elsewhere in this prospectus have been prepared in accordance with the international financial reporting standards, or IFRS, as issued by the international accounting standards board, or the IASB. None of the financial information in this prospectus has been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States, or GAAP.

Unless the context otherwise requires, references in this prospectus to the “Company,” “Gamida Cell,” “we,” “us,” “our” and other similar designations refer to Gamida Cell Ltd. The terms “shekel,” “Israeli shekel” and “NIS” refer to New Israeli Shekels, the lawful currency of the State of Israel, and the terms “dollar,” “U.S. dollar” or “$” refer to United States dollars, the lawful currency of the United States of America. All references to “shares” in this prospectus refer to ordinary shares of Gamida Cell Ltd., par value NIS 0.01 per share.

MARKET, INDUSTRY AND OTHER DATA

This prospectus contains estimates, projections and other information concerning our industry, our business, and the markets for our product candidates. Information that is based on estimates, forecasts, projections, market research or similar methodologies is inherently subject to uncertainties, and actual events or circumstances may differ materially from events and circumstances that are assumed in this information. Unless otherwise expressly stated, we obtained this industry, business, market and other data from our own internal estimates and research as well as from reports, research surveys, studies and similar data prepared by market research firms and other third parties, industry, medical and general publications, government data and similar sources.

In addition, assumptions and estimates of our and our industry’s future performance are necessarily subject to a high degree of uncertainty and risk due to a variety of factors, including those described in “Risk Factors.” These and other factors could cause our future performance to differ materially from our assumptions and estimates. See “Special Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements.”

The figure below summarizes key information about our current pipeline of product candidates:

Omidubicel for the Treatment of Hematologic Malignancies

Limitations of Allogeneic HSCT

Cell therapies involve the delivery of human cells to replace or repair damaged tissue or cells in order to treat a variety of cancers and other diseases. HSCT, commonly known as bone marrow transplantation, is the most frequently used cell therapy and is used to treat a variety of hematologic malignancies and other serious conditions. A person’s entire blood and bone marrow can be reconstituted from a seed population of stem cells obtained from an allogeneic, or non-self, donor whose blood-forming and immune-system-forming cells are both free of cancer and effective at carrying out their functions. Approximately 90% of HSCT procedures performed in the United States are for patients with hematologic malignancies. There are approximately 30,000 patients per year receiving allogeneic HSCT in the United States, Europe and Japan, of which 8,500 are in the United States. The number of these procedures increased by 5% per year in the United States from 2006 to 2016. By 2021, the Company expects that approximately 11,000 individuals with a hematologic malignancy will be a candidate for HSCT, and the Company further projects that omidubicel, if approved, will be used to treat approximately 30% of these patients.

Despite the curative potential of HSCT, it is estimated that more than 40% of eligible patients do not receive one for various reasons, including finding a matched donor. The best source for donor cells is a sibling who is a matched related donor, or MRD, but the chances of having a sibling match in the United States are only 25% to 30%. The majority of patients rely on alternate sources of donor cells, including matched unrelated donor, or MUD, haploidentical, or “half-matched” donors, and umbilical cord blood. Notwithstanding the various potential sources of donor cells, HSCT is subject to a number of significant limitations, including: (i) delays in finding a suitable match, during which disease progression may make patients ineligible for transplant; (ii) an insufficient number or delayed engraftment of donor cells, leaving patients without a functioning immune system and leading to potentially life-threatening immune deficiency following transplant; and (iii) a lack of long-term compatibility between the donor cells and the patient’s own cells, resulting in potentially fatal graft versus host disease, or GvHD.

Umbilical cord blood offers promise as a readily available source of stem cells for patients who need HSCT and do not have a MRD source. It is easier to find a match when using stem cells derived from cord blood, since a full match is not required for a successful transplant using cord blood. This broadens the pool of potential donors and shortens the process of finding a suitable match. However, on average, a typical cord blood graft contains approximately one-tenth the number of stem and progenitor cells compared to stem cell grafts from adult bone marrow or peripheral blood donors. This lower number of cells may delay engraftment of the donor cells and reconstitution of the immune system. This, in turn, increases both time in the hospital and the likelihood that a patient might contract a life-threatening infection.

Omidubicel as a Universal Stem Cell Graft for Allogeneic HSCT

Omidubicel, our lead product candidate, is designed to address the limitations of HSCT. Omidubicel is composed of cord blood that has been manufactured using our proprietary NAM-based cell expansion technology, which is designed to increase engraftment efficiency in HSCT and enable rapid engraftment and immune system reconstitution. This reduces the risk of infections and other complications after transplant. In addition, the donor T cells in cord blood are naïve, meaning that they have not matured and may more readily adapt to the recipient. This results in greater immunologic compatibility, or the matching of the donor cells with the recipient’s cells, reducing the frequency and severity of GvHD. In light of these advantages, omidubicel, if approved, may serve as a universal, readily available, reliable and effective alternative to existing sources of donor cells for HSCT.

We are currently enrolling patients in an international, multicenter, randomized, pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial in 120 patients with hematologic malignancies, AML, ALL, CML, MDS and lymphomas. We anticipate reporting top-line data from this trial in the first half of 2020. In our Phase 1/2 clinical trial, sponsored by us, we enrolled 36 patients with hematologic malignancies who did not have a suitable matched donor. For comparison, we identified 146 patients as historic controls from data collected by the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research, or CIBMTR. The primary endpoint of neutrophil engraftment was met based on recovery of neutrophils, which are infection-fighting white blood cells. Neutrophil engraftment is defined as achieving a minimum neutrophil count of at least 0.5 x 10 ⁹ per liter on three consecutive measurements on different days. There was a median recovery time of 11.5 days after transplantation in omidubicel treated patients, compared to 21 days observed in the historic controls. A key secondary endpoint, platelet engraftment, was also met with a median recovery time of 34 days in omidubicel treated patients, compared to 46 days in historic controls. Platelets are required for normal blood clotting and low platelet counts are associated with life-threatening hemorrhage. Platelet engraftment is defined as achieving a platelet count of at least 20 x 10 ⁹ per liter on three consecutive measurements on different days, with no platelet transfusion in the preceding seven days. Efficient engraftment and robust immune reconstitution likely contributed to an observed reduction of 20 days in the number of days, post-transplant, that patients were hospitalized as compared to similar patients treated with standard cord blood. Based on the results of this Phase 1/2 trial, we received Breakthrough Therapy Designation from the FDA.

Our Strategy

Our goal is to deliver curative cell therapies to patients with serious and life-threatening medical conditions. The key strategies to achieve our goal are the following:

Management Team, Board and Investor Base

We are led by an experienced management team with extensive expertise in developing oncology therapies and manufacturing cell therapies and other complex biologics. Our director and chief executive officer, Julian Adams, played a central role in the discovery and development of bortezomib, or Velcade ^® , a widely used therapy for MM and other blood cancers approved by the FDA in 2003. Dr. Adams also led research and development, or R&D, efforts at Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Inc., which helped lead to the 2018 FDA approval of duvelisib, also known as Copiktra ^® , for the treatment of certain leukemias and lymphomas. We are also backed by a strong board of directors and an investor base that includes Novartis, Clal Biotechnology Industries and Israel Biotech Fund.

Risks Associated With Our Business

Our business is subject to a number of risks of which you should be aware before making an investment decision. These risks are discussed more fully in the “Risk Factors” section of this prospectus immediately following this prospectus summary. These risks include, among others, the following:

Corporate Information

We are an Israeli corporation based in Jerusalem, Israel, and were incorporated in 1998. Our principal executive offices are located at 5 Nahum Heftsadie St., Givaat Shaul, Jerusalem 91340, Israel and our U.S. subsidiary’s executive headquarters are in Boston, Massachusetts. Our telephone number is +972 (2) 659-5666. Our website address is www.gamida-cell.com . The information contained on our website and available through our website is an inactive textual reference only.

Implications of Being an “Emerging Growth Company” and a Foreign Private Issuer

As a company with less than $1.07 billion in revenue during our last fiscal year, we qualify as an “emerging growth company” as defined in the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 2012, or the JOBS Act. An emerging growth company may take advantage of specified reduced reporting and other burdens that are otherwise applicable generally to public companies. These provisions include:

We may take advantage of these provisions for up to five years or such earlier time that we are no longer an emerging growth company. We would cease to be an emerging growth company upon the earlier to occur of: (1) the last day of the fiscal year in which we have total annual gross revenue of $1.07 billion or more; (2) the date on which we have issued more than $1.0 billion in nonconvertible debt during the previous three years; or (3) the date on which we are deemed to be a large accelerated filer under the rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission, or the SEC. We may choose to take advantage of some but not all of these reduced burdens, and therefore the information that we provide holders of our ordinary shares may be different than the information you might receive from other public companies in which you hold equity. In addition, Section 107 of the JOBS Act also provides that an emerging growth company can take advantage of an extended transition period for complying with new or revised accounting standards applicable to public companies. However, given that we currently report and expect to continue to report under IFRS as issued by the IASB, the extended transition period available to emerging growth companies that report under GAAP is inapplicable to us.

We report under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, as a non-U.S. company with foreign private issuer status. Even after we no longer qualify as an emerging growth company, as long as we continue to qualify as a foreign private issuer under the Exchange Act, we will be exempt from certain provisions of the Exchange Act that are applicable to U.S. domestic public companies, including:

Both foreign private issuers and emerging growth companies are also exempt from certain more stringent executive compensation disclosure rules. Thus, even if we no longer qualify as an emerging growth company, but remain a foreign private issuer, we will continue to be exempt from the more stringent compensation disclosures required of companies that are neither an emerging growth company nor a foreign private issuer.

We would cease to be a foreign private issuer at such time as more than 50% of our outstanding voting securities are held by U.S. residents and any of the following three circumstances applies: (i) the majority of our executive officers or directors are U.S. citizens or residents, (ii) more than 50% of our assets are located in the United States or (iii) our business is administered principally in the United States.

In this prospectus, we have taken advantage of certain of the reduced reporting requirements as a result of being an emerging growth company and a foreign private issuer. Accordingly, the information contained herein may be different than the information you receive from other public companies in which you hold equity securities.

Unless otherwise stated, the number of ordinary shares to be outstanding after this offering is based on 25,140,048 ordinary shares outstanding as of March 31, 2019, and excludes:

Unless otherwise indicated, all information in this prospectus assumes that the underwriters do not exercise their option to purchase up to an additional 606,000 ordinary shares.

or grants. Even if we obtain regulatory approval to market one or more product candidates, our future revenue will depend upon the size of any markets in which such product candidates receive approval, and our ability to achieve sufficient market acceptance, pricing, reimbursement from third-party payors for such product candidates. Further, the net losses that we incur may fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter and year to year, such that a period-to-period comparison of our results of operations may not be a good indication of our future performance. We may also incur other unanticipated costs from our operations.

We will need to raise substantial additional funding, which may not be available on acceptable terms, or at all. Failure to obtain funding on acceptable terms and on a timely basis may require us to curtail, delay or discontinue our product development efforts or other operations.

Our audited consolidated financial statements for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2018 and our unaudited financial statements for the three months ended March 31, 2019, included elsewhere in this prospectus, note that there is substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern, absent sources of additional liquidity. In order to fund further operations, we will need to raise capital. We may seek these funds through a combination of private and public equity offerings, debt financings, government grants, strategic collaborations and licensing arrangements. Additional financing may not be available when we need it or may not be available on terms that are favorable to us. These conditions raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern, and we will be required to raise additional funds, seek alternative means of financial support, or both, in order to continue operations. The accompanying audited consolidated financial statements have been prepared assuming that we will continue as a going concern and do not include adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty. If we are unable to raise the requisite funds, we will need to curtail or cease operations.

Developing our product candidates is expensive, and we expect our research and development expenses to increase substantially in connection with our ongoing activities, particularly as we advance our product candidates through preclinical studies and clinical development in an effort to obtain regulatory approval. We are conducting a Phase 3 clinical trial of our lead product candidate, omidubicel, for the treatment of hematologic malignancies. We expect to report top-line data in the first half of 2020. Assuming positive results from the Phase 3 clinical trial, we plan to seek regulatory approval for omidubicel in the United States and the European Union, and we may seek such approvals in other geographies. We also plan to continue our Phase 1/2 investigator-sponsored clinical trial of omidubicel for the treatment of severe aplastic anemia and our Phase 1 investigator-sponsored clinical trial of our GDA-201 product candidate for the treatment of relapsed or refractory non-Hodgkin lymphoma, or NHL, and multiple myeloma, or MM. We also incur additional ongoing costs associated with operating as a public company.

As of March 31, 2019, we had cash and cash equivalents and available-for-sale financial assets of $50.3 million. We currently believe that our existing capital resources will be sufficient to meet our projected operating requirements through March 2020. We will require significant additional financing in the future to fund our operations. Our future funding requirements will depend on many factors, including, but not limited to:

Identifying potential product candidates and conducting preclinical testing and clinical trials is a time-consuming, expensive and uncertain process that takes years to complete, and we may never generate the necessary data or results required to obtain marketing approval and achieve product sales. In addition, our product candidates, if approved, may not achieve commercial success. Our product revenue, if any, will be derived from or based on sales of product candidates that may not be commercially available for many years, if at all. Accordingly, we will need to continue to rely on additional financing to achieve our business objectives. Any additional fundraising efforts may divert our management from their day-to-day activities, which may adversely affect our ability to develop and commercialize our product candidates.

We cannot guarantee that future financing will be available in sufficient amounts or on terms acceptable to us, if at all, and the terms of any financing may adversely affect the interests or rights of our shareholders. Even if we believe that we have sufficient funds for our current or future operating plans, we may seek additional capital if market conditions are favorable or if we have specific strategic considerations. The issuance of additional securities, whether equity or debt, by us, or the possibility of such issuance, may cause the market price of our shares to decline.

Raising additional capital may cause dilution to our shareholders, restrict our operations or require us to relinquish rights to our technologies or product candidates.

Until such time, if ever, as we can generate substantial product revenue, we expect to obtain additional capital through a combination of equity offerings, debt financings and collaborations and strategic 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 of such securities may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect your rights as a shareholder. Debt financing, if available, may involve covenants restricting our operations or our ability to incur additional debt. If we raise additional funds through collaboration and licensing arrangements with third parties, it may be necessary to relinquish certain rights to our technologies or our product candidates, or to grant licenses on terms that are not favorable to us.

If we are unable to obtain funding on acceptable terms and on a timely basis, we may be required to significantly curtail, delay or discontinue one or more of our research, development or manufacturing programs or the commercialization of any approved product, or be unable to expand our operations or otherwise capitalize on our business opportunities, as desired, which could materially affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We have never generated any revenue from product sales and may never be profitable.

We have no products approved for marketing in any jurisdiction, and we have never generated any revenue from product sales. Our ability to generate revenue and achieve profitability depends on our ability, alone or with strategic collaboration partners, to successfully complete the development of, and obtain the regulatory and marketing approvals necessary to commercialize one or more of our product candidates. We do not anticipate generating revenue from product sales for at least the next several years. Our ability to generate future revenue from product sales will depend heavily on our ability to:

Even if one or more of our product candidates is approved for marketing and sale, we anticipate incurring significant incremental costs associated with commercializing such product candidates. Our expenses could increase beyond expectations if we are required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or the FDA, the European Medicines Agency, or the EMA, or other regulatory agencies or ethical committees in medical centers, to change our manufacturing processes or assays or to perform clinical, nonclinical, or other types of studies in addition to those that we currently anticipate. Even if we are successful in obtaining regulatory approvals to market one or more of our product candidates, our revenue earned from such product candidates will be dependent in part upon the size of the markets in the territories for which we gain regulatory approval for such products, the accepted price for such products, our ability to obtain reimbursement for such products at any price, whether we own the commercial rights for that territory in which such products have been approved and the expenses associated with manufacturing and marketing such products for such markets. Therefore, we may not generate significant revenue from the sale of such products, even if approved. Further, if we are not able to generate significant revenue from the sale of our approved products, we may be forced to curtail or cease our operations. Due to the numerous risks and uncertainties involved in product development, it is difficult to predict the timing or amount of increased expenses, or when, or if, we will be able to achieve or maintain profitability.

Risks Related to the Discovery, Development and Clinical Testing of Our Product Candidates

We are heavily dependent on the success of our product candidates, including obtaining regulatory approval to market our product candidates in the United States, the European Union and other geographies.

To date, we have deployed all of our efforts and financial resources to: (i) research and develop our nicotinamide-based, or NAM-based, cell expansion technology, our lead product candidate, omidubicel, for the treatment of hematologic malignancies, and our other product candidates, including conducting preclinical and clinical studies and providing general and administrative support for these operations; and (ii) develop and secure our intellectual property portfolio for our product candidates. Our future success is dependent on our ability to successfully develop, obtain regulatory approval for and commercialize one or more of our current and future product candidates. Our product candidates’ marketability is subject to significant risks associated with successfully completing current and future clinical trials and commercializing our product candidates that receive regulatory approval, including:

Many of these clinical, regulatory and commercial risks are beyond our control. Accordingly, we cannot assure you that we will be able to advance any of our product candidates through clinical development, or to obtain regulatory approval of or commercialize any of our product candidates. If we fail to achieve these objectives or overcome the challenges presented above, we could experience significant delays or an inability to successfully commercialize our product candidates. Accordingly, we may not be able to generate sufficient revenue through the sale of our product candidates to enable us to continue our business.

We may be unable to obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates.

The research, development, testing, manufacturing, labeling, packaging, approval, promotion, advertising, storage, recordkeeping, marketing, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting and export and import of drug products are subject to extensive regulation by the FDA, the EMA and by regulatory authorities in other countries. These regulations differ from country to country. To gain approval to market our product candidates, we must provide data from well-controlled clinical trials that adequately demonstrate the safety and efficacy of the product for the intended indication to the satisfaction of the FDA, EMA or other regulatory authority. We have not yet obtained regulatory approval to market any of our product candidates in the United States or any other country. The FDA, EMA or other regulatory agencies can delay, limit or deny approval of our product candidates for many reasons, including:

In the United States, we will be required to submit a BLA, to obtain FDA approval before marketing any of our product candidates. A BLA must include extensive preclinical and clinical data and supporting information to establish the product candidate’s safety, purity and potency, or efficacy, for each desired indication. The BLA must also include significant information regarding the chemistry, manufacturing and controls for the product. The FDA may further inspect our manufacturing facilities to ensure that they can manufacture our product candidates and our products, if and when approved, in compliance with the applicable regulatory requirements, as well as inspect our clinical trial sites to ensure that our studies are properly conducted. Obtaining approval of a BLA is a lengthy, expensive and uncertain process, and approval may not be obtained. Upon submission of a BLA, the FDA must make an initial determination that the application is sufficiently complete to accept the submission for filing. We cannot be certain that any submissions will be accepted for filing and review by the FDA, or ultimately be approved. If the application is not accepted for review or approval, the FDA may require that we conduct additional clinical or preclinical trials, or take other actions before it will reconsider our application. If the FDA requires additional studies or data, we would incur increased costs and delays in the marketing approval process, which may require us to expend more resources than we have available. In addition, the FDA may not consider any additional information to be complete or sufficient to support approval.

Regulatory authorities outside of the United States, such as in the European Union, also have requirements for approval of biologics for commercial sale with which we must comply prior to marketing in those areas. Regulatory requirements can vary widely from country to country and could delay or prevent the introduction of our product candidates. Clinical trials conducted in one country may not be accepted by regulatory authorities in other countries, and obtaining regulatory approval in one country does not mean that regulatory approval will be obtained in any other country. However, the failure to obtain regulatory approval in one jurisdiction could have a negative impact on our ability to obtain approval in a different jurisdiction. Approval processes vary among countries and can involve additional product candidate testing and validation and additional administrative review periods. Seeking additional regulatory approvals outside the United States and European Union could require additional non-clinical studies or clinical trials, which could be costly and time consuming. These regulatory approvals may include all of the risks associated with obtaining FDA or EMA approval. For all of these reasons, if we seek such regulatory approvals for any of our other product candidates, we may not obtain such approvals on a timely basis, if at all.

Even if we eventually complete clinical testing and receive approval of any regulatory filing for our product candidates, the FDA may grant approval contingent on the performance of costly and potentially time-consuming additional post-approval clinical trials or subject to contraindications, black box warnings, restrictive surveillance or a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS. Further, the FDA, EMA or other regulatory authorities may also approve our product candidates for a more limited indication or a narrower patient population than we originally requested, and these regulatory authorities may not approve the labeling that we believe is necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of our product candidates. Following any approval for commercial sale of our product candidates, certain changes to the product, such as changes in manufacturing processes and additional labeling claims, as well as new safety information, will be subject to additional FDA notification, or review and approval. Also, regulatory approval for any of our product candidates may be withdrawn. To the extent we seek regulatory approval in jurisdictions outside of the United States and European Union, we may face challenges similar to those described above with regulatory authorities in applicable jurisdictions.

Any delay in obtaining, or inability to obtain, applicable regulatory approval for any of our product candidates would delay or prevent commercialization of our product candidates and would thus negatively impact our business, results of operations and prospects.

Clinical development is difficult to design and implement and involves a lengthy and expensive process with uncertain outcomes.

Clinical testing is expensive and can take many years to complete, and its outcome is inherently uncertain. Bone marrow transplant and cell-based therapies that appear promising in the early phases of development may fail to reach the market. Further, a failure of one or more of our clinical trials can occur at any time during the clinical trial process. We do not know whether future clinical trials, if any, will begin on time, need to be redesigned, enroll an adequate number of patients on time or be completed on schedule, if at all. Clinical trials can be delayed, suspended or terminated for a variety of reasons, including failure to:

We may also experience numerous unforeseen events during, or as a result of, clinical trials that could delay or prevent our ability to receive marketing approval or commercialize our product candidates, including:

We may also encounter delays if a clinical trial is suspended or terminated by us, by the IRBs of the institutions in which such trials are being conducted, by the trial’s data safety monitoring board, by the FDA, EMA or other regulatory agencies. Such authorities may suspend or terminate one or more of our clinical trials due to a number of factors, including our failure to conduct the clinical trial in accordance with relevant regulatory requirements or clinical protocols, inspection of the clinical trial operations or trial site by the FDA, EMA or other regulatory agencies resulting in the imposition of a clinical hold, unforeseen safety issues or adverse side effects, failure to demonstrate a benefit from using a drug, changes in governmental regulations or administrative actions or lack of adequate funding to continue the clinical trial. In particular, while we currently expect to report top-line data in the first half of 2020 for our Phase 3 clinical trial comparing transplantation with omidubicel versus standard cord blood, no assurance can be given that we will be able to maintain that timing.

Further, conducting clinical trials in countries outside of the United States and European Union, as we plan to do for our product candidates, presents additional risks that may delay completion of our clinical trials. These risks include the failure of enrolled patients in foreign countries to adhere to clinical protocol as a result of differences in healthcare services or cultural customs, managing additional administrative burdens associated with jurisdiction-specific regulatory schemes, as well as political and economic risks relevant to such jurisdictions.

If we experience delays in carrying out or completing any clinical trial of our product candidates, the commercial prospects of our product candidates may be harmed, and our ability to generate product revenue from any of these product candidates will be delayed. In addition, any delays in completing our clinical trials will increase our costs, slow down our product candidate development and approval process and jeopardize our ability to commence product sales and generate revenue. Any of these occurrences may significantly harm our business and financial condition. In addition, many of the factors that cause, or lead to, a delay in the commencement or completion of clinical trials may also ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval of our product candidates.

The results of earlier studies and trials may not be predictive of future trial results, and our clinical trials may fail to adequately demonstrate the safety and efficacy of our product candidates.

Results from preclinical studies or early stage clinical trials are not necessarily predictive of future clinical trial results, and interim results of a clinical trial are not necessarily indicative of final results. For example, based on the results of our Phase 1/2 clinical trials of omidubicel for the treatment of hematologic malignancies, we received Breakthrough Therapy Designation for omidubicel in the United States from the FDA, and we are conducting the Phase 3 clinical trial with the same eligibility criteria and endpoints as our Phase 1/2 trials to confirm the superiority of omidubicel over standard umbilical cord blood. However, our Phase 3 clinical trial may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy in clinical development despite positive results in preclinical and early clinical studies. This failure would cause us to abandon further development of omidubicel in this indication, which is currently our most advanced product candidate.

There is a high failure rate for product candidates proceeding through clinical trials. Many companies in the pharmaceutical industry have suffered significant setbacks in late-stage clinical trials even after achieving promising results in preclinical testing and earlier-stage clinical trials. Data obtained from preclinical and clinical activities are subject to varying interpretations, including conclusions about relapse rates in connection with use of omidubicel or other product candidates that are based on small sample sizes of data, which may delay, limit or prevent regulatory approval. In addition, we may experience regulatory delays or rejections as a result of many factors, including due to changes in regulatory policy during the period of our product candidate development. Success in preclinical testing and early clinical trials does not ensure that later clinical trials will generate the same results or otherwise provide adequate data to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of a product candidate. Frequently, product candidates that have shown promising results in early clinical trials have subsequently suffered significant setbacks in later clinical trials.

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

From time to time, we may publish interim, “top-line” or preliminary data from our clinical studies. Interim data from clinical trials that we may complete are subject to the risk that one or more of the clinical outcomes may materially change as patient enrollment continues and more patient data become available. Preliminary or “top-line” data also remain subject to audit and verification procedures that may result in the final data being materially different from the preliminary data we previously published. In addition, successful results in one or a few patients may not be indicative of the final results after completion of treatment of all patients in a clinical trial. As a result, interim and preliminary data should be viewed with caution until the final data are available. Adverse changes between preliminary or interim data and final data could significantly harm our business prospects.

The success of our NAM-based platform and our product candidates is substantially dependent on developments within the emerging field of cellular therapies, some of which are beyond our control.

Our NAM-based cell expansion technology and our product candidates are designed to increase the therapeutic functionality of cell therapy products, which represents a novel development within the field of cellular therapeutics. Stem cell therapies in turn represent a relatively new therapeutic area that presents a number of scientific, clinical, regulatory and ethical challenges. Any adverse developments in the field of stem cell therapies generally, and in the practice of hematopoietic stem cell transplant in particular, will negatively impact our ability to develop and commercialize our product candidates. In particular, we currently anticipate that omidubicel and any additional product candidates that we develop from our NAM-based cell expansion technology would be adopted into the current standard of care for HSCT procedures. If the market for HSCT procedures declines or fails to grow at anticipated levels for any reason, or if the development and commercialization of therapies targeted at the underlying cause of diseases addressed by omidubicel obviate the need for patients to undergo HSCT procedures, our business prospects will be significantly harmed.

Because our product candidates are based on novel technologies, it is difficult to predict the time and cost of development and our ability to successfully complete clinical development of these product candidates and obtain the necessary regulatory approvals for commercialization.

Our product candidates are based on our novel NAM-based cell expansion technology, and unexpected problems related to this new technology may arise that can cause us to delay, suspend or terminate our development efforts. Regulatory approval of novel product candidates such as ours can be more expensive and take longer than for other more well-known or extensively studied pharmaceutical or biopharmaceutical product candidates due to our and regulatory agencies’ lack of experience with them. Stem cell therapies represent a relatively new therapeutic area, and the FDA has cautioned consumers about potential safety risks associated with these therapies. To date, there are relatively few approved stem cell products.

Regulatory requirements governing cell therapy products have changed frequently and may continue to change in the future. For example, the FDA established 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. In addition, adverse developments in clinical trials of potential stem cell therapies conducted by others may cause the FDA or other regulatory bodies to change the requirements for approval of any of our product candidates. These regulatory authorities and advisory groups and the new requirements or guidelines they promulgate 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. As we advance our product candidates, we will be required to consult with the FDA and other regulatory authorities, and our products will likely be reviewed by the FDA’s advisory committee. We also must comply with applicable requirements, and if we fail to do so, we may be required to delay or discontinue development of our product candidates. Delay or failure to obtain, or unexpected costs in obtaining, the regulatory approval necessary to bring a potential product to market could impair our ability to generate sufficient product revenue to maintain our business.

