Virax Biolabs Group Ltd. Class A (VRAX) Risk Analysis

A key element of our strategy is to leverage our ViraxImmune platform to discover, develop and potentially commercialize additional products and services through synergy with our T-Cell testing kits and ViraxImmune Mobile App. If we are unable to generate compelling evidence supporting our T-Cell test results, our platform may face a broader obstacle to using our diagnostics data for commercially viable products and services. Identifying new products and services requires substantial technical, financial and human resources, whether or not any products or services are ultimately developed or commercialized. We may pursue what we believe is a promising opportunity to leverage our platform only to discover that certain of our risk or resource allocation decisions were incorrect or insufficient, or that individual products, services or our science in general has technology or biology risks that were previously unknown or underappreciated. Our strategy of pursuing the value of our diagnostics platform over a long time horizon and developing relevant technological products with synergy may not be effective. In the event material decisions in any of these areas turn out to be incorrect or sub-optimal, we may experience a material adverse impact on our business and ability to fund our operations and we may never realize what we believe is the potential of our in-vitro diagnostics platform.

The value of our business depends in part on our ability to protect our intellectual property and information, including our patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, and rights under agreements with third parties, in the United Kingdom and around the world, as well as our customer, employee, and customer data. Third parties may try to challenge our ownership of our intellectual property globally, the United Kingdom and around the world. In addition, intellectual property rights and protections in the United Kingdom may be insufficient to protect material intellectual property rights globally and the United Kingdom. Further, our business is subject to the risk of third parties counterfeiting our products or infringing on our intellectual property rights. The steps we have taken may not prevent unauthorized use of our intellectual property. We may need to resort to litigation to protect our intellectual property rights, which could result in substantial costs and diversion of resources. If we fail to protect our proprietary intellectual property and information, including with respect to any successful challenge to our ownership of intellectual property or material infringements of our intellectual property, this failure could have a significant adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

Under Listing Rule 5101, Nasdaq has discretionary authority to deny initial listing, apply additional or more stringent criteria for the initial or continued listing of particular securities, or suspend or delist particular securities based on any event, condition, or circumstance that exists or occurs that makes initial or continued listing of the securities on Nasdaq inadvisable or unwarranted in the opinion of Nasdaq, even though the securities meet all enumerated criteria for initial or continued listing on Nasdaq. Additionally, Nasdaq has used its discretion to deny initial or continued listing or to apply additional and more stringent criteria in the instances, including but not limited to: (i) where the company engaged an auditor that has not been subject to an inspection by PCAOB, an auditor that PCAOB cannot inspect, or an auditor that has not demonstrated sufficient resources, geographic reach, or experience to adequately perform the company's audit; (ii) where the company planned a small public offering, which would result in insiders holding a large portion of the company's listed securities. Nasdaq was concerned that the offering size was insufficient to establish the company's initial valuation, and there would not be sufficient liquidity to support a public market for the company; and (iii) where the company did not demonstrate sufficient nexus to the U.S. capital market, including having no U.S. shareholders, operations, or members of the board of directors or management. Our initial public offering will be relatively small and the insiders of our company will hold a large portion of the company's listed securities following the consummation of the offering. Therefore, we may be subject to the additional and more stringent criteria of Nasdaq for our initial and continued listing.

We have never paid dividends on Ordinary Shares and do not currently anticipate paying any cash dividends on our Ordinary Shares in the foreseeable future. The holders of our Ordinary Shares are entitled to such dividends as may be declared by our board of directors. Our articles of association provide that our board of directors may declare and pay dividends if justified by our financial position and permitted by law. Our articles of association also provides that, subject to the Companies Act, the Company may by also by ordinary resolution declare dividends in accordance with the respective rights of the shareholders but no dividend shall exceed the amount recommended by the directors. Under English law, any payment of dividends would be subject to relevant legislation and our articles of association, which provide that all dividends must be approved by our board of directors and, in some cases, our shareholders, and may only be paid from our distributable profits available for the purpose, determined on an unconsolidated basis.

