;- our inability to establish collaborations, if needed;- additions or departures of key scientific or management personnel;- unanticipated serious safety concerns related to the use of our product candidates;- introduction of new products or services offered by us or our competitors;- announcements of significant acquisitions, strategic partnerships, joint ventures or capital commitments by us or our competitors;- our ability to effectively manage our growth;- the size and growth of our initial target markets;- our ability to successfully treat additional types of B cell-mediated autoimmune diseases;- actual or anticipated variations in annual or quarterly operating results;- our cash position;- our failure to meet the estimates and projections of the investment community or that we may otherwise provide to the public;- publication of research reports about us or our industry or positive or negative recommendations or withdrawal of research coverage by securities analysts;- changes in the market valuations of similar companies;- overall performance of the equity markets;- sales of our common stock by us or our stockholders in the future;- trading volume of our common stock;- changes in accounting practices;- ineffectiveness of our internal controls;- disputes or other developments relating to proprietary rights, including patents, litigation matters and our ability to obtain patent protection for our technologies;- significant lawsuits, including patent or stockholder litigation;- general political and economic conditions;- global health concerns, such as the COVID-19 pandemic; and - other events or factors, many of which are beyond our control. 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.

We expect that significant additional capital may be needed in the future to continue our planned operations, including conducting clinical trials, commercialization efforts, expanded research and development activities and costs associated with operating a public company. To raise capital, we may sell common stock, convertible securities or other equity securities in one or more transactions at prices and in a manner we determine from time to time. If we sell common stock, convertible securities or other equity securities, investors may be materially diluted by subsequent sales. Such sales may also result in material dilution to our existing stockholders, and new investors could gain rights, preferences and privileges senior to the holders of our common stock. Pursuant to our equity incentive plans, our management is authorized to grant stock options to our employees, directors and consultants. Additionally, the number of shares of our common stock reserved for issuance under the 2019 Stock Option and Incentive Plan automatically increased on January 1, 2020 and will automatically increase each January 1 thereafter through and including January 1, 2029, by 4% of the total number of shares of our capital stock outstanding on December 31 of the preceding calendar year, or a lesser number of shares determined by our board of directors. Unless our board of directors elects not to increase the number of shares available for future grant each year, our stockholders may experience additional dilution, which could cause our stock price to fall. 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 were incorporated in 2017 and initially acquired rights to license certain patent rights Penn in August 2018. We are early in our development efforts, have a limited operating history and are subject to the risks inherent to any newly-formed organization, including, among others, risks that we may not be able to hire sufficient qualified personnel and establish operating controls and procedures. Our limited operating history, particularly in light of the rapidly evolving cell therapy field, may make it difficult to evaluate our technology and industry and predict our future performance. Our short history as an operating company makes any assessment of our future success or viability subject to significant uncertainty. We will encounter risks and difficulties frequently experienced by early-stage companies in rapidly evolving fields. If we do not address these risks successfully, our business will suffer. Similarly, we expect that our financial condition and operating results will fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter and year to year due to a variety of factors, many of which are beyond our control. As a result, our shareholders should not rely upon the results of any quarterly or annual period as an indicator of future operating performance. We currently do not have in-house resources sufficient to enable our chimeric autoantibody receptor, or CAAR, T cell platform. We are reliant on several manufacturing and support services from Penn through a Master Translational Research Services Agreement, or the Services Agreement, as well as certain research and development and general and administrative services through two sponsored research agreements. We also rely on Penn for access to key technologies for current manufacturing of our product candidates. As we build our own capabilities, and enter into agreements with third parties, we expect to encounter risks and uncertainties frequently experienced by growing companies in new and rapidly evolving fields, including the risks and uncertainties described herein. Our ability to rely on services from Penn is limited to a specified period of time, to specific capabilities, and is subject to Penn's right to terminate these services with or without cause. If we are unable to establish necessary relationships with third party partners and build our own capabilities, our operating and financial results could differ materially from our expectations, and our business could suffer. All of our programs require additional preclinical research and development, clinical development, regulatory approval in multiple jurisdictions, obtaining manufacturing supply, capacity and expertise, building of a commercial organization, substantial investment and significant marketing efforts before we generate any revenue from product sales. Other programs of ours require additional discovery research and then preclinical and clinical development. In addition, our product candidates must be licensed for marketing by the FDA before we may commercialize any product. In addition, as an early-stage company, we have encountered and may continue to encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays and other known and unknown circumstances. As we advance our product candidates, we will need to transition from a company with a research focus to a company capable of supporting clinical development and if successful, commercial activities. We may not be successful in such a transition.

Investment in biopharmaceutical product development is highly speculative because it entails substantial upfront capital expenditures and significant risk that any potential product candidate will fail to demonstrate adequate effect or an acceptable safety profile, gain regulatory approval and become commercially viable. We have only recently licensed rights to the patents underlying our product candidates and initiated our DesCAARTesTM Trial in June 2020. We have no products licensed for commercial sale, and we will continue to incur significant research and development and other expenses related to our ongoing operations. Our net losses may fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter and year to year. We have to date financed our operations primarily through private placements of our preferred stock. As a result, we are not profitable and have incurred net losses in each period since our inception. For the six months ended June 30, 2020 and 2019, we recorded net losses of $15.6 million and $6.9 million, respectively. As of June 30, 2020, we had an accumulated deficit of $48.6 million. We expect to incur significant losses for the foreseeable future, and we expect these losses to increase substantially if, and as, we: - continue our research and development efforts and submit additional Investigational New Drug applications, or INDs, for our product candidates;- conduct preclinical studies and clinical trials for our current and future product candidates;- further develop our product candidate platform;- continue to discover and develop additional product candidates;- maintain, expand and protect our intellectual property portfolio;- hire additional clinical, scientific manufacturing and commercial personnel;- establish a commercial manufacturing source and secure supply chain capacity sufficient to provide commercial quantities of any product candidates for which we may obtain regulatory approval, whether through a contract development and manufacturing organization, or CDMO, or through a manufacturing facility that we establish;- acquire or in-license other product candidates and technologies, including advanced manufacturing and translational capabilities that we will need for the further development and possible commercialization of our product candidates;- seek marketing approvals for any product candidates that successfully complete clinical trials;- establish a sales, marketing and distribution infrastructure to support the sales and marketing of any product candidates for which we may obtain marketing approvals; and - add operational, financial and management information systems and personnel, including personnel to support our product development and planned future commercialization efforts, as well as to support our transition to a public company. To become and remain profitable, we must succeed in developing, and eventually commercializing, a product or products that generate significant revenue. The ability to achieve this success will require us to be effective in a range of challenging activities, including completing preclinical testing and clinical trials of our product candidates, discovering additional product candidates, obtaining regulatory approval for these product candidates and manufacturing, marketing and selling any products for which we may obtain regulatory approval. We are only in the preliminary stages of most of these activities and have not yet demonstrated our ability to successfully develop any product candidate, obtain regulatory approvals, manufacture a commercial scale product or arrange for a third party to do so on our behalf, or conduct sales and marketing activities necessary for successful product commercialization. We may never be able to develop, manufacture or commercialize a marketable product. Even if we are able to succeed in these activities, we may never generate revenues that are significant enough to achieve profitability. Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with pharmaceutical product development, we are unable to accurately predict the timing or amount of increased expenses or when, or if, we will be able to achieve profitability. Our expenses will increase if, among other things: - there are any delays in completing our clinical trials or the development of any of our product candidates;- we are required by the FDA or other regulatory authorities to perform trials or studies in addition to, or different than, those expected; or - there are any third-party challenges to our intellectual property or we need to defend against any intellectual property-related claim. Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with pharmaceutical product development, we are unable to accurately predict the timing or amount of increased expenses we will incur or when, if ever, we will be able to achieve profitability. Even if we succeed in commercializing one or more of our product candidates, we will continue to incur substantial research and development and other expenditures to develop, seek regulatory approval for and market additional product candidates. We may encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays and other unknown factors that may adversely affect our business. The size of our future net losses will depend, in part, on the rate of future growth of our expenses and our ability to generate revenue. Our prior losses and expected future losses have had and will continue to have an adverse effect on our stockholders' equity and working capital.