As an organization, we have never completed pivotal clinical trials, and we may be unable to do so for any product candidates we may develop, including completing our pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial for omidubicel .

We will need to successfully complete pivotal clinical trials in order to obtain the approval of the FDA, EMA or other regulatory agencies to market omidubicel or any of our other product candidates. Carrying out later-stage clinical trials and the submission of a successful BLA is a complicated process. As an organization, we have not previously completed any later stage or pivotal clinical trials and have limited experience in preparing, submitting and prosecuting regulatory filings. Consequently, we may be unable to successfully and efficiently execute and complete necessary clinical trials in a way that leads to BLA submission and approval of omidubicel. We may require more time and incur greater costs than our competitors and may not succeed in obtaining regulatory approvals of product candidates that we develop. Failure to commence or complete, or delays in, our planned clinical trials, could prevent us from or delay us in commercializing omidubicel.

We may find it difficult to enroll patients in our clinical studies, which could delay or prevent us from proceeding with clinical trials.

Identifying and qualifying patients to participate in clinical studies of our product candidates is critical to our success. The timing of our clinical trials depends in part on the speed at which we can recruit patients to participate in testing our product candidates, and we may experience delays in our clinical trials if we encounter difficulties in enrollment. Patient enrollment and retention in clinical trials depends on many factors, including the size of the patient population, the nature of the trial protocol, our ability to recruit clinical trial investigators with the appropriate competencies and experience, the existing body of safety and efficacy data with respect to the study drug, the number and nature of competing treatments and ongoing clinical trials of competing drugs for the same indication, the proximity of patients to clinical sites, clinicians’ and patients’ perceptions as to the potential advantages of the product candidate being studied in relation to other available therapies, including any drugs that may be approved for the

indications we are investigating, the eligibility criteria for the study, our ability to obtain and maintain patient consents and the risk that patients enrolled in clinical trials will drop out of the trials before completion. For example, patients may prefer to undergo treatment with stem cell transplantation with cells sourced from matched related donors, matched unrelated donors or haploidentical donors, as opposed to being treated with omidubicel, which would adversely affect the enrollment of our clinical trials.

We may not be able to identify, recruit and enroll a sufficient number of patients to complete our clinical studies because of the perceived risks and benefits of the product candidate under study, the availability and efficacy of competing therapies and clinical studies, the proximity and availability of clinical study sites for prospective patients and the patient referral practices of physicians. If patients are unwilling to participate in our studies for any reason, the timeline for recruiting patients, conducting studies, and obtaining regulatory approval of potential products will be delayed.

Our product candidates and the administration process may cause undesirable side effects or have other properties that could delay or prevent their regulatory approval, limit the commercial profile of an approved label or result in significant negative consequences following marketing approval, if any, and result in costly and damaging product liability claims against us.

Undesirable side effects, including toxicology, caused by our product candidates, or the drugs encapsulated by our product candidates, could cause us or regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay or halt clinical studies and could result in a more restrictive label or the delay or denial of regulatory approval by the FDA, EMA or other regulatory agencies. Results of our studies could reveal a high and unacceptable severity and prevalence of these or other side effects. In such an event, our clinical studies could be suspended or terminated, and the FDA, EMA or other regulatory agencies could order us to cease further development of or deny or withdraw approval of our product candidates for any or all targeted indications. Moreover, during the conduct of clinical trials, patients report changes in their health, including illnesses, injuries and discomforts, to their study doctor. Often, it is not possible to determine whether or not the product candidate being studied caused these conditions.

Drug-related, drug-product related, formulation-related and administration-related side effects could affect patient recruitment, the ability of enrolled patients to complete the clinical study or result in potential product liability claims, which could exceed our clinical trial insurance coverage. We are in the process of obtaining clinical trial insurance policies with respect to all our clinical studies. The insurance policies are in accordance with the local regulations applicable in the jurisdictions where the studies are performed outside of clinical trials.

Further, patients with the diseases targeted by our product candidates are often already in severe and advanced stages of disease and have both known and unknown significant pre-existing and potentially life-threatening health risks. Infusion reactions have also been reported in approximately 3% of patients treated with omidubicel. Additional serious adverse events reported as related to omidubicel, which each occurred in 3% of patients, included elevated liver enzymes, hypertension, and low platelets. During the course of treatment, patients may suffer adverse events, including death, for reasons that may be related to our product candidates. In our Phase 1/2 clinical trial of omidubicel for the treatment of sickle cell disease, or SCD, which is a chronic illness, two of the patients died: one due to chronic graft versus host disease, or GvHD, and the other due to secondary graft failure. In our Phase 1/2 trial of omidubicel for the treatment of hematologic malignancies, approximately 10% of patients who received omidubicel experienced serious GvHD. In our Phase 1 clinical trial of GDA-201, adverse events included one patient who died of E. coli sepsis. There was also a low level of sporadic engraftment failures. Such events could subject us to costly litigation, require us to pay substantial amounts of money to injured patients, delay, negatively impact or end our opportunity to receive or maintain regulatory approval to market our products, or require us to suspend or abandon our commercialization efforts.

Even in a circumstance in which we do not believe that an adverse event is related to our products, the investigation into the circumstance may be time-consuming or inconclusive. For instance, allogeneic bone marrow transplant, the area in which omidubicel is being used, is associated with serious complications, including death. In addition, there are expected toxicities for patients who receive an allogeneic bone marrow transplant, such as infertility. Thus, while not directly associated with omidubicel, there are attendant risks with the space in which our product candidates operate, and any related

investigations may interrupt our development and commercialization efforts, delay our regulatory approval process, or impact and limit the type of regulatory approvals our product candidates receive or maintain. As a result of these factors, a product liability claim, even if successfully defended, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Additionally, if one or more of our product candidates receives marketing approval, and we or others later identify undesirable side effects caused by such products, a number of potentially significant negative consequences could result, including, but not limited to:

Any of these events could prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of the particular product candidate, if approved, and could significantly harm our business, results of operations and prospects.

Risks Related to Government Regulation

Even if we complete the necessary clinical trials, we cannot predict when, or if, we will obtain regulatory approval to commercialize any of our product candidates, and the approval may be for a more narrow indication than we seek or be subject to other limitations or restrictions that limit its commercial profile.

We cannot commercialize a product candidate until the appropriate regulatory authorities have reviewed and approved the product candidate. Even if our current or future product candidates meet safety and efficacy endpoints in clinical trials, the regulatory authorities may not complete their review processes in a timely manner, or we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval. Additional delays may result if an FDA Advisory Committee or other regulatory authority recommends non-approval or restrictions on approval. In addition, we may experience delays or rejections based upon additional government regulation from future legislation or administrative action, or changes in regulatory authority policy during the period of product development, clinical trials and the review process.

Regulatory authorities also may approve a product candidate for more limited indications than requested or they may impose significant limitations in the form of warnings or a REMS. These regulatory authorities may require precautions or contra-indications with respect to conditions of use or they may grant approval subject to the performance of costly post-marketing clinical trials. In addition, regulatory authorities may not approve the labeling claims that are necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of any of our product candidates. Any of the foregoing scenarios could materially harm the commercial prospects for our product candidates and materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Even if we obtain regulatory approval for a product candidate, our products will remain subject to regulatory scrutiny.

If one of our product candidates is approved, it will be subject to ongoing regulatory requirements for manufacturing, labeling, packaging, storage, advertising, promotion, sampling, record-keeping, conduct of

post-marketing studies, and submission of safety, efficacy, and other post- market information, including both federal and state requirements in the United States and European Union and requirements of comparable regulatory authorities.

Manufacturers and manufacturers’ facilities are required to comply with extensive FDA, EMA and the requirements of additional regulatory authorities, including ensuring that quality control and manufacturing procedures conform to cGMP regulations. 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 approved marketing application. 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.

We will have to comply with requirements concerning advertising and promotion for our products. Promotional communications with respect to prescription drugs and biologics are subject to a variety of legal and regulatory restrictions and must be consistent with the information in the product’s approved label. As such, we may not promote our products “off-label” for indications or uses for which they do not have approval. The holder of an approved application must submit new or supplemental applications and obtain approval for certain changes to the approved product, product labeling, or manufacturing process. We could also be asked to conduct post-marketing clinical studies to verify the safety and efficacy of our products in general or in specific patient subsets. An unsuccessful post- marketing study or failure to complete such a study could result in the withdrawal of marketing approval.

If a regulatory agency discovers previously unknown problems with a product, such as adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or problems with the facility where the product is manufactured, or disagrees with the promotion, marketing or labeling of a product, such regulatory agency may impose restrictions on that product or us, including requiring withdrawal of the product from the market. If we fail to comply with applicable regulatory requirements, a regulatory agency or enforcement authority may, among other things:

Any government investigation of alleged violations of law could require us to expend significant time and resources in response and could generate negative publicity. Any failure to comply with ongoing regulatory requirements may significantly and adversely affect our ability to commercialize and generate revenue from our products. If regulatory sanctions are applied or if regulatory approval is withdrawn, the value of our company and our operating results will be adversely affected.

Moreover, the policies of the FDA and of other regulatory authorities 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, either in the United States or abroad. For example, certain policies of the Trump administration may impact our business and industry. Namely, the Trump 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. In addition, 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.

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

We have obtained Breakthrough Therapy Designation for omidubicel for the treatment of hematologic malignancies and may receive it in the future if the clinical data support such a designation for one or more of our other product candidates. A breakthrough therapy is defined as a drug or biologic that is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs or biologics, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug, or biologic, may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. For product candidates that have been designated as breakthrough therapies, interaction and communication between the FDA and the sponsor of the trial can help to identify the most efficient path for clinical development while minimizing the number of patients placed in ineffective control regimens. Biologics designated as breakthrough therapies by the FDA may also be eligible for accelerated approval.

Designation as a breakthrough therapy is within the discretion of the FDA. Accordingly, even if we believe one of our current or future product candidates meets the criteria for designation as a breakthrough therapy, the FDA may disagree and instead determine not to make such designation. In any event, the receipt of a Breakthrough Therapy Designation for omidubicel for the treatment of hematologic malignancies may not result in a faster development process, review or approval compared to drugs considered for approval under non-expedited FDA review procedures and does not assure ultimate approval by the FDA. In addition, the FDA may later decide that the product no longer meets the conditions for qualification.

We may be unable to maintain the benefits associated with orphan drug designations that we have obtained, including market exclusivity, which may cause our revenue, if any, to be reduced.

We have obtained orphan drug designation for omidubicel from the FDA and the EMA for the treatment of hematologic malignancies, and we may pursue orphan drug designation for certain of our future product candidates. Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may designate a drug or biologic product as an orphan drug if it is intended to treat a rare disease or condition, defined as a patient population of fewer than 200,000 in the United States, or a patient population greater than 200,000 in the United States where there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing the drug will be recovered from sales in the United States. In the European Union, the EMA’s Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products, or COMP, grants orphan drug designation to promote the development of products that are intended for the diagnosis, prevention, or treatment of a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition affecting not more than five in 10,000 persons in the European Union. Additionally, designation is granted for products intended for the diagnosis, prevention, or treatment of a life-threatening, seriously debilitating or serious and chronic condition when, without incentives, it is unlikely that sales of the drug in the European Union would be sufficient to justify the necessary investment in developing the drug or biological product or where there is no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention, or treatment, or, if such a method exists, the medicine must be of significant benefit to those affected by the condition.

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 application fee waivers. In addition, if a product receives the first FDA approval for the indication for which it has orphan designation, the product is entitled to orphan drug exclusivity, which means the FDA may not approve any other application to market the same drug for the same indication for a period of seven years, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority over the product with orphan exclusivity or where the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient product quantity the orphan patient population. In the European Union, orphan drug designation entitles a party to financial incentives such as reduction of fees or fee waivers and ten years of market exclusivity following drug or biological product approval. This

period may be reduced to six years if the orphan drug designation criteria are no longer met, including where it is shown that the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify maintenance of market exclusivity.

Even though we have obtained orphan drug designation for omidubicel from the FDA and the EMA for the treatment of hematologic malignancies, we may not be the first to obtain marketing approval for such indication due to the uncertainties associated with developing pharmaceutical products. Further, orphan drug exclusivity may not effectively protect the product candidate from competition because different drugs with different active moieties can be approved for the same condition. Even after an orphan drug is approved, the FDA or EMA can subsequently approve the same drug with the same active moiety for the same condition if the FDA or EMA concludes that the later drug is clinically superior in that it is safer, more effective, or makes a major contribution to patient care. Orphan drug designation neither shortens the development time or regulatory review time of a drug or biologic nor gives the drug or biologic any advantage in the regulatory review or approval process.

Enacted and future healthcare legislation may increase the difficulty and cost for us to obtain marketing approval of and commercialize our product candidates and may affect the prices we may set.

In the United States, the European Union and other jurisdictions, there have been, and we expect there will continue to be, a number of legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes to the healthcare system that could affect our future results of operations. In particular, there have been and continue to be a number of initiatives at the U.S. federal and state levels that seek to reduce healthcare costs and improve the quality of healthcare. For example, in March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, or collectively the ACA, was enacted, which substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private payors. Among the provisions of the ACA, those of greatest importance to the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries include the following:

Since its enactment, there have been judicial and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA, and we expect there will be additional challenges and amendments to the ACA in the future. For example, tax legislation enacted on December 22, 2017, titled “an Act to provide for reconciliation pursuant to titles II and V of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2018,” or the Tax Act, includes a provision repealing, effective January 1, 2019, the tax-based shared responsibility payment imposed by the ACA on certain individuals who fail to maintain qualifying health coverage for all or part of a year that is commonly referred to as the “individual mandate”. On January 22, 2018, President Trump

signed a continuing resolution on appropriations for fiscal year 2018 that delayed the implementation of certain ACA-mandated fees, including the so-called “Cadillac” tax on certain high cost employer-sponsored insurance plans, the annual fee imposed on certain health insurance providers based on market share, and the medical device excise tax on non-exempt medical devices. The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, or the BBA, among other things, amended the ACA, effective January 1, 2019, to close the coverage gap in most Medicare drug plans, commonly referred to as the “donut hole.” On December 14, 2018, a Texas U.S. District Court Judge ruled that the ACA is unconstitutional in its entirety because the “individual mandate” was repealed by Congress as part of the Tax Act. While the Texas U.S. District Court Judge, as well as the Trump administration and CMS, have stated that the ruling will have no immediate effect pending appeal of the decision, it is unclear how this decision, subsequent appeals, and other efforts to repeal and replace the ACA will impact the ACA or our business or financial condition.

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA was enacted. In August 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, led to aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year. These reductions went into effect in April 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, will remain in effect through 2027 unless additional action is taken by Congress. 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 cancer 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 or any other similar laws introduced in the future may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other health care funding, which could negatively affect our customers and accordingly, our financial operations.

Moreover, payment methodologies are subject to changes in healthcare legislation and regulatory initiatives. For example, CMS has developed value-based payment models for a variety of care settings, including the inpatient prospective payment system used for reimbursing inpatient hospital services. In addition, recently there has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several U.S. Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, reduce the cost of prescription drugs under government payor programs, and review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs. The Trump administration’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2019 contains further drug price control measures that could be enacted during the 2019 budget process 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. Additionally, on May 11, 2018, President Trump laid out his administration’s “Blueprint” to reduce the cost of prescription drugs while preserving innovation and cures. The Department of Health and Human Services, or 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 September 2018, CMS announced that it will allow Medicare Advantage Plans the option to use step therapy for Part B drugs beginning January 1, 2019, and CMS issued a final rule, effective on July 9, 2019 that requires direct-to-consumer television advertisements of prescription drugs and biological products, for which payment is available through or under Medicare or Medicaid, to include in the advertisement the Wholesale Acquisition Cost, or list price, of that drug or biological product if it is equal to or greater than $35 for a monthly supply or usual course of treatment. Prescription drugs and biological products that are in violation of these requirements will be included on a public list. Congress and the Trump administration have each indicated that it will continue to seek new legislative and/or administrative measures to control drug costs. We expect that additional U.S. federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that the U.S. federal government will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand for our product candidates or additional pricing pressures.

Individual states in the United States have also increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost

disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. Legally mandated price controls on payment amounts by third- party payors or other restrictions could harm our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects. In addition, regional healthcare authorities and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and which suppliers will be included in their prescription drug and other healthcare programs. This could reduce the ultimate demand for our product candidates or put pressure on our product pricing.

In the European Union, similar political, economic and regulatory developments may affect our ability to profitably commercialize our product candidates, if approved. In addition to continuing pressure on prices and cost containment measures, legislative developments at the European Union or member state level may result in significant additional requirements or obstacles that may increase our operating costs. The delivery of healthcare in the European Union, including the establishment and operation of health services and the pricing and reimbursement of medicines, is almost exclusively a matter for national, rather than European Union, law and policy. National governments and health service providers have different priorities and approaches to the delivery of health care and the pricing and reimbursement of products in that context. In general, however, the healthcare budgetary constraints in most European Union member states have resulted in restrictions on the pricing and reimbursement of medicines by relevant health service providers. Coupled with ever-increasing European Union and national regulatory burdens on those wishing to develop and market products, this could prevent or delay marketing approval of our product candidates, restrict or regulate post- approval activities and affect our ability to commercialize our product candidates, if approved. In markets outside of the United States and European Union, reimbursement and healthcare payment systems vary significantly by country, and many countries have instituted price ceilings on specific products and therapies.

We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action in the United States, the European Union or any other jurisdiction. If we or any third parties we may engage are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we or such third parties are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, our product candidates may lose any regulatory approval that may have been obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability.

Our business operations and current and future relationships with investigators, healthcare professionals, consultants, third-party payors, patient organizations and customers will be subject to applicable healthcare regulatory laws, which could expose us to penalties.

Our business operations and current and future arrangements with investigators, healthcare professionals, consultants, third-party payors, patient organizations and customers, may expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse, privacy and security and other healthcare laws and regulations. These laws may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we conduct our operations, including how we research, market, sell and distribute our product candidates, if approved. Such laws include:

manufacturers can cause false claims to be presented to the U.S. federal government by engaging in impermissible marketing practices, such as the off-label promotion of a product for an indication for which it has not received FDA approval. In addition, the government may assert that a claim including items and services resulting from a violation of the U.S. federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the civil False Claims Act;

Ensuring that our internal operations and future business arrangements with third parties comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations will involve substantial costs. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices do not comply with current or future statutes, regulations, agency guidance or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of the laws described above or any other governmental laws and regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant penalties, including civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, exclusion from government-funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid or similar programs in other countries or jurisdictions, integrity oversight and reporting obligations to resolve allegations of non-compliance, disgorgement, imprisonment, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations. If any of the physicians or other providers or entities with whom we expect to do business are found to not be in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government funded healthcare programs and imprisonment, which could affect our ability to operate our business. Further, defending against any such actions can be costly, time-consuming and may require significant personnel resources. Therefore, even if we are successful in defending against any such actions that may be brought against us, our business may be impaired.

Legislative or regulatory healthcare reforms in the United States may make it more difficult and costly for us to obtain regulatory clearance or approval of our product candidates and to produce, market and distribute our products after clearance or approval is obtained.

From time to time, legislation is drafted and introduced in Congress that could significantly change the statutory provisions governing the regulatory clearance or approval, manufacture and marketing of regulated products or the reimbursement thereof. In addition, FDA regulations and guidance are often revised or reinterpreted by the FDA in ways that may significantly affect our business and our products. Any new regulations or revisions or reinterpretations of existing regulations may impose additional costs or lengthen review times of our product candidates. We cannot determine what effect changes in regulations, statutes, legal interpretation or policies, when and if promulgated, enacted or adopted may have on our business in the future. Such changes could, among other things, require:

We face competition from other biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, and our operating results will suffer if we fail to compete effectively.

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are intensely competitive and subject to rapid and significant technological change. We face competition from major multinational pharmaceutical companies, established and early-stage biotechnology companies, and universities and other research institutions. Many of our competitors have greater financial and other resources, such as larger research and development staff and more experienced marketing and manufacturing organizations. Large pharmaceutical companies, in particular, have extensive experience in clinical testing, obtaining regulatory approvals, recruiting patients and manufacturing pharmaceutical products. These companies also have significantly greater research, sales and marketing capabilities and collaborative arrangements in our target markets with leading companies and research institutions. Established pharmaceutical companies may also invest heavily to accelerate discovery and development of novel therapeutics or to in-license novel therapeutics that could make the product candidates that we develop obsolete. As a result of all of these factors, our competitors may succeed in obtaining patent protection or FDA approval or discovering, developing and commercializing treatments in the rare disease indications that we are

targeting before we do. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large, established companies.

Doctors may recommend that patients undergo stem cell transplantation using cells from matched related donors, matched unrelated donors, haploidentical donors or unmodified umbilical cord blood instead of using omidubicel or our other NAM-derived product candidates. In addition, there are several clinical-stage development programs that seek to improve umbilical cord blood transplantation through the use of ex vivo expansion technologies to increase the quantity of hematopoietic stem cells for use in HSCT or the use of ex vivo differentiation technologies to increase the quantity of hematopoietic progenitor cells for use in HSCT. We are aware of several other companies with product candidates in various stages of development for allogeneic HSCT grafts, including Magenta Therapeutics, Inc., Kiadis Pharma NV, Excellthera and Bellicum Pharmaceuticals Inc., and for NK cells, including AbbVie Inc., Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, Fate Therapeutics, Inc. and Ziopharm Oncology, Inc. In addition, many universities and private and public research institutes may develop technologies of interest to us but license them to our competitors. Our competitors may succeed in developing, acquiring or licensing on an exclusive basis, technologies and drug products that are more effective or less costly than omidubicel or any other product candidates that we are currently developing or that we may develop, which could render our products obsolete and noncompetitive.

We believe that our ability to successfully compete will depend on, among other things:

If our competitors market products that are more effective, safer or less expensive than our future products, if any, or that reach the market sooner than our future products, if any, we may not achieve commercial success. Any inability to successfully compete effectively will adversely impact our business and financial prospects.

Even if we obtain and maintain approval for omidubicel or our other product candidates from the FDA, we may never obtain approval outside of the United States, which would limit our market opportunities and adversely affect our business.

Approval of a product candidate in the United States by the FDA does not ensure approval of such product candidate by regulatory authorities in other countries or jurisdictions, and approval by non-U.S. regulatory authority does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries or by the FDA.

However, the failure to obtain approval from the FDA or other regulatory authorities may negatively impact our ability to obtain approval in non-U.S. countries. Sales of omidubicel or our other product candidates outside of the United States will be subject to the regulatory requirements of other jurisdictions governing clinical trials and marketing approval. Even if the FDA grants marketing approval for a product candidate, comparable regulatory authorities in other countries also must approve the manufacturing and marketing of the product candidate in those countries. Approval procedures vary among jurisdictions and can involve requirements and administrative review periods different from, and more onerous than, those in the United States, including additional preclinical studies or clinical trials. In many countries outside the United States, a product candidate must be approved for reimbursement before it can be approved for sale in that country. In some cases, the price that we intend to charge for our product candidates, if approved, is also subject to approval.

We intend to submit a marketing authorization application to the EMA for approval of omidubicel in the European Union, but obtaining such approval from the European Commission following the opinion of the EMA is a lengthy and expensive process. Even if a product candidate is approved, the applicable regulatory agency may limit the indications for which the product may be marketed, require extensive warnings on the product labeling or require expensive and time-consuming additional clinical trials or reporting as conditions of approval. Regulatory authorities in countries outside of the United States and the European Union also have requirements for approval of product candidates with which we must comply prior to marketing in those countries. Obtaining non-U.S. regulatory approvals and compliance with non-U.S. regulatory requirements could result in significant delays, difficulties and costs for us and could delay or prevent the introduction of our product candidates in certain countries.

Further, clinical trials conducted in one country may not be accepted by regulatory authorities in other countries. Also, regulatory approval for a product candidate may be withdrawn. If we fail to comply with the regulatory requirements, our target market will be reduced and our ability to realize the full market potential omidubicel or our other product candidates will be harmed and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects will be adversely affected.

The misuse or off-label use of our products may harm our reputation in the marketplace, result in injuries that lead to product liability suits or result in costly investigations, fines or sanctions by regulatory bodies if we are deemed to have engaged in the promotion of these uses, any of which could be costly to our business.

We initially intend to seek marketing approval for omidubicel for the treatment of hematologic malignancies. We will train our marketing and sales personnel to not promote our products, if approved, for any other uses outside of any FDA-cleared indications for use, known as “off-label uses.” We cannot, however, prevent a physician from using our products off-label, when in the physician’s independent professional medical judgment he or she deems it appropriate. As a result, there may be increased risk of injury to patients if physicians attempt to use our products for these uses for which they are not approved. Furthermore, the use of our products for indications other than those approved by the FDA or any non-U.S. regulatory body may not effectively treat such conditions, which could harm our reputation in the marketplace among physicians and patients.

If the FDA, EMA or any other regulatory body in a jurisdiction in which we operate determines that our promotional materials or training constitute promotion of an off-label use, it could request that we modify our training or promotional materials or subject us to regulatory or enforcement actions, including the issuance or imposition of an untitled letter, which is used for violators that do not necessitate a warning letter, injunction, seizure, civil fine or criminal penalties. It is also possible that other federal, state or non-U.S. enforcement authorities might take action under other regulatory authority, such as false claims laws, if they consider our business activities to constitute promotion of an off-label use, which could result in significant penalties, including, but not limited to, criminal, civil and administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, exclusion from participation in government healthcare programs and the curtailment of our operations.

European data collection is governed by restrictive regulations governing the use, processing, and cross-border transfer of personal information.

The collection and use of personal health data in the European Union is governed by the provisions of the General Data Protection Regulation ((EU) 2016/679), or GDPR. This legislation imposes requirements relating to having legal bases for processing personal information relating to identifiable individuals and transferring such information outside the European Economic Area including to the United States, providing details to those individuals regarding the processing of their personal information, keeping personal information secure, having data processing agreements with third parties who process personal information, responding to individuals’ requests to exercise their rights in respect of their personal information, reporting security breaches involving personal data to the competent national data protection authority and affected individuals, appointing data protection officers, conducting data protection impact assessments and record-keeping. The GDPR imposes additional responsibilities and liabilities in relation to personal data that we process and we may be required to put in place additional mechanisms ensuring compliance with the new data protection rules. Failure to comply with the requirements of the GDPR and related national data protection laws of the member states of the European Union may result in substantial fines, other administrative penalties and civil claims being brought against us, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Risks Related to our Reliance on Third Parties

We rely on third parties to conduct certain elements of our preclinical studies and clinical trials and perform other tasks for us. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties, meet expected deadlines or comply with regulatory requirements, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for or commercialize our product candidates.

We have relied upon, and plan to continue to rely upon, third-party vendors, including CROs, to monitor and manage data for our ongoing preclinical studies and clinical trials. We rely on these parties for execution of our preclinical studies and clinical trials, and we control only certain aspects of their activities. Nevertheless, we are responsible for ensuring that each of our studies is conducted in accordance with the applicable protocol, legal, regulatory and scientific standards, and our reliance on the vendors and CROs does not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities. We and our CROs and other vendors are required to comply with good clinical practice, or GCP, cGMP, the Helsinki Declaration, the International Council for Harmonization Guideline for Good Clinical Practice, applicable European Commission Directives on Clinical Trials, laws and regulations applicable to clinical trials conducted in other territories, good laboratory practices, or GLP, which are regulations and guidelines enforced by the FDA, the Competent Authorities of the Member States of the European Economic Area, or EEA, and comparable regulatory authorities for all of our product candidates in clinical development as well as rules and regulations regarding the collection and use of personal data such as the GDPR. Regulatory authorities enforce these regulations through periodic inspections of study sponsors, principal investigators, study sites and other contractors. If we or any of our CROs or vendors fail to comply with applicable regulations, including GCP and cGMP regulations, the clinical data generated in our clinical studies may be deemed unreliable and the FDA, EMA or comparable regulatory authorities may require us to perform additional clinical studies before approving our marketing applications. Our failure to comply with these regulations may require us to repeat clinical studies, which would delay the regulatory approval process.