The recent withdrawal of the United Kingdom from its membership in the European Union, or EU, often referred to as "Brexit", could lead to legal and regulatory uncertainty in the United Kingdom and may lead to the United Kingdom and European Union adopting divergent laws and regulations, including those related to the pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals, as the United Kingdom determines which European Union laws to replicate or replace. If the United Kingdom were to significantly alter its regulations affecting the pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals, we could face significant new costs. As a result, Brexit could impair our ability to transact business in the European Union and the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom and the EU have signed a EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement, or TCA, which became provisionally applicable on January 1, 2021 and will become formally applicable once ratified by both the United Kingdom and the EU. This agreement provides details on how some aspects of the United Kingdom and EU's relationship will operate going forwards however there are still many uncertainties. The uncertainty concerning the United Kingdom's legal, political and economic relationship with the European Union may be a source of instability in the international markets, create significant currency fluctuations, and/or otherwise adversely affect trading agreements or similar cross-border co-operation arrangements (whether economic, tax, fiscal, legal, regulatory or otherwise). These developments, or the perception that any of them could occur, have had, and may continue to have, a significant adverse effect on global economic conditions and the stability of global financial markets, and could significantly reduce global market liquidity and limit the ability of key market participants to operate in certain financial markets. In particular, it could also lead to a period of considerable uncertainty in relation to the United Kingdom financial and banking markets, as well as on the regulatory process in Europe. Asset valuations, currency exchange rates and credit ratings may also be subject to increased market volatility. If other EU Member States pursue withdrawal, barrier-free access among the European Economic Area, or EEA, overall could be diminished or eliminated. The long-term effects of Brexit will depend on how the terms of the TCA take effect in practice and any further agreements (or lack thereof) between the United Kingdom and the EU. Such a withdrawal from the EU is unprecedented, and it is unclear how the UK access to the European single market for goods, capital, services and labor within the EU, and the wider commercial, legal and regulatory environment, will impact our United Kingdom operations. We may also face new regulatory costs and challenges that could have an adverse effect on our operations and development programs. For example, the United Kingdom will lose the benefits of global trade agreements negotiated by the EU on behalf of its members, which may result in increased trade barriers that could make our doing business in the EU and the EEA more difficult. There may continue to be economic uncertainty surrounding the consequences of Brexit, which could adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and market price of our securities.

Our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations may be adversely affected by social, political, regulatory and economic developments in countries in which we operate. Such political and economic uncertainties include, but are not limited to, the risks of war, terrorism, nationalism, nullification of contract, changes in interest rates, imposition of capital controls and methods of taxation. For example, we have considerable operations in Singapore, and negative developments in Singapore's socio-political environment may adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Although the overall economic environment in Singapore and other countries including the United States and Europe where we operate appear to be positive, there can be no assurance that this will continue to prevail in the future.