We currently anticipate that we will retain future 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.

As a public company, we are required to maintain internal control over financial reporting and to report any material weaknesses in such internal controls. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires that we evaluate and determine the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting and, beginning with our second annual report following our initial public offering, provide a management report on internal control over financial reporting. However, while we remain an emerging growth company, we will not be required to include an attestation report on internal control over financial reporting issued by our independent registered public accounting firm. Ensuring that we have adequate internal financial and accounting controls and procedures in place so that we can produce accurate financial statements on a timely basis is a costly and time-consuming effort that needs to be re-evaluated frequently. Our internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. We have begun the process of documenting, reviewing, and improving our internal controls and procedures for compliance with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. We have begun recruiting additional finance and accounting personnel with certain skill sets that we need as a public company. Implementing any appropriate changes to our internal controls may distract our officers and employees, entail substantial costs to modify our existing processes, and take significant time to complete. These changes may not, however, be effective in maintaining the adequacy of our internal controls, and any failure to maintain that adequacy, or consequent inability to produce accurate financial statements on a timely basis, could increase our operating costs and harm our business. In addition, investors' perceptions that our internal controls are inadequate or that we are unable to produce accurate financial statements on a timely basis may harm our stock price and make it more difficult for us to effectively market and sell our service to new and existing customers.

We may form or seek 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, potency and purity. 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 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 License Agreement with Penn and CHOP requires significant research and development commitments that may not result in the development and commercialization of our product candidates, including DSG3-CAART and our other 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.

Any regulatory approvals that we receive for our product candidates will require surveillance to monitor the safety, potency and purity of the product candidate. We believe it is likely that the FDA will require a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, in order to approve our product candidates, which could entail requirements for a medication guide, physician communication plans or additional elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. In addition, if the FDA approves our product candidates, the manufacturing processes, labeling, packaging, distribution, adverse event reporting, storage, advertising, promotion, import, export and recordkeeping for our product candidates will be subject to extensive and ongoing regulatory requirements. These requirements include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, registration, as well as continued compliance with cGMPs and cGCPs for any clinical trials that we conduct post-approval. As such, we and our contract manufacturers will be subject to continual review and inspections to assess compliance with cGMP and adherence to commitments made in any BLA, other marketing application and previous responses to inspectional observations. Accordingly, we and others with whom we work must continue to expend time, money and effort in all areas of regulatory compliance, including manufacturing, production and quality control. In addition, the FDA could require us to conduct another study to obtain additional safety or biomarker information. Further, we will be required to comply with FDA promotion and advertising rules, which include, among others, standards for direct-to-consumer advertising, restrictions on promoting products for uses or in patient populations that are not described in the product's approved uses (known as "off-label use"), limitations on industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities and requirements for promotional activities involving the internet and social media. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with our product candidates through follow-up programs with our clinical trial patients, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with our third-party suppliers or manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in revisions to the approved labeling to add new safety information, imposition of post-market studies or clinical studies to assess new safety risks, or imposition of distribution restrictions or other restrictions under a REMS program. Other potential consequences include, among other things: - restrictions on the marketing or manufacturing of our product candidates, withdrawal of the product from the market or voluntary or mandatory product recalls;- fines, warning letters or holds on clinical trials;- refusal by the FDA to approve pending applications or supplements to approved applications filed by us or suspension or revocation of license approvals;- product seizure or detention, or refusal to permit the import or export of our product candidates; and - injunctions or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties. The FDA's policies may change and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of our product candidates. We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative or executive action. For example, certain policies of the current U.S. President's administration may impact our business and industry. Namely, the current U.S. President's administration has taken several executive actions, including the issuance of a number of Executive Orders, that could impose significant burdens on, or otherwise materially delay, FDA's ability to engage in routine oversight activities such as implementing statutes through rulemaking, issuance of guidance, and review and approval of marketing applications. It is difficult to predict how these orders will be implemented, and the extent to which they will impact the FDA's ability to exercise its regulatory authority. If these executive actions impose restrictions on FDA's ability to engage in oversight and implementation activities in the normal course, our business may be negatively impacted. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may lose any marketing approval that we may have obtained, and we may not achieve or sustain profitability.

Although we believe there may be an opportunity to accelerate the development of certain of our product candidates through one or more of the FDA's expedited programs, such as fast track, breakthrough therapy, Regenerative Medicine Advanced Therapy, accelerated approval or priority review, we cannot be assured that any of our product candidates will qualify for such programs. For example, we may seek a Regenerative Medicine Advanced Therapy, or RMAT, designation for some of our product candidates. An RMAT is defined as cell therapies, therapeutic tissue engineering products, human cell and tissue products, and combination products using any such therapies or products. Gene therapies, including genetically modified cells that lead to a durable modification of cells or tissues may meet the definition of a Regenerative Medicine Therapy. The RMAT program is intended to facilitate efficient development and expedite review of RMATs, which are intended to treat, modify, reverse, or cure a serious or life-threatening disease or condition. A new drug application or a BLA for an RMAT may be eligible for priority review or accelerated approval through (1) surrogate or intermediate endpoints reasonably likely to predict long-term clinical benefit or (2) reliance upon data obtained from a meaningful number of sites. Benefits of such designation also include early interactions with FDA to discuss any potential surrogate or intermediate endpoint to be used to support accelerated approval. A Regenerative Medicine Therapy that is granted accelerated approval and is subject to post-approval requirements may fulfill such requirements through the submission of clinical evidence, clinical studies, patient registries, or other sources of real world evidence, such as electronic health records; the collection of larger confirmatory data sets; or post-approval monitoring of all patients treated with such therapy prior to its approval. Although RMAT designation or access to any other expedited program may expedite the development or approval process, it does not change the standards for approval. If we apply for RMAT designation or any other expedited program for our product candidates, the FDA may determine that our proposed target indication or other aspects of our clinical development plans do not qualify for such expedited program. Even if we are successful in obtaining a RMAT designation or access to any other expedited program, we may not experience faster development timelines or achieve faster review or approval compared to conventional FDA procedures. Access to an expedited program may also be withdrawn by the FDA if it believes that the designation is no longer supported by data from our clinical development program. Additionally, qualification for any expedited review procedure does not ensure that we will ultimately obtain regulatory approval for such product candidate.

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 of 200,000 or more 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. We have obtained from the FDA orphan drug designation for DSG3-CAART for the treatment of pemphigus vulgaris (PV). We may seek orphan drug designation for certain other of our product candidates, but may be unable to obtain orphan drug designation for some or all of our product candidates in specific orphan indications in which we believe there is a medically plausible basis for the use of these products. Even if we obtain orphan drug designation, exclusive marketing rights in the United States may be limited if we seek approval for an indication broader than the orphan designated indication and may be lost if the FDA later determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if 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 licensed. In addition, although we may seek orphan drug designation for other product candidates, we may never receive such designations.