If any of our relationships with these third-party CROs or vendors terminate, we may not be able to enter into arrangements with alternative CROs or vendors or do so on commercially reasonable terms. In addition, our CROs are not our employees, and, except for remedies available to us under our agreements with such CROs, we cannot control whether or not they devote sufficient time and resources to our ongoing clinical, nonclinical and preclinical programs. If CROs do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or obligations or meet expected deadlines, if they need to be replaced or if the quality or accuracy of the clinical data they obtain is compromised due to the failure to adhere to our clinical protocols, regulatory requirements or for other reasons, our clinical studies may be extended, delayed or

terminated, and we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for or successfully commercialize our product candidates. CROs may also generate higher costs than anticipated, which could adversely affect our results of operations and the commercial prospects for our product candidates, increase our costs and delay our ability to generate revenue.

Replacing or adding additional CROs involves additional cost and requires management time and focus. In addition, there is a natural transition period when a new CRO commences work. As a result, delays occur, which can materially impact our ability to meet our desired clinical development timelines. Though we carefully manage our relationships with our CROs, we may encounter similar challenges or delays in the future, which could have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition and prospects.

Independent clinical investigators and CROs that we engage to conduct our clinical trials may not devote sufficient time or attention to our clinical trials or be able to repeat their past success.

We expect to continue to depend on third parties, including independent clinical investigators and CROs, to conduct our clinical trials. CROs may also assist us in the collection and analysis of data. There is a limited number of third-party service providers and vendors that specialize or have the expertise required to achieve our business objectives. Identifying, qualifying and managing performance of third-party service providers can be difficult, time consuming and cause delays in our development programs.

These investigators and CROs will not be our employees and we will not be able to control, other than through contract, the amount of resources, including time, which they devote to our product candidates and clinical trials. If independent investigators or CROs fail to devote sufficient resources to the development of our product candidates, or if their performance is substandard, it may delay or compromise the prospects for approval and commercialization of any product candidates that we develop.

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

In addition, the use of third-party service providers requires us to disclose our proprietary information to these parties, which could increase the risk that this information will be misappropriated. Further, the FDA and other regulatory authorities require that we comply with standards, commonly referred to as GCP, for conducting, recording and reporting clinical trials to assure that data and reported results are credible and accurate and that the rights, integrity and confidentiality of trial subjects are protected. Failure of clinical investigators or CROs to meet their obligations to us or comply with GCP procedures could adversely affect the clinical development of our product candidates and harm our business.

We rely on third parties to supply the raw materials and to provide certain equipment that we and our third-party manufacturer use to create our product candidates. Our business could be harmed if existing and prospective third parties fail to provide us with sufficient quantities of these materials and equipment or fail to do so at acceptable quality levels or prices.

We rely on a limited number of suppliers to provide the raw materials other than cord blood (serum and growth factor) needed to produce our product candidates. We have a relationship with a single supplier, Miltenyi Biotec GmbH, for certain equipment (columns and beads) necessary to create our product candidates. We do not currently have an agreement with Miltenyi Biotec GmbH and there can be no assurance we will be successful in entering into an agreement that would provide for a reliable supply of columns and beads necessary to create our product candidates.

We do not have any control over the availability of these raw materials or pieces of equipment. If we or our providers are unable to purchase these raw materials or equipment on acceptable terms, at sufficient quality levels, or in adequate quantities, if at all, the development and commercialization of our

product candidates or any future product candidates, could be delayed or there could be a shortage in supply, which could impair our ability to meet our development objectives for our product candidates or generate revenue from the sale of any approved products.

Even following our establishment of our own planned cGMP-compliant manufacturing capabilities, we intend to continue to rely on third-party suppliers for these raw materials and pieces of equipment, which will expose us to risks including:

We expect to utilize a third party to conduct our product manufacturing, in whole or in part, for the next three to five years. Therefore, we are subject to the risk that this third party may not perform satisfactorily.

Until such time as we establish a manufacturing facility that has been properly validated to comply with FDA cGMP requirements, we will not be able to independently manufacture sufficient material for our planned clinical programs or commercialization thereof upon receipt of regulatory approval. Although we currently produce omidubicel and our other product candidate at our Jerusalem, Israel, facility, we currently rely on only one third-party manufacturer, Lonza Walkersville, Inc., or Lonza U.S., for a portion of the production of omidubicel for our ongoing clinical trials. In the event that this third-party manufacturer does not successfully carry out its contractual duties, meet expected deadlines or manufacture omidubicel in accordance with regulatory requirements, or if there are disagreements between us and this third-party manufacturer, we may not be able to complete, or may be delayed in completing, the clinical trials required for approval of omidubicel. In such instances, we may need to locate an appropriate replacement third-party relationship, which may not be readily available or available on acceptable terms, which could cause delay or increased expense prior to the approval of omidubicel and could thereby have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The manufacture of pharmaceutical products is complex and requires significant expertise and capital investment, including the development of advanced manufacturing techniques and process controls. We and our contract manufacturers must comply with cGMP requirements. Manufacturers of pharmaceutical products often encounter difficulties in production, particularly in scaling up and validating initial production and contamination controls. 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 non-U.S. regulations. Furthermore, if microbial, viral or other contaminations are discovered in our product candidates or in the manufacturing facilities in which our product candidates are made, such manufacturing facilities may need to be closed for an extended period of time to investigate and remedy the contamination.

Additionally, our third-party manufacturers may experience manufacturing difficulties due to resource constraints or as a result of labor disputes. If our third-party manufacturers were to encounter any of these difficulties, our ability to provide any product candidates to patients in clinical trials and products to patients, once approved, would be jeopardized. Any delay or interruption in the supply of product candidates for clinical trials could delay the initiation or completion of clinical trials, increase the costs associated with maintaining clinical trial programs and, depending upon the period of delay, require us to commence new clinical trials at additional expense or terminate clinical trials completely. Any adverse developments affecting commercial manufacturing of our product candidates may result in shipment delays, inventory shortages, lot failures, product withdrawals or recalls, or other interruptions in the supply of our product candidates. We may also have to take inventory write-offs and incur other charges and expenses for products that fail to meet specifications, undertake costly remediation efforts or seek more

costly manufacturing alternatives. Accordingly, failures or difficulties faced at any level of our product candidate supply chain could materially adversely affect our business and delay or impede the development and commercialization of any of our product candidates and could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

Any of these events could lead to clinical trial delays or failure to obtain regulatory approval, or impact our ability to successfully commercialize omidubicel or our other product candidates if and when regulatory approval is obtained. Some of these events could be the basis for FDA action, including injunction, recall, seizure or total or partial suspension of product manufacture.

Our reliance on third parties requires us to share our trade secrets and other intellectual property, which increases the possibility that a competitor will discover them or that our trade secrets and other intellectual property will be misappropriated or disclosed.

Because we rely on third parties to provide us with the materials that we use to develop and manufacture our product candidates, we may, at times, share trade secrets and other intellectual property with such third parties. We seek to protect our proprietary technology in part by entering into confidentiality agreements and, if applicable, material transfer agreements, collaborative research agreements, consulting agreements, or other similar agreements with our collaborators, advisors, employees and consultants prior to beginning research or disclosing proprietary information. These agreements typically limit the rights of the third parties to use or disclose our confidential information, such as trade secrets and intellectual property. Despite the contractual provisions employed when working with third parties, the need to share trade secrets and other confidential information increases the risk that such trade secrets become known by our competitors, are inadvertently incorporated into the technology of others, or are disclosed or used in violation of these agreements. Given that our proprietary position is based, in part, on our know-how and trade secrets, a competitor’s discovery of our trade secrets or other unauthorized use or disclosure would impair our competitive position and may have a material adverse effect on our business.

Despite our efforts to protect our trade secrets, our competitors or other third parties may discover our trade secrets, either through breach of these agreements, independent development or publication of information including our trade secrets by third parties. A competitor’s or other third party’s discovery of our trade secrets would impair our competitive position and have an adverse impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We face a variety of challenges and uncertainties associated with our dependence on the availability of human umbilical cord blood units, or CBUs, at cord blood banks for the manufacture of omidubicel .

CBUs are one of the raw materials for the manufacture of omidubicel. The CBUs currently used in the manufacture of omidubicel are procured directly by the clinical cell processing facilities from cord blood banks, which hold more than 800,000 CBUs that were donated, processed and cryopreserved. However, the availability of CBUs for the manufacture of omidubicel depends on a number of regulatory, political, economic and technical factors outside of our control, including:

Additionally, we do not have control over the supply, availability, price or types of CBUs that these third parties use in the manufacture of omidubicel. We rely heavily on these clinical cell processing

facilities to procure CBUs from cord blood banks that are compliant with government regulations and within the current standard of care. In addition, we may identify specific characteristics of CBUs, such as their volume and red blood cell content that may limit their ability to be used to manufacture omidubicel even though these CBUs may otherwise be suitable for use in allogeneic transplant. As a result, the requirement for CBUs to meet our specifications may limit the potential inventory of CBUs eligible for use in the manufacture of omidubicel. There is a large variability in the tests, methods and equipment utilized by the cord blood banks in the testing of the CBUs before storage. This could be resulted in CBUs that would be found unsuitable for production after their arrival to the manufacturing site.

In the United States, cord blood banks are required to file a BLA and to meet certain continued regulatory requirements, in order to bank and provide CBUs for transplantation. Despite this requirement, most of the cord blood banks in the United States are not licensed. Additionally, CBUs from a cord blood bank that maintains a BLA are considered to be licensed and have a product label describing their intended use only from the time the license was provided by the FDA. While the FDA currently allows unlicensed CBUs to be used for transplantation and we have used unlicensed CBUs in the manufacture of omidubicel for our clinical trials, the FDA may later prohibit the use of unlicensed CBUs for transplantation. Additionally, although CBUs from non-U.S. cord blood banks, which are generally unlicensed, are currently available in the United States for use in transplantation and we have used CBUs from non-U.S. cord blood banks in our clinical trials, changes in U.S. and non-U.S. regulations may prohibit or limit the future use of non-U.S. CBUs in the United States. Any inability to procure adequate supplies of CBUs will adversely impact our ability to develop and commercialize omidubicel.

Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property

If we are unable to obtain, maintain or protect intellectual property rights related to any of our product candidates or any future product candidates, we may not be able to compete effectively in our market.

We rely upon a combination of patents, trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect the intellectual property related to our technologies and product candidates. Our success depends in large part on our ability to obtain and maintain patent and other intellectual property protection in the United States and in other countries with respect to our proprietary technology and product candidates.

We have sought to protect our proprietary position by filing patent applications in the United States and in other countries, with respect to our novel technologies and product candidates, which are important to our business. Patent prosecution is expensive and time consuming. We may not be able to prepare, file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner or in all jurisdictions. It is also possible that we will fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development activities before it is too late to obtain patent protection.

Further, the patent position of biopharmaceutical companies generally is highly uncertain and involves complex legal and factual questions for which legal principles remain unsettled. This renders the patent prosecution process particularly expensive and time-consuming. There is no assurance that all potentially relevant prior art relating to our patent applications has been found and that there are no material defects in the form, preparation, or prosecution of our patent applications, which can invalidate a patent or prevent a patent from issuing from a pending patent application. Even if patents do successfully issue, and even if such patents cover our product candidates, because the issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity or enforceability, our patents or pending patent applications may be challenged in the courts or patent offices in the United States and abroad, which may result in such patents being narrowed, found unenforceable or invalidated. For example, we may be subject to a third party pre-issuance submission of prior art to the United States Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, or become involved in post-grant review procedures, oppositions, derivations, reexaminations, inter partes review, or IPR, or interference proceedings, in the United States or elsewhere, challenging our patent rights or the patent rights of others. An adverse determination in any such challenges may result in loss of exclusivity or in patent claims being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable, in whole or in part, which could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical technology and products, or limit the duration of the patent protection of our technology and products. Furthermore, even if they are unchallenged, our patent applications and any future patents may not adequately protect our intellectual property, provide exclusivity for our product

candidates, or prevent others from designing around our claims. Any of these outcomes could impair our ability to prevent competition from third parties, which may have an adverse impact on our business.

If we cannot obtain and maintain effective patent rights for our product candidates, we may not be able to compete effectively and our business and results of operations would be harmed.

In addition to the protection afforded by any patents that have been or may be granted, we rely on trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect proprietary know-how that is not patentable or that we elect not to patent, processes for which patents are difficult to enforce and any other elements of our product candidate discovery and development processes that involve proprietary know-how, information or technology that is not covered by patents. However, trade secrets can be difficult to protect. We seek to protect our proprietary technology and processes, in part, by entering into confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants, scientific advisors and contractors. We also seek to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of our data, trade secrets and intellectual property by maintaining the physical security of our premises and physical and electronic security of our information technology systems. Notwithstanding these measures, organizations and systems, agreements or security measures may be breached, and we may not have adequate remedies for any breach. In addition, our trade secrets and intellectual property may otherwise become known or be independently discovered by competitors.

Although we expect all of our employees and consultants and other third parties who may be involved in the development of intellectual property for us to assign their inventions to us, and all of our employees, consultants, advisors and any third parties who have access to our proprietary know-how, information, or technology to enter into confidentiality agreements, we cannot provide any assurances that we have entered into such agreements with all applicable third parties or that all such agreements have been duly executed. Even if we have entered into such agreements, we cannot assure you that our counterparties will comply with the terms of such agreements or that the assignment of intellectual property rights under such agreements is self-executing. We may be forced to bring claims against third parties, or defend claims that they may bring against us, to determine the ownership of what we regard as our intellectual property. If we fail in prosecuting or defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights. Even if we are successful in prosecuting or defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to our senior management and scientific personnel.

We also cannot assure you that our trade secrets and other confidential proprietary information will not be disclosed or that competitors will not otherwise gain access to our trade secrets or independently develop substantially equivalent information and techniques. Misappropriation or unauthorized disclosure of our trade secrets and intellectual property could impair our competitive position and may have a material adverse effect on our business. Additionally, if the steps taken to maintain our trade secrets and intellectual property are deemed inadequate, we may have insufficient recourse against third parties for misappropriating the trade secret. Any of the foregoing could significantly harm our business, results of operations and prospects.

Patent reform legislation and rule changes could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of any issued patents.

Our ability to obtain patents is highly uncertain because, to date, some legal principles remain unsettled, there has not been a consistent policy regarding the breadth or interpretation of claims allowed in patents in the United States and the specific content of patents and patent applications that are necessary to support and interpret patent claims is highly uncertain due to the complex nature of the relevant legal, scientific, and factual issues. Changes in either patent laws or interpretations of patent laws in the United States and other countries may diminish the value of our intellectual property or narrow the scope of our patent protection.

For example, on September 16, 2011, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or the Leahy-Smith Act, was signed into law. The Leahy-Smith Act includes a number of significant changes to United States patent law. These include provisions that affect the way patent applications will be prosecuted and may also affect patent litigation. The USPTO has developed new and untested regulations and procedures to

govern the full implementation of the Leahy-Smith Act and many of the substantive changes to patent law associated with the Leahy-Smith Act, and in particular, the first to file provisions only became effective in March 2013. Prior to March 2013, in the United States, the first to invent was entitled to the patent. As of March 2013, assuming the other requirements for patentability are met, the first to file a patent application is generally entitled to the patent. Publications of discoveries in the scientific literature often lag behind the actual discoveries, and patent applications in the United States and other jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing, or in some cases not at all. Therefore, we cannot be certain that we were the first to make the inventions claimed in our patents or pending patent applications, or that we were the first to file for patent protection of such inventions. The Leahy-Smith Act has also introduced procedures making it easier for third parties to challenge issued patents, as well as to intervene in the prosecution of patent applications. Finally, the Leahy-Smith Act contains new statutory provisions that require the USPTO to issue new regulations for their implementation, and it may take the courts years to interpret the provisions of the new statute. It is too early to tell what, if any, impact the Leahy-Smith Act will have on the operation of our business and the protection and enforcement of our intellectual property. However, the Leahy-Smith Act and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents. Further, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on several patent cases in recent years, either narrowing the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances or weakening the rights of patent owners in certain situations. In addition to increasing uncertainty with regard to our ability to obtain patents in the future, this combination of events has created uncertainty with respect to the value of patents, once obtained. Depending on actions by the U.S. Congress, the federal courts, and the USPTO, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that would weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce patents that we have owned or licensed or that we might obtain in the future. Any inability to obtain, enforce, and defend patents covering our proprietary technologies would materially and adversely affect our business prospects and financial condition.

Similarly, changes in patent laws and regulations in other countries or jurisdictions or changes in the governmental bodies that enforce them or changes in how the relevant governmental authority enforces patent laws or regulations may weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce patents that we own or that we may obtain in the future. Further, the laws of some countries do not protect proprietary rights to the same extent or in the same manner as the laws of the United States. As a result, we may encounter significant problems in protecting and defending our intellectual property both in the United States and abroad. For example, if the issuance to us, in a given country, of a patent covering an invention is not followed by the issuance, in other countries, of patents covering the same invention, or if any judicial interpretation of the validity, enforceability, or scope of the claims, or the written description or enablement, in a patent issued in one country is not similar to the interpretation given to the corresponding patent issued in another country, our ability to protect our intellectual property in those countries may be limited. Changes in either patent laws or in interpretations of patent laws in the United States and other countries may materially diminish the value of our intellectual property or narrow the scope of our patent protection. Any of the foregoing could significantly harm our business, results of operations and prospects.

If our trademarks and trade names are not adequately protected, then we may not be able to build name recognition in our markets of interest and our business may be adversely affected.

Our registered or unregistered trademarks or trade names may be challenged, infringed, circumvented or declared generic or determined to be infringing on other marks. We may not be able to protect our rights to these trademarks and trade names, which we need to build name recognition by potential partners or customers in our markets of interest. Over the long term, if we are unable to establish name recognition based on our trademarks and trade names, then we may not be able to compete effectively and our business may be adversely affected. If other entities use trademarks similar to ours in different jurisdictions, or have senior rights to ours, it could interfere with our use of our current trademarks throughout the world.

Intellectual property rights of third parties could adversely affect our ability to commercialize our product candidates, and we might be required to litigate or obtain licenses from third parties in order to develop or market our product candidate. Such litigation or licenses could be costly or not available on commercially reasonable terms.

It is inherently difficult to conclusively assess our freedom to operate without infringing on or otherwise violating third-party rights. Our competitive position may suffer if patents issued to third parties or other third-party intellectual property rights cover our product candidates or elements thereof, or our manufacturing or uses relevant to our development plans. In such cases, we may not be in a position to develop or commercialize products or our product candidates unless we successfully pursue litigation to nullify or invalidate the third-party intellectual property right concerned, or enter into a license agreement with the intellectual property right holder, if available on commercially reasonable terms. There may also be pending patent applications that if they result in issued patents, could be alleged to be infringed by our product candidates. If such an infringement claim should be brought and be successful, we may be required to pay substantial damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees if we are found to have willfully infringed, we may be forced to cease the development and commercialization of and otherwise abandon our product candidates, or we may need to seek a license from any patent holders. No assurances can be given that a license will be available on commercially reasonable terms, if at all. Even if we were able to obtain such a license, it could be granted on non-exclusive terms, thereby providing our competitors and other third parties access to the same technologies licensed to us.

It is also possible that we have failed to identify relevant third-party patents or applications. For example, U.S. applications filed before November 29, 2000 and certain U.S. applications filed after that date that will not be filed outside the U.S. remain confidential until patents issue. Patent applications in the U.S. and elsewhere are published approximately 18 months after the earliest filing to which priority is claimed, with such earliest filing date being commonly referred to as the priority date. Therefore, patent applications covering our product candidates or platform technology could have been filed by others without our knowledge. Additionally, pending patent applications which have been published can, subject to certain limitations, be later amended in a manner that could cover our platform technologies, our product candidates or the use of our product candidates. Third-party intellectual property right holders may also actively bring infringement claims against us. We cannot guarantee that we will be able to successfully defend, settle or otherwise resolve such infringement claims. If we are unable to successfully settle future claims on terms acceptable to us, we may be required to engage in or continue costly, unpredictable and time-consuming litigation and may be prevented from or experience substantial delays in pursuing the development of and/or marketing of our product candidates. If we fail in any such dispute, in addition to being forced to pay damages, we may be temporarily or permanently prohibited from commercializing our product candidates that are held to be infringing. We might, if possible, also be forced to redesign our product candidates so that we no longer infringe the third-party intellectual property rights, which may not be commercially feasible. Any of these events, even if we were ultimately to prevail, could require us to divert substantial financial and management resources that we would otherwise be able to devote to our business and otherwise significantly harm our business, results of operations and prospects.

Third-party claims of intellectual property infringement may prevent or delay our development and commercialization efforts.

Our commercial success depends in part on our avoiding infringing or otherwise violating the patents and proprietary rights of third parties. There have been many lawsuits and other proceedings involving patent and other intellectual property rights in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, including patent infringement lawsuits, interferences, oppositions, post grant review, IPR, and reexamination proceedings before the USPTO and corresponding non-U.S. patent offices. Numerous U.S. and non-U.S. issued patents and pending patent applications, which are owned by third parties, exist in the fields in which we are developing product candidates. As the pharmaceutical industry expands and more patents are issued, the risk increases that our product candidates may be subject to claims of infringement of the patent rights of third parties or other intellectual property claims.

Third parties may assert that we are employing their proprietary technology without authorization. There may be third-party patents or patent applications with claims to materials, formulations, methods of

manufacture, or methods for treatment related to the use or manufacture of our product candidates. Because patent applications can take many years to issue, there may be currently pending patent applications that may later result in issued patents that our product candidates may infringe. In addition, third parties may obtain patents in the future and claim that use of our technologies infringes upon these patents. If any third-party patents were held by a court of competent jurisdiction to cover the manufacturing process of any of our product candidates, any materials formed during the manufacturing process or any final product itself, the holders of any such patents may be able to block our ability to commercialize such product candidates unless we obtain a license under the applicable patents, or until such patents expire or are finally determined to be invalid or unenforceable.

Similarly, if any third-party patents were held by a court of competent jurisdiction to cover aspects of our formulations, processes for manufacture, or methods of use, the holders of any such patents may be able to block our ability to develop and commercialize the applicable product candidate unless we obtain a license or until such patent expires or is finally determined to be invalid or unenforceable. In either case, such a license may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all.

Parties making claims against us may obtain injunctive or other equitable relief, which could effectively block our ability to further develop and commercialize one or more of our product candidates. Defense of these claims, regardless of their merit, would involve substantial litigation expense and would be a substantial diversion of employee resources from our business. In the event of a successful claim of infringement against us, we may have to pay substantial damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees for willful infringement, pay royalties, redesign our infringing products or obtain one or more licenses from third parties, which may be impossible or require substantial time and monetary expenditure.

Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation. There could also be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions, or other interim proceedings or developments. If securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a material adverse effect on the price of our ordinary shares. Any of the foregoing could significantly harm our business, results of operations and prospects.

We may not be successful in obtaining or maintaining necessary rights to our product candidates through acquisitions and in-licenses.

Because our programs may require the use of intellectual property or proprietary rights held by third parties, the growth of our business will likely depend in part on our ability to acquire, in-license, or use these intellectual property and proprietary rights. In addition, our product candidates may require specific formulations to work effectively and efficiently and the rights to these formulations may be held by others. We may be unable to acquire or in-license any compositions, methods of use, processes, or other third-party intellectual property rights from third parties that we identify as necessary for our product candidates. The licensing and acquisition of third-party intellectual property rights is a competitive area, and a number of more established companies are also pursuing strategies to license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights that we may consider attractive. These established companies may have a competitive advantage over us due to their size, cash resources, and greater clinical development and commercialization capabilities.

For example, we sometimes collaborate with academic institutions to accelerate our preclinical research or development under written agreements with these institutions, some of which provide that the applicable institution will own certain rights in any technology developed thereunder. Typically, these institutions provide us with an option to negotiate a license to any of the institution’s rights in technology resulting from the collaboration. Regardless of such option, we may be unable to negotiate a license within the specified timeframe or under terms that are acceptable to us. If we are unable to do so, the institution may offer the intellectual property rights to other parties, potentially blocking our ability to pursue our program.

In addition, companies that perceive us to be a competitor may be unwilling to assign or license rights to us. We also may be unable to license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights on terms that would allow us to make an appropriate return on our investment. If we are unable to successfully

obtain rights to required third-party intellectual property rights, we may have to abandon development of that program and our business and financial condition could suffer.

We may be involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce our intellectual property, which could be expensive, time consuming and unsuccessful.

Competitors may infringe, misappropriate or otherwise violate our intellectual property or that of our licensors that we may acquire in the future. To counter infringement or unauthorized use, we may be required to file infringement claims, which can be expensive and time-consuming. If we initiate legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent covering one of our product candidates, the defendant could counterclaim that the patent covering our product or product candidate is invalid and/or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity and/or unenforceability are common, and there are numerous grounds upon which a third party can assert invalidity or unenforceability of a patent. In an infringement proceeding, a court may decide that a patent of ours is not valid or is unenforceable, or may refuse to stop the other party from using the technology at issue on the grounds that our patents do not cover the technology in question. Third parties may also raise similar claims before administrative bodies in the United States or abroad, even outside the context of litigation. Such mechanisms include re-examination, post grant review, inter partes review, or IPR, and equivalent proceedings in non-U.S. jurisdictions (e.g., opposition proceedings). Such proceedings could result in revocation of or amendment to our patents in such a way that they no longer cover our product candidates. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. With respect to the validity question, for example, we cannot be certain that there is no invalidating prior art, of which we, our patent counsel, and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution. If a defendant were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity and/or unenforceability, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection on our product candidates. An adverse result in any litigation or defense proceedings could put one or more of our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly, could put our patent applications at risk of not issuing and could have a material adverse impact on our business.

Interference proceedings provoked by third parties or brought by us may be necessary to determine the priority of inventions with respect to our patent applications. An unfavorable outcome could require us to cease using the related technology or to attempt to license rights to it from the prevailing party. Our business could be harmed if the prevailing party does not offer us a license on commercially reasonable terms. Our defense of litigation or interference proceedings may fail and, even if successful, may result in substantial costs and distract our management and other employees. We may not be able to prevent misappropriation of our intellectual property rights, particularly in countries where the laws may not protect those rights as fully as in the United States.

Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation. There could also be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions, or other interim proceedings or developments. If securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a material adverse effect on the price of our ordinary shares. Any of the foregoing could significantly harm our business, results of operations and prospects.

We may be subject to claims that our employees, consultants, or independent contractors have wrongfully used or disclosed confidential information of third parties or that our employees have wrongfully used or disclosed alleged trade secrets of their former employers.

We employ individuals who were previously employed at universities or other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. Although we try to ensure that our employees, consultants and independent contractors do not use the proprietary information or know-how of others in their work for us, we may be subject to claims that we or our employees, consultants, or independent contractors have inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed intellectual property, including trade secrets or other proprietary information, of any of our employees’ former employers or other third parties. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel, which could adversely impact our business. Even if we are successful in

defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management and other employees. Any of the foregoing could significantly harm our business, results of operations and prospects.

We may be subject to claims challenging the inventorship of our intellectual property.

We may be subject to claims that former employees, collaborators or other third parties have an interest in or right to compensation with respect to our current patent and patent applications, future patents or other intellectual property as an inventor or co-inventor. For example, we may have inventorship disputes arise from conflicting obligations of consultants or others who are involved in developing our product candidates. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these and other claims challenging inventorship or claiming the right to compensation. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights, such as exclusive ownership of, or right to use, valuable intellectual property. Such an outcome could have a material adverse effect on our business. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management and other employees. To the extent that our employees have not effectively waived the right to compensation with respect to inventions that they helped create, they may be able to assert claims for compensation with respect to our future revenue. As a result, we may receive less revenue from future products if such claims are successful which in turn could impact our future profitability, business, results of operations and prospects.

