Our business, financial condition, operating results and prospects are subject to the following material risks. Additional risks and uncertainties not presently foreseeable to us may also impair our business operations. If any of the following risks actually occurs, our business, financial condition or operating results could be materially adversely affected. In such case, the trading price of our common stock could decline, and our stockholders may lose all or part of their investment in the shares of our common stock.

Risks Related to our Operations

We will need to raise substantial funds, on an ongoing basis, for general corporate purposes and operations, including our clinical trials. Such funding may not be available or may not be available on acceptable terms.

We will need substantial additional funding, on an ongoing basis, in order to continue execution of our clinical trials, to move our product candidates towards commercialization, to continue prosecution and maintenance of our large patent portfolio, to continue development and optimization of our manufacturing and distribution arrangements, and for other corporate purposes. Any financing, if available, may include restrictive covenants and provisions that could limit our ability to take certain actions, preference provisions for the investors, and/or discounts, warrants, anti-dilution rights, the provision of collateral, or other incentives. Any financing will involve issuance of equity and/or debt, and such issuances will be dilutive to existing shareholders. There can be no assurance that we will be able to complete any of the financings, or that the terms for such financings will be acceptable. If we are unable to obtain additional funds on a timely basis or on acceptable terms, we may be required to curtail or cease some or all of our operations at any time.

We are likely to continue to incur substantial losses, and may never achieve profitability.

As of December 31, 2018, we had net cash outflows (losses) from operations, since inception. We may never achieve or sustain profitability.

Our auditors have issued a “going concern” audit opinion.

Management has determined and our independent auditors have indicated in their report on our December 31, 2018 financial statements that there is substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. We have received such a “going concern” opinion each of the preceding years for more than a decade. A “going concern” opinion indicates that the financial statements have been prepared assuming we will continue as a going concern and do not include any adjustments to reflect the possible future effects on the recoverability and classification of assets, or the amounts and classification of liabilities that may result if we do not continue as a going concern. Therefore, you should not rely on our consolidated balance sheet as an indication of the amount of proceeds that would be available to satisfy claims of creditors, and potentially be available for distribution to stockholders, in the event of liquidation.

Our management and our independent auditors have identified certain internal control deficiencies, which our management and our independent auditor believe constitute material weaknesses.

In connection with the preparation of our financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2018, and prior years, our management and our independent auditor identified certain internal control deficiencies that, in the aggregate, represent material weaknesses, as described more fully in “Item 9A. Controls and Procedures” of Part I of this Form 10-K.  Although we have undertaken and continue to undertake efforts to strengthen our internal controls, we continue to have material weaknesses, including certain newly identified material weaknesses. 

Our failure to successfully complete the remediation of the existing weaknesses could lead to heightened risk for financial reporting mistakes and irregularities, and/or lead to a loss of public confidence in our internal controls that could have a negative effect on the market price of our common stock. In addition, our ability to retain or attract qualified individuals to serve on our Board and to take on key management or other roles within our Company is uncertain.

As a company with a novel technology and unproven business strategy, an evaluation of our business and prospects is difficult.

We are still in the process of developing our product candidates through clinical trials. Our technology is novel and involves mobilizing the immune system to fight a patient’s cancer. Immune therapies have been pursued by many parties for decades, and have experienced many failures. In addition, our technology involves personalized treatment products, a new approach to medical products that involves new product economics and business strategies, which have not yet been shown to be commercially feasible or successful. We have not yet gone through scale-up of our operations to commercial scale. The novelty of our technology, product economics, and business strategy, and the limited scale of our operations to date, makes it difficult to assess our prospects for generating revenues commercially in the future.

We will need to expand our management and technical personnel as our operations progress, and we may not be able to recruit such additional personnel and/or retain existing personnel.

As of December 31, 2018, we had 12 full-time employees in the US, and 2 full-time employees in Europe. Of this group, only five employees are considered Management. Other personnel are retained on a consulting or contractor basis. Many biotech companies would typically have a larger number of employees by the time they reach late stage clinical trials. Such trials and other programs require extensive management capabilities, activities and skill sets, including scientific, medical, regulatory (for FDA and foreign regulatory counterparts), manufacturing, distribution and logistics, site management, reimbursement, business, financial, legal, public relations outreach to both the patient community and physician community, intellectual property, administrative, regulatory (SEC), investor relations and other.

In order to fully perform all these diverse functions, with trials and programs under way at many sites across the U.S. and in Europe, we may need to expand our management, technical and other personnel. However, with respect to management and technical personal, the pool of such personnel with expertise and experience with living cell products, such as our DCVax immune cell product, is very limited. In addition, we are a small company with limited resources, our business prospects are uncertain and our stock price is volatile. For some or all of such reasons, we may not be able to recruit all the management, technical and other personnel we need, and/or we may not be able to retain all of our existing personnel. In such event, we may have to continue our operations with a small team of personnel, and our business and financial results may suffer.

We rely at present on third-party contract manufacturers. As a result, we may be at risk for capacity limitations and/or supply disruptions.

We currently rely upon Cognate BioServices, Inc., or Cognate, to produce all of our DCVax product candidates in the U.S., and we currently rely upon Advent BioServices Ltd., or Advent, to produce our DCVax products for Europe. Until February 2018, Cognate BioServices was owned by Toucan Capital Fund III, L.P., who is an affiliate. Advent continues to be owned by Toucan Capital Fund III. We have agreements in place with Cognate BioServices pursuant to which Cognate BioServices has agreed to provide manufacturing and other services for the clinical trials and initial potential commercialization, in connection with our Phase III clinical trial of DCVax-L in brain cancer, and other programs. The agreements require us to make certain minimum monthly payments to Cognate BioServices in order to have dedicated manufacturing capacity available for our products, irrespective of whether we actually order any DCVax products. The agreements also specify the amounts we must pay for Cognate BioServices’ manufacturing of DCVax products for patients. We also have an agreement in place with Advent BioServices, or Advent, pursuant to which Advent has agreed to provide manufacturing and other services. The agreement requires us to make certain minimum monthly payments to Advents in order to have dedicated manufacturing capacity available for our products, irrespective of whether we actually order any DCVax products. The agreement also specifies the amounts we must pay for Advent’s manufacturing of DCVax products for patients. However, there can be no assurance that these agreements with Cognate and Advent will be sufficient.