Our product candidates and the activities associated with their development and commercialization, including their design, testing, manufacture, safety, efficacy, recordkeeping, labeling, storage, approval, advertising, promotion, sale, distribution, import and export are subject to comprehensive regulation by the FDA and other regulatory agencies in the United States. Before we can commercialize any of our product candidates, we must obtain marketing approval. We have not received approval to market any of our product candidates from regulatory authorities in any jurisdiction and it is possible that none of our product candidates or any product candidates we may seek to develop in the future will ever obtain regulatory approval. We, as a company, have no experience in filing and supporting the applications necessary to gain regulatory approvals and expect to rely on third-party CROs and/or regulatory consultants to assist us in this process. Securing regulatory approval requires the submission of extensive preclinical and clinical data and supporting information to the various regulatory authorities for each therapeutic indication to establish the drug candidate's safety, potency and purity. Securing regulatory approval also requires the submission of information about the drug manufacturing process to, and inspection of manufacturing facilities by, the relevant regulatory authority. Our product candidates may not be effective, may be only moderately effective or may prove to have undesirable or unintended side effects, toxicities or other characteristics that may preclude our obtaining marketing approval or prevent or limit commercial use. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals is expensive, may take many years if additional clinical trials are required, if approval is obtained at all, and can vary substantially based upon a variety of factors, including the type, complexity and novelty of the product candidates involved. Changes in marketing approval policies during the development period, changes in or the enactment of additional statutes or regulations, or changes in regulatory review for each submitted IND, BLA or equivalent application types, may cause delays in the approval or rejection of an application. The FDA has substantial discretion in the approval process and may refuse to accept any application or may decide that our data are insufficient for approval and require additional preclinical, clinical or other studies. Our product candidates could be delayed in receiving, or fail to receive, regulatory approval for many reasons, including the following: - the FDA may disagree with the design or implementation of our clinical trials;- we may be unable to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the FDA that a drug candidate is safe, potent and pure for its proposed indication or a related companion diagnostic is suitable to identify appropriate patient populations;- the results of clinical trials may not meet the level of statistical significance required by the FDA for approval;- we may be unable to demonstrate that a product candidate's clinical and other benefits outweigh its safety risks;- the FDA may disagree with our interpretation of data from preclinical studies or clinical trials;- the data collected from clinical trials of our product candidates may not be sufficient to support the submission of an BLA or other submission or to obtain regulatory approval in the United States or elsewhere;- the FDA may fail to approve the manufacturing processes, test procedures and specifications, or facilities that we may establish or of third-party manufacturers with which we may contract for clinical and commercial supplies; and - the approval policies or regulations of the FDA may significantly change in a manner rendering our clinical data insufficient for approval. Of the large number of drugs in development, only a small percentage successfully complete the FDA approval process and are commercialized. The lengthy approval process as well as the unpredictability of future clinical trial results may result in our failing to obtain regulatory approval to market our product candidates, which would significantly harm our business, results of operations and prospects. We expect the novel nature of our product candidates to create further challenges in obtaining regulatory approval. As a result, our ability to develop product candidates and obtain regulatory approval may be significantly impacted. For example, the general approach for FDA approval of a new biologic or drug is for sponsors to seek licensure or approval based on dispositive data from well-controlled, Phase 3 clinical trials of the relevant product candidate in the relevant patient population. Phase 3 clinical trials typically involve hundreds of patients, have significant costs and take years to complete. We believe that we may be able to utilize the FDA's Regenerative Medicine Advanced Therapy designation for our product candidates given the limited alternatives for treatments for certain rare diseases and B cell-mediated autoimmune diseases, but the FDA may not agree with our plans. Moreover, approval of genetic or biomarker diagnostic tests may be necessary to advance some of our product candidates to clinical trials or potential commercialization. In the future, regulatory agencies may require the development and approval of such tests. Accordingly, the regulatory approval pathway for such product candidates may be uncertain, complex, expensive and lengthy, and approval may not be obtained. In addition, even if we were to obtain approval, regulatory authorities may approve any of our product candidates for fewer or more limited indications than we request, may not approve the price we intend to charge for our products, if licensed, may grant approval contingent on the performance of costly post-marketing clinical trials, or may approve a product candidate with a label that does not include the labeling claims necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of that product candidate. Any of the foregoing scenarios could materially harm the commercial prospects for our product candidates. If we experience delays in obtaining approval or if we fail to obtain approval of our product candidates, the commercial prospects for our product candidates may be harmed and our ability to generate revenues will be materially impaired.

Because we are developing novel CAAR T cell 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. For example, regulatory requirements governing gene therapy products and cell therapy products have changed frequently and 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, formerly known as the Office of Cellular, Tissue and Gene Therapies, within its Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, or 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, 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 was established within the EMA in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007 on advanced-therapy medicinal products, or 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. 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 CAAR T cell 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 because 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.

The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, or BPCIA, was enacted as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, or collectively the ACA, to establish an abbreviated pathway for the approval of biosimilar and interchangeable biological products. The regulatory pathway establishes legal authority for the FDA to review and approve biosimilar biologics, including the possible designation of a biosimilar as "interchangeable" based on its similarity to a licensed biologic. Under the BPCIA, an application for a biosimilar product cannot be licensed by the FDA until 12 years after the reference product was licensed under a BLA. The law is complex and is still being interpreted and implemented by the FDA. In addition, as discussed more fully below, since the BPCIA was enacted as part of the ACA, if the ACA is invalidated in its entirety as unconstitutional, then the BPCIA could be considered invalid as well. While it is uncertain when such processes intended to implement the BPCIA may be fully adopted by the FDA, any such processes could have a material adverse effect on the future commercial prospects for our biological product candidates. We believe that any of the product candidates we develop that is licensed 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 shortened due to congressional action or otherwise, or that the FDA will not consider the subject product candidates to be reference products for competing products, potentially creating the opportunity for generic competition sooner than anticipated. Moreover, the extent to which a biosimilar, once licensed, will be substituted for any one of the reference products in a way that is similar to traditional generic substitution for non-biological products is not yet clear, and will depend on a number of marketplace and regulatory factors that are still developing.