We may become subject to claims for remuneration or royalties for assigned service invention rights by our employees, which could result in litigation and adversely affect our business.

A significant portion of our intellectual property has been developed by our employees in the course of their employment for us. Under the Israeli Patent Law, 5727-1967, or the Patent Law, inventions conceived by an employee in the course and as a result of or arising from his or her employment with a company are regarded as “service inventions,” which belong to the employer, absent a specific agreement between the employee and employer giving the employee service invention rights. The Patent Law also provides that if there is no such agreement between an employer and an employee, the Israeli Compensation and Royalties Committee, or the Committee, a body constituted under the Patent Law, shall determine whether the employee is entitled to remuneration for his inventions. Case law clarifies that the right to receive consideration for “service inventions” can be waived by the employee and that in certain circumstances, such waiver does not necessarily have to be explicit. The Committee will examine, on a case-by-case basis, the general contractual framework between the parties, using interpretation rules of the general Israeli contract laws. Further, the Committee has not yet determined one specific formula for calculating this remuneration (but rather uses the criteria specified in the Patent Law). Although we generally enter into assignment-of-invention agreements with our employees pursuant to which such individuals assign to us all rights to any inventions created in the scope of their employment or engagement with us, we may face claims demanding remuneration in consideration for assigned inventions. As a consequence of such claims, we could be required to pay additional remuneration or royalties to our current and/or former employees, or be forced to litigate such claims, which could negatively affect our business.

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

Periodic maintenance fees, renewal fees, annuity fees and various other government fees on patents and/or applications will be due to be paid to the USPTO and various government patent agencies outside of the United States over the lifetime of our patents and/or applications and any patent rights we may own or license in the future. We rely on our outside counsel or third-party service providers to pay these fees due to the USPTO and non-U.S. patent agencies. The USPTO and various non-U.S. government patent agencies require compliance with several procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar provisions during the patent application process. We employ reputable law firms and other professionals

to help us comply. In many cases, an inadvertent lapse can be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules. There are situations, however, in which non-compliance can result in abandonment or lapse of the patents or patent applications, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. In such an event, potential competitors might be able to enter the market and this circumstance could harm our business.

We may enjoy only limited geographical protection with respect to certain patents and we may not be able to protect our intellectual property rights throughout the world.

Filing and prosecuting patent applications and defending patents covering our product candidates in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to develop their own products and, further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we have patent protection, but enforcement rights are not as strong as that in the United States. These products may compete with our product candidates, and our patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing.

In addition, we may decide to abandon national and regional patent applications before grant. The examination of each national or regional patent application is an independent proceeding. As a result, patent applications in the same family may issue as patents in some jurisdictions, such as in the United States, but may issue as patents with claims of different scope or may even be refused in other jurisdictions. It is also quite common that depending on the country, the scope of patent protection may vary for the same product candidate or technology.

The laws of some jurisdictions do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as the laws or rules and regulations in the United States, and many companies have encountered significant difficulties in protecting and defending such rights in such jurisdictions. The legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents, trade secrets and other intellectual property protection, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patents or marketing of competing products in violation of our proprietary rights generally. Proceedings to enforce our patent rights in other jurisdictions, whether or not successful, could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, could put our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and our patent applications at risk of not issuing as patents, and could provoke third parties to assert claims against us. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce our intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop or license. Furthermore, while we intend to protect our intellectual property rights in our expected significant markets, we cannot ensure that we will be able to initiate or maintain similar efforts in all jurisdictions in which we may wish to market our product candidates. Accordingly, our efforts to protect our intellectual property rights in such countries may be inadequate, which may have an adverse effect on our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates in all of our expected significant non-U.S. markets. If we encounter difficulties in protecting, or are otherwise precluded from effectively protecting, the intellectual property rights important for our business in such jurisdictions, the value of these rights may be diminished and we may face additional competition from others in those jurisdictions.

Some countries also have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner may be compelled to grant licenses to third parties. In addition, some countries limit the enforceability of patents against government agencies or government contractors. In those countries, the patent owner may have limited remedies, which could materially diminish the value of such patents. If we are forced to grant a license to third parties with respect to any patents relevant to our business, our competitive position may be impaired.

Patent terms may be inadequate to protect our competitive position on our product candidates for an adequate amount of time.

Patents have a limited lifespan. In the United States, if all maintenance fees are timely paid, the natural expiration of a patent is generally 20 years from its earliest U.S. non-provisional filing date. Various extensions may be available, but the life of a patent, and the protection it affords, is limited.

Even if patents covering our product candidates are obtained, once the patent life has expired for a product candidate, we may be open to competition from competitive medications, including biosimilar and generic medications. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting such product candidates might expire before or shortly after such product candidates are commercialized. As a result, our patent portfolio may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing product candidates similar or identical to ours.

Depending upon the timing, duration and conditions of any FDA marketing approval of our product candidates, one or more of our U.S. patents may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, referred to as the Hatch-Waxman Amendments, and similar legislation in the European Union. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments permit a patent term extension of up to five years for a patent covering an approved product as compensation for effective patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review process. However, we may not receive an extension if we fail to exercise due diligence during the testing phase or regulatory review process, fail to apply within applicable deadlines, fail to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents or otherwise fail to satisfy applicable requirements. Moreover, the length of the extension could be less than we request. Only one patent per approved product can be extended, the extension cannot extend the total patent term beyond 14 years from approval and only those claims covering the approved drug, a method for using it or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. If we are unable to obtain patent term extension or the term of any such extension is less than we request, the period during which we can enforce our patent rights for the applicable product candidate will be shortened and our competitors may obtain approval to market competing products sooner. As a result, our revenue from applicable products could be reduced. Further, if this occurs, our competitors may take advantage of our investment in development and trials by referencing our clinical and preclinical data and launch their product earlier than might otherwise be the case, and our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects could be materially harmed.

Intellectual property rights do not necessarily address all potential threats to our competitive advantage.

The degree of future protection afforded by our intellectual property rights is uncertain because intellectual property rights have limitations and may not adequately protect our business or permit us to maintain our competitive advantage. The following examples are illustrative:

Should any of these events occur, they could significantly harm our business, results of operations and prospects.

Risks Related to Our Business Operations

Our future success depends in part on our ability to retain our senior management team and to attract, retain and motivate other qualified personnel.

We are highly dependent on the members of our senior management team. The loss of their services without a proper replacement may adversely impact the achievement of our objectives. Our employees may leave our employment at any time. Recruiting and retaining other qualified employees, consultants and advisors for our business, including scientific and technical personnel, will also be critical to our success. There is currently a shortage of skilled personnel in our industry, which is likely to continue for the foreseeable future. This is particularly the case in Israel and Boston, Massachusetts, where our operations are focused. As a result, competition for skilled personnel is intense, and the turnover rate can be high. We may not be able to attract and retain personnel on acceptable terms given the competition among numerous pharmaceutical companies for individuals with similar skill sets. In addition, failure to succeed in preclinical or clinical studies may make it more challenging to recruit and retain qualified personnel. The inability to recruit and retain qualified personnel, or the loss of the services of any members of our senior management team without proper replacement, may impede the progress of our research, development and commercialization objectives.

We will need to expand our organization, and we may experience difficulties in managing this growth, which could disrupt our operations.

Our future financial performance and our ability to commercialize product candidates and compete effectively will depend, in part, on our ability to effectively manage any future growth. As our development and commercialization plans and strategies develop, we expect to need additional managerial, operational, sales, marketing, financial and legal personnel. Our management may need to divert a disproportionate amount of its attention away from our day-to-day activities and devote a substantial amount of time to managing these growth activities. We may not be able to effectively manage the expansion of our operations, which may result in weaknesses in our infrastructure, operational mistakes, loss of business opportunities, loss of employees and reduced productivity among remaining employees. Our expected growth could require significant capital expenditures and may divert financial resources from other projects, such as the development of additional product candidates. If our management is unable to effectively manage our growth, our expenses may increase more than expected, our ability to generate and/or grow revenue could be reduced, and we may not be able to implement our business strategy.

Due to our limited resources and access to capital, we must, and have in the past decided to, prioritize development of certain product candidates over other potential candidates. These decisions may prove to have been wrong and may adversely affect our revenue.

Because we have limited resources and access to capital to fund our operations, we must decide which product candidates to pursue and the amount of resources to allocate to each. Our decisions concerning the allocation of research, collaboration, management and financial resources toward particular product candidates may not lead to the development of viable commercial products and may divert resources away from better opportunities. Similarly, our decisions to delay, terminate or collaborate with third parties in respect of certain product development programs may also prove not to be optimal and could cause us to miss valuable opportunities. For instance, we made the decision to prioritize the development of omidubicel for the treatment of hematologic malignancies over SCD because omidubicel is at a more advanced stage of development, while our sickle cell program remains exploratory. If we make incorrect determinations regarding the market potential of our product candidates or misread trends in the pharmaceutical industry, in particular for our lead product candidate, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially adversely affected.

We may not be successful in our efforts to identify, discover or license additional product candidates.

Although a substantial amount of our effort will focus on the continued clinical testing, potential approval and commercialization of omidubicel, the success of our business also depends upon our ability

to identify, discover or license additional product candidates. Our research programs or licensing efforts may fail to yield additional product candidates for clinical development for a number of reasons, including but not limited to the following:

If any of these events occur, we may be forced to abandon our development efforts for a program or programs, or we may not be able to identify, license, or discover additional product candidates, which would have a material adverse effect on our business and could potentially cause us to cease operations. Research programs to identify new product candidates require substantial technical, financial and human resources. We may focus our efforts and resources on potential programs or product candidates that ultimately prove to be unsuccessful.

Our business and operations would suffer in the event of computer system failures, cyber-attacks or a deficiency in our cybersecurity.

Despite the implementation of security measures, our internal computer systems, and those of third parties on which we rely, are vulnerable to damage from computer viruses, malware, natural disasters, terrorism, war, telecommunication and electrical failures, cyber-attacks or cyber-intrusions over the Internet, attachments to emails, persons inside our organization, or persons with access to systems inside our organization. The risk of a security breach or disruption, particularly through cyber-attacks or cyber intrusion, including by computer hackers, non-U.S. governments, extra-state actors and cyber terrorists, has generally increased as the number, intensity and sophistication of attempted attacks and intrusions from around the world have increased. If such an event were to occur and cause interruptions in our operations, it could result in a material disruption of our drug development programs. For example, the loss of clinical trial data from completed or ongoing or planned clinical trials could result in delays in our regulatory approval efforts and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data. To the extent that any disruption or security breach was to result in a loss of or damage to our data or applications, or inappropriate disclosure of confidential or proprietary information, we could incur material legal claims and liability, damage to our reputation, and the further development of our drug candidates could be delayed.

We incur significant increased costs as a result of operating as a public company in the United States, and our management is required to devote substantial time to new compliance initiatives.

As a public company whose ordinary shares are listed in the United States, we are subject to an extensive regulatory regime, requiring us, among other things, to maintain various internal controls and

facilities and to prepare and file periodic and current reports and statements, including reports on the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Complying with these requirements is costly and time consuming. In the event that we are unable to demonstrate compliance with our obligations as a public company in a timely manner, or are unable to produce timely or accurate financial statements, we may be subject to sanctions or investigations by regulatory authorities, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, or the SEC, or The Nasdaq Global Market, and investors may lose confidence in our operating results and the price of our ordinary shares could decline.

Our independent registered public accounting firm is not engaged to perform an audit of our internal control over financial reporting, and as long as we remain an emerging growth company, as such term is defined in the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 2012, or the JOBS Act, we will be exempt from the requirement to have an independent registered public accounting firm perform such audit. Accordingly, no such opinion was expressed or will be expressed any during any such period. Once we cease to qualify as an emerging growth company our independent registered public accounting firm will be required to attest to our management’s annual assessment of the effectiveness of our internal controls over financial reporting, which will entail additional costs and expenses.

Furthermore, we are only in the early stages of determining formally whether our existing internal controls over financial reporting systems are compliant with Section 404 and whether there are any material weaknesses or significant deficiencies in our existing internal controls. These controls and other procedures are designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed by us in the reports that we file with the SEC is disclosed accurately and is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in SEC rules and forms.

In addition, we intend to organize significant management functions in Boston, Massachusetts, where business expenses and salaries may exceed the level of our business expenses in Israel.

International expansion of our business exposes us to business, regulatory, political, operational, financial and economic risks associated with doing business outside of the United States or Israel.

Other than our headquarters and other operations which are located in Israel (as further described below), we currently have limited international operations, but our business strategy incorporates potentially significant international expansion, particularly in anticipation of approval of our product candidates. We plan to retain sales representatives and third-party distributors and conduct physician, infectious disease specialist, hospital pharmacist and patient association outreach activities, as well as clinical trials, outside of the United States, EU and Israel. Doing business internationally involves a number of risks, including but not limited to:

Any of these factors could significantly harm our future international expansion and operations and, consequently, our results of operations.

We may be subject to extensive environmental, health and safety, and other laws and regulations in multiple jurisdictions.

Our business involves the controlled use, directly or indirectly through our service providers, of hazardous materials, various biological compounds and chemicals; therefore, we, our agents and our service providers may be subject to various environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, including those governing air emissions, water and wastewater discharges, noise emissions, the use, management and disposal of hazardous, radioactive and biological materials and wastes and the cleanup of contaminated sites. The risk of accidental contamination or injury from these materials cannot be eliminated. If an accident, spill or release of any regulated chemicals or substances occurs, we could be held liable for resulting damages, including for investigation, remediation and monitoring of the contamination, including natural resource damages, the costs of which could be substantial. We are also subject to numerous environmental, health and workplace safety laws and regulations, including those governing laboratory procedures, exposure to blood-borne pathogens and the handling of biohazardous materials and chemicals. Although we maintain workers’ compensation insurance to cover the costs and expenses that may be incurred because of injuries to our employees resulting from the use of these materials, this insurance may not provide adequate coverage against potential liabilities. Additional or more stringent federal, state, local or non-U.S. laws and regulations affecting our operations may be adopted in the future. We may incur substantial capital costs and operating expenses and may be required to obtain consents to comply with any of these or certain other laws or regulations and the terms and conditions of any permits or licenses required pursuant to such laws and regulations. For instance, we have undergone inspections and obtained approvals from various governmental agencies. We hold a general business license from the City of Jerusalem that is valid until December 31, 2022. We also hold a toxic substances permit from the Ministry of Environmental Protection (the Hazardous Material Division) and a Certificate of GMP Compliance of a Manufacturer from the Israeli Ministry of Health – Pharmaceutical Administration. Failure to renew any of the foregoing licenses and permits may harm our on-going and future operations. In addition, fines and penalties may be imposed for noncompliance with environmental, health and safety and other laws and regulations or for the failure to have, or comply with the terms and conditions of our business license or, required environmental or other permits or consents.

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

We are exposed to the risk of fraud or other misconduct by our employees and independent contractors. Misconduct by these parties could include intentional failures to comply with FDA regulations, provide accurate information to the FDA, comply with manufacturing standards we may establish, comply with federal and state healthcare fraud and abuse laws and regulations, report financial information or data accurately or disclose unauthorized activities to us. In particular, sales, marketing and business arrangements in the healthcare industry are subject to extensive laws and regulations intended to prevent fraud, misconduct, kickbacks, self-dealing and other abusive practices. These laws and regulations may restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, sales commission, customer incentive programs and other business arrangements. Employee and independent contractor misconduct could also involve the improper use of information obtained in the course of clinical trials, including individually identifiable information, creating fraudulent data in our preclinical studies or clinical trials or illegal misappropriation of product candidates. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of these laws, we may be subject to significant penalties, including civil, criminal and administrative

penalties, damages, fines, exclusion from government-funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid or similar programs in other countries or jurisdictions, integrity oversight and reporting obligations to resolve allegations of non-compliance, disgorgement, imprisonment, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations. It is not always possible to identify and deter misconduct by employees and other third parties, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to be in compliance with such laws or regulations. Additionally, we are subject to the risk that a person or government could allege such fraud or other misconduct, even if none occurred. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business, including the imposition of significant fines or other sanctions.

Under current Israeli law, we may not be able to enforce employees’ covenants not to compete and therefore may be unable to prevent our competitors from benefiting from the expertise of some of our former employees.

We generally enter into non-competition agreements with our key employees, in most cases within the framework of their employment agreements. These agreements prohibit our key employees, if they cease working for us, from competing directly with us or working for our competitors for a limited period. Under applicable Israeli law, we may be unable to enforce these agreements or any part thereof. If we cannot enforce our non-competition agreements with our employees, then we may be unable to prevent our competitors from benefiting from the expertise of our former employees, which could materially adversely affect our business, results of operations and ability to capitalize on our proprietary information.

Risks Related to Commercialization of Our Product Candidates

We do not have experience producing our product candidates at commercial levels or establishing a cGMP manufacturing facility and may not obtain the necessary regulatory approvals or produce our product candidates at the quality, quantities, locations and timing needed to support commercialization.

We do not currently have the experience or ability to manufacture our product candidates at commercial levels. We may encounter technical or scientific issues related to manufacturing or development that we may be unable to resolve in a timely manner or with available funds. We also have not completed all of the characterization and validation activities necessary for commercialization and regulatory approvals. If we do not conduct all such necessary activities, our commercialization efforts will be delayed or halted.

We also may encounter problems hiring and retaining the experienced specialist scientific, quality control and manufacturing personnel needed to operate our manufacturing process, which could result in delays in our production or difficulties in maintaining compliance with applicable regulatory requirements. Any problems in our manufacturing process or facilities could make us a less attractive collaborator for potential partners, including larger pharmaceutical companies, which could limit our access to additional attractive development programs. Problems in our manufacturing process or facilities also could restrict our ability to meet market demand for our product candidates.

If the market opportunities for our product candidates are smaller than we believe they are, our revenue may be adversely affected, and our business may suffer.

Our projections of the number of people who have the potential to benefit from treatment with our product candidates are based on our beliefs and estimates. These estimates have been derived from a variety of sources, including the scientific literature, surveys of clinics or market research, and may prove to be incorrect. Our target patient population may be lower than expected, may not be otherwise amenable to treatment with our product candidate or patients may become increasingly difficult to identify and access, all of which would adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. In addition, medical advances may reduce our target markets. For example, new processes and advances in oral antibiotic medications or new operative procedures may limit the need for localized

delivery systems like our product candidates. Further, advances in treatments in the fields in which we are conducting research programs that reduce side effects and have better deliverability to target organs may limit the market for our future product candidates.

We currently have no marketing and sales organization. If we are unable to establish sales and marketing capabilities or enter into agreements with third parties to market and sell our product candidates, we may be unable to generate any product revenue.

Although we recently hired a chief commercialization officer to lead our efforts to commercialize omidubicel should it receive regulatory approval, we currently have no sales and marketing organization, and we have no experience selling and marketing our product candidates. To successfully commercialize any product candidates that may result from our development programs, we will need to develop these capabilities, either on our own or with others. If our product candidates receive regulatory approval, we intend to establish a sales and marketing organization independently or by utilizing experienced third parties with technical expertise and supporting distribution capabilities to commercialize our product candidates in major markets, all of which will be expensive, difficult and time consuming. Any failure or delay in the development of our internal sales, marketing and distribution capabilities would adversely impact our ability to commercialize our product candidates.

Further, given our lack of prior experience in marketing and selling pharmaceutical products, our initial estimate of the size of the required sales force may be materially more or less than the size of the sales force actually required to effectively commercialize our product candidates. As such, we may be required to hire sales representatives and third-party distributors to adequately support the commercialization of our product candidates, or we may incur excess costs if we hire more sales representatives than necessary. With respect to certain geographical markets, we may enter into collaborations with other entities to utilize their local marketing and distribution capabilities, but we may be unable to enter into such agreements on favorable terms, if at all. We also may enter into collaborations with large pharmaceutical companies to develop and commercialize product candidates. If our future collaborators do not commit sufficient resources to develop and commercialize our future products, if any, and we are unable to develop the necessary marketing capabilities on our own, we will be unable to generate sufficient product revenue to sustain our business. We may compete with companies that currently have extensive and well-funded marketing and sales operations. Without an internal team or the support of a third party to perform marketing and sales functions, we may be unable to compete successfully against these more established companies.

Our efforts to educate the medical community, including physicians, hospital pharmacists and infectious disease specialists, and third-party payors on the benefits of our product candidates may require significant resources and may never be successful. If any of our product candidates are approved, but fail to achieve market acceptance among physicians, patients or third-party payors, we will not be able to generate significant revenue from such product, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Delays in establishing and obtaining regulatory approval of our manufacturing process and facility or disruptions in our manufacturing process may delay or disrupt our product development and commercialization efforts.

We intend to establish our own cGMP compliant manufacturing facility. Building our own manufacturing facility will require additional investment, will be time-consuming and may be subject to delays, including because of shortage of labor or compliance with regulatory requirements. In addition, building a manufacturing facility may cost more than we currently anticipate. Delays or problems in the build out of our manufacturing facility may adversely impact our ability to provide supply for the development and commercialization of omidubicel as well as our financial condition.

Before we can begin to commercially manufacture omidubicel or any product candidate, whether in a third-party facility or in our own facility, once established, we must obtain regulatory approval from FDA for our manufacturing process and facility. A manufacturing authorization must also be obtained from the appropriate regulatory authorities in the European Union, Israel and worldwide. In addition, we must pass a pre-approval inspection of our manufacturing facility by the FDA before omidubicel or any product

candidate can obtain marketing approval. In order to obtain approval, we will need to ensure that all of our processes, methods and equipment are compliant with cGMP, and perform extensive audits of vendors, contract laboratories and suppliers. If any of our vendors, contract laboratories or suppliers is found to be out of compliance with cGMP, we may experience delays or disruptions in manufacturing while we work with these third parties to remedy the violation or while we work to identify suitable replacement vendors. For example, a recent cGMP audit by the Israeli Ministry of Health, or MOH, of the manufacturing process in the facility of our contract manufacturer of omidubicel resulted in certain critical observations, which we have been working with our contract manufacturer to address. There can be no guarantee, however, that future inspections by regulatory authorities of our manufacturing facilities or those of our contract manufacturers will result in MOH’s agreement that these critical observations have been resolved or that similar inspectional observations will not be identified. If we do not demonstrate to the satisfaction of the applicable regulator that our manufacturing facilities, or those of our contract manufacturers, are in compliance with applicable requirements, we may be materially delayed in the development of our product candidates, which would materially harm our business. The cGMP requirements govern quality control of the manufacturing process and documentation policies and procedures. In complying with cGMP, we will be obligated to expend time, money and effort in production, record keeping and quality control to assure that the product meets applicable specifications and other requirements. If we fail to comply with these requirements, we would be subject to possible regulatory action and may not be permitted to sell any product candidate that we may develop.

If we receive marketing approval for our product candidates, sales will be limited unless the product achieves broad market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors, hospital pharmacists, infectious disease specialists and others in the medical community.

The commercial success of our product candidates will depend upon the acceptance of the product by the medical community, including physicians, patients, healthcare payors, hospital pharmacists and infectious disease specialists. The degree of market acceptance of any approved product will depend on a number of factors, including:

There are a number of alternatives to our NAM based product candidates, including stem cell transplantation using cells from matched related donors, matched unrelated donors, haploidentical donors or unmodified umbilical cord blood. If our product candidates are approved but do not achieve an adequate level of acceptance by physicians, patients, healthcare payors, hospital pharmacists and

infectious disease specialists, we may not generate sufficient revenue from the product, and we may not become or remain profitable. In addition, our efforts to educate the medical community and third-party payors on the benefits of our product candidates may require significant resources and may never be successful.

It may be difficult for us to profitably sell our product candidates if coverage and reimbursement for these products is limited by government authorities and/or third-party payor policies.

In addition to any healthcare reform measures that may affect reimbursement, market acceptance and sales of our product candidates, if approved, will depend on, in part, the extent to which the procedures utilizing our product candidates, performed by health care providers, will be covered by third-party payors, such as government health care programs, commercial insurance and managed care organizations. Our product candidates will be purchased or provided by health care providers for utilization in certain surgical procedures. In the event health care providers and patients accept our product candidates as medically useful, cost effective and safe, there is uncertainty regarding whether our product candidates will be directly reimbursed, reimbursed through a bundled payment or if the product candidates will be included in another type of value-based reimbursement program. Third-party payors determine the extent to which new products will be covered as a benefit under their plans and the level of reimbursement for any covered product or procedure that may utilize a covered product. It is difficult to predict at this time what third-party payors will decide with respect to the coverage and reimbursement for our product candidates.

A primary trend in the U.S. healthcare industry and elsewhere has been cost containment, including price controls, restrictions on coverage and reimbursement and requirements for substitution of less expensive products and procedures. Third-party payors decide which products and procedures they will pay for and establish reimbursement and co-payment levels. Government and other third-party payors are increasingly challenging the prices charged for health care products and procedures, examining the cost effectiveness of procedures, and the products used in such procedures, in addition to their safety and efficacy, and limiting or attempting to limit both coverage and the level of reimbursement. We cannot be sure that coverage will be available for our product candidates, if approved, or, if coverage is available, the level of direct or indirect reimbursement.

We expect to experience pricing pressures in connection with the sale of any of our product candidates due to the trend toward managed healthcare, the increasing influence of health maintenance organizations, and additional legislative changes. The downward pressure on healthcare costs in general, particularly prescription drugs and surgical procedures and other treatments, has become very intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the successful commercialization of new products. Further, the adoption and implementation of any future governmental cost containment or other health reform initiative may result in additional downward pressure on the price that we may receive for any approved product.

Reimbursement by a third-party payor may depend upon a number of factors including the third-party payor’s determination that use of a product is:

There is significant uncertainty related to the insurance coverage and reimbursement of newly approved products. In the United States, the principal decisions about reimbursement are typically made by The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, an agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, as CMS decides whether and to what extent products, and the procedures that utilize such products, will be covered and reimbursed under Medicare. Private payors may follow CMS, but have their own methods and approval processes for determining reimbursement for new

products and the procedures that utilize such products. It is difficult to predict what CMS as well as other payors will decide with respect to reimbursement for fundamentally novel products such as ours, as there is no body of established practices and precedents for these new products.

In addition, under current Medicare hospital inpatient reimbursement policies CMS offers a process whereby manufacturers may apply for the temporary add-on payment program, or NTAP, for a new medical technology when the applicable Diagnosis-Related Group, or DRG, based inpatient prospective payment rate is inadequate to cover the cost of a new product. As part of our commercialization efforts, we intend to apply for omidubicel to be eligible under the NTAP program. To obtain add-on payment, a technology must be considered “new,” represent an advance in medical technology that substantially improves, relative to technologies previously available, the diagnosis or treatment of Medicare beneficiaries, and data reflecting the cost of the new technology must not yet be available in the data used to recalibrate the DRGs and the sponsor much show that admissions involving the furnishing of the technology exceed cost thresholds established by CMS for each applicable DRG. If an application is approved, new technology add-on payments are made to hospitals for no less than two years and no more than three years. We must demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of our technology to the FDA in addition to meeting CMS’s requirements for the NTAP program before add-on payments can be made, and we cannot assure that CMS will agree to provide such incremental payments for omidubicel or any of our other product candidates.

Obtaining coverage and reimbursement approval for a product from a government or other third-party payor is a time-consuming and costly process that could require us to provide supporting scientific, clinical and cost effectiveness data for the use of our products to the payor. We may not be able to provide data sufficient to gain acceptance with respect to coverage and reimbursement. Further, no uniform policy requirement for coverage and reimbursement exists among third-party payors in the United States. Similarly, health care providers enter into participation agreements with third-party payors wherein reimbursement rates are negotiated. Therefore, coverage and reimbursement can differ significantly from payor to payor and health care provider to health care provider. As a result, we cannot be sure that coverage or adequate reimbursement will be available for our product candidates, if approved or procedures utilizing such products. Also, we cannot be sure that reimbursement amounts will not reduce the demand for, or the price of, our future products. If reimbursement is not available, or is available only to limited levels, we may not be able to commercialize our product candidates, or achieve profitably at all, even if approved.