Any product for which we obtain marketing approval in the United Kingdom or in international jurisdictions, along with the manufacturing processes, post-approval clinical data and promotional activities for such product, will be subject to continual review and periodic inspections by the relevant regulatory bodies. Furthermore, our suppliers may be subject to similar regulatory oversight, and may not currently be or may not continue to be in compliance with applicable regulatory requirements. Failure by us or one of our suppliers to comply with statutes and regulations administered by the relevant regulatory bodies, or failure to take adequate action in response to any observations, could result in, among other things, any of the following enforcement actions: - warning letters or untitled letters;- fines and civil penalties;- unanticipated expenditures for corrective actions;- delays in approving, or refusal to approve, our products;- withdrawal or suspension of approval by the relevant regulatory bodies;- product recall or seizures;- interruption of production;- operating restrictions;- injunctions; and - criminal penalties. If any of these actions were to occur, it could harm our reputation and could cause our product sales and profitability to suffer. Any regulatory approval of a product may also be subject to limitations on the indicated uses for which the product may be marketed. If the FDA or another regulatory body determines that our promotional materials, training or other activities constitute promotion of an unapproved use, it could request that we cease or modify our training or promotional materials or subject us to regulatory enforcement actions. It is also possible that other federal, state or foreign enforcement authorities might take action if they consider our training or promotional materials to constitute promotion of an unapproved use, which could result in significant fines or penalties under applicable statutory authorities, such as laws prohibiting false claims for reimbursement. The following are significant regulations that are currently applicable and could also be applicable to our products due to our target markets: European Union Regulations The European In-Vitro Diagnostic Regulation (IVDR 2017/746) ("IVDR") introduced a new risk-based classification system and requirements for conformity assessments. Products self-certified placed on the market before May 22, 2022 under the European In-Vitro Diagnostic Devices Directive (IVDD 98/79/EC) ("IVDD") may remain on the market until the following dates, afterward they will require the involvement of a Notified Body under the IVDR for the first time: - high individual risk and high public health risk products (Class D): May 26, 2025;- high individual risk and/or moderate public health risk products (Class C): May 26, 2026;- moderate individual risk and/or low public health risk (Class B): May 26, 2027; and- low individual risk and low public health risk products placed on the market in a sterile condition (Class A sterile): May 26, 2027. IVD manufacturers may only rely on the transitional provisions above provided that: (i) the devices continue to comply with applicable requirements imposed by the IVDD; (ii) they respect the IVDR requirements relating to post-market surveillance, market surveillance, vigilance, registration of economic operators and devices from 26 May 2022 in place of the corresponding requirements in the IVDD; and (iii) no significant changes are made in the design and intended purpose of the devices during the transitional period. CE Marking is required for all IVD devices sold in Europe. CE Marking indicates that an IVD device complies with the IVDR and that the device may be legally commercialized in the EU. It should be appreciated that there is a severe shortage of capacity of Notified Bodies to assess all IVDs that will require Notified Body certification under the IVDR, and that it is widely recognized that applications for assessment by the Notified Bodies may be subject to significant delays. While we have taken a proactive approach to mitigate this risk, including engaging BSI and restructuring our quality management systems and technical documentation to align with the IVDR United Kingdom Regulations The UK's withdrawal from the EU will have major ramifications for IVD manufacturers that will, among other things have to follow new procedures that will apply in the UK including appointment of a UK Responsible Person rather than relying on European Authorized Representatives to manage their compliance efforts in the UK. IVDs compliant with the EU in vitro diagnostic medical devices regulation (EU IVDR) can be placed on the Great Britain market up until the 30 June 2030. We intend to use the recognized CE marks that we will apply with the European Union for our medical device product, namely our current in development T-Cell IVD/Immune response Test under the ViraxImmune brand. After which, we will apply with the UK Medicine and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency for a UK Conformity Assessed mark. U.S. Regulations We consider the United States as a target market with significant potential. As such, United States regulations will be applicable to our products once we market our products in the United States. In the United States, the FDA regulates the sale or distribution of medical devices, including but not limited to, IVD test kits. IVD products are subject to regulation by the FDA as medical devices to the extent that they are intended for use in the diagnosis, treatment, mitigation or prevention of disease or other conditions. They are subject to premarket review and post market controls which will differ depending on how the FDA classifies a specific IVD. The information that must be submitted to the FDA in order to obtain clearance or approval to market a new medical device varies depending on how the medical device is classified by the FDA. Medical devices are classified into one of three risk-based classes depending on the controls deemed by the FDA to be necessary to reasonably ensure their safety and effectiveness. Class I devices are considered the lowest risk and are subject to general controls, including labeling requirements, and adherence to the FDA's quality system regulations, or QSRs, which are device-specific current good manufacturing practices. Class II (intermediate risk) devices may be subject to premarket notification, or may be 510(k)-exempt, and are generally subject to QSRs, general controls and sometimes special controls, including performance standards and post-market surveillance. Class III (highest risk) devices are subject to most of the previously identified requirements as well as to pre-market approval. Class I devices are exempt from premarket review; most Class II devices require 510(k) clearance, and all Class III devices must receive premarket approval before they can be sold in the United States. The payment of a user fee, which is typically adjusted annually, to the FDA is usually required when a 510(k) notice or premarket approval application is submitted. 