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. We are not permitted to market any biological drug product in the United States until we receive approval of a Biologics License Application, or BLA, from the FDA. We have not previously submitted a BLA to the FDA, or similar licensure filings to comparable foreign authorities. A BLA must include extensive preclinical and clinical data and supporting information to establish the product candidate's safety, potency and purity for each desired indication. The BLA must also include significant information regarding the chemistry, manufacturing and controls for the product, including with respect to chain of identity and chain of custody of the product. We expect the novel nature of our product candidates to create further challenges in obtaining regulatory approval. For example, the FDA has not previously reviewed regulatory applications for the commercial development of CAAR T cells for treatment of pemphigus, and there is no therapy currently approved by the FDA for the treatment of mPV. Because of this, we have little guidance as to which endpoints will be accepted, how many clinical trials we may expect to conduct, and whether open-label clinical trials will be deemed acceptable, among other things. We may also request regulatory approval of future CAAR T cell-based product candidates by target, regardless of disease type or origin, which the FDA may have difficulty accepting if our clinical trials only involved diseases of certain origins. The FDA may also require a panel of experts, referred to as an Advisory Committee, to deliberate on the adequacy of the safety, potency and purity 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 often adheres to the Advisory Committee's recommendations. Further, given the rapidly evolving landscape of cell therapy, we could encounter a significant change in the regulatory environment for our product candidates once we have already begun one or more lengthy and expensive clinical trials for our product candidates. Accordingly, the regulatory approval pathway for our product candidates may be uncertain, complex, expensive and lengthy, and approval may not be obtained. We may also experience delays in completing planned clinical trials for a variety of reasons, including delays related to: - obtaining regulatory authorization to begin a trial, if applicable;- the availability of financial resources to commence and complete the planned trials;- reaching agreement on acceptable terms with prospective CROs and clinical trial sites, the terms of which can be subject to extensive negotiation and may vary significantly among different CROs and trial sites;- obtaining approval at each clinical trial site by an independent IRB;- recruiting suitable patients to participate in a trial;- having patients complete a trial, including having patients enrolled in clinical trials dropping out of the trial before the product candidate is manufactured and returned to the site, or return for post-treatment follow-up;- clinical trial sites deviating from trial protocol or dropping out of a trial;- addressing any patient safety concerns that arise during a trial;- adding new clinical trial sites; or - manufacturing sufficient quantities of qualified materials under cGMPs and applying them on a patient by patient basis for use in clinical trials. We could also encounter 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. Further, a clinical trial may be suspended or terminated by us, the IRBs for the institutions in which such trials are being conducted or by the FDA or other 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 regulatory authorities resulting in the imposition of a clinical hold, unforeseen 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 the DSMB. If we experience termination of, or delays in the completion of, any future 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.

In the United States, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system that could prevent or delay regulatory approval of our product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities and affect our ability to profitably sell any product candidates for which we obtain regulatory approval. We expect that current laws, as well as other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future, may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding, more rigorous coverage criteria, new payment methodologies and in additional downward pressure on the price that we, or any collaborators, may receive for any approved products. In March 2010, President Obama signed into law the ACA. Among the provisions of the ACA of potential importance to our business and our product candidates are the following: - an annual, non-deductible fee on any entity that manufactures or imports specified branded prescription products and biologic products;- an increase in the statutory minimum rebates a manufacturer must pay under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program;- a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for products that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted or injected;- expansion of healthcare fraud and abuse laws, including the civil False Claims Act and the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, new government investigative powers and enhanced penalties for noncompliance;- a new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program, in which manufacturers must agree to offer 50% (increased to 70% as of January 1, 2019) point-of-sale discounts off negotiated prices of applicable brand products to eligible beneficiaries during their coverage gap period, as a condition for the manufacturer's outpatient products to be covered under Medicare Part D;- extension of manufacturers' Medicaid rebate liability to individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations;- expansion of the entities eligible for discounts under the Public Health Service pharmaceutical pricing program;- new requirements to report certain financial arrangements with physicians and teaching hospitals;- a new requirement to annually report product samples that manufacturers and distributors provide to physicians;- a new Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to oversee, identify priorities in, and conduct comparative clinical effectiveness research, along with funding for such research;- a new Independent Payment Advisory Board, or IPAB, which has authority to recommend certain changes to the Medicare program to reduce expenditures by the program that could result in reduced payments for prescription products; and - established the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation within CMS to test innovative payment and service delivery models. Since its enactment, there have been numerous judicial, administrative, executive, and legislative challenges to certain aspects of the ACA, and we expect there will be additional challenges and amendments to the ACA in the future. Various portions of the ACA are currently undergoing legal and constitutional challenges in the Fifth Circuit Court and the United States Supreme Court and the Trump Administration has issued various Executive Orders which eliminated cost sharing subsidies and various provisions that would impose a fiscal burden on states or a cost, fee, tax, penalty or regulatory burden on individuals, healthcare providers, health insurers, or manufacturers of pharmaceuticals or medical devices. Additionally, Congress has introduced several pieces of legislation aimed at significantly revising or repealing the ACA. It is unclear whether the ACA will be overturned, repealed, replaced, or further amended. We cannot predict what affect further changes to the ACA would have on our business. Further legislation or regulation could be passed that could harm our business, financial condition and results of operations. Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the Affordable Care Act was enacted. For example, in August 2011, President Obama signed into law the Budget Control Act of 2011, which, among other things included aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect in April 2013 and will remain in effect through 2029 unless additional Congressional action is taken. In January 2013, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was signed into law, which, among other things, further reduced Medicare payments to several types of providers, including hospitals, imaging centers and treatment centers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. These new laws and regulations may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding and otherwise affect the prices we may obtain for any of our product candidates for which we may obtain regulatory approval or the frequency with which any such product candidate is prescribed or used. 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 product candidates. 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. In addition, there has been increasing legislative and enforcement interest in the United States with respect to specialty drug pricing practices. Specifically, there have been several recent U.S. Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient assistance programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs. At the federal level, the U.S. President's administration's budget for fiscal year 2020 contains further drug price control measures that could be enacted during the 2020 legislative session or in other future legislation, including, for example, measures to permit Medicare Part D plans to negotiate the price of certain drugs under Medicare Part B, to allow some states to negotiate drug prices under Medicaid, and to eliminate cost sharing for generic drugs for low-income patients. Further, the current U.S. President's administration released a "Blueprint", or plan, to lower drug prices and reduce out of pocket costs of drugs that contains additional proposals to increase drug manufacturer competition, increase the negotiating power of certain federal healthcare programs, incentivize manufacturers to lower the list price of their products, and reduce the out of pocket costs of drug products paid by consumers. HHS has already started the process of soliciting feedback on some of these measures and, at the same, is immediately implementing others under its existing authority. For example, in May 2019, CMS issued a final rule to allow Medicare Advantage Plans the option of using step therapy, a type of prior authorization, for Part B drugs beginning January 1, 2020. This final rule codified CMS's policy change that was effective January 1, 2019. On September 25, 2019, the Senate Finance Committee introduced the Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Action of 2019, a bill intended to reduce Medicare and Medicaid prescription drug prices. The proposed legislation would restructure the Part D benefit, modify payment methodologies for certain drugs, and impose an inflation cap on drug price increases. An even more restrictive bill, the Lower Drug Costs Now Act of 2019, was introduced in the House of Representatives on September 19, 2019, and would require HHS to directly negotiate drug prices with manufacturers. The Lower Drugs Costs Now Act of 2019 has passed out of the House and was delivered to the Senate on December 16, 2019. However, it is unclear whether either of these bills will make it through both chambers and be signed into law, and if either is enacted, what effect it would have on our business. Although a number of these, and other proposed measures will require authorization through additional legislation to become effective, Congress and the current U.S. President's administration have each indicated that it will continue to seek new legislative and/or administrative measures to control drug costs. While some proposed measures will require authorization through additional legislation to become effective, Congress and the current U.S. President's administration have each indicated that it will continue to seek new legislative and/or administrative measures to control drug costs. Individual states in the United States have also become increasingly active in passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. There have been, and likely will continue to be, legislative and regulatory proposals at the foreign, federal and state levels directed at containing or lowering the cost of healthcare. For example, in 2016, the United Kingdom referendum on its membership in the EU resulted in a majority of the United Kingdom voters voting to exit the EU, often referred to as Brexit. Pursuant to Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, the United Kingdom ceased being a Member State of the European Union on January 31, 2020. However, the terms of the withdrawal have yet to be fully negotiated. The implementation period began February 1, 2020 and will continue until December 31, 2020. During this 11-month period, the United Kingdom will continue to follow all of the European Union's rules, the European Union's pharmaceutical law remains applicable to the United Kingdom and the United Kingdom's trading relationship will remain the same. However, regulations (including financial laws and regulations, tax and free trade agreements, intellectual property rights, data protection laws, supply chain logistics, environmental, health and safety laws and regulations medicine licensing and regulations, immigration laws and employment laws), have yet to be addressed. Brexit has already and may continue to adversely affect European and/or worldwide regulatory conditions. Brexit could lead to legal uncertainty and potentially divergent national laws and regulations in Europe, including those related to the pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals, as the United Kingdom determines which EU laws to replicate or replace, which could impair our ability to transact business in the EU and the United Kingdom in the future, if we elect to seek regulatory approval and commercialize any of our products there, if approved. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability, or commercialize our product. 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. We cannot predict the initiatives that may be adopted in the future. The continuing efforts of the government, insurance companies, managed care organizations and other payors of healthcare services to contain or reduce costs of healthcare and/or impose price controls may adversely affect: - the demand for our product candidates, if we obtain regulatory approval;- our ability to set a price that we believe is fair for our products, if licensed;- our ability to generate revenue and achieve or maintain profitability;- the level of taxes that we are required to pay; and - the availability of capital. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors, which may adversely affect our future profitability.