Our business entails a significant risk of product liability and our ability to obtain sufficient insurance coverage could have a material effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or prospects.

Our business exposes us to significant product liability risks inherent in the development, testing, manufacturing and marketing of therapeutic treatments. Product liability claims could delay or prevent completion of our development programs. If we succeed in marketing products, such claims could result in an FDA investigation of the safety and effectiveness of our products, our manufacturing processes and facilities or our marketing programs and potentially a recall of our products or more serious enforcement action, limitations on the approved indications for which they may be used or suspension or withdrawal of approvals. Regardless of the merits or eventual outcome, liability claims may also result in decreased demand for our products, injury to our reputation, costs to defend the related litigation, a diversion of management’s time and our resources, substantial monetary awards to trial participants or patients and a decline in our share price. We do not currently have product liability insurance and do not anticipate obtaining product liability insurance until such time as we have received FDA or other comparable authority approval for a product and there is a product that is being provided to patients outside of clinical trials. Any insurance we have or may obtain may not provide sufficient coverage against potential liabilities. Furthermore, product liability insurance is becoming increasingly expensive. As a result, we may be unable to obtain sufficient insurance at a reasonable cost to protect us against losses caused by product liability claims that could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Risks Related to this Offering and Ownership of Our Ordinary Shares

Our executive officers, directors and principal shareholders will maintain the ability to exert significant control over matters submitted to our shareholders for approval.

Assuming the sale by us of 4,040,000 ordinary shares in this offering (or 4,646,000 shares if the underwriters exercise their option to purchase additional shares in full), our executive officers, directors and principal shareholders who owned more than 5% of our outstanding ordinary shares before this offering will, in the aggregate, beneficially own as of June 4, 2019, shares representing approximately 75.5% (or 73.9% if the underwriters exercise their option to purchase additional shares in full) of our share capital. As a result, if these shareholders were to act together, they would be able to control all matters submitted to our shareholders for approval, as well as our management and affairs. For example, these persons, if they act together, would control the election of directors and approval of any merger, consolidation or sale of all or substantially all of our assets. This concentration of voting power could delay or prevent an acquisition of our company on terms that other shareholders may desire or result in management of our company that our public shareholders disagree with.

If you purchase our ordinary shares in this offering, you will incur immediate and substantial dilution in the book value of your shares.

The public offering price of our ordinary shares will be substantially higher than the net tangible book value per share of our ordinary shares. Therefore, if you purchase ordinary shares in this offering, you will pay a price per share that substantially exceeds our net tangible book value per share after this offering. To the extent outstanding options and warrants are exercised, you will incur further dilution. Based on an assumed public offering price of $7.47 per share, which was the last reported sale price of our ordinary shares on The Nasdaq Global Market on June 20, 2019, you will experience immediate dilution of $6.07 per share, representing the difference between our as adjusted net tangible book value per share after giving effect to this offering and the assumed public offering price. In addition, purchasers of ordinary shares in this offering will have contributed approximately 13.7% of the aggregate price paid by all purchasers of our shares but will own only approximately 13.8% of our ordinary shares outstanding after this offering.

The market price of our ordinary shares has been and may continue to be highly volatile, which could result in substantial losses for purchasers of our ordinary shares in this offering.

The trading price of our ordinary shares is likely to be volatile. The stock market in general, and the market for pharmaceutical companies in particular, has experienced extreme volatility that has often been unrelated to the operating performance of particular companies. As a result of this volatility, you may not be able to resell your ordinary shares at or above the public offering price. The following factors, in addition to other risk factors described in this section, may have a significant impact on the market price of our ordinary shares:

If our quarterly operating results fall below the expectations of investors or securities analysts, the price of our ordinary shares could decline substantially. Furthermore, any quarterly fluctuations in our operating results may, in turn, cause the price of our shares to fluctuate substantially. We believe that quarterly comparisons of our financial results are not necessarily meaningful and should not be relied upon as an indication of our future performance.

In the past, following periods of volatility in the market price of a company’s securities, securities class-action litigation often has been instituted against that company. Such litigation, if instituted against us, could cause us to incur substantial costs to defend such claims and divert management’s attention and resources, which could seriously harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Sales of a substantial number of shares of our ordinary shares in the public market by our existing shareholders could cause our share price to fall.

Sales of a substantial number of shares of our ordinary shares in the public market, or the perception that these sales might occur, could depress the market price of our ordinary shares and could impair our ability to raise capital through the sale of additional equity securities. We are unable to predict the effect that sales may have on the prevailing market price of our ordinary shares. All of the shares owned by our directors and officers are subject to lock-up agreements with the underwriters of this offering that restrict such shareholders’ ability to transfer our ordinary shares for at least 90 days from the date of this prospectus. All of our outstanding shares held by our directors and officers will become eligible for unrestricted sale upon expiration of the lockup period, as described in the section of this prospectus entitled “Underwriting.” Sales of shares by these shareholders could have a material adverse effect on the trading price of our ordinary shares. Moreover, as of June 4, 2019, holders of an aggregate of 17,792,090 ordinary shares have rights, subject to some conditions, to require us to file registration statements covering their shares or to include their shares in registration statements that we may file for ourselves or other shareholders. Once we register these shares, they can be freely sold in the public market upon issuance, subject to the lock-up agreements described in the “Underwriting” section of this prospectus.

Our management will have broad discretion in the use of the net proceeds from this offering and may allocate the net proceeds from this offering in ways that you and other shareholders may not approve.

Our management will have broad discretion in the use of the net proceeds, including for any of the purposes described in the section entitled “Use of Proceeds,” and you will not have the opportunity as part of your investment decision to assess whether the net proceeds are being used appropriately. Because of the number and variability of factors that will determine our use of the net proceeds from this offering, their ultimate use may vary substantially from their currently intended use. The failure of our management to use these funds effectively could harm our business. Pending their use, we may invest the net proceeds from this offering in short-term, investment-grade, interest-bearing securities and depositary institutions. These investments may not yield a favorable return to our shareholders.

If we are or become classified as a passive foreign investment company, our U.S. shareholders may suffer adverse tax consequences as a result.

Generally, for any taxable year, if at least 75% of our gross income is passive income, or at least 50% of the value of our assets is attributable to assets that produce passive income or are held for the production of passive income, including cash, we would be characterized as a passive foreign investment

company, or PFIC, for U.S. federal income tax purposes. For purposes of these tests, passive income includes dividends, interest gains from commodities and securities transactions, the excess of gains over losses from the disposition of assets which produce passive income (including amounts derived by reason of the temporary investment of funds raised in offerings of our shares) and rents and royalties other than rents and royalties which are received from unrelated parties in connection with the active conduct of a trade or business. If we are characterized as a PFIC, our U.S. shareholders may suffer adverse tax consequences, including having gains realized on the sale of our ordinary shares treated as ordinary income, rather than capital gain, the loss of the preferential rate applicable to dividends received on our ordinary shares by individuals who are U.S. holders, and having interest charges apply to distributions by us and gains from the sales of our shares.

Our status as a PFIC will depend on the nature and composition of our income and the nature, composition and value of our assets (which may be determined based on the fair market value of each asset, with the value of goodwill and going concern value determined in large part by reference to the market value of our common shares, which may be volatile). Our status may also depend, in part, on how quickly we utilize the cash proceeds from this offering in our business. Based upon the value of our assets, including any goodwill, and the nature and composition of our income and assets, we do not believe that we were classified as a PFIC for the taxable year ended December 31, 2018 and we do not believe that we will be classified as a PFIC for the taxable year ending December 31, 2019 or in the immediately foreseeable future. Because the determination of whether we are a PFIC for any taxable year is a factual determination made annually after the end of each taxable year, there can be no assurance that we will not be considered a PFIC in any taxable year. Accordingly, our U.S. counsel expresses no opinion with respect to our PFIC status for our taxable year ended December 31, 2018, and also expresses no opinion with regard to our expectations regarding our PFIC status in the future.

The tax consequences that would apply if we are classified as a PFIC would also be different from those described above if a U.S. shareholder were able to make a valid qualified electing fund, or QEF, election. At this time, we do not expect to provide U.S. shareholders with the information necessary for a U.S. shareholder to make a QEF election. Prospective investors should assume that a QEF election will not be available.

If a United States person is treated as owning at least 10% of our shares, such holder may be subject to adverse U.S. federal income tax consequences.

If a United States person is treated as owning (directly, indirectly or constructively) at least 10% of the value or voting power of our shares, such person may be treated as a “United States shareholder” with respect to each “controlled foreign corporation” in our group (if any). Because our group includes one or more U.S. subsidiaries, certain of our current or future non-U.S. subsidiaries could be treated as controlled foreign corporations (regardless of whether we are or are not treated as a controlled foreign corporation). A United States shareholder of a controlled foreign corporation may be required to annually report and include in its U.S. taxable income its pro rata share of the controlled foreign corporation’s “Subpart F income”, “global intangible low-taxed income” and investments in U.S. property, whether or not such controlled foreign corporation makes any distributions. An individual that is a United States shareholder with respect to a controlled foreign corporation generally would not be allowed certain tax deductions or foreign tax credits that would be allowed to a United States shareholder that is a U.S. corporation. A failure to comply with these reporting obligations may subject you to significant monetary penalties and may prevent the statute of limitations with respect to your U.S. federal income tax return for the year for which reporting was due from starting. We cannot provide any assurances that we will assist investors in determining whether any of our current or future non-U.S. subsidiaries are treated as a controlled foreign corporation or whether such investor is treated as a United States shareholder with respect to any of such controlled foreign corporations or furnish to any United States shareholders information that may be necessary to comply with the aforementioned reporting and tax paying obligations. A United States investor should consult their own advisors regarding the potential application of these rules to its investment in the shares.

The intended tax effects of our corporate structure and intercompany arrangements depend on the application of the tax laws of various jurisdictions and on how we operate our business.

Significant judgment is required in evaluating our tax positions and determining our provision for income taxes. During the ordinary course of business, there are many transactions and calculations for which the ultimate tax determination is uncertain. For example, our effective tax rates could be adversely affected by changes in foreign currency exchange rates or by changes in the relevant tax, accounting and other laws, regulations, principles and interpretations. As we intend to operate in numerous countries and taxing jurisdictions, the application of tax laws can be subject to diverging and sometimes conflicting interpretations by tax authorities of these jurisdictions. It is not uncommon for taxing authorities in different countries to have conflicting views, for instance, with respect to, among other things, the manner in which the arm’s length standard is applied for transfer pricing purposes, or with respect to the valuation of intellectual property. In addition, tax laws are dynamic and subject to change as new laws are passed and new interpretations of the law are issued or applied. For example, the Tax Act introduced a comprehensive set of tax reforms. We continue to assess the impact of such tax reform legislation on our business and may determine that changes to our structure, practice or tax positions are necessary in light of the Tax Act. Certain impacts of this legislation have been taken into account in our financial statements, including the reduction of the U.S. corporate income tax rate from the previous top marginal rate of 35 percent to a flat rate of 21 percent. The Tax Act in conjunction with the tax laws of other jurisdictions in which we operate, however, may require consideration of changes to our structure and the manner in which we conduct our business. Such changes may nevertheless be ineffective in avoiding an increase in our consolidated tax liability, which could adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

If tax authorities in any of the countries in which we operate were to successfully challenge our transfer prices as not reflecting arms’ length transactions, they could require us to adjust our transfer prices and thereby reallocate our income to reflect these revised transfer prices, which could result in a higher tax liability to us. In addition, if the country from which the income is reallocated does not agree with the reallocation, both countries could tax the same income, potentially resulting in double taxation. If tax authorities were to allocate income to a higher tax jurisdiction, subject our income to double taxation or assess interest and penalties, it would increase our consolidated tax liability, which could adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

The tax benefits that are available to us require us to continue to meet various conditions and may be terminated or reduced in the future, which could increase our costs and taxes.

Some of our operations in Israel may entitle us to certain tax benefits under the Law for the Encouragement of Capital Investments, 5719-1959, or the Investment Law, once we begin to produce revenue. If we do not meet the requirements for maintaining these benefits, they may be reduced or cancelled and the relevant operations would be subject to Israeli corporate tax at the standard rate, which is set at 23% in 2018 and thereafter. In addition to being subject to the standard corporate tax rate, we could be required to refund any tax benefits that we will receive, plus interest and penalties thereon. Even if we continue to meet the relevant requirements, the tax benefits that our current “Preferred Enterprise” is entitled to may not be continued in the future at their current levels or at all. If these tax benefits were reduced or eliminated, the amount of taxes that we will pay would likely increase, as all of our operations would consequently be subject to corporate tax at the standard rate, which could adversely affect our results of operations. Additionally, if we increase our activities outside of Israel, for example, by way of acquisitions, our increased activities may not be eligible for inclusion in Israeli tax benefits programs.

We have never paid cash dividends on our share capital, and we do not anticipate paying any cash dividends in the foreseeable future.

We have never declared or paid cash dividends on our ordinary shares. 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 in the foreseeable future. As a result, capital appreciation, if any, of our ordinary shares will be investors’ sole source of gain for the foreseeable future. In addition, Israeli law limits our ability to declare and pay dividends, and may subject our dividends to Israeli withholding taxes.

If securities or industry analysts cease publishing research or reports about us, our business or our market, or if they adversely change their recommendations or publish negative reports regarding our business or our shares, our share price and trading volume could decline.

The trading market for our ordinary shares is influenced by the research and reports that industry or securities analysts publish about us, our business, our market or our competitors. We do not have any control over these analysts, and we cannot provide any assurance that analysts will continue to cover us or provide favorable coverage. If any of the analysts who cover us adversely change their recommendation regarding our shares, or provide more favorable relative recommendations about our competitors, our share price would likely decline. If any analyst who cover us were to cease coverage of our company or fail to regularly publish reports on us, we could lose visibility in the financial markets, which in turn could cause our share price or trading volume to decline.

As a foreign private issuer, we are permitted to, and do, follow certain home country corporate governance practices instead of otherwise applicable Nasdaq requirements, and we will not be subject to certain U.S. securities laws including, but not limited to, U.S. proxy rules and the filing of certain Exchange Act reports.

As a foreign private issuer, we are permitted to, and do, follow certain home country corporate governance practices instead of those otherwise required by the Nasdaq Stock Market for domestic U.S. issuers. Following our home country governance practices as opposed to the requirements that would otherwise apply to a U.S. company listed on The Nasdaq Global Market may provide less protection to you than what is accorded to investors under the listing rules of Nasdaq applicable to domestic U.S. issuers.

As a foreign private issuer, we are exempt from the rules and regulations under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or the Exchange Act, related to the furnishing and content of proxy statements, including the applicable compensation disclosure requirements. Nevertheless, pursuant to regulations promulgated under the Israeli Companies Law, 5759-1999, or the Israeli Companies Law or the Companies Law, we are required to disclose the annual compensation of our five most highly compensated office holders on an individual basis. Such disclosure is not as extensive as that required of a U.S. domestic issuer. Our officers, directors and principal shareholders are exempt from the reporting and short-swing profit recovery provisions contained in Section 16 of the Exchange Act. In addition, we are not required under the Exchange Act to file reports and financial statements with the SEC as frequently or as promptly as U.S. domestic companies whose securities are registered under the Exchange Act and we are exempt from filing quarterly reports with the SEC under the Exchange Act. Moreover, we are not required to comply with Regulation FD, which restricts the selective disclosure of material information, although we have voluntarily adopted a corporate disclosure policy substantially similar to Regulation FD. These exemptions and leniencies reduce the frequency and scope of information and protections to which you may otherwise have been eligible in relation to a U.S. domestic issuer.

We would lose our foreign private issuer status if a majority of our shares are owned by U.S. residents and a majority of our directors or executive officers are U.S. citizens or residents or we fail to meet additional requirements necessary to avoid loss of foreign private issuer status. The regulatory and compliance costs to us under U.S. securities laws as a U.S. domestic issuer may be significantly higher. If we are not a foreign private issuer, we will be required to file periodic reports and registration statements on U.S. domestic issuer forms with the SEC, which are more detailed and extensive than the forms available to a foreign private issuer. We may also be required to modify certain of our policies to comply with accepted governance practices associated with U.S. domestic issuers. Such conversion and modifications will involve additional costs. In addition, we would lose our ability to rely upon exemptions from certain corporate governance requirements on U.S. stock exchanges that are available to foreign private issuers.

We are an emerging growth company and the reduced disclosure requirements applicable to emerging growth companies may make our ordinary shares less attractive to investors.

We are an emerging growth company, as defined in the JOBS Act, and we may take advantage of certain exemptions from various requirements that are applicable to other public companies that are not emerging growth companies.

For as long as we remain an emerging growth company we are permitted and intend to rely on exemptions from certain disclosure requirements that are applicable to other public companies that are not “emerging growth companies.” These exemptions include:

We may take advantage of these provisions for up to five years or such earlier time that we are no longer an emerging growth company. We would cease to be an emerging growth company upon the earlier to occur of: (1) the last day of the fiscal year in which we have total annual gross revenue of $1.07 billion or more; (2) the date on which we have issued more than $1.0 billion in nonconvertible debt during the previous three years; or (3) the date on which we are deemed to be a large accelerated filer under the rules of the SEC. We may choose to take advantage of some but not all of these reduced burdens, and therefore the information that we provide holders of our ordinary shares may be different than the information you might receive from other public companies in which you hold equity. In addition, Section 107 of the JOBS Act also provides that an emerging growth company can take advantage of an extended transition period for complying with new or revised accounting standards applicable to public companies. However, given that we currently report and expect to continue to report under IFRS as issued by the IASB, the extended transition period available to emerging growth companies that report under GAAP is inapplicable to us.

When we are no longer deemed to be an emerging growth company, we will not be entitled to the exemptions provided in the JOBS Act discussed above. We cannot predict if investors will find our ordinary shares less attractive as a result of our reliance on exemptions under the JOBS Act. If some investors find our ordinary shares less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for our ordinary shares and our share price may be more volatile.

We must meet the Nasdaq Global Market’s continued listing requirements and comply with the other Nasdaq rules, or we may risk delisting. Delisting could negatively affect the price of our ordinary shares, which could make it more difficult for us to sell securities in a financing and for you to sell your ordinary shares.

We are required to meet the continued listing requirements of the Nasdaq Global Market and comply with the other Nasdaq rules, including those regarding director independence and independent committee requirements, minimum shareholders’ equity, minimum share price and certain other corporate governance requirements. If we do not meet these continued listing requirements, our ordinary shares could be delisted. Delisting of our ordinary shares from the Nasdaq Global Market would cause us to pursue eligibility for trading on other markets or exchanges, or on the pink sheets. In such case, our shareholders’ ability to trade, or obtain quotations of the market value of, our ordinary shares would be severely limited because of lower trading volumes and transaction delays. These factors could contribute to lower prices and larger spreads in the bid and ask prices for our securities. There can be no assurance that our ordinary shares, if delisted from the Nasdaq Global Market in the future, would be listed on a national securities exchange or quoted on a national quotation service, the OTCBB or the pink sheets. Delisting from the Nasdaq Global Market, or even the issuance of a notice of potential delisting, would also result in negative publicity, make it more difficult for us to raise additional capital, adversely affect the market liquidity of our ordinary shares, reduce security analysts’ coverage of us and diminish investor,

supplier and employee confidence. In addition, as a consequence of any such delisting, our share price could be negatively affected and our shareholders would likely find it more difficult to sell, or to obtain accurate quotations as to the prices of, our ordinary shares.

Risks Related to Israeli Law and Our Operations in Israel

Our headquarters and other significant operations are located in Israel and, therefore, our results may be adversely affected by political, economic and military conditions in Israel.

Our executive offices are located in Jerusalem, Israel. Also, it is expected that all of our manufacturing operations will be located at Israel. In addition, a number of our officers and directors are residents of Israel. Accordingly, political, economic and military conditions in Israel and the surrounding region may directly affect our business and operations. Since the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, a number of armed conflicts have taken place between Israel and its neighboring countries, as well as terrorist acts committed within Israel by hostile elements. Any hostilities involving Israel or the interruption or curtailment of trade between Israel and its trading partners could adversely affect our operations and results of operations. During November 2012 and from July through August 2014, Israel was engaged in an armed conflict with a militia group and political party who controls the Gaza Strip, and during the summer of 2006, Israel was engaged in an armed conflict with Hezbollah, a Lebanese Islamist Shiite militia group and political party. In December 2008 and January 2009 there was an escalation in violence among Israel, Hamas, the Palestinian Authority and other groups, as well as extensive hostilities along Israel’s border with the Gaza Strip, which resulted in missiles being fired from the Gaza Strip into Southern Israel. Similar hostilities accompanied by missiles being fired from the Gaza Strip into Southern Israel, as well at areas more centrally located near Tel Aviv and at areas surrounding Jerusalem, occurred during November 2012 and July through August 2014. These conflicts involved missile strikes against civilian targets in various parts of Israel, including areas in which our employees and some of our consultants are located, and negatively affected business conditions in Israel. Since February 2011, Egypt has experienced political turbulence and an increase in terrorist activity in the Sinai Peninsula following the resignation of Hosni Mubarak as president. This included protests throughout Egypt, and the appointment of a military regime in his stead, followed by the elections to parliament which brought groups affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood (which had been previously outlawed by Egypt), and the subsequent overthrow of this elected government by a military regime. Such political turbulence and violence may damage peaceful and diplomatic relations between Israel and Egypt and could affect the region as a whole. Similar civil unrest and political turbulence has occurred in other countries in the region, including Syria, which shares a common border with Israel, and is affecting the political stability of those countries. Since April 2011, internal conflict in Syria has escalated, and chemical weapons have been used in the region. Foreign actors have and continue to intervene in Syria. This instability and any intervention may lead to deterioration of the political and economic relationships that exist between the State of Israel and some of these countries and may have the potential for additional conflicts in the region. In addition, Iran has threatened to attack Israel and may be developing nuclear weapons. Iran also has a strong influence among extremist groups in the region, including Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon and various rebel militia groups in Syria. These situations have escalated at various points in recent years and may escalate in the future to more violent events, which may affect Israel and us. Any armed conflicts, terrorist activities or political instability in the region could adversely affect business conditions and could harm our results of operations and could make it more difficult for us to raise capital. Parties with whom we do business have sometimes declined to travel to Israel during periods of heightened unrest or tension, forcing us to make alternative arrangements when necessary in order to meet our business partners face to face. In addition, the political and security situation in Israel may result in parties with whom we have agreements involving performance in Israel claiming that they are not obligated to perform their commitments under those agreements pursuant to force majeure provisions in such agreements.

Our commercial insurance does not cover losses that may occur as a result of events associated with the security situation in the Middle East. Although the Israeli government currently covers the reinstatement value of direct damages that are caused by terrorist attacks or acts of war, we cannot

assure you that this government coverage will be maintained or that it will sufficiently cover our potential damages. Any losses or damages incurred by us could have a material adverse effect on our business. Any armed conflicts or political instability in the region would likely negatively affect business conditions and could harm our results of operations.

Further, in the past, the State of Israel and Israeli companies have been subjected to economic boycotts. Several countries still restrict business with the State of Israel and with Israeli companies. These restrictive laws and policies may have an adverse impact on our operating results, financial condition or the expansion of our business. A campaign of boycotts, divestment and sanctions has been undertaken against Israel, which could also adversely impact our business.

Our operations may be disrupted as a result of the obligation of management or key personnel or consultants to perform military service.

Many Israeli citizens are obligated to perform several days, and in some cases more, of annual military reserve duty each year until they reach the age of 40 (or older, for reservists who are military officers or who have certain occupations) and, in the event of a military conflict, may be called to active duty. In response to increases in terrorist activity, there have been periods of significant call-ups of military reservists. It is possible that there will be military reserve duty call-ups in the future. Our operations could be disrupted by such call-ups, which may include the call-up of members of our management. Such disruption could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Because we incur a portion of our expenses in currencies other than the U.S. dollar, our financial condition and results of operations may be harmed by currency fluctuations and inflation.

While our reporting and functional currency is the U.S. dollar, we pay a meaningful portion of our expenses in NIS, Euros and other currencies. All of the salaries of our employees, our general and administrative expenses (including rent for our real property facility in Israel), and the fees that we pay to certain of our partners, are denominated in NIS. Certain of our suppliers are located in Europe and are paid in Euros. As a result, we are exposed to the currency fluctuation risks relating to the denomination of our future expenses in U.S. dollars. More specifically, if the U.S. dollar becomes devalued against the NIS or the Euro, our NIS- or Euro- denominated expenses will be greater than anticipated when reported in U.S. dollars. Inflation in Israel compounds the adverse impact of such devaluation by further increasing the amount of our Israeli expenses. Israeli inflation may also (in the future) outweigh the positive effect of any appreciation of the U.S. dollar relative to the NIS, if, and to the extent that, it outpaces such appreciation or precedes such appreciation. The Israeli rate of inflation has not had a material adverse effect on our financial condition during 2016, 2017 or 2018. Given our general lack of currency hedging arrangements to protect us from fluctuations in the exchange rates of the NIS or the Euro and other non-U.S. currencies in relation to the U.S. dollar (and/or from inflation of such non-U.S. currencies), we may be exposed to material adverse effects from such movements. We cannot predict any future trends in the rate of inflation in Israel or in Europe or the rate of devaluation (if any) of the U.S. dollar against the NIS or the Euro.

Provisions of Israeli law and our amended and restated articles of association may delay, prevent or make undesirable an acquisition of all or a significant portion of our shares or assets.

Certain provisions of Israeli law and our amended and restated articles of association could have the effect of delaying or preventing a change in control and may make it more difficult for a third party to acquire us or for our shareholders to elect different individuals to our board of directors, even if doing so would be beneficial to our shareholders, and may limit the price that investors may be willing to pay in the future for our ordinary shares. For example, our amended and restated articles of association provide that our directors are elected on a staggered basis, such that a potential acquirer cannot readily replace our entire board of directors at a single annual general shareholder meeting. In addition, Israeli corporate law regulates mergers and requires that a tender offer be effected when more than a specified percentage of shares in a company are purchased. Further, Israeli tax considerations may make potential transactions undesirable to us or to some of our shareholders whose country of residence does not have a tax treaty with Israel granting tax relief to such shareholders from Israeli tax. With respect to certain mergers, Israeli tax law may impose certain restrictions on future transactions, including with respect to dispositions of shares received as consideration, for a period of two years from the date of the merger.

Furthermore, under the Encouragement of Research, Development and Technological Innovation in the Industry Law 5744-1984 (formerly known as the Law for the Encouragement of Research and Development in Industry 5744-1984), and the regulations and guidelines promulgated thereunder, or the Innovation Law, to which we are subject due to our receipt of grants from the Israel Innovation Authority, or IIA (formerly known as the Office of the Chief Scientist of the Ministry of Economy and Industry, or the OCS), a recipient of IIA grants such as us must report to IIA regarding any change of control of our company or regarding any change in the holding of the means of control of our company which results in any non-Israeli citizen or resident becoming an “interested party”, as defined in the Innovation Law, in our company, and in the latter event, the non-Israeli citizen or resident will be required to execute an undertaking in favor of IIA, in a form prescribed by IIA, acknowledging the restrictions imposed by such law and agreeing to abide by its terms.

Investors may have difficulties enforcing a U.S. judgment, including judgments based upon the civil liability provisions of the U.S. federal securities laws against us, or our executive officers and directors or asserting U.S. securities laws claims in Israel.