510(k) Premarket Notification. A 510(k) premarket notification requires the sponsor to demonstrate that a medical device is substantially equivalent to another marketed device, termed a "predicate device," that is legally marketed in the United States and for which a premarket approval was not required. A device is substantially equivalent to a predicate device if it has the same intended use and technological characteristics as the predicate; or has the same intended use but different technological characteristics, where the information submitted to the FDA does not raise new questions of safety and effectiveness and demonstrates that the device is at least as safe and effective as the legally marketed device. If the FDA believes that the device is not substantially equivalent to a predicate device, it will issue a "Not Substantially Equivalent" (NSE) determination and designate the device as a Class III device, which will require the submission and approval of a PMA before the new device may be marketed. A person who receives an NSE determination in response to a 510(k) submission may, within 30 days of receipt of the NSE determination, submit a de novo request for the FDA to make a risk-based evaluation for classification of the device into Class I or II. Devices that are classified through the de novo process may be marketed and used as predicates for future 510(k) submissions. The FDA continues to reevaluate the 510(k) pathway and process and the de novo process, and has taken what it describes as a risk-based approach to develop innovative regulatory policy to propose a more "contemporary" approach. In October 2017, the FDA published a final guidance entitled, "De Novo Classification Process (Evaluation of Automatic Class III Designation)," and in December 2018, the FDA published a proposed rule which if finalized is intended to provide structure, clarity and transparency on the de novo classification process. In January 2021, it also published a final guidance entitled "Requests for Feedback and Meetings for Medical Device Submissions: The Q-Submission Program." Premarket Approval. The PMA process is more complex, costly and time consuming than the 510(k) process. A PMA must be supported by more detailed and comprehensive scientific evidence, including clinical data, to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of the medical device for its intended purpose. If the device is determined to present a "significant risk," the sponsor may not begin a clinical trial until it submits an investigational device exemption (IDE) to the FDA and obtains approval to begin the trial. After the PMA is submitted, the FDA has 45 days to make a threshold determination that the PMA is sufficiently complete to permit a substantive review. If the PMA is complete, the FDA will file the PMA. The FDA is subject to a performance goal review time for a PMA that is 180 days from the date of filing, although in practice this review time is longer. Questions from the FDA, requests for additional data and referrals to advisory committees may delay the process considerably. The total process may take several years and there is no guarantee that the PMA will ever be approved. Even if approved, the FDA may limit the indications for which the device may be marketed. The FDA may also request additional clinical data as a condition of approval or after the PMA is approved. Any changes to the medical device may require a supplemental PMA to be submitted and approved before changed medical device may be marketed. Any products sold by us pursuant to FDA clearances or approvals will be subject to pervasive and continuing regulation by the FDA, including record keeping requirements, reporting of adverse experiences with the use of the device and restrictions on the advertising and promotion of our products. In particular, we may not advertise or otherwise promote our devices for indications, patient populations, or other conditions of use that are not covered by the applicable FDA clearance or approval for the device. Modifications or changes to the device or how it is manufactured may also be separately subject to FDA review and authorization before being commercialized. Device manufacturers are required to register their establishments and list their devices with the FDA and are subject to periodic inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies. Noncompliance with applicable FDA requirements can result in, among other things, warning letters, fines, injunctions, civil penalties, recalls or seizures of products, total or partial suspension of production, refusal of the FDA to grant 510(k) clearance or PMA approval for new devices, withdrawal of 510(k) clearances and/or PMA approvals and criminal prosecution. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the US government declared a state of emergency which enabled the FDA to issue emergency use authorizations (EUAs) to provide more timely access to critical medical products (including medicines and tests) that may help during the emergency when there are no adequate, approved, and available alternative options. EUAs are in effect until the emergency declaration ends but can be revised or revoked as FDA considers the needs during the emergency and new data on a product's safety and effectiveness, or as products meet the criteria to become approved, cleared, or licensed by the FDA. Manufacturers of several types of SARS-CoV-2 assays have been granted EUAs. These authorizations are only intended for the duration of the emergency declaration, and afterwards will be revoked. The FDA has indicated the withdrawal of the EUA process will be done in a controlled ramp down. Additionally, we may be required to conduct costly post-market testing, and we will be required to report adverse events and malfunctions related to our products. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with our products, including unanticipated adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, manufacturing problems, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements may result in restrictions on such products or manufacturing processes, withdrawal of the products from the market, voluntary or mandatory recalls, fines, suspension of regulatory approvals, product seizures, injunctions or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties. Furthermore, the relevant authorities will inspect our facilities and those of our suppliers from time to time to determine whether we are in compliance with regulations relating to the manufacture of diagnostic products, including regulations concerning design, manufacture, testing, quality control, product labeling, distribution, promotion and record-keeping practices. A determination that we are in material violation of such regulations could lead to the imposition of civil penalties, including fines, product recalls, product seizures or, in extreme cases, criminal sanctions. Canada Regulations We also consider Canada as a target market with significant potential. Health Canada is the department of the Government of Canada responsible for national health policy, for both professional point-of-care and self-testing, which is similar to over-the-counter EUA authorization in the United States. Health Canada regulates, among other things, the research, development, testing, approval, manufacture, packaging, labeling, storage, recordkeeping, advertising, promotion, distribution, marketing, post-approval monitoring and import and export of pharmaceutical, including biologic, products. The process for obtaining regulatory approvals in Canada, along with subsequent compliance with applicable statutes and regulations, require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources.

Even if we achieve market acceptance, our success will partially depend on continued demand for diagnostic products for COVID-19 and other major viral diseases. COVID-19 screening policies could change such that tests are conducted less frequently or in fewer instances. For example, healthcare institutions facing increased cost control requirements could determine to reduce employee testing. In addition, various institutions or governing bodies may decide that the incidence of COVID-19 has dropped sufficiently in the future within their screening population so as to permit reduced testing. Changes to immigration policies and policies relating to resettlement of refugees, as well as other policy changes may substantially reduce testing in the markets we serve and could have a material and adverse effect on our business. In order to reduce our dependency on continued demand for diagnostic products in relation to COVID-19, we are developing our technology to focus on other major viral threats, however, we cannot be sure whether such developments can be successful. If we fail to develop our technology to easily adapt to new variants of coronavirus or potential new viral threats, it may materially adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.