The manufacturing process for any products that we may develop is subject to the FDA approval process, and we will need to contract with manufacturers who can meet all applicable FDA requirements on an ongoing basis. If we or our CDMOs are unable to reliably produce products to specifications acceptable to the FDA, we may not obtain or maintain the approvals we need to commercialize such products. Even if we obtain regulatory approval for any of our product candidates, there is no assurance that either we or our CDMOs will be able to manufacture the approved product in accordance with requirements from the FDA, to produce it in sufficient quantities to meet the requirements for the potential launch of the product, or to meet potential future demand. Any of these challenges could delay completion of clinical trials, require bridging clinical trials or the repetition of one or more clinical trials, increase clinical trial costs, result in sanctions being imposed on us, including clinical holds, fines, injunctions, civil penalties, delays, suspension or withdrawal of approvals, license revocation, suspension of production or recalls of the product candidates or marketed biologics, operating restriction and criminal prosecutions, delay approval of our product candidates, impair commercialization efforts, increase our cost of goods, and have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects. Our future success depends on our ability to manufacture our products, if licensed, on a timely basis with acceptable manufacturing costs, while at the same time maintaining good quality control and complying with applicable regulatory requirements, and an inability to do so could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations. In addition, we could incur higher manufacturing costs if manufacturing processes or standards change, and we could need to replace, modify, design, or build and install equipment, all of which would require additional capital expenditures. Specifically, because our product candidates may have a higher cost of goods than conventional therapies, the risk that coverage and reimbursement rates may be inadequate for us to achieve profitability may be greater.

For our clinical trials of DSG3-CAART and our other product candidates, we expect to continue to contract with Penn and other academic medical centers and hospitals experienced in the assessment and management of toxicities arising during clinical trials. In the future, we may also contract with non-academic medical centers and hospitals with similar capabilities. Nonetheless, these centers and hospitals may have difficulty observing patients, including due to failure by patients to comply with post-clinical trial follow-up programs, 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 delaying, suspending or terminating one or more of our clinical trials, and which could jeopardize regulatory approval. We also expect the centers using DSG3-CAART and our other product candidates, if licensed, on a commercial basis could have similar difficulty in managing adverse events. Medicines used at centers to help manage adverse side effects of DSG3-CAART and our other product candidates may not adequately control the side effects and/or may have a detrimental impact on the efficacy of the treatment.

The use of engineered T cells as a potential treatment for B cell-mediated autoimmune diseases is a recent development and may not become broadly accepted by physicians, patients, hospitals, treatment centers and others in the medical community. We expect physicians to be particularly influential and we may not be able to convince them to use our product candidates for many reasons. Additional factors will influence whether our product candidates are accepted in the market, including: - the clinical indications for which our product candidates are licensed;- physicians, hospitals, treatment centers and patients considering our product candidates as a safe and effective treatment;- the potential and perceived advantages of our product candidates over alternative treatments;- the prevalence and severity of any side effects;- product labeling or product insert requirements of the FDA or other regulatory authorities;- limitations or warnings contained in the labeling approved by the FDA;- the timing of market introduction of our product candidates as well as competitive products;- the cost of treatment in relation to alternative treatments;- the availability of coverage and adequate reimbursement and pricing by third-party payors and government authorities;- the willingness of patients to pay out-of-pocket in the absence of coverage and adequate reimbursement by third-party payors and government authorities;- relative convenience and ease of administration, including as compared to alternative treatments and competitive therapies; and - the effectiveness of our sales and marketing efforts. The product candidates we plan to develop and commercialize are premised on offering a potential cure for B cell-mediated autoimmune diseases, which may result in a high degree of uncertainty related to pricing and long-term demand for our product. Our target patient populations are relatively small. Because of this pricing and demand for our product candidates, if licensed, may not be adequate to support an extended period of commercial viability, which could adversely affect our continued ability to successfully produce and market our product or any follow-on products. In addition, if our product candidates are licensed but fail to achieve market acceptance among physicians, patients, hospitals, 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.