Not all of our directors or officers are residents of the United States and most of their and our assets are located outside the United States. Service of process upon us or our non-U.S. resident directors and officers and enforcement of judgments obtained in the United States against us or our non-U.S. our directors and executive officers may be difficult to obtain within the United States. We have been informed by our legal counsel in Israel that it may be difficult to assert claims under U.S. securities laws in original actions instituted in Israel or obtain a judgment based on the civil liability provisions of U.S. federal securities laws. Israeli courts may refuse to hear a claim based on a violation of U.S. securities laws against us or our non-U.S. officers and directors because Israel may not be the most appropriate forum to bring such a claim. In addition, even if an Israeli court agrees to hear a claim, it may determine that Israeli law and not U.S. law is applicable to the claim. If U.S. law is found to be applicable, the content of applicable U.S. law must be proved as a fact, which can be a time-consuming and costly process. Certain matters of procedure will also be governed by Israeli law. There is little binding case law in Israel addressing the matters described above. Israeli courts might not enforce judgments rendered outside Israel, which may make it difficult to collect on judgments rendered against us or our non-U.S. officers and directors.

Moreover, among other reasons, including but not limited to, fraud or absence of due process, or the existence of a judgment which is at variance with another judgment that was given in the same matter if a suit in the same matter between the same parties was pending before a court or tribunal in Israel, an Israeli court will not enforce a non-Israeli judgment if it was given in a state whose laws do not provide for the enforcement of judgments of Israeli courts (subject to exceptional cases) or if its enforcement is likely to prejudice the sovereignty or security of the State of Israel.

Your liabilities and responsibilities as a shareholder will be governed by Israeli law, which differs in some material respects from the U.S. law that governs the liabilities and responsibilities of shareholders of U.S. corporations.

We are incorporated under Israeli law. The rights and responsibilities of holders of our ordinary shares are governed by our amended and restated articles of association and the Companies Law. These rights and responsibilities differ in some respects from the rights and responsibilities of shareholders in typical U.S. corporations. In particular, pursuant to the Companies Law each shareholder of an Israeli company has to act in good faith in exercising his or her rights and fulfilling his or her obligations toward the Company and other shareholders and to refrain from abusing his or her power in the Company, including, among other things, in voting at the general meeting of shareholders and class meetings, on amendments to a company’s articles of association, increases in a company’s authorized share capital, mergers, and transactions requiring shareholders’ approval under the Companies Law. In addition, a controlling shareholder of an Israeli company or a shareholder who knows that it possesses the power to determine the outcome of a shareholder vote or who has the power to appoint or prevent the appointment of a director or officer in the Company, or has other powers toward the Company has a duty of fairness toward the Company. However, Israeli law does not define the substance of this duty of fairness. Because Israeli corporate law has undergone extensive revision in recent years, there is little case law available to assist in understanding the implications of these provisions that govern shareholder behavior.

You should read this prospectus completely and with the understanding that our actual future results may be materially different from what we expect. We qualify all of our forward- looking statements by these cautionary statements.

This prospectus may contain market data and industry forecasts that were obtained from industry publications. These data involve a number of assumptions and limitations, and you are cautioned not to give undue weight to such estimates. While we believe the market position, market opportunity and market size information included in this prospectus is generally reliable, such information is inherently imprecise.

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

We will need substantial additional funding to support our operating activities as we advance our product candidates through clinical development, seek regulatory approval and prepare for and, if any of our product candidates are approved, proceed to commercialization. Adequate funding may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all.

To continue to fund our operations, we expect to raise capital in addition to the net proceeds of this offering. We may obtain additional financing in the future through the issuance of our ordinary shares, through other equity or debt financings or through collaborations or partnerships with other companies. We may not be able to raise additional capital on terms acceptable to us, or at all, and any failure to raise capital as and when needed could compromise our ability to execute on our business plan. Although it is difficult to predict future liquidity requirements, we believe that the net proceeds from this offering and our existing funds will be sufficient to fund our operations through March 2020. However, our ability to successfully transition to profitability will be dependent upon achieving a level of revenue adequate to support our cost structure. We cannot assure you that we will ever be profitable or generate positive cash flow from operating activities.

Components of Results of Operations

Revenue

We do not currently have any products approved for sale and, to date, we have not recognized any revenue. In the future, we may generate revenue from a combination of product sales, reimbursements, up-front payments and future collaborations. If we fail to achieve clinical success or obtain regulatory approval of any of our product candidates in a timely manner, our ability to generate future revenue will be impaired.

Research and development expenses, net

The largest component of our total operating expenses has historically been, and we expect will continue to be, research and development. Our research and development expenses, net of grants from the Israel Innovation Authority, or IIA, consist primarily of:

Research expenditures are recognized in profit or loss when incurred. An intangible asset arising from a development project or from the development phase of an internal project is recognized if we can demonstrate: the technical feasibility of completing the intangible asset so that it will be available for use or sale; our intention to complete the intangible asset and use or sell it; our ability to use or sell the intangible asset; how the intangible asset will generate future economic benefits; the availability of adequate technical, financial and other resources to complete the intangible asset; and our ability to measure reliably the expenditure attributable to the intangible asset during its development. Since our

development projects are subject to regulatory approval procedures and other uncertainties, the conditions for the capitalization of costs incurred before receipt of approvals are not satisfied and, therefore, development expenditures are recognized in profit or loss when incurred.

Through March 31, 2019, we have received grants of approximately $29.3 million in the aggregate from the IIA for research and development funding. Pursuant to the terms of the grants, we are obligated to pay the IIA royalties, at the rate of between 3% to 4% on all our revenue, up to a limit of 100% of the amounts of the U.S. dollar-linked grants received, plus annual interest calculated at a rate based on 12-month LIBOR. We have not paid any royalties to the IIA to date.

In addition to paying any royalties due, we must abide by other restrictions associated with receiving such grants under the Encouragement of Research, Development and Technological Innovation in the Industry Law 5744-1984, which will also continue to apply to us following the repayment in full of the amounts due to the IIA. The Innovation Law restricts our ability to manufacture products and transfer technologies outside of Israel and may impair our ability to enter into agreements that involve IIA-funded products or know-how without the approval of the IIA. Any approval, if given, will generally be subject to additional financial obligations by us. Failure to comply with the requirements under the Innovation Law may subject us to mandatory repayment of grants received by us, together with interest and penalties as well as expose us to criminal proceedings.

In June 2017, new rules, or the Licensing Rules, were published by the IIA allowing a grant recipient to enter into licensing arrangements or grant other rights in know-how developed under IIA programs outside of Israel, subject to the prior consent of the IIA and payment of license fees, calculated in accordance with the Licensing Rules. The amount of the license fees is based on various factors, including the consideration received by the licensor in connection with the license, and shall not exceed six times the amount of the grants received by the grants recipient (plus accrued interest) for the applicable know-how being licensed. In certain cases, such as when the license consideration includes nonmonetary compensation or when a “special relationship” exists between the licensor and licensee ( e.g. , when a party controls the other party or is the other party’s exclusive distributor), or when the agreed upon consideration does not reflect, in the IIA’s opinion, the market value of the license, the IIA may base the value of the transaction on an economic assessment that it obtains for such purpose. See “Taxation – Material Israeli Tax Considerations” for more information.

Government grants received from the IIA are recognized upon receipt as a liability if future economic benefits are expected from the project that will result in royalty-bearing revenue. If no such economic benefits are expected, the grants are recognized as a reduction of the related research and development expenses.

We are currently focused on advancing our product candidates, and our future research and development expenses will depend on their clinical success. Research and development expenses will continue to be significant and will increase over at least the next several years as we continue to develop our product candidates and conduct preclinical studies and clinical trials of our product candidates.

These research and development costs include share-based compensation and other employment costs, regulatory, quality assurance and intellectual property costs. The costs incurred in research and development expenses are to advance the development of our product candidates and preclinical research and development programs. A substantial majority of our research and development expenses are related to the development of omidubicel.

We do not believe that it is possible at this time to accurately project total expenses required for us to reach commercialization of our product candidates. Due to the inherently unpredictable nature of preclinical and clinical development, we are unable to estimate with certainty the costs we will incur and the timelines that will be required in the continued development and approval of our product candidates. Clinical and preclinical development timelines, the probability of success and development costs can differ materially from expectations. In addition, we cannot forecast which product candidates may be subject to future collaborations, if and when such arrangements will be entered into, if at all, and to what degree such arrangements would affect our development plans and capital requirements.

General and administrative expenses

General and administrative expenses consist primarily of personnel costs, including share-based compensation, related to directors, executive, finance, and administrative functions, facility costs and external professional service costs, including legal, accounting and audit services and other consulting fees.

We anticipate that our general and administrative expenses will increase in the future as we increase our administrative headcount and infrastructure to support our continued research and development programs and the potential approval and commercialization of our product candidates. We also anticipate that we will incur increased expenses related to audit, legal, regulatory and tax-related services associated with maintaining compliance with Nasdaq and SEC requirements, director and officer insurance premiums, executive compensation, and other customary costs associated with being a public company.

Finance income (expenses), net

Finance income (expenses), net, is calculated by subtracting our financing expense from our financing income, and adding or subtracting the gain or loss, as applicable, that we have realized due to revaluation at fair value of warrants and the IIA royalty-bearing grants liability, offset by interest income from deposits and marketable securities.

Income taxes

We have yet to generate taxable income in Israel, as we have historically incurred operating losses resulting in carry forward tax losses totaling approximately $120.5 million (including capital losses of $0.5 million) as of December 31, 2018. We anticipate that we will continue to generate tax losses for the foreseeable future and that we will be able to carry forward these tax losses indefinitely to future taxable years. Accordingly, we do not expect to pay taxes in Israel until we have taxable income after the full utilization of our carry forward tax losses. Deferred tax assets are recognized to the extent that it is probable that taxable profit will be available against which the unused tax losses can be utilized. As of March 31, 2019, we did not recognize deferred tax assets for carryforward losses because their utilization in the foreseeable future is not probable.

Research and development expenses

Research and development expenses increased by approximately $2.2 million to $7.3 million in the three months ended March 31, 2019 from $5.1 million in the three months ended March 31, 2018. The increase was attributable mainly to a $1.2 million increase in clinical activities relating to advancing our Phase 3 clinical program and initiation of the GDA-201 clinical program, an increase of $0.2 million in salaries and benefits, consisting primarily of additional headcount focused on clinical development, a decrease of $0.5 million in royalty-bearing grants from the IIA, and an increase of $0.3 million in rent and other expenses.

General and administrative expenses

General and administrative expenses increased by approximately $2.1 million to $3.8 million in the three months ended March 31, 2019, from $1.7 million in the three months ended March 31, 2018. The increase was attributable mainly to a $1.0 million increase in salaries and benefits as a result of hiring key C-level executives and establishing our US headquarters, an increase of $0.5 million in non-cash stock-based compensation expenses, a $0.4 million increase in professional services expenses, insurance, board fee, legal and other expenses incurred as a result of becoming a public company and a $0.2 million increase in rent and other expenses.

Finance expenses, net

Finance expenses, net, increased by approximately $3.7 million to $4.4 million of expenses in the three months ended March 31, 2019, from $0.7 million of expenses in the three months ended March 31, 2018, primarily due to non-cash expenses resulting from revaluation of warrants and the revaluation of IIA royalty-bearing grant liability.

Comparison of the y ears ended December 31 , 2018 and 2017

The following table summarizes our results of operations for the years ended December 31, 2018 and 2017:

Research and development expenses

Research and development expenses increased by approximately $7.0 million to $22.0 million in the year ended December 31, 2018 from $15.0 million in the year ended December 31, 2017. The increase was attributable mainly to a $5.4 million increase in clinical activities relating to advancing our Phase 3 clinical program and initiation of the GDA-201 clinical program, an increase of $0.6 million in salaries and benefits, consisting primarily of additional headcount focused on clinical development, a decrease of $0.5 million in royalty-bearing grants from the IIA, and an increase of $0.5 million in rent and other expenses.

General and administrative expenses

General and administrative expenses increased by approximately $7.1 million to $11.6 million in the year ended December 31, 2018, from $4.5 million in the year ended December 31, 2017. The increase was attributable mainly to a $2.9 million increase in salaries and benefits as a result of hiring key C-level executives and establishing our US headquarters, an increase of $2.0 million in non-cash stock-based compensation expenses, a $1.4 million increase in professional services expenses incurred during our initial public offering and as a result of becoming a public company and a $0.8 million increase in rent and other expenses.

Finance expenses, net

Finance expenses, net, increased by approximately $19.7 million to $19.2 million of expenses in the year ended December 31, 2018, from $0.5 million of income in the year ended December 31, 2017, primarily due to non-cash expenses resulting from revaluation of warrants and the revaluation of IIA royalty-bearing grant liability.

The $2.7 million increase in cash used was attributable primarily due to an increase in our net loss to $15.5 million during the three months ended March 31, 2019, from $7.4 million during the three months ended March 31, 2018 offset, in part, by certain non cash expenses related to revaluation of financial derivatives and to IIA.

Net cash used in investing activities

Net cash used in investing activities was $13.5 million during the three months ended March 31, 2019, compared to $9.8 million used in investing activities during the three months ended March 31, 2018. The $3.7 million increase is primarily related to sale of available for sale assets and transition of bank deposits to cash and cash equivalents.

Net cash used in financing activities

Net cash used in financing activities was $0.7 million during the three months ended March 31, 2019, compared to $1.7 million provided by financing activites during the three months ended March 31, 2018. The decrease is primarily related to $1.7 million in IIA grants, lease liabilities resulting from implementation of IFRS 16 and expenses from our initial public offering.

Funding Requirements

We believe that our existing funds, together with the net proceeds from this offering, will enable us to fund our operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements through March 2020. We have based this estimate on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and we could use our capital resources sooner than we currently expect.

Our present and future funding requirements will depend on many factors, including, among other things:

Furthermore, we expect to continue to incur additional costs associated with operating as a public company. Accordingly, we will need to obtain substantial additional funding in connection with our continuing operations. If we are unable to raise capital when needed or on attractive terms, we would be forced to delay, reduce or eliminate our research and development programs or future commercialization efforts.

Until such time, if ever, as we can generate substantial product revenue, we may finance our cash needs through a combination of equity offerings, debt financings, collaborations, strategic alliances and licensing arrangements. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, your ownership interest will be diluted, and the terms of any additional securities may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect your rights as a shareholder.

Debt financing, if available, may involve agreements that include covenants limiting or restricting our ability to take specific actions, such as incurring additional debt, making capital expenditures or declaring dividends.

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

For more information as to the risks associated with our future funding needs, see “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Financial Condition and Capital Requirements—Even if this offering is successful, we will need to raise substantial additional funding, which may not be available on acceptable terms, or at all. Failure to obtain funding on acceptable terms and on a timely basis may require us to curtail, delay or discontinue our product development efforts or other operations.”

Contractual obligations and commitments

Our known contractual obligations as of December 31, 2018 are summarized in the following table. The obligations detailed below do not include grants received from the IIA pursuant to which we will owe royalties upon commercialization of our product candidates. As of December 31, 2018, the royalty amount payable under these funding arrangements is $34.2 million, including interest of $4.9 million.

Off-balance Sheet Arrangements

As of the date of this prospectus and during the periods presented, we do not and did not, respectively, have any off-balance sheet arrangements.

Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosure about Market Risk

Market risk is the risk of loss related to changes in market prices, including interest rates and foreign exchange rates, of financial instruments that may adversely impact our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Foreign currency exchange risk

The U.S. dollar is our functional and reporting currency. However, a material portion of our operating expenses are incurred in NIS. As a result, we are exposed to the risk that the NIS may appreciate relative to the dollar, or, if the NIS instead devalues relative to the dollar, that the inflation rate in Israel may exceed such rate of devaluation of the NIS, or that the timing of such devaluation may lag behind inflation in Israel. In any such event, the dollar cost of our operations in Israel would increase and our dollar-denominated results of operations would be adversely affected. We cannot predict any future trends in the rate of inflation in Israel or the rate of devaluation, if any, of the NIS against the dollar. If the dollar cost of our operations in Israel increases, our dollar-measured results of operations will be adversely affected. We have a similar issue to a lesser extent with certain Euro-denominated expenses in connection with our material costs. Our operations also could be adversely affected if we are unable to effectively hedge against currency fluctuations in the future.

We do not currently engage in currency hedging activities in order to reduce this currency exposure, but we may begin to do so in the future. Instruments that may be used to hedge future risks may include currency forward and swap contracts. These instruments may be used to selectively manage risks, but there can be no assurance that we will be fully protected against material currency fluctuations.

Liquidity risk

We monitor forecasts of our liquidity reserve (comprising cash and cash equivalents available-for-sale financial assets and short-term deposits). We generally carry this out based on our expected cash flows in accordance with practice and limits set by our management. We are in the clinical stage and we are therefore exposed to liquidity risk. However, we believe that our existing funds, together with the net proceeds from this offering, will enable us to fund our operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements through March 2020.

Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates

Our management’s discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations is based on our consolidated financial statements, which we have prepared in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards, or IFRS, as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board. The preparation of our consolidated financial statements requires us to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the consolidated financial statements, as well as the reported revenue and expenses during the reporting periods. Actual results may differ from these estimates under different assumptions or conditions.

While our significant accounting policies are more fully described in the notes to our consolidated financial statements appearing elsewhere in this prospectus, we believe that the accounting policies discussed below are critical to our financial results and to the understanding of our past and future performance, as these policies relate to the more significant areas involving management’s estimates and assumptions. We consider an accounting estimate to be critical if: (i) it requires us to make assumptions because information was not available at the time or it included matters that were highly uncertain at the time we were making our estimate; and (ii) changes in the estimate could have a material impact on our financial condition or results of operations.

Government Grants from the Israeli Innovation Authority (formerly the Office of the Chief Scientist)

Research and development grants received from the IIA are recognized upon receipt as a liability if future economic benefits are expected from the project that will result in royalty-bearing revenue. The amount of the liability for the loan is first measured at fair value using a discount rate that reflects a market rate of interest that reflects the appropriate degree of risks inherent in our business. The difference between the amount of the grant received and the fair value of the liability is accounted for as a government grant and recognized as a reduction of research and development expenses. After initial recognition, the liability is measured at amortized cost using the effective interest method. Royalty payments are treated as a reduction of the liability. If no economic benefits are expected from the research activity, the grant receipts are recognized as a reduction of the related research and development expenses. In that event, the royalty obligation is treated as a contingent liability in accordance with IAS 37, “Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets.”

At the end of each reporting period, we evaluate whether there is reasonable assurance that the liability recognized will be repaid based on our best estimate of future sales and, if not, the appropriate amount of the liability is derecognized against a corresponding reduction in research and development expenses. See note 2—“Government Investment Grants” of the accompanying audited consolidated financial statements.

Share-Based Compensation

We account for our equity-based compensation for employees in accordance with the provisions of IFRS 2 “Share-based Payment,” which requires us to measure the cost of equity-based compensation based on the fair value of the award on the grant date.

For option grants prior to our initial public offering, or IPO, we selected the binominal pricing model as the most appropriate method for determining the estimated fair value of our equity-based awards. The resulting cost of an equity incentive award is recognized as an expense over the requisite service period of the award, which is usually the vesting period. We recognize compensation expense over the vesting period using the accelerated method pursuant to which each vesting tranche is treated as a separate amortization period from grant date to vest date and classify these amounts in our consolidated financial statements based on the department to which the related employee reports.

Our determinations of the grant date fair value of options using the binomial model is affected by estimates and assumptions regarding a number of complex and subjective variables. These variables include the fair value of our share price as of the grant date, the expected volatility of our share price over the expected term of the options (estimated using historical data of comparable companies), share option exercise and cancellation behaviors, risk-free interest rates, expected dividend yields (assumed to be zero as we have historically not paid and do not intend to pay dividends on our ordinary shares).

Prior to our IPO, the fair value of our ordinary shares was determined by our management with the assistance of an appraiser and was determined in accordance with the guidelines outlined in the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants Practice Aid, Valuation of Privately-Held-Company Equity Securities Issued as Compensation, or the AICPA Practice Aid. For options granted after our IPO, the fair value of our ordinary shares is determined as the closing price of our ordinary shares as reported on The Nasdaq Global Market on the grant date. The assumptions used in our valuation model are based on future expectations combined with management’s judgment, and considered a number of objective, complex and subjective factors to determine the best estimate of the fair value of our ordinary shares, including contemporaneous and retrospective valuations of our ordinary shares performed by an unrelated valuation specialist, valuations of comparable peer companies, operating and financial performance, the lack of liquidity of our share capital, and general and industry specific economic outlook. Based on the fair value of our ordinary shares as of March 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018, the intrinsic value of the awards outstanding as of March 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018 was $26.5 million and $22.0 million, respectively.

The dates of our valuations historically did not always coincide with the dates of our share-based compensation grants. In such instances, management’s estimates were based on the most recent valuation of our ordinary shares. For grants occurring between valuation dates, for financial reporting purposes, we used the closest valuation date before the grant, as we believed that the ordinary share valuation represented the valuation at the date of grant. The following table lists the valuation dates of our ordinary shares:

We determined our ordinary share value as of March 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018 using the income approach. The income approach estimates the aggregate enterprise value of our company based on the present value of future estimated cash flows. Cash flows are estimated for future periods based on projected revenue and costs. These future cash flows are discounted to their present values using an appropriate discount rate. The discounted projected cash flows are summed together to arrive at an indicated aggregate enterprise value under the income approach. In applying the income approach, we derived the discount rate from an analysis of the weighted-average cost of capital based on company industry peers as of each valuation date and adjusted it to reflect the risks inherent in our business cash flows. In estimating our projected revenues, we used data from bone marrow registries such as the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research.

We then allocated the estimated enterprise value among different classes of our equity by applying the Probability Weighted Expected Return method, which was based on potential exit events from a strategic acquirer or public offering. The Probability Weighted Expected Return method requires significant assumptions, including, in particular, the probability that such exit scenarios will occur, the time until investors in our company would experience an exit event, and the volatility of our shares (which we determine based on public companies with business and financial risks comparable to our own).

We applied a discount to the resulting valuation due to the lack of marketability of our ordinary shares. We calculated this using an Asian put option model. The significant assumptions involved were the same as described above. Since our initial public offering, the fair value of our ordinary shares has been determined based on the closing price of our ordinary shares on the Nasdaq Global Market.

Liability Related to Certain Warrants

We issued certain warrants to investors in connection with our financings to date. We accounted for these warrants according to the provisions of IAS 32, “Financial instruments – presentation,” based on the anti-dilution protections provisions and cashless exercise mechanism contained in the warrants agreements. We classified the warrants as non-current liabilities, measured at fair value each reporting period until they will be exercised or expired, with changes in the fair values being recognized in our statement of comprehensive loss as financial income or expense.

As of March 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018, we estimated the fair value of these warrants using a Black-Scholes option pricing model, which is affected by estimates and assumptions regarding a number of complex and subjective variables. These variables are estimated as follows:

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

See note 4 of the accompanying audited consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2018.

Internal Control Over Financial Reporting

Failure to achieve and maintain effective internal controls in accordance with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, or Section 404, could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operation or financial condition. In addition, current and potential shareholders could lose confidence in our financial reporting, which could have a material adverse effect on the price of our ordinary shares. Pursuant to Section 404 and the related rules adopted by the SEC and the Public

Company Accounting Oversight Board, starting with the second annual report that we file with the SEC following the consummation of our initial public offering, our management will be required to report on the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting. In addition, once we no longer qualify as an “emerging growth company” under the JOBS Act and lose the ability to rely on the exemptions related thereto discussed above, our independent registered public accounting firm will also need to attest to the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting under Section 404. We have not yet commenced the process of determining whether our existing internal controls over financial reporting systems are compliant with Section 404 and whether there are any material weaknesses or significant deficiencies in our existing internal controls. This process will require the investment of substantial time and resources, including by our Chief Financial Officer and other members of our senior management. In addition, we cannot predict the outcome of this determination and whether we will need to implement remedial actions in order to implement effective control over financial reporting. The determination and any remedial actions required could result in our incurring additional costs that we did not anticipate. Regardless of compliance with Section 404, any failure of our internal controls could have a material adverse effect on our stated results of operations and harm our reputation. As a result, we may experience higher than anticipated operating expenses, as well as higher independent auditor fees during and after the implementation of these changes. If we are unable to implement any of the required changes to our internal control over financial reporting effectively or efficiently or are required to do so earlier than anticipated, it could adversely affect our operations, financial reporting and/or results of operations and could result in an adverse opinion on internal controls from our independent auditors.

JOBS Act

As an “emerging growth company,” as defined in the JOBS Act, we may take advantage of certain temporary exemptions from various reporting requirements, including, but not limited to, not being required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404 (and the rules and regulations of the SEC thereunder). When these exemptions cease to apply, we expect to incur additional expenses and devote increased management effort toward ensuring compliance with them. We cannot predict or estimate the amount of additional costs we may incur as a result of becoming a public company or the timing of such costs.

compared to stem cell grafts from adult bone marrow or peripheral blood donors. This lower number of cells may delay engraftment of the donor cells and reconstitution of the immune system. This, in turn, increases both time in the hospital and the likelihood that a patient might contract a life-threatening infection.

Omidubicel, our lead product candidate, is designed to address the limitations of HSCT. Omidubicel is composed of cord blood that has been manufactured using our proprietary NAM-based cell expansion technology, which increases engraftment efficiency in HSCT and enables rapid engraftment and immune system reconstitution. This reduces the risk of infections and other complications after transplant. In addition, the donor T cells in cord blood are naïve, meaning that they have not matured and may more readily adapt to the recipient. This results in greater immunologic compatibility, or the matching of the donor cells with the recipient’s cells, reducing the frequency and severity of GvHD, a medical complication following the receipt of transplanted tissue from a genetically different person, when compared to HSCT with MUD. In light of these advantages, omidubicel, if approved, may serve as a universal, readily available, reliable and effective alternative to existing sources of donor cells for HSCT.

Omidubicel has the potential to be a universal stem cell graft in two broad patient groups: (i) patients with high-risk leukemias and lymphomas who require HSCTs but who lack access to genetically matched donors; and (ii) patients with severe hematologic disorders such as severe aplastic anemia. In the first patient population, we are currently enrolling an international, multicenter, randomized, pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial with top-line data expected in the first half of 2020. In our company-sponsored, Phase 1/2 clinical trial in hematologic malignancies, omidubicel was observed to help patients achieve rapid neutrophil and platelet engraftment. Neutrophil engraftment is defined as achieving a minimum neutrophil count of at least 0.5 x 10 ⁹ per liter on three consecutive measurements on different days. Platelet engraftment is defined as achieving a platelet count of at least 20 x 10 ⁹ per liter on three consecutive measurements on different days, with no platelet transfusion in the preceding seven days. Based on these promising clinical results, believe omidubicel has curative potential for hematologic malignancies initially, and eventually other rare hematologic conditions such as severe aplastic anemia. In the second patient population, we are currently conducting a Phase 1/2 clinical trial of omidubicel sponsored by the NIH, under an Investigational New Drug, or IND, application for omidubicel. In February 2019, we reported preliminary data from three patients at the Transplantation and Cellular Therapy Meeting, or TCT Meeting. All three patients in the first cohort were successfully transplanted and engrafted. The second cohort is currently open for patient enrollment.

We are also applying our technology to develop GDA-201 for innate immunotherapy of expanded natural killer, or NK, cells for application in additional cancer indications when combined with standard-of-care antibody therapies. NK cells are highly potent cytotoxic lymphoid cells that can kill tumor cells in the absence of prior sensitization by other components of the immune system. By expanding NK cells with our NAM technology, we have the potential to increase the number and functionality of therapeutic NK cells targeting tumors. When GDA-201 is combined with targeted antibodies, we have shown that there is enhanced antibody-dependent cellular toxicity, or ADCC. GDA-201 is currently being evaluated in an ongoing investigator-sponsored Phase 1 clinical trial projected to enroll 24 patients with NHL and MM in combination with rituximab or elotuzumab, respectively. In February 2019, we reported preliminary data at the TCT Meeting. The data from the first 14 patients demonstrated that GDA-201 was clinically active and generally well tolerated. Among the 12 patients evaluable for activity, six NHL patients, three patients achieved a complete response, one patient achieved a partial response and two patients experienced progressive disease. Two of the patients who achieved a complete response subsequently underwent a bone marrow transplant. Among the six MM patients evaluable for activity, one patient achieved a complete response, two patients experienced stable disease and three patients experienced progressive disease. Activity was observed at all three dose levels evaluated.