The agreements with Cognate may cover commercial as well as clinical activities, and will only be terminable early by either party for uncured material breach by the other party, although we can also suspend or stop our program at any time, and pay a fee under the agreements. The agreement with Advent will only be terminable upon twelve months’ notice.

We have been in breach of the services agreements with Cognate on numerous occasions, including as of December 31, 2018, primarily for non-payment. Since Cognate is now owned by institutional investors, and Toucan no longer has any ownership or operational interests in Cognate, our breaches of the services agreements may not be tolerated in the future as they have been in the past, and if we continue to breach the services agreements, for non-payment or otherwise, Cognate could terminate these agreements.

However, we believe that Cognate has also been in material breach of our agreements during various periods. We have disputed substantial amounts invoiced to us by Cognate, and we have been in extended negotiations with Cognate. There can be no assurance what the outcome of these negotiations will be, including, without limitation, whether a settlement will be reached and if so, whether or not it will be favorable for the Company, whether litigation will be necessary and whether it will be necessary or desirable to change our manufacturing arrangements. If it is necessary or desirable to change our manufacturing arrangements, that could involve increased costs related to manufacturing of our products and could result in delays in our programs or applications for various regulatory approvals.

Although Advent is owned by Toucan, if we breach our agreement with Advent, such breaches may not be tolerated as were breaches of the Cognate BioServices agreements in the past, and Advent could cease providing services and/or terminate the agreements.

Since Cognate and Advent are now separate companies with different owners, and Cognate has no operations in Europe and Advent has no operations in the U.S., the manufacturing of our products will not be conducted or overseen by a single company. Advent was just spun off from Cognate in Q4 of 2016, and as such is relatively new as a standalone company. The products for the Phase III clinical trial in Europe and the U.K. were manufactured by a different party (the Fraunhofer Institute), under oversight by Cognate. It is not yet clear whether or to what extent it will be feasible for Cognate to supervise or advise on the manufacturing in the U.K. Having separate manufacturers in the U.S. and Europe, and/or having a relatively recent spun off new manufacturer in the U.K., could result in a lack of consistency or continuity in the manufacturing of DCVax products.

We have exited from our manufacturing arrangements in Germany and Israel, and we are consolidating our manufacturing arrangements in the U.K. This involves development of new facilities and operations in the U.K. Such facilities or operations may take more time and involve more costs than anticipated, and/or may not obtain the necessary approvals.

Our intention is for the U.K. facility to manufacture DCVax products for the whole European region. With the impending exit of the U.K. from the European Union (Brexit), it is unclear whether it will be feasible for U.K.-based manufacturing to supply DCVax products throughout Europe. It could be years before the full legal and regulatory rules and requirements become clear. We anticipate that the manufacturing facilities in the U.K. will eventually obtain the necessary approvals, and will be able to supply DCVax products, for clinical trials or otherwise, anywhere in Europe; however, this may not turn out to be feasible, for regulatory, operational and/or logistical reasons.

Problems with the manufacturing facilities, processes or operations of Cognate BioServices or Advent BioServices could result in a failure to produce, or a delay in producing adequate supplies of our DCVax product candidates. A number of factors could cause interruptions or delays, including the inability of a supplier to provide raw materials, equipment malfunctions or failures, damage to a facility due to natural disasters or otherwise, changes in FDA or European regulatory requirements or standards that require modifications to our manufacturing processes, action by the FDA or European regulators, or by us that results in the halting or slowdown of production of components or finished products due to regulatory issues, our manufacturers going out of business or failing to produce product as contractually required, insufficient technical personnel and/or specialized facilities to produce sufficient products, and/or other factors. Because manufacturing processes for our DCVax product candidates are highly complex, require specialized facilities (dedicated exclusively to DCVax production) and personnel that are not widely available in the industry, involve equipment and training with long lead times, and are subject to lengthy regulatory approval processes, alternative qualified production capacity may not be available on a timely basis or at all. Also, as noted above, Cognate or Advent could choose to terminate its agreements with us if we are in breach, or if we undergo a change of control. Difficulties, delays or interruptions in the manufacturing and supply and delivery of our DCVax product candidates could require us to stop enrolling new patients into our trials, and/or require us to stop the trials or other programs, stop the treatment of patients in the trials or other programs, increase our costs, damage our reputation and, if our product candidates are approved for sale, cause us to lose revenue or market share if our manufacturers are unable to timely meet market demands.

The manufacturing of our product candidates will have to be greatly scaled up for commercialization, and neither we nor our contract manufacturers have experience with such scale-up.

As is the case with any clinical trial, our Phase III clinical trial of DCVax-L for GBM involves a number of patients that is a small fraction of the number of potential patients for whom DCVax-L may be applicable in the commercial market. The same will be true of our other clinical programs with our other DCVax product candidates. If our DCVax-L, and/or other DCVax product candidates, are approved for commercial sale, it will be necessary to greatly scale up the volume of manufacturing, far above the level needed for the trials. Neither we nor our contract manufacturers have experience with such scale-up. In addition, there are likely only a few consultants or advisors in the industry who have such experience and can provide guidance or assistance, because active immune therapies such as DCVax are a fundamentally new category of product in two major ways: these active immune therapy products consist of living cells, not chemical or biologic compounds, and the products are personalized. To our knowledge, no such products have successfully completed the necessary scale-up for commercialization of large volumes of products without material difficulties. For example, Dendreon Corporation encountered substantial difficulties trying to scale up the manufacturing of its Provenge® product for commercialization. To our knowledge, even the CAR-T products which are being commercialized have so far only scaled up to modest product volumes.

The necessary specialized facilities, equipment and personnel may not be available or obtainable for the scale-up of manufacturing of our product candidates.

The manufacture of living cells requires specialized facilities, equipment and personnel which are entirely different than what is required for the manufacturing of chemical or biologic compounds. Scaling up the manufacturing of living cell products to volume levels required for commercialization will require enormous amounts of these specialized facilities, equipment and personnel - especially where, as in the case of our DCVax product candidates, the product is personalized and must be made for each patient individually. Since living cell products are so new, and have barely begun to reach commercialization, the supply of the specialized facilities and personnel needed for them has not yet developed. However there has been a sharp increase in the demand for these specialized facilities and personnel, as large numbers of companies seek to develop T cell and other immune cell products. It may not be possible for us or our manufacturers to obtain all of the specialized facilities and personnel needed for commercialization of our DCVax product candidates, or even for further sizeable trials. This could delay or halt our commercialization and/or further substantial trials.