Cellular therapies are a novel approach and negative perception or increased regulatory scrutiny of any product candidates that we develop could adversely affect our ability to conduct our business or obtain regulatory approvals for such product candidates. Cellular therapies in general, and CAAR T cell therapies in particular, remain novel therapies, with no cellular immunotherapies licensed to date in the United States or the European Union to treat autoimmune diseases or alloimmune responses. CAAR T cell therapies may not gain the acceptance of the public or the medical community. For example, CAR Ts and other cellular therapies have in some cases caused severe side effects, including death, and their broader use may therefore be limited. Even if CAR Ts and other cellular therapies are accepted by the public and medical community in the short term, long-term adverse events observed in these therapies may increase negative perception and regulatory scrutiny. Although our CAAR Ts are different from CAR Ts and other cellular therapies, they may be viewed in the same vein, limiting their market acceptance. Public perception may be influenced by claims that gene therapy, including the insertion of a transgene, is unsafe, and products incorporating gene therapy may not gain the acceptance of the public or the medical community. The patient populations targeted by our product candidates are also typically not at risk of near-term death, even if they may suffer life-threatening symptoms, so patients will need to deem the benefits of cell therapy to be worth the risk of unknown potential adverse side effects. Our success will depend upon physicians who specialize in the treatment of B cell-mediated autoimmune diseases targeted by our product candidates prescribing treatments that involve the use of our product candidates in lieu of, or in addition to, existing treatments with which they are more familiar and for which greater clinical data may be available. Adverse events in clinical trials of our product candidates or in clinical trials of others developing similar products and the resulting publicity, as well as any other adverse events in the field of cellular therapies, could result in a decrease in demand for any product that we may develop. We are developing a pipeline of CAAR T product candidates that are intended for use in treating individuals with B cell-mediated autoimmune disease. Advancing these novel product candidates creates significant challenges for us, including: - manufacturing our product candidates to our specifications and in a timely manner to support our clinical trials, and, if licensed, commercialization;- sourcing clinical and, if licensed, commercial supplies for the materials used to manufacture our product candidates;- understanding and addressing variability in the quality and quantity of a subject's T cells, which could ultimately affect our ability to manufacture clinical supply and, if licensed, commercial supply of our product candidates in a reliable and consistent manner;- educating medical personnel regarding the potential side effect profile of our product candidates, if licensed, such as the potential adverse side effects related to pemphigus flare from infusion of activated T cells or medication taper, cytokine release syndrome, or CRS, or other unexpected adverse effects of therapy with our product candidates;- facilitating patient access to the limited number of facilities able to administer our product candidates, if licensed;- using medicines to manage adverse side effects of our product candidates that may not adequately control the side effects and/or may have a detrimental impact on the efficacy of the treatment;- potentially utilizing preconditioning agents in patients to enhance engraftment in advance of administering our product candidates, which may increase the risk of adverse side effects;- obtaining and maintaining regulatory approval for our product candidates, as the FDA and other regulatory authorities have limited or no experience with development of engineered T cell therapies for the treatment of B cell-mediated autoimmune diseases;- establishing sales and marketing capabilities upon obtaining any regulatory approval to gain market acceptance of a novel therapy; and - managing costs of inputs and other supplies while scaling production. In addition, preclinical murine and other animal models may not exist or be adequate for some or all of the B cell-mediated autoimmune diseases we choose to pursue in our programs, and because we have not commenced clinical trials of any of our product candidates, we are unable to predict whether there may be short-term or long-term effects from treatment with any product candidates that we develop. In developing our product candidates, we have not exhaustively explored different options in the method for manufacturing CAAR T cells. We may find our existing manufacturing process may be substantially improved with future design or process changes, necessitating further clinical testing, delaying commercial launch of our first products, and causing us to incur additional expenses. For example, while we have used a lentiviral vector in our manufacturing process, we may in the future find that another viral vector or non-viral vector-based process offers advantages. Switching from one lentiviral vector to another or switching from lentiviral to another delivery system would necessitate additional process development and clinical testing, and this may delay the development of existing product candidates. In addition, we do not know the doses to be evaluated in pivotal trials or, if licensed, commercially. Finding a suitable dose may delay our anticipated clinical development timelines. 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 may experience delays in developing a sustainable, reproducible and scalable manufacturing process or transferring that process to commercial partners, which may prevent us from completing our clinical studies or commercializing our product candidates on a timely or profitable basis, if at all. Moreover, our product candidates may not perform successfully in clinical trials or may be associated with adverse events that distinguish them from the chimeric antigen receptor T, or CAR T, therapies that have previously been licensed. For instance, subjects in our clinical trials will be infused with our proposed therapies, and may possess strongly activating soluble antibodies, which, are not present in oncology patients and when they interact with our infused product candidates, could result in potential adverse side effects, such as CRS. Unexpected side effects or clinical outcomes would significantly impact our business. Adverse side effects caused by even one of our product candidates could negatively affect our ability to develop future product candidates based on our CABA platform. In addition, two of our current product candidates, DSG3/1-CAART and FVIII-CAART, and certain of our future product candidates may require introducing large transgenes into T cells, and lentiviral vectors may have too limited a genome capacity to accomplish this process. We currently use lentiviral vector transduction for transgene delivery. However, lentiviral vectors have a limited genome capacity that restricts the size of the transgene that can be delivered using this vector system. For example, designing a lentiviral vector that will have sufficient capacity to introduce DSG3 CAAR and DSG1 CAAR together into T cells may not be possible. In addition to reducing lentiviral vector titers that may substantially increase the cost of gene transfer, it may be entirely unsuccessful, thus necessitating use of alternative strategies for transfer of these larger transgenes into T cells. Further, the clinical study requirements of the FDA and other regulatory agencies and the criteria they use to determine the safety, potency and purity 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 is less clear, and can be more complex and consequently have higher development risk, be more expensive and take longer than for other, better known or extensively studied pharmaceutical or other product candidates. Approvals by the FDA for existing cell therapies treating B cell-mediated diseases, such as Kymriah (Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation) and Yescarta (Gilead Sciences, Inc.), may not be indicative of what the FDA may require for approval of our therapies. 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. As we advance our product candidates, we will be required to consult with these regulatory agencies and comply with applicable requirements and guidelines. If we fail to do so, we may be required to delay or discontinue development of such product candidates. These additional processes may result in a review and approval process that is longer than we otherwise would have expected. More restrictive statutory regimes, government regulations or negative public opinion would have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects and may delay or impair the development and commercialization of our product candidates or demand for any products we may develop. In addition, responses by agencies at the federal and state level to negative public perception or ethical concerns may result in new legislation or regulations that could limit our ability to develop or commercialize any product candidates, obtain or maintain regulatory approval or otherwise achieve profitability. The FDA has expressed interest in further regulating biotechnology products, such as cellular therapies. Agencies at both the federal and state level in the United States, as well as the U.S. Congressional committees and other government entities or governing agencies have also expressed interest in further regulating the biotechnology industry. Such action may delay or prevent commercialization of some or all of our product candidates. Adverse developments in clinical trials of cellular therapy products conducted by others may cause the FDA or other oversight bodies to change the requirements for approval of any of our product candidates. These regulatory review agencies and committees and the new requirements or guidelines they promulgate may lengthen the regulatory review process, require us to perform additional studies or trials, 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.

Establishing clinical and commercial manufacturing and supply is a difficult and uncertain task, and there are risks associated with scaling to the level required for advanced clinical trials or commercialization, including, among others, increased costs, potential problems with process scale-out, process reproducibility, stability issues, lot consistency, and timely availability of reagents or raw materials. For example, we may find it difficult to establish a manufacturing process that is consistent. If this occurs, we may need to complete more than one manufacturing run for each treated patient, which would impact the availability of adequate coverage and reimbursement from third-party payors. Competitors that have developed CAR T cell therapies have had difficulty reliably producing engineered T cell therapies in the commercial setting. If we experience similar challenges manufacturing product candidates to approved specifications, this may limit our product candidates' utilization and our ability to receive payment for these product candidates once licensed. Alternatively, these challenges may require changes to our manufacturing processes, which could require us to perform additional clinical studies, incurring significant expense. We may ultimately be unable to reduce the expenses associated with our product candidates to levels that will allow us to achieve a profitable return on investment.

Our DSG3-CAART and MuSK-CAART product candidates utilize a lentiviral delivery vector and some or all of our other product candidates may require a lentiviral delivery vector, a key drug substance that delivers the CAAR to the target T cells. We do not have the capability to manufacture lentiviral vector and plan to obtain the vector we require from third parties. The manufacturing process for lentiviral vector is variable and still evolving. It is not uncommon for manufacturing runs to fail, whether due to contamination, supplier error, or equipment failure, or to be delayed. To the extent our product candidates use a lentiviral delivery vector, a lack of vector supply will cause us to be unable to manufacture our CAAR T cells as well as a delay in patient enrollment, which may have a negative impact on our ability to successfully develop our product candidates. Further, there are a limited number of manufacturers capable of producing lentiviral vectors. It can be challenging to secure a relationship with any of these manufacturers, and the manufacturing and release process can take a significant amount of time. We have secured a supply of lentiviral vector from CHOP sufficient for a portion of the patients we plan to enroll in our DesCAARTesTM Trial. We have also reserved additional vector manufacturing capacity at Penn and we have engaged other CDMOs to evaluate their potential capabilities and capacity for additional supply. There is no assurance that we will be able to secure adequate and timely supply of lentiviral vector. Moreover, we cannot be certain that our CAAR T cell product candidates produced with lentiviral vector from different manufacturers will be comparable or that results of clinical trials will be consistent if conducted with lentiviral vector from different manufacturers. Vector production also requires the production of high-quality DNA plasmids, for which there is also a limited number of suppliers. Although we have established relationships with multiple suppliers for lentiviral vector and plasmids, we do not yet have our own clinical-scale manufacturing facility established, and are therefore highly dependent on the ability of these suppliers to manufacture necessary materials and to deliver these materials to us on a timely and reliable basis.