In addition, on February 12, 2019, Gamida Cell and Editas Medicine, Inc., or Editas Medicine entered into an agreement to evaluate the potential use of Editas Medicine’s CRISPR technology to edit GDA-201 cells. The two companies will engage in joint research to evaluate unnamed targets by combining our proprietary NAM-based cell expansion technology with Editas Medicine’s CRISPR technology. The research initiative is focused on exploring the potential to edit GDA-201 cells to further optimize their tumor-killing properties.

We are led by an experienced management team with extensive expertise in developing oncology therapies and manufacturing cell therapies and other complex biologics. Our director and chief executive officer, Julian Adams, played a central role in the discovery and development of bortezomib, or Velcade®, a widely used therapy for MM and other blood cancers approved by the FDA in 2003. Dr. Adams also led research and development, or R&D, efforts at Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Inc., which helped lead to the 2018 FDA approval of duvelisib, also known as Copiktra ^® , for the treatment of certain leukemias and lymphomas.

Pipeline chart

Strategy

Our goal is to deliver curative cell therapies to patients with serious and life-threatening medical conditions. The key strategies to achieve our goal are the following:

GDA-201 was highly active and generally well tolerated. Among the six NHL patients evaluable for activity, three patients achieved a complete response, one patient achieved a partial response, and two patients experienced progressive disease. Two of the patients who achieved a complete response subsequently received a bone marrow transplant. Among the six MM patients evaluable for activity, one patient underwent a complete response, two patients experienced stable disease, and three patients experienced progressive disease. Activity was observed at all three dose levels evaluated. Based on these data, the Company expects to initiate a multicenter Phase 1/2 clinical trial of GDA-201 in 2020.

NAM-Based Cell Expansion Technology

While cell-based therapies have the potential to address a variety of medical conditions, one of the key technical challenges for developing treatments with this approach is the expansion of therapeutically functional cells. In order for cell therapies to be clinically effective, there must be a sufficient quantity of therapeutically active cells for treatment, which requires the donor cells to be expanded in artificial culture conditions. While this may increase the number of cells, the functionality of those cells often diverges from the therapeutic functionality of the original donor cells. This shortcoming in the cells used for treatment can result in suboptimal clinical outcomes.

Our NAM-based epigenetic technology for expanded cell products addresses this challenge by leveraging the biochemical properties of the small molecule nicotinamide in our manufacturing process. We expand the number of donor cells while maintaining their functional therapeutic characteristics through the proprietary combination of NAM, intended to maintain silencing of cell differentiation and preservation of gene expression, and particular cytokines which promote cell growth. Our optimized manufacturing process results in robust and replicable batch production, enabling the generation of standardized donor-derived cell products, potentially resulting in better clinical outcomes.

The first application of the NAM-based technology is in umbilical cord blood cells. Our lead product candidate, omidubicel, contains standard umbilical cord blood-derived stem cells that are expanded to obtain a critical number of effective cells for HSCT. A typical umbilical cord sample has a relatively low number of stem and progenitor cells, which currently limits the use of cord blood in HSCT, and hence, would ideally be increased for more successful treatment purposes.

A key component of our cell expanded product candidates is NAM, which is a naturally occurring substance that regulates multiple processes including cellular stress, cellular energy, mitochondrial functions and gene expression. We have successfully demonstrated the effectiveness of NAM-based technology in cord blood expansion cultures. We incubated two cultures of cord blood cells, one treated with NAM and one untreated, for three weeks with cytokines known to induce numerical expansion of cord blood cells. The NAM-treated umbilical cord blood cell cultures had 30 times more stem cells than NAM-untreated umbilical cell cultures, as measured by the abundance of stem-cell-related surface markers. Furthermore, when examining the gene expression pattern of NAM-treated proliferating cord blood stem cells, we observed a high degree of resemblance with the gene expression pattern of original stem cell populations inoculated in expansion cultures. In contrast, the gene expression pattern of cells incubated for three weeks without NAM was very different than that of the original stem cells. This confirms that NAM has the ability to preserve the characteristics of the original stem cell population.

Gene expression of cord blood CD34+ cells before culturing or after three weeks of culture with or without NAM. The levels of expression of clusters of thousands of genes are represented by the density of vertical bars. Three independent samples are shown as individual rows for each condition.

In line with demonstrating the ability of our proprietary cell expansion technology to increase the quantity while maintaining the quality of the therapeutic cells, we have also been able to demonstrate that this could translate to clinical benefit. In pre-clinical models, NAM-treated cord blood cells demonstrated a 7.6-fold improved ability to establish stable grafts versus cord blood cells expanded without NAM. This resulted in a nine-fold increase in the number of engraftable cells over a cord blood unit before expansion.

While test subjects receiving the same number of stem cells cultured without NAM had a low number of engrafted cells, NAM-treated stem cells exhibited a significant increase in the level of engraftment. Thus, not only do NAM-treated stem cells appear to be more stem-like, but they also retain stem cell-like functions and improve the ability to establish stable grafts.

Cord blood cells cultured with NAM result in a significantly higher number of engrafted cells in a preclinical model.

Based on the preclinical results, we advanced omidubicel into the clinic. We have also applied NAM-based technology for our second product candidate, GDA-201, and plan to explore this technology for other cells with therapeutic potential.

Allogeneic HSCT

Overview

Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, or HSCT, is the transplantation of hematopoietic stem cells, derived from a donor’s bone marrow, peripheral blood or standard umbilical cord blood. HSCT involves reconstituting a person’s entire blood and bone marrow from a seed population of cells. In some clinical settings, autologous HSCT may be performed, in which cells are derived from the patient and reinfused at a later date. In leukemia and other hematologic malignancies, it is more appropriate to use allogeneic HSCT obtained from a donor, which ensures that the graft does not contain the patient’s malignant cells and leverages the ability of donor cells to fight against a patient’s cancer, which is known as the “graft versus leukemia” effect.

In an HSCT procedure, a patient is treated with chemotherapy and/or radiation to destroy the residual cancerous or defective cells that reside in the bone marrow. This procedure, called myeloablation, also destroys the hematopoietic stem cells that are responsible for forming red blood cells, platelets and white blood cells. Stem cells from a donor are then infused into a patient who is now in remission, migrate and home to the bone marrow and begin to proliferate and differentiate into various types of blood cells, eventually leading to a full reconstitution of the bone marrow and immune system.

Bone marrow transplant process

The intent of HSCT is to cure patients of their hematologic malignancies. As of 2016, more than 500,000 allogeneic HSCT procedures have been performed worldwide over the past 50 years with over 30,000 being performed per year, of which 8,500 are in the United States. Approximately half of such patients are cured of their hematologic malignancies. From 2006 to 2016, the number of patients receiving an allogeneic HSCT procedure increased by approximately 5% per year in the United States due to multiple factors, including an aging population and new transplant modalities. Approximately 90% of HSCT procedures performed in the United States are for patients with various hematologic malignancies.

Although the number of allogeneic HSCT procedures performed is growing and there are new modalities for the procedure, HSCT continues to have a number of limitations. There are two major areas of unmet need. First, of those who receive a transplant, there is concomitant morbidity and mortality associated with the treatment. Second, a significant number of patients who are candidates for transplant do not receive one in a timely fashion. We believe that omidubicel can address significant limitations.

Current Sources of Donor Cells for Allogeneic HSCT

There are multiple potential sources of donor cells for transplants. For each donor, there are various baseline requirements including age and overall health. In general, younger donors produce more and better cells for HSCT than older donors. The optimal source of donor cells is a sibling who is a MRD, but the chances of having a sibling match are only 25% to 30%. An alternate source of donor cells is a MUD, but only 30% of patients requiring a transplant have a good to intermediate probability of finding a MUD. Furthermore, it takes approximately four months on average to identify an appropriate MUD who is medically suitable and willing to donate. During this lengthy time period, there is a risk of disease recurrence. Over time, the patient may also become ineligible due to other health complications. Moreover, prolonged donor searches heighten anxiety for patients and their families. The ability to find a match through this process is particularly challenging for individuals of ethnic backgrounds that are not well represented in donor databases.

Donor matching is determined by human leukocyte antigens, or HLA, which are proteins present on most cells and inherited genetically. HLA are recognized by the immune system, and “foreign” or nonmatching HLA may be rejected. Therefore, matching of HLA between bone marrow donor and recipient is needed for a successful transplant outcome. There are rules for the minimum, or lowest, HLA match needed between a donor and recipient. In general, patients have better transplant outcomes with a closely matched donor. Research has found that a donor must match a minimum of six HLA markers. In some centers, eight markers are tested. In transplantation with a matched related donor or matched unrelated donor, there must be a six of six or eight of eight HLA match with the recipient.

If a matched donor cell source is not identified, there are two alternatives for transplant candidates: haploidentical donors and umbilical cord donors. Haploidentical, or “half-matched” donors, are only partially compatible with the recipient. Because of the immune incompatibility in a haploidentical transplant, there is a high risk of GvHD, infection and other complications. There are two types of GvHD. Acute GvHD primarily affects the skin, the liver and the gastrointestinal tract (stomach, intestines and colon). Chronic GvHD begins later after transplant and lasts longer. It can be associated with damage to the liver, joints, skin and lungs. An approach to reduce these complications is to reduce the number of immune cells by giving cyclophosphamide after the transplant. However, this treatment modality may be associated with a decreased graft versus leukemia effect resulting in a higher rate of relapse, delayed time to engraftment associated with increased risk of infections and other complications.

Alternatively, donor cells can be obtained from umbilical cord blood. There are over a million publicly available cord blood units, making this a readily available source of cells. In contrast to matched unrelated donor transplants, which require a greater degree of matching, cord blood transplantation can be performed successfully with a match of four of six, five of six, or six of six HLA. Because cord blood requires a less stringent degree of genetic matching than other graft sources, it is suitable in approximately 95% of all patients. This obviates the need to go through a prolonged search process with uncertain outcomes in order to find a donor and arrange for the collection of donor cells. Because the donor T cells in cord blood are naïve, meaning that they have not matured, they readily adapt to the recipient and are associated with a low risk of a patient developing GvHD, in particular chronic GvHD. Furthermore, transplantation with cord blood reduces the risk of potential transmission of infections from the donor.

Limitations of Allogeneic HSCT

There are three critical limitations to successful HSCT:

Omidubicel is Designed to Address the Limitations of HSCT

Omidubicel is designed to address the limitations of allogeneic HSCT. Omidubicel utilizes the NAM-based cell expansion technology, to expand the number of donor cord blood stem cells while maintaining the cells’ functional therapeutic characteristics.

Omidubicel consists of two fractions of a unit of cord blood separated based on the expression of a marker on the surface of individual cells known as CD133. A cell’s CD133 status reflects its “stem cell” properties. Those cells that express CD133 represent a pool of stem or progenitor cells, cells that are capable of generating blood cells that can differentiate into a variety of cell subtypes. The CD133-positive stem or progenitor cells are also capable of reproducing themselves. Once we have isolated cells bearing this marker, we then culture them using our proprietary technology to expand their number while maintaining their regenerative properties. After approximately three weeks, we harvest and cryopreserve these cultured cells. The United States Adopted Names Council selected omidubicel as the name for these cells.

Those cells that do not express CD133 represent other types of more mature, differentiated cells, including essential components of the immune system such as T cells. These mature cells cannot engraft but can provide immunological support until T cells derived from the stem cell graft recover. We cryopreserve the CD133-negative cells at the outset of manufacturing and retain them for use as the second component of omidubicel. Gamida Cell refers to the two components collectively as “omidubicel.”

Manufacturing and treatment process for omidubicel

The cryopreserved omidubicel product is shipped cryogenically to transplant centers where both components are thawed and infused to patients on the day of transplantation. The thawing process occurs in a closed system and can also be performed at the patient’s bedside for ease of administration. Our cryopreserved product resulted in engraftment results similar to those obtained with non-cryopreserved product in the pilot study at Duke University.

Omidubicel is designed to address the limitations of the current standard of care for HSCT. The NAM-expanded portion is designed to provide a therapeutically effective dose of stem cells to drive rapid engraftment, reconstitution of the entire immune system and long-term graft survival while the CD133-negative portion provides an immediate immune system benefit by supplying T cells.

Given these characteristics, omidubicel may serve as a reliable alternative to existing sources of donor cells as well as expand the transplant market for those who are unable to find a match.

Omidubicel for HSCT and Hematologic Malignancies

Omidubicel is in an international, multicenter, randomized, pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial in 120 patients for the treatment of hematologic malignancies. We anticipate reporting top-line data from this trial in the first half of 2020. In our completed Phase 1/2 clinical trials, patients who were transplanted with omidubicel achieved rapid engraftment and immune reconstitution, which are key indicators of clinical benefits. Based on these results, we received Breakthrough Therapy Designation from the FDA for omidubicel. In addition, we received orphan drug designation from both the FDA and the EMA.

Overview: Hematologic Malignancies

Hematologic malignancies are characterized by an abnormal and excessive proliferation of malignant blood cells that replace normal blood cells in the bone marrow and the circulation. In some patients, these cancerous cells proliferate rapidly, requiring urgent treatment. Patients are initially treated with chemotherapy in order to

destroy the malignant cells in a rapid manner. However, in most patients, remission is temporary, and the disease will return after initial treatment. One of the most effective treatment options for these patients is HSCT, where the blood forming cells in the patient are destroyed using chemotherapy, radiation or a combination of both. These patients then receive new bone marrow stem cells from a healthy donor.

Omidubicel : Phase 1/2 Clinical Trial Results

After an initial safety evaluation of omidubicel in a pilot study at Duke University, an international, multi-center open-label study was conducted. The results of this single-arm Phase 1/2 trial of omidubicel were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology on December 4, 2018. The study enrolled 36 adolescent and adult patients with hematologic malignancies who did not have a suitably matched donor. All patients in the trial had been previously treated for various hematologic malignancies, including ALL, AML, MDS, CML and lymphoma. These patients were deemed to be in remission and at high risk of subsequent relapse.

The main objective of the study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of omidubicel treatment in patients with hematologic malignancies following myeloablative conditioning therapy. Myeloablative conditioning therapy is a combination of chemotherapy agents, and in some cases radiotherapy, that is expected to produce low blood counts and is administered in order to reduce the tumor burden, suppress the patient’s immune system, and allow engraftment of donor stem cells. The study compared outcomes against a group of historic controls that were identified from data collected by the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research, or CIBMTR, which tracks all allogeneic transplants conducted in the United States. From the CIBMTR database, we identified 146 age and disease matched patients who received standard cord blood transplants and served as historic controls.

In this study, omidubicel was administered via central venous catheter after thawing and reconstitution of the two infusion bags, the first containing the omidubicel-cultured fraction and the second the noncultured fraction. The omidubicel-cultured fraction contains at least 8.0 x 108 total nucleated cells, or TNC, while the non-cultured fraction contains at least 4.0 x 10 ⁸ TNC. The final volume of the omidubicel-cultured fraction is 100 milliliters and the final volume of the non-cultured fraction is 50 milliliters.

The study’s primary endpoint was time to neutrophil engraftment, and was met based on recovery of neutrophils. Patients treated with omidubicel recovered their neutrophils (500 cells per microliter) with a median recovery of 11.5 days after transplantation, which is significantly shorter than the 21 days observed in the historic controls (p<0.001). Platelet counts recovered within a median time period of 34 days in the omidubicel treated patients, compared to 46 days in the historic controls (p<0.001). For both neutrophils and platelets, the percentage of patients who achieved engraftment was higher than in the historic controls. The age-adjusted cumulative incidence of neutrophil engraftment at 42 days following transplantation was 94% for omidubicel recipients and 85% for the CIBMTR comparator cohort.

Neutrophils are infection-fighting white blood cells circulating in healthy individuals. A minimum neutrophil count, or ANC, of 0.5 x 10 ⁹ cells per liter is necessary to prevent life-threatening infections. In all omidubicel clinical trials, neutrophil engraftment is defined as achieving an ANC > 0.5 x 10 ⁹ per liter on three consecutive measurements on different days. The day of neutrophil engraftment is designated as the first of the three consecutive measurements and must occur on or before 42 days post-transplant.

Platelets are required for normal blood clotting. Low platelet counts are associated with life-threatening hemorrhage. Platelet counts of >20 x 10 ⁹ per liter are the minimum needed for the prevention of serious bleeding. Patients who have platelet counts lower than 20 x 10 ⁹ per liter are usually given platelet transfusions in order to maintain their blood clotting function. In all omidubicel clinical trials, platelet engraftment is defined as achieving a platelet count >20 x 10 ⁹ per liter on three consecutive measurements on different days, with no platelet transfusions in the preceding seven days. The first day of the three measurements is designated the day of platelet engraftment.

Additional endpoints included rates of acute GvHD, chronic GvHD, infections, hospitalization and overall survival. In the Phase 1/2 trial of omidubicel, rates of high grade acute GvHD were 11% in patients treated with omidubicel and 27% in the CIBMTR cohort (p=0.09 by Fine-Gray analysis). For chronic GVHD, the cumulative incidence of all grades (including mild, moderate, and severe) was 40% for omidubicel recipients and 30% for the CIBMTR comparator cohort (p = 0.1 by Fine-Gray analysis). Rates of the most clinically serious grades of chronic GVHD, moderate and severe, were 10% in both the omidubicel and CIBMTR groups. The two-year estimates of disease-free survival, or DFS, were 43% in the omidubicel group and 45% in the CIBMTR group, while overall survival rates, or OS, were 48% and 51%, respectively; neither DFS or OS were significantly different between the two groups. Other serious adverse events attributed to omidubicel were hypertension (3%), infusion reaction (3%), thrombocytopenia, or low platelets (3%), and transaminitis, or elevated liver enzymes (3%). Of the 16 patients who died, eight deaths (50%) were attributed to relapsed disease, five (31%) to infection, two (13%) to GvHD, and one (6%) to organ failure.

The clinical impact associated with rapid engraftment was assessed in 18 patients treated with omidubicel at Duke University. The patients who received omidubicel had a decreased frequency of infections compared to 86 patients who received a standard cord blood transplant at the same institution. In particular, serious, Grade 2 and Grade 3 infections were significantly reduced (p<0.01).

Omidubicel treated patients have significantly lower rates of serious infections
than standard cord blood controls.

The speed and robustness of the immune system reconstitution also likely contributed to an observed reduction of 20 days in the number of days, post-transplant, that patients were hospitalized when compared to the length of hospital stays for similar patients treated with standard cord blood also at Duke University.

Patients with hematologic malignancies treated with omidubicel had significantly fewer days of hospitalization than comparable patients receiving standard umbilical cord blood.

Omidubicel : Ongoing Phase 3 Clinical Trial for Hematologic Malignancies

Based on the results of our Phase 1/2 trials, we received Breakthrough Therapy Designation from the FDA for omidubicel; and we are currently enrolling an international, multicenter, randomized, pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial of transplantation of omidubicel versus transplantation of one or two standard cord blood units in approximately 120 patients with ALL, AML, MDS, CML or lymphoma. We are conducting the Phase 3 clinical trial with the same eligibility criteria and endpoints as our Phase 1/2 trials to confirm the superiority of using omidubicel in HSCT over standard cord blood. All patients enrolled in this trial are candidates for allogeneic HSCT who do not have a suitable matched donor. The primary endpoint of this trial is time to neutrophil engraftment. We anticipate completing enrollment by the end of 2019, and we anticipate reporting top-line data from this trial in the first half of 2020. Additional endpoints include platelet engraftment, and rates of acute and chronic GvHD, infections, hospitalization and overall survival.

Ongoing Phase 3 trial of omidubicel for HSCT in patients with hematologic malignancies.

Omidubicel : Health Economic Implications

The potential clinical advantages of omidubicel could lead to societal benefits such as enabling patients to return to work, spend time with loved ones and enjoy improved quality of life. Omidubicel may also reduce the costs to the healthcare system versus standard cord HSCT due to potentially shortened

isolation and intensive care hospital stays, reduced re-admission rates and decreased severity and rates of infections and GvHD. In the ongoing Phase 3 clinical trial, we are collecting data to assess these endpoints. In parallel, we are conducting a “real world” outcomes data study that is a prospective observational study designed to capture clinical and economic endpoints for haploidentical, mismatched unrelated, and matched unrelated transplant. The data we collect from these efforts will inform a Health Economics Outcomes Research study that will be used to inform pricing and reimbursement.

In 2019 Gamida began providing payors with certain information regarding omidubicel and the indication sought in order to assist the payors to plan and budget for future coverage and reimbursement decisions. We expect commercial payors to cover omidubicel and we plan to apply to commercial payors for an add-on reimbursement code for omidubicel in HSCT. Further, we believe omidubicel will be covered by Medicare in the same way and subject to the same Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, rules as all new oncology treatments administered within the in-patient hospital setting. We also plan to pursue reimbursement from CMS for omidubicel under the new technology add-on payment, or NTAP, program. CMS now uses the NTAP program to ensure adequate reimbursement for new medical services and technologies provided to Medicare patients treated in the in-patient hospital setting. Notably, two companies who are commercializing advanced cell therapy products for the treatment of hematologic malignancies – Gilead (Yescarta©) and Novartis (Kymriah©) – recently received NTAP status.

Omidubicel for the Treatment of Other Hematologic Disorders

In addition to hematologic malignancies, we are pursuing the development of omidubicel for the treatment of bone marrow failure disorders. The goal in treating these diseases is to replace defective bone marrow cells with cells derived from cord blood donors. Omidubicel is currently being evaluated in a Phase 1/2 NIH-sponsored clinical trial. In this trial, omidubicel is administered in combination with a reduced conditioning preparative protocol, which is designed to minimize toxicity, in up to 62 patients with severe aplastic anemia or hypoplastic myelodysplastic syndrome, another bone marrow failure disease. This research protocol is designed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of transplantation with omidubicel to overcome the high incidence of graft rejection associated with standard cord blood HSCT in severe aplastic anemia patients, where graft rejection occurs in up to 50% of subjects. In February 2019, we reported preliminary data at the TCT Annual Meeting.

Overview of Severe Aplastic Anemia

Severe aplastic anemia is a rare disease, with an estimated incidence in the United States of 600-900 patients per year. Underlying causes include autoimmune disease, certain medications or toxic substances, and inherited conditions. However, the cause is unknown in approximately half of all cases of severe aplastic anemia. The disease is characterized by stem cells in the bone marrow that are damaged and unable to produce enough new blood cells. This leads to extremely low blood cell counts and platelet levels, and often requires patients to be immediately hospitalized for treatment.

Allogeneic HSCT is the treatment of choice for patients with severe aplastic anemia who have an available matched sibling donor. Among the 2,471 patients with severe aplastic anemia receiving HSCT with a matched sibling donor between 2005 and 2015, the three-year probability of survival was 91% for those younger than 18 years, and 78% for patients 18 years of age or older. Among the 1,751 recipients of HSCT with a MUD during the same period, the probabilities of survival were 78% and 68% for severe aplastic anemia patients under 18 years and greater than or equal to18 years, respectively. Unfortunately, because of the severity of the disease, some patients cannot wait to find an ideal match and use haploidentical matches that have a lower survival rate. Among those who are able to find a matched donor in a timely manner, the survival rates are very good. We believe omidubicel may be able to provide a treatment option for those patients who are unable to locate such a donor in time.

GDA-201 : Our Immuno-Oncology Product Candidate

GDA-201 is our cell therapy product candidate generated by the expansion of NK cells using the NAM-based technology platform. GDA-201 addresses a key limitation in the therapeutic potential of NK cells by increasing the cytotoxicity and in vivo retention and proliferation in the bone marrow and lymphoid organs of NK cells expanded in culture conditions. GDA-201 is currently in an investigator-sponsored Phase 1 trial for the treatment of MM and NHL. We believe that GDA-201 may have broad potential in both hematologic and solid tumors.

Limitations of Therapeutic Antibodies in Cancer Treatment

NHL is the most common malignancy of B cells. An estimated 74,680 new cases of NHL were diagnosed in the United States in 2018. The five-year survival rate for those with NHL is approximately 70%. The combination of an antibody such as rituximab and chemotherapy is the standard of care for patients with NHL. However, many patients develop resistance to rituximab, and when used as monotherapy, only 15% of patients respond. One mechanism that contributes to this resistance is the inability of patient or autologous NK cells to locate and kill tumor cells that rituximab has bound to. Treatment with donor-derived NK cells may overcome this resistance.

MM is a hematologic malignancy characterized by the proliferation of monoclonal plasma cells in the bone marrow. It is more common in elderly patients, with a median age at diagnosis of 65 to 74 years. The National Cancer Institute estimates that there were approximately 30,770 new cases of myeloma diagnosed in the United States in 2018. The preferred treatment for myeloma is an autologous stem cell transplant, but due to other pre-existing conditions, not all patients are eligible for this. These, and the majority of patients who relapse following initial treatment, are then treated with various chemotherapy and antibody-based therapies that have significant anti-cancer activity when used in combination. However, there is still a large unmet clinical need as the five-year survival rate for patients with myeloma is approximately 50%.

NK Cells: Broad Anti-Cancer Potential

Extensive research efforts are ongoing to generate cellular products for the treatment of cancer patients. There is much interest in the field in the potential of NK cells because they have potent anti-tumor properties. In contrast to other immune cell therapies, NK cells can be used independently from genetic matching, potentially enabling NK cells to serve as a universal donor-based therapy when combined with certain antibodies.

NK cells’ tumor killing activity is greatly enhanced by antibodies that recognize tumor cells, which trigger antibody-dependent cellular toxicity, or ADCC. In ADCC, the binding of an antibody to a cell marks it for destruction by NK cells. A number of antibody products have been approved by the FDA as therapeutics in oncology, each of which has limited efficacy as monotherapy. The effectiveness of these antibodies can potentially be enhanced through co-administration with NK cells. A key limitation in the application of NK cells in cell therapy has been the traditionally challenging task of generating sufficient numbers of highly functional NK cells in culture.

Our Solution: GDA-201

We have developed GDA-201, a cell therapy product candidate generated by expansion of NK cells using our NAM-based technology. We believe that GDA-201 has potential application in boosting the innate immune response to cancer. Functional studies have shown that our GDA-201 cells expanded in culture with our NAM technology and the cytokine IL-15 display increased tumor killing activity over NK cells expanded with IL-15 but without NAM. Our pre-clinical studies have demonstrated the potential of GDA-201 product to eradicate tumor cells to increase survival rates.

Further, we have demonstrated that GDA-201 cells can kill B cell lymphoma in culture. The efficacy of this killing is further enhanced by the addition of rituximab, which drives ADCC. In a cell lysis experiment, GDA-201 cell-dependent killing of B cells was enhanced by rituximab. No killing was obtained in the groups treated with rituximab and without NK cells.

Rituximab enhanced lysis of lymphoma by GDA-201

An investigator-sponsored Phase 1 trial of GDA-201 cells in up to 24 patients with MM or NHL was launched in 2017 at the University of Minnesota. These patients have relapsed or refractory NHL or MM, meaning that their disease has come back after standard therapy and/or they are not responding to standard therapy for their disease. In combination with GDA-201 cells, these patients also receive therapeutic antibodies, which, in the case of NHL, includes rituximab, and in the case of MM, elotuzumab. In February 2019, we reported preliminary data at the TCT Meeting. The data reported from the first 14 patients demonstrated that GDA-201 was highly active and generally well tolerated. Among the six NHL patients evaluable for activity, three patients achieved a complete response, one patient achieved a partial response and two patients experienced progressive disease. Two of the patients who achieved a complete response subsequently underwent a bone marrow transplant. Among the six MM patients evaluable for activity, one patient achieved a complete response, two patients experienced stable disease and three patients experienced progressive disease. Activity was observed at all three dose levels evaluated. All 14 patients were evaluable for safety, and data from these patients showed that GDA-201 was generally well tolerated, with no GvHD, no tumor lysis syndrome and no neurotoxicity syndrome observed. Grade 3 (n = 3) and Grade 4 (n = 1) hematologic adverse events were observed. Non-hematologic adverse events were mostly Grade 1 and Grade 2. There was one case of Grade 3 cytokine release syndrome in a patient who later died due to sepsis. Based on these data, the Company expects to initiate a multicenter Phase 1/2 clinical trial of GDA-201 in 2020.