Our technology is novel, involves complex immune system elements, and may not prove to be effective.

Data already obtained, or in the future obtained, from pre-clinical studies and clinical trials do not necessarily predict the results that will be obtained from later pre-clinical studies and clinical trials. Over the course of several decades, there have been many different immune therapy product designs - and many product failures and company failures. To our knowledge, to date, only a couple of active immune therapies have been approved by the FDA, including one dendritic cell therapy and a couple of CAR-T cell therapies. The human immune system is complex, with many diverse elements, and the state of scientific understanding of the immune system is still limited. Some immune therapies previously developed by other parties showed surprising and unexpected toxicity in clinical trials. Other immune therapies developed by other parties delivered promising results in early clinical trials, but failed in later stage clinical trials.

Although we believe the results from the small early stage clinical trials of DCVax-L for newly diagnosed GBM were quite positive, those results may not be achieved in our later stage clinical trials, such as the 331-patient Phase III trial for GBM that is nearing completion, and our product candidates may not ultimately be found to be effective. Similarly, although we believe the interim blinded data from the Phase III trial that we have collected and reported to date are encouraging, the results of this trial when the data are unblinded may not be as encouraging or may not be positive at all. Further, although the safety profile of our DCVax-L product was excellent in the early stage clinical trials, toxicity may be seen as we treat larger numbers of patients in late stage clinical trials. If such toxicity occurs, it could limit, delay or stop further clinical development or commercialization of our DCVax-L product.

We have only conducted the Phase I portion of our first-in-man Phase I/II clinical trial with our DCVax Direct product, after prior early stage trials with DCVax-L and DCVax-Prostate. Although the early results have not indicated any significant toxicity, we do not yet know what efficacy or toxicity DCVax-Direct may show in a larger sample of human patients. This product may not ultimately be found to be effective, and/or it may be found to be toxic, which could limit, delay or stop clinical development or commercialization of DCVax-Direct.

Clinical trials for our product candidates are expensive and time consuming, and their outcome is uncertain.

The process of obtaining and maintaining regulatory approvals for new therapeutic products is expensive, lengthy and uncertain. Costs and timing of clinical trials may vary significantly over the life of a project owing to any or all of the following non-exclusive reasons:

Late stage clinical trials, such as our Phase III clinical trial for GBM patients, are especially expensive, typically requiring tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, and take years to reach their outcomes. Such outcomes often fail to reproduce the results of earlier trials. It is often necessary to conduct multiple late stage trials (including multiple Phase III trials) in order to obtain sufficient results to support product approval, which further increases the expense. Sometimes trials are further complicated by changes in requirements while the trials are under way (for example, when the standard of care changes for the disease that is being studied in the trial). For example, while the Company’s lead program, the Phase III clinical trial of DCVax-L for brain cancer, has been under way, there has been a very large proliferation of new treatments in various stages of development, as well as some new product approvals, for brain cancer. Any of our current or future product candidates could take a significantly longer time to gain regulatory approval than we expect, or may never gain approval, either of which could delay or stop the commercialization of our DCVax product candidates.

We may be required to suspend or discontinue clinical trials due to unexpected side effects or other safety risks that could preclude approval of our product candidates.

Our clinical trials may be suspended at any time for a number of reasons. For example, we may voluntarily suspend or terminate our clinical trials if at any time we believe that they present an unacceptable risk to the clinical trial patients. In addition, the FDA or other regulatory agencies may order the temporary or permanent discontinuation of our clinical trials at any time if they believe that the clinical trials are not being conducted in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements or that they present an unacceptable safety risk to the clinical trial patients.

Administering any product candidate to humans may produce undesirable side effects. These side effects could interrupt, delay or halt clinical trials of our product candidates and could result in the FDA or other regulatory authorities denying further development or approval of our product candidates for any or all targeted indications. Ultimately, some or all of our product candidates may prove to be unsafe for human use. Moreover, we could be subject to significant liability if any volunteer or patient suffers, or appears to suffer, adverse health effects as a result of participating in our clinical trials.

We have limited experience in conducting and managing clinical trials, and we rely on third parties to assist with these services.

We rely on third parties to assist us, on a contract services basis, in managing and monitoring all of our clinical trials. We do not have experience conducting late stage clinical trials by ourselves without third party service firms, nor do we have experience in supervising such third parties in managing late stage, multi-hundred patient clinical trials, other than our current Phase III trial for GBM. Our lack of experience and/or our reliance on these third-party service firms may result in delays or failure to complete these trials successfully and on time. If the third parties fail to perform, we may not be able to find sufficient alternative suppliers of those services in a reasonable time period, or on commercially reasonable terms, if at all. If we were unable to obtain alternative suppliers of such services, we might be forced to delay, suspend or stop our Phase III trial for GBM.

We may fail to comply with regulatory requirements.

Our success will be dependent upon our ability, and our collaborative partners’ abilities, to maintain compliance with regulatory requirements in multiple countries, including current good manufacturing practices, or cGMP, and safety reporting obligations. The failure to comply with applicable regulatory requirements can result in, among other things, fines, injunctions, civil penalties, total or partial suspension of regulatory approvals, refusal to approve pending applications, recalls or seizures of products, operating and production restrictions and criminal prosecutions.

Regulatory approval of our product candidates may be withdrawn at any time.

After any regulatory approval has been obtained for medicinal products (including any early or conditional approval), the product and the manufacturer are subject to continual review, including the review of adverse experiences and clinical results that are reported after our products are made available to patients, and there can be no assurance that such approval will not be withdrawn or restricted. Regulators may also subject approvals to restrictions or conditions, or impose post-approval obligations on the holders of these approvals, and the regulatory status of such products may be jeopardized if such obligations are not fulfilled. If post-approval studies are required, such studies may involve significant time and expense.