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 scaling out and validating initial production and ensuring the absence of contamination. These problems include difficulties with production costs and yields, quality control, including stability of the product, quality assurance testing, operator error, shortages of qualified personnel, as well as compliance with strictly enforced federal, state and foreign regulations. Furthermore, if contaminants are discovered in our supply of product candidates or in the manufacturing facilities upon which we currently or will rely, such manufacturing facilities may need to be closed for an extended period of time to investigate and remedy the contamination. We cannot assure you that any stability or other issues relating to the manufacture of our product candidates, whether by Penn, by a third-party CDMO, or at any manufacturing facility that we may establish, will not occur in the future. Penn, third-party CDMOs that we engage or we may fail to manage the logistics of storing and shipping our 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 loss of usable product or prevent or delay the delivery of product candidates to patients. Penn, third-party CDMOs that we engage, or we may also experience manufacturing difficulties due to resource constraints, labor disputes or workforce limitations arising from the expanding need for manufacturing in the cell therapy field and the limited number of training programs for technical staff. If we were to encounter any of these difficulties, our ability to provide our product candidates to patients would be jeopardized.

We are exposed to the risk of employee fraud or other illegal activity by our employees, independent contractors, consultants, commercial partners and vendors. Misconduct by these parties could include intentional, reckless and/or negligent conduct that fails to comply with the laws of the FDA, provide true, complete and accurate information to the FDA, comply with manufacturing standards we have established, comply with healthcare fraud and abuse laws in the United States and similar foreign fraudulent misconduct laws, or report financial information or data accurately or to disclose unauthorized activities to us. If we obtain FDA approval of any of our product candidates and begin commercializing those products in the United States, our potential exposure under such laws will increase significantly, and our costs associated with compliance with such laws are also likely to increase. These laws may impact, among other things, our current activities with principal investigators and research patients, as well as proposed and future sales, marketing and education programs.

In oncology patients receiving CAR T cell therapy, a lymphodepleting preconditioning regimen is typically used to condition the patient prior to CAR T cell infusion in order to improve tumor immunogenicity and to promote the expansion of the infused CAR T cells. Together, these effects have been shown to enhance the clinical activity of CAR T cells in oncology patients. These regimens often include cyclophosphamide and fludarabine and are usually administered within the week prior to infusion of CAR T cells. Serious adverse events have been observed in some patients following CAR T cell infusion, and these include infection, cytokine release syndrome and neurotoxicity. The preconditioning regimen may contribute to the occurrence and severity of these adverse events due to its role in inducing lymphopenia, or low levels of lymphocytes in the blood, and enhanced CAR T cell activity. Lymphodepleting preconditioning may not be required in all oncology settings for CAR T cell activity. A recent clinical trial in multiple myeloma patients published in 2019 in The Journal of Clinical Investigation showed similar clinical activity of CAR T cell infusions in patients with or without a lymphodepleting preconditioning regimen. Furthermore, the requirement for lymphodepleting preconditioning for potentiating engineered T cell therapy outside of oncology has not been well established. Specifically, the effect on tumor immunogenicity is not relevant in settings outside oncology, and therefore the contribution of this aspect to the potential enhancing effect of preconditioning would not apply. In addition, a lymphodepleting regimen may eliminate pathogenic B cells targeted by our CAAR T cell product candidates. As a result, any lymphodepleting regimen for preconditioning that we use may adversely affect our ability to use DSG3 autoantibody titers, a standard clinical assay, to assess the activity of DSG3-CAART. An inability to use DSG3 autoantibody levels to demonstrate the specific activity of our CAAR T cell product candidates may require us to rely on the objective measurement of blister formation in patients, which can be a less sensitive and accurate measurement of CAAR T cell activity. This therefore could delay efficient clinical development. As a result of these factors, including the concern that lymphodepletion may confer a potential increased safety risk to an autoimmune patient population, we believe the inclusion of such a regimen must be justified by clinical data demonstrating the need for it in the setting of autoimmune patients and is therefore difficult to justify in our first-in-human studies. We therefore plan to initiate our Phase 1 trial of DSG3-CAART without a preconditioning regimen. If clinical data suggest that a preconditioning regimen is advisable, or if FDA requires that we employ a preconditioning regimen, we may employ such a regimen. If we ultimately use a preconditioning regimen, with or without lymphodepleting agents, prior to infusing patients with our CAAR T cell product candidates, our clinical patients may experience increased or more severe adverse effects specifically related to the preconditioning regimen, some of which may result in death. These undesirable side effects, whether associated with the preconditioning regimen alone or in combination with our CAAR T cell product candidates, could cause delays in patient enrollment in our clinical trials, could cause us or regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay or halt clinical trials and could result in a change to our clinical trial design, a more restrictive label or the delay or denial of regulatory approval by the FDA. Any of the foregoing may increase the duration and expense of the clinical development of our product candidates or limit market acceptance of such product candidates, if approved, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition. Even if we do not use a preconditioning regimen, patients may experience adverse effects related to our CAAR T cell product candidates, and our decision to design our clinical trials without preconditioning does not eliminate the risk of those side effects.

Our product candidates require many specialty raw materials, some of which are manufactured by small companies with limited resources and experience to support a commercial product, and the suppliers may not be able to deliver raw materials to our specifications. In addition, those suppliers 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, especially in non-routine circumstances like an FDA inspection or medical crisis, such as widespread contamination. We also do not have contracts with many of these suppliers, and we may not be able to contract with them on acceptable terms or at all. Accordingly, we may experience delays in receiving key raw materials to support clinical or commercial manufacturing. In addition, 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. The time and effort to qualify a new supplier could result in additional costs, 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. We are also unable to predict how changing global economic conditions or global health concerns such as the COVID-19 pandemic will affect our third-party suppliers and manufacturers. Any negative impact of such matters on our third-party suppliers and manufacturers may also have an adverse impact on our results of operations or financial condition.

We are currently reliant upon Penn for our cell product manufacturing for our lead product candidate, DSG3-CAART. In parallel with initiating our first clinical trial, we plan to establish a relationship with a CDMO to help secure the manufacturing supply chain for future product candidates. We will need to develop relationships with suppliers, increase the scale of production and demonstrate comparability of the material produced at these facilities to the material that was previously produced. Transferring manufacturing processes and know-how is complex and involves review and incorporation of both documented and undocumented processes that may have evolved over time. In addition, transferring production to different facilities may require utilization of new or different processes to meet the specific requirements of a given facility. We would expect additional comparability work will also need to be conducted to support the transfer of certain manufacturing processes and process improvements. We cannot be certain that all relevant know-how and data has been adequately incorporated into the manufacturing process until the completion of studies (and the related evaluations) intended to demonstrate the comparability of material previously produced with that generated by any CDMO that we engage for our manufacturing needs. If we are not able to successfully transfer and produce comparable product candidates, our ability to further develop and manufacture our product candidates may be negatively impacted. We plan to eventually establish our own manufacturing facility. While the addition of our own manufacturing facility would provide us with future flexibility within our manufacturing network, we still may need to identify additional CDMOs for continued production of supply for some or all of our product candidates. Given the nature of our manufacturing processes, the number of CDMOs who possess the requisite skill and capability to manufacture our CAAR T cell immunotherapy product candidates is limited. Further, we may not be able to achieve clinical manufacturing and cell processing through Penn on a timely basis, on our own or at any future CDMO. While our current manufacturing process is based off the validated process developed at Penn for CD19 CAR T, or CART19, we have limited experience as an organization in managing the CAAR T engineering process. Finally, because clinical manufacturing and cell processing is highly complex, we cannot be sure that the manufacturing processes employed by Penn, any CDMO that we engage in the future, or by us at a manufacturing facility that we establish will consistently result in T cells that will be safe and effective.