Phase 1 trial of GDA-201 in patients with MM or NHL

The results of this study will provide the basis for further exploration in solid tumors.

Omidubicel for the Treatment of Non-Malignant Disorders

Omidubicel has also been tested in patients with sickle cell disease, or SCD, for which HSCT is currently the only clinically established cure. In Phase 1/2 clinical trials, 14 patients with SCD were treated with a standard unit of cord blood followed by omidubicel, administered via central venous catheter after thawing and reconstitution of the infusion bags. The standard cord blood unit was infused first, with the dose consisting of the entire unit, or one infusion bag. The omidubicel infusion consisted of two infusion bags, the first containing the omidubicel cultured fraction and the second, the non-cultured fraction. The omidubicel-cultured fraction contained at least 8.0 x 10 ⁸ TNC, while the non-cultured fraction contained at least 4.0 x 10 ⁸ TNC. The final volume of the omidubicel-cultured fraction was 100 milliliters and the final volume of the non-cultured fraction was 50 milliliters. All patients initially engrafted at a median of seven days. Twelve patients had long-term engraftment and were disease free after 22 months. Two of the patients died, one due to chronic GvHD and the other due to secondary graft failure. There were no other serious adverse events attributed to omidubicel in patients with SCD. These results are favorable when compared to those from a study of 29 patients with SCD who underwent HSCT with cells from a MUD donor. In that study, 27 of the patients had neutrophil engraftment, and the median time to engraftment was 12 days. There were eight deaths, seven due to GvHD and one due to graft rejection; 19 of 29 were disease-free at two years. The SCD trial is currently closed to further enrollment, and data will be analyzed when patient follow-up is completed in the second half of 2019.

We believe that omidubicel has potential to replace other allogeneic HSCT procedures in other hematologic diseases and some metabolic disorders. The following table illustrates the annual incidence of certain non-malignant diseases in the United States, according to the U.S. National Marrow Donor Program.

financial, technical and human resources. Competitors may also have more experience developing, obtaining approval for, and marketing novel treatments in the indications we are pursuing. These factors could give our competitors an advantage over us in recruiting and retaining qualified personnel, completing clinical development, and commercializing their products. Competitors that are able to obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we can for our products may also establish a stronger market position, diminishing our commercial opportunity. Key considerations that would impact our capacity to effectively compete include the efficacy, safety, ease of use, as well as pricing and reimbursement of our products.

There are several clinical-stage development programs that seek to improve human umbilical cord blood transplantation through the use of an allogeneic HSCT graft. In addition, there are clinical-stage development programs that focus on natural killer cells. Companies active in these areas include, but are not limited to:

Allogeneic HSCT Graft : Magenta Therapeutics, Inc., Fate Therapeutics, Inc., ExCellThera Inc., Aldagen, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Cytomedix, Inc., Angiocrine Bioscience Inc., Medipost Co., Ltd., Kiadis Pharma NV, MolMed S.p.A., Bellicum Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and

Natural Killer Cell product : AbbVie Inc., Affimed N.V., Innate Pharma SA, Agilent Technologies Inc., Altor Bioscience Corp., Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals LLC, Bellicum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene Corporation, Celularity Inc., Fortress Biotech, Inc., Fate Therapeutics, Inc., Genexine Inc., Sanofi Genzyme, Glycostem Therapeutics B.V., Green Cross Lab Cell Corporation, Incyte Corporation, Ivy Life Sciences, Co., Ltd., Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, Miltenyi Biotec GmbH, multimmune GmbH, NantKwest, Inc., Nkarta Therapeutics, Inc., NKBio Co., Ltd., PersonGen BioTherapeutics Suzhou Co. Ltd., United Therapeutics Corporation, Y-mAbs Therapeutics, Inc., Ziopharm Oncology, Inc.

Manufacturing

Our product candidates are currently manufactured at our Jerusalem, Israel facility using a scalable self-assembly process with well-defined unit operations. This highly specialized and precisely controlled manufacturing process enables us to manufacture product candidates reproducibly and efficiently for clinical and commercial applications.

We currently rely on third-party clinical cell processing facilities and contract manufacturers for all of our required raw materials, active ingredients and finished products for our pre-clinical research and clinical trials. We currently rely on a third party, Lonza Walkersville, Inc., or Lonza U.S., to conduct a material portion of our product manufacturing for omidubicel and intend to do so at Lonza U.S. or a Lonza U.S. affiliate, at least until our manufacturing facility is expected to be completed. In February 2016, and as amended, we entered into a Manufacturing Services Agreement, or the Manufacturing Agreement, with Lonza U.S. for the production of products containing human cells intended for therapeutic use in humans. Under the terms of the Manufacturing Agreement, Lonza U.S. manufactures, packages, ships, and handles quality assurance and control products, based on statements of work, which we submit with respect to each development of a process or product and as may be further be amended by change orders. Each statement of work describes the activities to be performed by the parties and is subject to the terms of the Manufacturing Agreement unless the parties have agreed otherwise. In February 2016, we signed a statement of work, or SOW, for technology transfer and clinical manufacturing of omidubicel for a period ended December 2018. In February 2019, the SOW was extended and is effective until November 30, 2019. An additional SOW was executed with Lonza Netherlands B.V., or Lonza, and Lonza U.S., extending the term until December 2020.

The term of the Manufacturing Agreement is five years, unless terminated earlier pursuant to its terms. The Manufacturing Agreement may be terminated in the event of an uncured material breach by one of the parties. In addition, the Manufacturing Agreement or any statement of work thereunder may be terminated by us by providing six months prior written notice or by Lonza U.S. by providing 12 months prior written notice. In addition, the Manufacturing Agreement may be terminated if omidubicel, which is being produced thereunder, has been or will be suspended or terminated by the FDA due to the failure of the product candidate, by providing two months prior written notice. Further, the Manufacturing Agreement may be terminated by either party upon notice in the event of dissolution, termination of existence,

liquidation or business failure of the other party, the uncured appointment of a custodian or receiver to the other party or un-dismissed institution of insolvency, reorganization or bankruptcy proceedings.

In June 2019, we entered into a Manufacturing Services Agreement, or the Services Agreement, with Lonza, which provides for the future commercial production after potential FDA approval of omidubicel. Under the Services Agreement, Lonza will construct and dedicate production suites prior to anticipated commercial launch. Additionally, the agreement enables us to increase the number of Lonza’s dedicated production suites over time to ensure commercial supply of omidubicel.

The term of the Services Agreement is the shorter of seven years from the date of execution or five years from the date of the first FDA approval of omidubicel. The Services Agreement may be terminated in the event of an uncured material breach by one of the parties. If we do not receive FDA approval of omidubicel by December 31, 2021, we will have the right to terminate the Services Agreement upon 30 days’ written notice. Either party may terminate without cause after the referenced time periods, but only after the Initial Term, which is the third anniversary of the Effective Date (June 10, 2019). Further, the Manufacturing Agreement may be terminated by either party upon notice in the event of dissolution, termination of existence, liquidation or business failure of the other party, the uncured appointment of a custodian or receiver to the other party or un-dismissed institution of insolvency, reorganization or bankruptcy proceedings.

As of March 31, 2019, we have paid Lonza U.S. an aggregate of approximately $9.7 million pursuant to the Manufacturing Agreement.

Marketing, Sales and Distribution

Given our stage of development, we do not currently have any internal sales, marketing or distribution infrastructure or capabilities. We have a wholly-owned U.S. subsidiary, Gamida Cell Inc., which supports our U.S. development and potential commercialization efforts.

In the event that we receive regulatory approvals for our products in markets outside of the United States, we intend, where appropriate, to pursue commercialization relationships, including strategic alliances and licensing, with pharmaceutical companies and other strategic partners, which are equipped to market or sell our products through their well-developed sales, marketing and distribution organizations in such countries, and we may also build Gamida Cell’s internal sales and marketing organization and capabilities.

Intellectual Property

We strive to protect and enhance the proprietary technologies, inventions, products and product candidates, methods of manufacture, methods of using our products and product candidates, and improvements thereof that are commercially important to our business. We protect our proprietary intellectual property by, among other things, filing patent applications in the United States and in jurisdictions outside of the United States covering our proprietary technologies, inventions, products and product candidates, methods, and improvements that are important to the development and implementation of our business.

As of June 10, 2019, we own 38 issued patents and 16 pending patent applications worldwide, including 9 U.S. issued patents, two pending U.S. non-provisional patent applications, two pending U.S. provisional patent applications and three pending PCT applications. We own two issued patents in the United States and 16 issued foreign patents related to our omidubicel product candidate. The patents that we own outside of the United States are granted in Australia, Canada, Europe, Hong Kong, Israel, Japan, Singapore, and South Africa. In addition, we own one pending U.S. non-provisional patent application and two pending PCT applications related to our omidubicel product candidate. These patents and pending patent applications contain composition-of-matter claims to our omidubicel product candidate, and claims to methods of producing and methods of treatment using omidubicel. Not accounting for any patent term adjustment, regulatory extension or terminal disclaimers, and assuming that all annuity and/or maintenance fees are paid timely, these patents, and if granted, these patent applications, will expire from 2023 to 2038. In particular, U.S. Patent No. 7,955,852, EP Patent No. 1576089, EP Patent No. 2206773, JP Patent No. 4738738, and IL Patent No. 163180, which relate to methods of expanding a population of

hematopoietic stem cells by culturing the cells with nicotinamide or nicotinamide analogs, and transplantable cell populations produced by these methods, expire in 2023, not accounting for any patent term adjustment, regulatory extension or terminal disclaimers, and assuming that all annuity and/or maintenance fees are paid timely and U.S. Patent No. 8,846,393, EP Patent No. 1974012, JP Patent No. 5102773 and IL Patent No. 191669, which relate to methods of enhancing cell homing and engraftment potential of hematopoietic stem cells by expansion in the presence of nicotinamide, expire in 2026, not accounting for any patent term adjustment, regulatory extension or terminal disclaimers, and assuming that all annuity and/or maintenance fees are paid timely.

We own six issued foreign patents related to GDA-201. The patents that we own outside of the United States are granted in Australia, Europe, Hong Kong, Israel, and Japan. In addition, we own one pending U.S. non-provisional patent application, one pending U.S. provisional patent application, one pending PCT application and six pending foreign patent applications related to our GDA-201 product candidate. These patents and pending patent applications contain composition-of-matter claims to our GDA-201 product candidate, and claims to methods of producing and methods of treatment using our GDA-201 product candidate. Not accounting for any patent term adjustment, regulatory extension or terminal disclaimers, and assuming that all annuity and/or maintenance fees are paid timely, these patents, and if granted, these patent applications, will expire from 2030 to 2040. In particular, EP Patent No. 2519239, JP Patent No. 5943843, JP Patent No. 6215394 and IL Patent No. 220660, which relate to methods of expanding a population of natural killer cells by culturing the cells with nicotinamide or nicotinamide analogs, and transplantable cell populations produced by these methods, expire in 2030, not accounting for any patent term adjustment, regulatory extension or terminal disclaimers, and assuming that all annuity and/or maintenance fees are paid timely.

In addition, we filed for and obtained trademark registration in the United States, China, Europe, Hong Kong and Israel for “NiCord”. We also rely upon trade secrets, know-how and continuing technological innovation to develop, strengthen and maintain our competitive position.

The term of individual patents depends upon the legal term for patents in the countries in which they are obtained. In most countries in which we have filed, including the U.S., the patent term is 20 years from the earliest filing date of a non-provisional patent application. In the U.S., a patent’s term may be lengthened by patent term adjustment, which compensates a patentee for administrative delays by the USPTO in examining and granting a patent or may be shortened if a patent is terminally disclaimed over an earlier filed patent. The term of a patent that covers a drug or biological product may also be eligible for patent term extension when FDA approval is granted for a portion of the term effectively lost as a result of the FDA regulatory review period, subject to certain limitations and provided statutory and regulatory requirements are met. Any such patent term extension can be for no more than five years, only one patent per approved product can be extended, the extension cannot extend the total patent term beyond 14 years from approval, and only those claims covering the approved drug, a method for using it or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. We may not receive an extension if we fail to exercise due diligence during the testing phase or regulatory review process, fail to apply within applicable deadlines, fail to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents or otherwise fail to satisfy applicable requirements. Moreover, the length of the extension could be less than we request. In the future, if and when our product candidates receive approval from the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities, we expect to apply for patent term extensions on issued patents we may obtain in the future covering those products, depending upon the length of the clinical trials for each product and other factors. There can be no assurance that any of our pending patent applications will issue or that we will benefit from any patent term extension or favorable adjustment to the term of any of our patents.

Provisional patent applications are not eligible to become issued patents until, among other things, we file a non-provisional patent application within 12 months of filing of one or more of our related provisional patent applications. If we do not timely file any non-provisional patent applications, we may lose our priority date with respect to our provisional patent applications and any patent protection on the inventions disclosed in our provisional patent applications.

As with other biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, our ability to establish and maintain our proprietary and intellectual property position for our product candidates will depend on our success in obtaining effective patent claims and enforcing those claims if granted. There can be no assurance that

any of our current or future patent applications will result in the issuance of patents or that any of our current or future issued patents will provide any meaningful protection of our product candidates or technology. For more information regarding the risks related to our intellectual property, see “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property”.

Research Grants

Grants under the Innovation Law

Under the Encouragement of Research, Development and Technological Innovation in the Industry Law 5744-1984, and the provisions of the applicable regulations, rules, procedures and benefit tracks, (collectively, the “Innovation Law”), research and development programs that meet specified criteria and are approved by a committee of the IIA are eligible for grants. The grants awarded are typically up to 50% of the project’s expenditures, as determined by the research committee and subject to the benefit track under which the grant was awarded. A company that receives a grant from the IIA, or a grant recipient, is typically required to pay royalties to the IIA on income generated from products incorporating know-how developed using such grants (including income derived from services associated with such products), until 100% of the U.S. dollars-linked grant plus annual LIBOR interest is repaid. The rate of royalties to be paid may vary between different benefits tracks, as shall be determined by the IIA. Under the regular benefits tracks the rate of royalties varies between 3% to 5% of the income generated from the IIA-supported products. The obligation to pay royalties is contingent on actual income generated from such products and services. In the absence of such income, no payment of such royalties is required.

The terms of the grants under the Innovation Law also generally require that the products developed as part of the programs under which the grants were given be manufactured in Israel and that the know-how developed thereunder may not be transferred outside of Israel, unless a prior written approval is received from the IIA (such approval is not required for the transfer of a portion of the manufacturing capacity which does not exceed, in the aggregate, 10% of the portion declared to be manufactured outside of Israel in the applications for funding, in which case only notification is required) and additional payments are required to be made to the IIA. It should be noted, that this does not restrict the export of products that incorporate the funded know-how. See “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Israeli Law and Our Operations in Israel” for additional information.

Since our incorporation, we have received grants from the IIA relating to various projects. No royalties have been paid to the IIA in respect of any grant. Our total outstanding obligation to the IIA, respectively, including the interest accrued through March 31, 2019, amounts to approximately $34.3 million including interest amounts of approximately $5.0 million.

Government Regulation

The FDA and other regulatory authorities at federal, state, and local levels, as well as in non-U.S. countries, extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, quality control, import, export, safety, effectiveness, labeling, packaging, storage, distribution, record keeping, approval, advertising, promotion, marketing, post-approval monitoring, and post-approval reporting of biologics such as those we are developing. We, along with third-party contractors, will be required to navigate the various preclinical, clinical and commercial approval requirements of the governing regulatory agencies of the countries in which we wish to conduct studies or seek approval or licensure of our product candidates.

The process required by the FDA before biologic product candidates may be marketed in the United States generally involves the following:

Preclinical and Clinical Development

Prior to beginning the first clinical trial with a product candidate, we must submit an IND to the FDA. An IND is a request for authorization from the FDA to administer an investigational new drug product to humans. The central focus of an IND submission is on the general investigational plan and the protocol(s) for clinical studies. The IND also includes results of animal and in vitro studies assessing the toxicology, pharmacokinetics, pharmacology, and pharmacodynamic characteristics of the product; chemistry, manufacturing, and controls information; and any available human data or literature to support the use of the investigational product. An IND must become effective before human clinical trials may begin. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA, within the 30-day time period, raises safety concerns or questions about the proposed clinical trial. In such a case, the IND may be placed on clinical hold and the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns or questions before the clinical trial can begin. Submission of an IND therefore may or may not result in FDA authorization to begin a clinical trial.

For purposes of BLA approval, human clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases that may overlap.

In some cases, the FDA may require, or companies may voluntarily pursue, additional clinical trials after a product is approved to gain more information about the product. These so-called Phase 4 studies may be made a condition to approval of the BLA. Concurrent with clinical trials, companies may complete additional animal studies and develop additional information about the biological characteristics of the product candidate, and must finalize a process for manufacturing the product in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently

producing quality batches of the product candidate and, among other things, must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality and purity of the final product, or for biologics, the safety, purity and potency. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the product candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life.

BLA Submission and Review

Assuming successful completion of all required testing in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements, the results of product development, nonclinical studies and clinical trials are submitted to the FDA as part of a BLA requesting approval to market the product for one or more indications. The BLA must include all relevant data available from pertinent preclinical and clinical studies, including negative or ambiguous results as well as positive findings, together with detailed information relating to the product’s chemistry, manufacturing, controls, and proposed labeling, among other things. The submission of a BLA requires payment of a substantial application user fee to FDA, unless a waiver or exemption applies.

Once a BLA has been submitted, the FDA’s goal is to review standard applications within ten months after it accepts the application for filing, or, if the application qualifies for priority review, six months after the FDA accepts the application for filing. In both standard and priority reviews, the review process is often significantly extended by FDA requests for additional information or clarification. The FDA reviews a BLA to determine, among other things, whether a product is safe, pure and potent and the facility in which it is manufactured, processed, packed, or held meets standards designed to assure the product’s continued safety, purity and potency. The FDA may convene an advisory committee to provide clinical insight on application review questions. Before approving a BLA, the FDA will typically inspect the facility or facilities where the product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve an application unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. Additionally, before approving a BLA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCP. If the FDA determines that the application, manufacturing process or manufacturing facilities are not acceptable, it will outline the deficiencies in the submission and often will request additional testing or information. Notwithstanding the submission of any requested additional information, the FDA ultimately may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval.

After the FDA evaluates a BLA and conducts inspections of manufacturing facilities where the investigational product and/or its drug substance will be produced, the FDA may issue an approval letter or a Complete Response letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the product with specific prescribing information for specific indications. A Complete Response letter will describe all of the deficiencies that the FDA has identified in the BLA, except that where the FDA determines that the data supporting the application are inadequate to support approval, the FDA may issue the Complete Response letter without first conducting required inspections, testing submitted product lots, and/or reviewing proposed labeling. In issuing the Complete Response letter, the FDA may recommend actions that the applicant might take to place the BLA in condition for approval, including requests for additional information or clarification. The FDA may delay or refuse approval of a BLA if applicable regulatory criteria are not satisfied, require additional testing or information and/or require post-marketing testing and surveillance to monitor safety or efficacy of a product.

If regulatory approval of a product is granted, such approval will be granted for particular indications and may entail limitations on the indicated uses for which such product may be marketed. For example, the FDA may approve the BLA with a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, to ensure the benefits of the product outweigh its risks. A REMS is a safety strategy to manage a known or potential serious risk associated with a product and to enable patients to have continued access to such medicines by managing their safe use, and could include medication guides, physician communication plans, or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. The FDA also may condition approval on, among other things, changes to proposed labeling or the development of adequate controls and specifications. Once approved, the FDA may withdraw the product approval if compliance with pre- and post-marketing requirements is not maintained

or if problems occur after the product reaches the marketplace. The FDA may require one or more Phase 4 post-market studies and surveillance to further assess and monitor the product’s safety and effectiveness after commercialization, and may limit further marketing of the product based on the results of these post-marketing studies.

Post-Approval Requirements

Any products manufactured or distributed by us pursuant to FDA approvals are subject to pervasive and continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, requirements relating to record-keeping, reporting of adverse experiences, periodic reporting, product sampling and distribution, and advertising and promotion of the product. After approval, most changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications or other labeling claims, are subject to prior FDA review and approval. There also are continuing user fee requirements, under which FDA assesses an annual program fee for each product identified in an approved BLA. Biologic manufacturers and their subcontractors are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with cGMP, which impose certain procedural and documentation requirements upon us and our third-party manufacturers. Changes to the manufacturing process are strictly regulated, and, depending on the significance of the change, may require prior FDA approval before being implemented. FDA regulations also require investigation and correction of any deviations from cGMP and impose reporting requirements upon us and any third-party manufacturers that we may decide to use. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain compliance with cGMP and other aspects of regulatory compliance.

The FDA may withdraw approval if compliance with regulatory requirements and standards is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the market. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with 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:

The FDA closely regulates the marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of biologics. A company can make only those claims relating to safety and efficacy, purity and potency that are approved by the FDA and in accordance with the provisions of the approved label. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses. Failure to comply with these requirements can result in, among other things, adverse publicity, warning letters, corrective advertising and potential civil and criminal penalties. Physicians may prescribe legally available products for uses that are not described in the product’s labeling and that differ from those tested by us and approved by the FDA. Such off-label uses are common across medical specialties. Physicians may believe that such off-label uses are the best treatment for many patients in varied circumstances. The FDA does not regulate the behavior of physicians in their choice of treatments. The FDA does, however, restrict manufacturer’s communications on the subject of off-label use of their products.

Breakthrough Therapy Designation

A sponsor may seek FDA designation of a product candidate as a “breakthrough therapy” if the product is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other products, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product may

demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. The designation allows more intensive FDA interaction and guidance. The breakthrough therapy designation is a distinct status from both accelerated approval and priority review, which can also be granted to the same drug if relevant criteria are met. If a product is designated as breakthrough therapy, the FDA will work to expedite the development and review of such drug.

Other Healthcare Regulations

Our business operations and current and future arrangements with investigators, healthcare professionals, consultants, third-party payors, patient organizations and customers, may expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations. These laws may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we conduct our operations, including how we research, market, sell and distribute our product candidates, if approved. Such laws include those described below.

The federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits, among other things, any person or entity, from knowingly and willfully offering, paying, soliciting or receiving any remuneration, directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, in cash or in kind, to induce or reward, or in return for, the referral of an individual for, or purchasing, leasing, ordering, or arranging for the purchase, lease or order of, any good, facility, item or service reimbursable under Medicare, Medicaid or other federal healthcare programs. The federal Anti-Kickback Statute has been interpreted to apply to arrangements between pharmaceutical manufacturers on the one hand and prescribers, purchasers, and formulary managers on the other hand. The term remuneration has been interpreted broadly to include anything of value. There are a number of statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting some common activities from prosecution. The exceptions and safe harbors are drawn narrowly and practices that involve remuneration that may be alleged to be intended to induce prescribing, purchasing or recommending may be subject to scrutiny if they do not qualify for an exception or safe harbor. Failure to meet all of the requirements of a particular applicable statutory exception or regulatory safe harbor does not make the conduct per se illegal under the federal Anti-Kickback Statute. Instead, the legality of the arrangement will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis based on a cumulative review of all facts and circumstances. Additionally, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, or collectively the PPACA, amended the intent requirement of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, and other healthcare criminal fraud statutes, so that a person or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, or the specific intent to violate it, to have violated the statute. The PPACA also provided that a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute is grounds for the government or a whistleblower to assert that a claim for payment of items or services resulting from such violation constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the federal civil False Claims Act.

The federal civil and criminal false claims laws, including the federal civil False Claims Act, or FCA, prohibit, among other things, any person or entity from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a false claim for payment to, or approval by, the U.S. federal government, including the Medicare and Medicaid programs, or knowingly making, using, or causing to be made or used a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim or to avoid, decrease or conceal an obligation to pay money to the federal government. As a result of a modification made by the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009, a claim includes “any request or demand” for money or property presented to the U.S. government. In addition, manufacturers can be held liable under the FCA even when they do not submit claims directly to government payors if they are deemed to “cause” the submission of false or fraudulent claims. The FCA also permits a private individual acting as a “whistleblower” to bring actions on behalf of the federal government alleging violations of the FCA and to share in any monetary recovery. FCA liability is potentially significant in the healthcare industry because the statute provides for treble damages and mandatory penalties. Government enforcement agencies and private whistleblowers have investigated pharmaceutical companies for or asserted liability under the FCA for a variety of alleged impermissible promotional and marketing activities, such as providing free product to customers with the expectation that the customers would bill federal programs for the product; providing consulting fees and other benefits to physicians to induce them to prescribe products; engaging in promotion for “off-label” uses; and submitting inflated best price information to the Medicaid Rebate Program.

The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, created additional federal criminal statutes that prohibits, among other things, knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program or obtain, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations or promises, any of the money or property owned by, or under the custody or control of, any healthcare benefit program, regardless of whether the payor is public or private, knowingly and willfully embezzling or stealing from a health care benefit program, willfully obstructing a criminal investigation of a health care offense and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up by any trick, scheme or device a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statements in connection with the delivery of, or payment for, healthcare benefits, items or services relating to healthcare matters. Additionally, the PPACA amended the intent requirement of some of these criminal statutes under HIPAA so that a person or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of the statute, or the specific intent to violate it, to have committed a violation.

Additionally, the federal Open Payments program pursuant to the Physician Payments Sunshine Act, created under Section 6002 of the PPACA and its implementing regulations, require some manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologicals and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (with specified exceptions) to report annually information related to specified payments or other transfers of value provided to physicians and teaching hospitals, or to entities or individuals at the request of, or designated on behalf of, the physicians and teaching hospitals and to report annually specified ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members.

In addition, we may be subject to data privacy and security regulation of both the federal government and the states in which we conduct our business. HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, or HITECH, and their implementing regulations, impose requirements relating to the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information held by covered entities subject to the law, such as health plans, healthcare clearinghouses, and certain healthcare providers, and their business associates, defined as independent contractors or agents of covered entities that create, receive, maintain or transmit protected health information in connection with providing a service for or on behalf of a covered entity. Among other things, HITECH created new tiers of civil monetary penalties, amended HIPAA to make civil and criminal penalties and HIPAA’s security standards directly applicable to business associates, and gave state attorneys general new authority to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce the federal HIPAA laws and seek attorneys’ fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions.

Many states have also adopted laws similar to each of the above federal laws, which may be broader in scope and apply to items or services reimbursed by any third-party payor, including commercial insurers. We may also be subject to state laws that require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government, state and local laws that require the registration of pharmaceutical sales representatives, state laws that require drug manufacturers to report information related to payments and other transfers of value to physicians and other healthcare providers or marketing expenditures and pricing information, and/or state laws governing the privacy and security of health information in certain circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and may not have the same effect, thus complicating compliance efforts.

Ensuring that our internal operations and business arrangements with third parties comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations will likely be costly. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices do not comply with current or future statutes, regulations or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If our operations were found to be in violation of any of these laws or any other governmental regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, imprisonment, possible exclusion from government funded healthcare programs, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, additional reporting obligations and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or other agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, and curtailment of our operations, any of which

could substantially disrupt our operations. If the physicians or other providers or entities with whom we expect to do business are found not to be in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government funded healthcare programs.

Coverage and Reimbursement