The manufacturer and manufacturing facilities we use to make any of our products will also be subject to periodic review and inspection by the FDA, EMA or other regulator, as applicable. The discovery of any new or previously unknown problems with the product, manufacturer or facility may result in restrictions on the product or manufacturer or facility, including withdrawal of the product from the market. We will continue to be subject to the FDA or the European Medicines Agency, or EMA, and other regulatory requirements, as applicable, governing the labeling, packaging, storage, advertising, promotion, recordkeeping, and submission of safety and other post-market information for all of our product candidates, even those that the FDA, EMA, or other regulator, as applicable, had approved. If we fail to comply with applicable continuing regulatory requirements, we may be subject to fines, restriction, suspension or withdrawal of regulatory approval, product recalls and seizures, operating restrictions and other adverse consequences.   

Our Operations under early access programs, such as the hospital exemption in Germany, may not be successful.

There is not much accumulated or available experience, information or precedents in regard to early access programs such as hospital exemption programs and/or similar programs, especially for new types of treatments such as immune therapies. Establishing operations under an early access program will require us to establish and implement new operational, contractual, financial and other arrangements with physicians, hospitals, patients and others. We may not be successful in establishing and implementing such arrangements, and/or such arrangements may not be financially satisfactory or viable.

We may not be successful in negotiating reimbursement.

If our DCVax-L product obtains regulatory approval for commercialization, such commercialization will be difficult and may not be feasible unless we obtain coverage by health insurance and/or national health systems for reimbursement of our product price. Obtaining such coverage by health insurance and/or national health systems will be difficult and we do not have experience with such processes. Our DCVax-L product is a fully personalized, individual product and, as such, is expected to be expensive. In addition, our DCVax-L product involves a cost structure (with much of the costs upfront, in connection with the manufacturing of the personalized DCVax-L product for a patient) that is different than traditional drugs and may require different reimbursement arrangements. These factors may make our negotiations for reimbursement more difficult. We may not be successful in negotiating or obtaining reimbursement, or obtaining it on acceptable or viable terms.

Our product candidates will require a different distribution model than conventional therapeutic products, and this may impede commercialization of our product candidates.

Our DCVax product candidates consist of living human immune cells. Such products are entirely different from chemical or biologic drugs, and require different handling, distribution and delivery than chemical or biologic drugs. One crucial difference is that the biomaterial ingredients (immune cells and tumor tissue) from which we make DCVax products and the finished DCVax products themselves are subject to time constraints in the shipping and handling. The biomaterial ingredients come from the medical centers to the manufacturing facility fresh and not frozen, and must arrive within a certain window of time and in usable condition. Performance failures by the medical center or the courier company can result in biomaterials that are not usable, in which case it may not be possible to make DCVax product for the patient involved. The finished DCVax products are frozen, and must remain frozen throughout the process of distribution and delivery to the medical center or physician’s office, until the time of administration to the patient, and cannot be handled at room temperature until then or their viability will be lost. In addition, our DCVax product candidates are personalized and they involve ongoing treatment cycles over several years for each patient. Each product shipment for each patient must be tracked and managed individually. For all of these reasons, among others, we will not be able to simply use the distribution networks and processes that already exist for conventional drugs. It may take time for shipping companies, hospitals, pharmacies and physicians to adapt to the requirements for handling, distribution and delivery of these products, which may adversely affect our commercialization.

Our product candidates will require different marketing and sales methods and personnel than conventional therapeutic products. Also, we lack sales and marketing experience. These factors may result in significant difficulties in commercializing our product candidates.

The commercial success of any of our product candidates will depend upon the strength of our sales and marketing efforts. We do not have a marketing or sales force and have no experience in marketing or sales of products like our lead product, DCVax-L for GBM, or our additional product, DCVax-Direct. To fully commercialize our product candidates, we will need to recruit and train marketing staff and a sales force with technical expertise and ability to manage the distribution of our DCVax-L for GBM. As an alternative, we could seek assistance from a corporate partner or a third-party services firm with a large distribution system and a large direct sales force. However, since our DCVax products are living cell, immune therapy products, and these are a fundamentally new and different type of product than are on the market today, we would still have to train such partner’s or such services firm’s personnel about our products, and would have to make changes in their distribution processes and systems to handle our products. We may be unable to recruit and train effective sales and marketing forces or our own, or of a partner or a services firm, and/or doing so may be more costly and difficult than anticipated. Such factors may result in significant difficulties in commercializing our product candidates, and we may be unable to generate significant revenues.

The availability and amount of potential reimbursement for our product candidates by government and private payers is uncertain and may be delayed and/or inadequate.

The availability and extent of reimbursement by governmental and/or private payers is essential for most patients to be able to afford expensive treatments, such as cancer treatments. In the United States, the principal decisions about reimbursement for new medicines are typically made by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, an agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, as CMS decides whether and to what extent a new medicine will be covered and reimbursed under Medicare. Private payers tend to follow CMS to a substantial degree. It is difficult to predict what CMS will decide with respect to reimbursement for fundamentally novel products such as ours, as there have been very few products similar to ours to date., We are aware of only a couple of active immune therapies that have reached the stage of reimbursement decisionmaking processes, including one dendritic cell therapy and a couple of CAR-T cell therapies. Although CMS has approved coverage and reimbursement for a couple of these products, and private payers seem to be following suit in the US, there remain substantial questions and concerns about reimbursement for these products, especially outside the US.

Reimbursement agencies in Europe can be even more conservative than CMS in the U.S. A number of cancer drugs which have been approved for reimbursement in the U.S. have not been approved for reimbursement in certain European countries, and/or the level of reimbursement approved in Europe is lower than in the U.S. Reportedly, in Europe reimbursement for certain immune therapies was initially declined, and reportedly involved difficult negotiations. The same could happen with respect to our DCVax products.

Various factors could increase the difficulties for our DCVax products to obtain reimbursement. Costs and/or difficulties associated with the reimbursement of Provenge and/or T cell therapies could create an adverse environment for reimbursement of other immune therapies, such as our DCVax products. Approval of other competing products (drugs and/or devices) for the same disease indications could make the need for our products and the cost-benefit balance seem less compelling. The cost structure of our product is not a typical cost structure for medical products, as the majority of our costs are incurred up front, when the manufacturing of the personalized product is done. Our atypical cost structure may not be accommodated in any reimbursement for our products. If we are unable to obtain adequate levels of reimbursement, our ability to successfully market and sell our product candidates will be adversely affected.

The manner and level at which reimbursement is provided for services related to our product candidates (e.g., for administration of our product to patients) are also important. If the reimbursement for such services is inadequate, that may lead to physician resistance and adversely affect our ability to market or sell our products.