Although we may eventually secure our own clinical manufacturing facility for any late phase clinical development that we undertake, we currently rely on Penn to supply raw materials and other important components that are used to manufacture our product candidates and intend in the future to rely on CDMOs. In the case of any manufacturing performed for us by Penn, the services performed for us risk being delayed because of the competing priorities that Penn has for utilization of its manufacturing resources and any capacity issues that thereby arise. We do not yet have sufficient information to reliably estimate the cost of the manufacturing and processing of our product candidates in clinical quantity or commercial quantity, and the actual cost to manufacture and process our product candidates could ultimately materially and adversely affect the commercial viability of our product candidates. As a result, we may never be able to develop a commercially viable product. In addition, our anticipated reliance on a limited number of third-party manufacturers exposes us to the following risks: - We may be unable to identify manufacturers on acceptable terms or at all because the number of potential manufacturers is limited and the FDA may have questions regarding any replacement contractor. This may require new testing and regulatory interactions. In addition, a new manufacturer would have to be educated in, or develop substantially equivalent processes for, production of our products after receipt of FDA questions, if any. - Our third-party manufacturers might be unable to timely formulate and manufacture our product or produce the quantity and quality required to meet our clinical and commercial needs, if any. - Contract manufacturers may not be able to execute our manufacturing procedures appropriately. - Any contract manufacturers that we engage may not perform as agreed or may not remain in the contract manufacturing business for the time required to supply our clinical trials or to successfully produce, store and distribute our product candidates. - Manufacturers are subject to ongoing periodic unannounced inspection by the FDA and corresponding state agencies to ensure strict compliance with cGMP and other government regulations. We do not have control over third-party manufacturers' compliance with these regulations and standards. - We may not own, or may have to share, the intellectual property rights to any improvements made by our third-party manufacturers in the manufacturing process for our product candidates. - Our third-party manufacturers could breach or terminate their agreement with us. Furthermore, all of our contract manufacturers are engaged with other companies to supply and/or manufacture materials or products for such companies, which exposes our manufacturers to regulatory risks related to the production of such materials and products. As a result, failure to meet the regulatory requirements for the production of those materials and products may affect the regulatory clearance of our contract manufacturers' facilities generally. If the FDA does not approve these facilities for the manufacture of our product candidates or if any agency withdraws its approval in the future, we may need to find alternative manufacturing facilities, which would negatively impact our ability to develop, obtain regulatory approval for or market our product candidates, if licensed. Our contract manufacturers would also be subject to the same risks we face in developing our own manufacturing capabilities, as described above. Each of these risks could delay our clinical trials, the approval, if any of our product candidates by the FDA or the commercialization of our product candidates or result in higher costs or deprive us of potential product revenue. In addition, we will 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. For more information, see "Risk Factors-Risks Related to Manufacturing and Supply".

Our product candidates are CAAR T cell-based immunotherapies. There is a possibility that our product candidates could have adverse side effects, such as neurotoxicity and CRS. In other similarly designed cellular immunotherapies to treat cancer, there have been life threatening events related to severe neurotoxicity and CRS requiring intense medical intervention, such as intubation or medications to support blood pressure, and in several cases, resulted in death. Severe neurotoxicity is a condition that is currently defined clinically by cerebral edema, confusion, drowsiness, speech impairment, tremors, seizures or other central nervous system side effects, when such side effects are serious enough to lead to intensive care. CRS is a condition that is currently defined clinically by certain symptoms related to the release of cytokines, which can include fever, chills and low blood pressure, when such side effects are serious enough to lead to intensive care with mechanical ventilation or significant medications to support blood pressure. Our product candidates may have serious and potentially fatal targeting of cells within the body due to unexpected protein interactions with the CAAR. Although we have completed multiple preclinical studies designed to screen for toxicity caused by unintended off-target recognition by the cell binding domain of the DSG3 CAAR, our product candidates may still recognize and react with one or more proteins unrelated to the intended surface immunoglobin target protein to which it is designed to link. If unexpected binding occurs in normal tissue, our product candidates may target and kill the normal tissue in a patient, leading to serious and potentially fatal adverse events, undesirable side effects, toxicities or unexpected characteristics. Detection of any unexpected targeting may halt or delay any ongoing clinical trials for our product candidates and prevent or delay regulatory approval. While we have developed a preclinical screening process to identify cross-reactivity of our product candidates, we cannot be certain that this process will identify all potential tissue that our product candidates may target. For example, a membrane protein array with DSG3-CAART yielded one weak signal against a protein that is designed to bind to glycoproteins and which was detected in both the test and control conditions. Further analysis of this protein in confirmatory cell-based assays repeatedly demonstrated that DSG3-CAART does not recognize nor activate against this protein. However, this further analysis may prove to be inaccurate. Any unexpected targeting that impacts patient safety could materially impact our ability to advance our product candidates into clinical trials or to proceed to marketing approval and commercialization. Results of our studies could reveal a high and unacceptable severity and prevalence of side effects or unexpected characteristics. Undesirable side effects caused by our product candidates could cause us or regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay or halt clinical trials and could result in a more restrictive label or the delay or denial of regulatory approval by the FDA. The FDA has requested and we have agreed to provide data on the subjects dosed in Part A of our Phase 1 trial of DSG3-CAART prior to dosing subjects in Part B. The FDA has communicated that the dosing of subjects in Part B1 is not subject to review of Part A data and that they will provide feedback, if any, in a timely manner. In some cases, side effects such as neurotoxicity or CRS have resulted in clinical holds of ongoing clinical trials and/or discontinuation of the development of the product candidate. Given that the autoimmune and alloimmune diseases we are seeking to treat are, in some cases, less serious than the later stage cancers being treated with other immunotherapy products, we believe the FDA and other regulatory authorities likely will apply a different benefit-risk assessment thresholds such that even if our product candidate demonstrated a similar safety profile as current CAR T therapies, the FDA may ultimately determine that the harmful side effects outweigh the benefits and require us to cease clinical trials or deny approval of our product candidates. We believe tolerance for adverse events in the patient population being pursued with CAAR T cell therapies will be lower than it is in oncology, and the risks of negative impact from these toxicities may therefore be higher for us than for CAR T programs in oncology. Furthermore, treatment-related side effects could also affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled patients to complete the studies 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-based immunotherapies are not normally encountered in routine medical care. Medical personnel may need additional training regarding T cell-based immunotherapy product candidates to understand their side effects. Inadequate training in recognizing or failure to effectively manage the potential side effects of T cell-based immunotherapy product candidates could result in patient deaths. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly. In addition to side effects caused by our product candidates, the preconditioning, administration process or related procedures, which we evaluate from time to time as part of our process improvement and optimization efforts, may also cause adverse side effects. For example, severe neurotoxicity has been noted to be associated with the use of certain lymphodepleting regimens. While we believe there are sufficient data from other CAR T programs to suggest that it is reasonable for us to initiate our first clinical trial of DSG3-CAART without a preconditioning regimen, we cannot be certain that a preconditioning regimen, with or without lymphodepleting agents, will not be required.