The methodology under which CMS makes coverage and reimbursement determinations is subject to change, particularly because of budgetary pressures facing the Medicare program. For example, the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act, or Medicare Modernization Act, enacted in 2003, provided for a change in reimbursement methodology that has reduced the Medicare reimbursement rates for many drugs, including oncology therapeutics. The Affordable Care Act may also result in changes in reimbursement arrangements that adversely affect the prospects for reimbursement of our products.

In markets outside the U.S., the prices of medical products are subject to direct price controls and/or to reimbursement with varying price control mechanisms, as part of national health systems. In general, the prices of medicines under such systems are substantially lower than in the U.S. Some jurisdictions operate positive and/or negative list systems under which products may only be marketed once a reimbursement price has been agreed. Other countries allow companies to fix their own prices for medicines, but monitor and control company profits. The downward pressure on health care costs in general, particularly prescription drugs, has become very intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products. Accordingly, in markets outside the U.S., the reimbursement for our products may be reduced compared with the U.S. and may be insufficient to generate commercially reasonable revenues and profits.

Competition in the biotechnology and biopharmaceutical industry is intense, rapidly expanding and most of our competitors have substantially greater resources than we do.

The biotechnology and biopharmaceutical industries are characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition and a strong emphasis on proprietary products. A growing number of other companies, such as Juno, Kite Bellicum, Argos, Agenus, Asterias, Dandrit, Immunicum, Sotio, Tocagen, AiVita and many others, are actively involved in the research and development of immune therapies or cell-based therapies for cancer. In addition, other novel technologies for cancer are under development or commercialization, such as checkpoint inhibitor drugs (which are being rapidly developed by numerous big pharma companies including BMS, Merck, Pfizer, Astra Zeneca, Roche and others) and various T cell-based therapies (which are also being rapidly developed by numerous companies with extraordinary resource backing), as well as the electro-therapy device of NovoCure. Additionally, many companies are actively involved in the research and development of monoclonal antibody-based cancer therapies. Currently, a substantial number of antibody-based products are approved for commercial sale for cancer therapy, and a large number of additional ones are under development, including late stage trials. Many other third parties compete with us in developing alternative therapies to treat cancer, including: biopharmaceutical companies; biotechnology companies; pharmaceutical companies; academic institutions; and other research organizations, as well as some medical device companies (e.g., NovoCure and MagForce Nano Technologies AG).

We face extensive competition from companies developing new treatments for brain cancer. These include a variety of immune therapies, as mentioned above (including T cell-based therapies and checkpoint inhibitor drugs), as well as a variety of small molecule drugs and biologics drugs. There are also a number of existing drugs used for the treatment of brain cancer that may compete with our product, including, Avastin® (Roche Holding AG), Gliadel® (Eisai Co. Ltd.), and Temodar® (Merck& Co., Inc.), as well as NovoCure’s electrotherapy device.

Most of our competitors have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, pre-clinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals and marketing and sales than we do. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly if they enter into collaborative arrangements with large and established companies.

These third parties compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel and collaborators, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to our programs, and in obtaining sites for our clinical trials and enrolling patients.

Our competitors may complete their clinical development more rapidly than we and our products do, may develop more effective or affordable products, or may achieve earlier or longer patent protection or earlier product marketing and sales. Any products developed by us may be rendered obsolete and non-competitive.  

Competing generic medicinal products may be approved.

In the E.U., there exists a process for approval of generic biological medicinal products once patent protection and other forms of data and market exclusivity have expired. Arrangements for approval of generic biologics products exist in the U.S. as well, and the FDA has begun approving bio-similar products. Other jurisdictions may approve generic biologic medicinal products as well. If generic biologic medicinal products are approved, competition from such products may substantially reduce sales of our products.

We may be exposed to potential product liability claims, and our existing insurance may not cover these claims, in whole or in part. In addition, insurance against such claims may not be available to us on reasonable terms in the future, if at all.

Our business exposes us to potential product liability risks that are inherent in the testing, manufacturing, marketing, sale and use of therapeutic products. We have insurance coverage but this insurance may not cover any claims made. In the future, insurance coverage may not be available to us on commercially reasonable terms (including acceptable cost), if at all. Insurance that we obtain may not be adequate to cover claims against us. Regardless of whether they have any merit or not, and regardless of their eventual outcome, product liability claims may result in substantially decreased demand for our product candidates, injury to our reputation, withdrawal of clinical trial participants or physicians, and/or loss of revenues. Thus, whether or not we are insured, a product liability claim or product recall may result in losses that could be material.

We may be subject to environmental regulatory requirements, and could fail to meet such requirements, and we do not carry insurance against environmental damage or injury claims.

We may need to store, handle, use and dispose of controlled hazardous, radioactive and biological materials in our business. Our development activities may result in our becoming subject to regulatory requirements, and if we fail to comply with applicable requirements we could be subject to substantial fines and other sanctions, delays in research and production, and increased operating costs. In addition, if regulated materials were improperly released at our current or former facilities or at locations to which we send materials for disposal, we could be liable for substantial damages and costs, including cleanup costs and personal injury or property damages, and we could incur delays in research and production and increased operating costs.

Insurance covering certain types of claims of environmental damage or injury resulting from the use of these materials is available but can be expensive and is limited in its coverage. We have no insurance specifically covering environmental risks or personal injury from the use of these materials and if such use results in liability, our business may be seriously harmed.

Collaborations play an important role in our business, and could be vulnerable to competition or termination.

We work with scientists and medical professionals at a variety of academic and other institutions, some of whom have conducted research for us or have assisted in developing our research and development strategy. These scientists and medical professionals are collaborators, not our employees. They may have commitments to, or contracts with, other institutions or businesses (including competitors) that limit the amount of time they have available to work with us. We have little control over these individuals. We can only expect that they devote time to us and our programs as required by any license, consulting or sponsored research agreements we may have with them. In addition, these individuals may have arrangements with other companies to assist in developing technologies that may compete with our products. If these individuals do not devote sufficient time and resources to our programs, or if they provide substantial assistance to our competitors, our business could be seriously harmed.

The success of our business strategy may partially depend upon our ability to develop and maintain our collaborations and to manage them effectively. Due to concerns regarding our ability to continue our operations or the commercial feasibility of our personalized DCVax product candidates, these third parties may decide not to conduct business with us or may conduct business with us on terms that are less favorable than those customarily extended by them. If either of these events occurs, our business could suffer significantly.

We may have disputes with our collaborators, which could be costly and time consuming. Failure to successfully defend our rights could seriously harm our business, financial condition and operating results. We intend to continue to enter into collaborations in the future. However, we may be unable to successfully negotiate any additional collaboration and any of these relationships, if established, may not be scientifically or commercially successful.

Our business could be adversely affected by new legislation and/or product related issues.

Changes in applicable legislation and/or regulatory policies or discovery of problems with the product, production process, site or manufacturer may result in delays in bringing products to market, the imposition of restrictions on the product’s sale or manufacture, including the possible withdrawal of the product from the market, or may otherwise have an adverse effect on our business.

Our business could be adversely affected by animal rights activists.

Our business activities have involved animal testing and could involve further such testing, as such testing is required before new medical products can be tested in clinical trials in human patients. Animal testing has been the subject of controversy and adverse publicity. Some organizations and individuals have attempted to stop animal testing by pressing for legislation and regulation in these areas. To the extent that the activities of such groups are successful, our business could be adversely affected. Negative publicity about us, our pre-clinical trials and our product candidates could also adversely affect our business.

Multiple late stage clinical trials of DCVax-L for GBM, our lead product, may be required before we can obtain regulatory approval.

Typically, companies conduct multiple late stage clinical trials of their product candidates before seeking product approval. Our current Phase III 331-patient clinical trial of DCVax-L for GBM is our first late stage trial. We may be required to conduct additional late stage trials with DCVax-L for GBM before we can obtain product approval. This would substantially delay our commercialization , and might not be possible to carry out, due to development and/or approval of competing products, lack of funding, and/or other factors. In addition, our Phase III trial of DCVax-L was placed on a partial clinical hold for new screening for enrollment in 2015. Although the FDA lifted its hold in February 2017 as previously reported by the Company, the Company had already closed enrollment with 331 of the planned 348 patients. Since we did not enroll the last 17 of the planned 348 patients, this could adversely affect the statistical and other analyses of our Phase III trial results, and could make it more difficult to seek product approval or more likely that further trials could be required. In addition, a rapidly growing number of products are under development for brain cancer, including immunotherapies such as checkpoint inhibitor drugs and T cell-based therapies, and some (e.g., NovoCure’s device) have been approved in the U.S. It is possible that the standard of care for brain cancer could change before we complete our Phase III trial or before we are able to seek approval for commercialization. This could necessitate further clinical trials with our DCVax-L product candidate for brain cancer, which may not be feasible.

Changes in manufacturing methods for DCVax-L could require us to conduct equivalency studies and/or additional clinical trials.

With biologics products, “the process is the product”: i.e., the manufacturing process is considered to be as integral to the product as is the composition of the product itself. If any changes are made in the manufacturing process, and such changes are considered material by the regulatory authorities, the company sponsor may be required to conduct equivalency studies to show that the product is equivalent under the changed manufacturing processes as under the original manufacturing processes, and/or the company sponsor may be required to conduct additional clinical trials. In addition, if there are multiple manufacturing locations, equivalency studies may be required to show that the products produced in the respective facilities are substantially the same. Our manufacturing processes have undergone some changes during the early clinical trials, and we have multiple manufacturing locations. Accordingly, we may be required to conduct equivalency studies, and/or additional clinical trials, before we can obtain product approval, unless the regulatory authorities are satisfied that the changes in processes do not affect the quality, efficacy or safety of the product, and satisfied that the products made in each manufacturing location are substantially the same.

We may not receive regulatory approvals for our product candidates or there may be a delay in obtaining such approvals.

Our products and our ongoing development activities are subject to regulation by regulatory authorities in the countries in which we and our collaborators and distributors wish to test, manufacture or market our products. For instance, the FDA will regulate the product in the U.S. and equivalent authorities, such as the EMA will regulate in Europe and other jurisdictions. Regulatory approval by these authorities will be subject to the evaluation of data relating to the quality, efficacy and safety of the product for its proposed use, and there can be no assurance that the regulatory authorities will find our data sufficient to support product approval of DCVax-L or DCVax-Direct. In addition, the endpoint against which the data is measured must be acceptable to the regulatory authorities , and the statistical analysis plan for how the data will be evaluated must also be acceptable to the regulatory authorities. The primary endpoint of our Phase III trial of DCVax-L is progression free survival, or PFS. Sometimes regulators have accepted this endpoint, and sometimes not. There can be no assurance that the regulatory authorities will find this to be an approvable endpoint for Glioblastoma multiforme cancer . In addition, as previously recognized, the PFS endpoint in our Phase III trial is complicated and potentially confounded by the phenomenon of pseudo-progression, in which a patient appears to have disease progression (tumor recurrence) but does not actually have such progression (for example, where the appearance of progression is actually inflammation or scarring, or is infiltration of beneficial immune cells). The secondary endpoint of our Phase III trial is overall survival, or OS. There can be no assurance that regulatory authorities will find a secondary endpoint to be an acceptable basis for product approval. In addition, as previously recognized, the OS endpoint in our Phase III trial is complicated or confounded by the trial design, which allowed all patients (including patients initially assigned to the placebo arm of the trial) to “cross over” and receive DCVax-L treatment after recurrence of their tumor. These factors could result in regulatory authorities refusing to accept either of these endpoints, or the analysis of our data relating to either of these endpoints, as a basis for approval.

The time period required to obtain regulatory approval varies between countries. In the U.S., for products without “Fast Track” status, it can take up to 18 months after submission of an application for product approval to receive the FDA's decision. Even with Fast Track status, FDA review and decision can take up to 12 months. At present, we do not have Fast Track status for our lead product, DCVax-L for GBM. We plan to apply for Fast Track status, but there can be no assurance that FDA will grant us such status for DCVax-L.

Different regulators may impose their own requirements and may refuse to grant, or may require additional data before granting, an approval, notwithstanding that regulatory approval may have been granted by other regulators. Regulatory approval may be delayed, limited or denied for a number of reasons, including insufficient clinical data, the product not meeting safety or efficacy requirements or any relevant manufacturing processes or facilities not meeting applicable requirements as well as case load at the regulatory agency at the time.

We may not obtain or maintain the benefits associated with orphan drug status, including market exclusivity.

Although our lead product, DCVax-L for GBM, has been granted orphan drug status in both the U.S. and the E.U., we may not receive the benefits associated with orphan drug designation (including the benefit providing for market exclusivity for a number of years). This may result from a failure to maintain orphan drug status, or result from a competing product reaching the market that has an orphan designation for the same disease indication. Under U.S. and E.U. rules for orphan drugs, if such a competing product reaches the market before ours does, the competing product could potentially obtain a scope of market exclusivity that limits or precludes our product from being sold in the U.S. for seven years or from being sold in the E.U. for ten years. Also, in the E.U., even after orphan status has been granted, that status is re-examined shortly prior to the product receiving any regulatory approval. The EMA must be satisfied that there is evidence that the product offers a significant benefit relative to existing therapies, in order for the therapeutic product to maintain its orphan drug status. Accordingly, our product candidates will have to re-qualify for orphan drug status prior to any potential product approval in the E.U., and may have to do so elsewhere as well.

Our intellectual property rights may be overturned, narrowed or blocked, and may not provide sufficient commercial protection for our product candidates, or third parties may infringe upon our intellectual property.

The patent position of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies generally is highly uncertain, involves complex legal and factual questions and has in recent years been the subject of much litigation. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our patent rights are highly uncertain. Patent laws afford only limited protection and may not protect our rights to the extent necessary to sustain any competitive advantage we may have. In addition, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect proprietary rights to the same extent as the laws of the United States, and we may encounter significant problems in protecting our proprietary rights in those countries. Moreover, patents and patent applications relating to living cell products are relatively new, involve complex factual and legal issues, and are largely untested in litigation - and as a result, are uncertain. Our pending and future patent applications may not result in patents being issued which adequately protect our technology or products or which effectively prevent others from commercializing the same or competitive technologies and products. As a result, we may not be able to obtain meaningful patent protection for our commercial products, and our business may suffer as a result. Third parties may challenge our existing patents, and such challenges could result in overturning or narrowing some of our patents. Even if our patents are not challenged, third parties could assert that their patents block our use of technology covered by some or all of our patents.

As of December 31, 2018, we had over 181 issued patents and 35 pending patent applications worldwide relating to our product candidates and related matters such as manufacturing processes. The issued patents expire at various dates from 2022 to 2026. Our issued patents may be challenged, and such challenges may result in reductions in scope, cancellations or invalidations. Our pending patent applications may not result in issued patents. Moreover, our patents and patent applications may not be sufficiently broad to prevent others from using substantially similar technologies or from developing competing products. We also face the risk that others may independently develop similar or alternative technologies, or design around our patented technologies. As a result, no assurance can be given that any of our pending or future patent applications will be granted, that the scope of any patent protection currently granted or that may be granted in the future will exclude competitors or provide us with competitive advantages, that any of the patents that have been or may be issued to us will be held valid if subsequently challenged, or that other parties will not claim rights to or ownership of our patents or other proprietary rights that we hold.

We have taken security measures (including execution of confidentiality agreements) to protect our proprietary information, especially proprietary information that is not covered by patents or patent applications. These measures, however, may not provide adequate protection for our trade secrets or other proprietary information. In addition, others may independently develop substantially equivalent proprietary information or techniques or otherwise gain access to our trade secrets.

We may be exposed to claims or lawsuits that our products infringe patents or other proprietary rights of other parties.

Our commercial success depends upon our ability and the ability of our collaborators to develop, manufacture, market and sell our product candidates and use our proprietary technologies without infringing the proprietary rights of third parties. We have not conducted a comprehensive freedom-to-operate review to determine whether our proposed business activities or use of certain of the technology covered by patent rights owned by us would infringe patents issued to third parties.

There is a substantial amount of litigation involving patent and other intellectual property rights in the biotechnology and biopharmaceutical industries generally. The patent landscape is especially uncertain in regard to cell therapy products, as it involves complex legal and factual questions for which important legal principles remain unresolved. We may become party to, or be threatened with, future adversarial proceedings or litigation regarding intellectual property rights with respect to our products and technology, including interference proceedings, Inter Partes Reexamination, or Post Grant Review before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Third parties may assert infringement claims against us based on existing patents or patents that may be granted in the future. If we are found to infringe a third party’s intellectual property rights, we could be required to obtain a license from such third party to continue developing and marketing our products and technology. However, we may not be able to obtain any required license on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Even if we were able to obtain a license, it could be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors access to the same technologies licensed to us. We could be forced, including by court order, to cease commercializing the infringing technology or product. In addition, we could be found liable for monetary damages. If the infringement is found to be willful, we could be liable for treble damages. A finding of infringement could prevent us from commercializing our product candidates or force us to cease some of our business operations, which could materially harm our business. Claims that we have misappropriated the confidential information or trade secrets of third parties could have a similar negative impact on our business.

We have already been exposed to one patent lawsuit by a large company, which we vigorously defended. Our defense resulted in the plaintiff withdrawing nearly all of the claims it filed, and in settlement of the last claims without our paying the plaintiff anything. However, the litigation was expensive and time consuming. We have also been exposed to claims (without a lawsuit) by a competitor asserting or implying (and commentaries by third parties based on the claims by our competitor) that a patent issued to our competitor covers our products. We believe these claims to be without merit. However, if a lawsuit for infringement were brought against us, there can be no assurance that a judge or jury would agree with our position, and in any event such litigation would be expensive and time consuming. In the future, we may again be exposed to claims by third parties - with or without merit - that our products infringe their intellectual property rights.  

Even if resolved in our favor, litigation or other legal proceedings relating to intellectual property claims may cause us to incur significant expenses, and could distract our technical and management personnel from their normal responsibilities. In addition, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments and if securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a substantial adverse effect on the price of our common stock. Such litigation or proceedings could substantially increase our operating losses and reduce the resources available for development activities or any future sales, marketing or distribution activities. We may not have sufficient financial or other resources to adequately conduct such litigation or proceedings. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of such litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their greater financial resources. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings could have a material adverse effect on our ability to compete in the marketplace.

DCVax is our only technology in clinical development.

Unlike many pharmaceutical companies that have a number of products in development and which utilize many different technologies, we are dependent on the success of our DCVax platform technology. While the DCVax technology has a wide scope of potential use, and is embodied in several different product lines for different clinical situations, if the core DCVax technology is not effective or is toxic or is not commercially viable, our business could fail. We do not currently have other technologies that could provide alternative support for us.

Risks Related to our Common Stock

The market price of our common stock is volatile and can be adversely affected by several factors.

The share prices of publicly traded biotechnology and emerging pharmaceutical companies, particularly companies without consistent product revenues and earnings, can be highly volatile and are likely to remain highly volatile in the future. The price which investors may realize in sales of their shares of our common stock may be materially different than the price at which our common stock is quoted, and will be influenced by a large number of factors, some specific to us and our operations, and some unrelated to our operations. Such factors may cause the price of our stock to fluctuate frequently and substantially. Such factors may include large purchases or sales of our common stock, shorting of our stock, positive or negative events, commentaries or publicity relating to our company, management or products, or other companies, management or products, including other immune therapies for cancer or immune therapies or cancer therapies generally, positive or negative events relating to healthcare and the overall pharmaceutical and biotech sector, the publication of research by securities analysts and changes in recommendations of securities analysts, legislative or regulatory changes, and/or general economic conditions. In the past, shareholder litigation, including class action litigation, has been brought against other companies that experienced volatility in the market price of their shares and/or unexpected or adverse developments in their business. Whether or not meritorious, litigation brought against a company following such developments can result in substantial costs, divert management’s attention and resources, and harm the company’s financial condition and results of operations.

Our Common Stock is considered a “penny stock” and may be difficult to sell.

The Commission has adopted regulations which generally define “penny stock” to be an equity security that has a market price of less than $5.00 per share or an exercise price of less than $5.00 per share, subject to specific exemptions. Historically, the price of our Common Stock has fluctuated greatly. As of the date of this filing, the market price of our common stock is less than $5.00 per share, and therefore is a “penny stock” according to Commission rules. The “penny stock” rules impose additional sales practice requirements on broker-dealers who sell securities to persons other than established customers and accredited investors (generally those with assets in excess of $1,000,000 or annual income exceeding $200,000 or $300,000 together with their spouse). For transactions covered by these rules, the broker-dealer must make a special suitability determination for the purchase of securities and have received the purchaser’s written consent to the transaction before the purchase. Additionally, for any transaction involving a penny stock, unless exempt, the broker-dealer must deliver, before the transaction, a disclosure schedule prescribed by the Commission relating to the penny stock market. The broker-dealer also must disclose the commissions payable to both the broker-dealer and the registered representative and current quotations for the securities. Finally, monthly statements must be sent disclosing recent price information on the limited market in penny stocks. These additional burdens imposed on broker-dealers may restrict the ability or decrease the willingness of broker-dealers to sell our common stock, and may result in decreased liquidity for our common stock and increased transaction costs for sales and purchases of our common stock as compared to other securities.

Linda Powers and Cognate BioServices, each have beneficial ownership of material amounts of our securities, and this concentration of ownership may have a negative effect on the Company and/or the market price of our common stock.

As of December 31, 2018, Linda Powers, our Chief Executive Officer and Chairperson of the Board of Directors, beneficially owned a material percentage of our outstanding securities on that date. This concentration of ownership could involve conflicts of interest, and may adversely affect the trading price of our common stock because investors may perceive disadvantages in owning stock of companies with stockholders who could have conflicts of interest. Ms. Powers’ holdings of our securities could enable her to exert some material influence upon matters requiring approval by our stockholders, including the election and removal of directors and any proposed merger, consolidation or sale of all or substantially all of our assets, as well as over our business plans, strategies or operations. This influence could have the effect of delaying, deferring or preventing a change in control, or impeding a merger or consolidation, takeover or other business combination or action that could be favorable to investors. Cognate BioServices also beneficially owned and/or had a contractual claim to receive a material percentage of our outstanding securities as of December 31, 2018. Since the management buyout of Cognate BioServices in February 2018, Cognate BioServices is no longer an affiliate of Linda Powers; however, Cognate’s continued beneficial ownership of a material percentage of our outstanding securities could adversely affect the Company and/or our stock, for example if perceived adversely by investors, and could enable Cognate to exert influence over matters requiring approval by our stockholders, as well as over our business plans, strategies or operations.

The requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and other U.S. securities laws impose substantial costs, and may drain our resources and distract our management.

We are subject to certain of the requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as well as the reporting requirements under the Exchange Act.  The Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires, among other things, that we maintain effective disclosure controls and procedures and internal controls over financial reporting. Over the years we have identified a number of material weaknesses in our internal controls.  As a small company with limited staff it is challenging to maintain effective controls, especially where this requires segregation of duties among multiple staff.  While the Company has spent significant resources in remediating these weaknesses, and has remediated a number of material weaknesses, material weaknesses remain.  Control weaknesses raise the risk of future material errors in the company's financial statements.  In addition, ongoing weaknesses can subject us to SEC enforcement action, which might include monetary fines or other equitable remedies that could be detrimental to the ongoing business of the Company.

We do not intend to pay any cash dividends in the foreseeable future and, therefore, any return on your investment in our common stock must come from increases in the market price of our common stock.

We have not paid any cash dividends on our common stock to date in our history, and we do not intend to pay cash dividends on our common stock in the foreseeable future. We intend to retain future earnings, if any, for reinvestment in the development and expansion of our business. Also, any credit agreements which we may enter into with institutional lenders may restrict our ability to pay dividends. Therefore, any return on your investment in our capital stock must come from increases in the fair market value and trading price of our common stock. Such increases in the trading price of our stock may not occur.

Our certificate of incorporation and bylaws and Delaware law, have provisions that could discourage, delay or prevent a change in control.

Our certificate of incorporation and bylaws and Delaware law contain provisions which could make it more difficult for a third party to acquire us, even if closing such a transaction would be beneficial to our stockholders. We are authorized to issue up to 100,000,000 shares of preferred stock. This preferred stock may be issued in one or more series, the terms of which may be determined at the time of issuance by our Board of Directors without further action by stockholders. The terms of any series of preferred stock may include voting rights (including the right to vote as a series on particular matters), preferences as to dividend, liquidation, conversion and redemption rights and sinking fund provisions. No preferred stock is currently outstanding. The issuance of any preferred stock could materially adversely affect the rights of the holders of our common stock, and therefore, reduce the value of our common stock. In particular, specific rights granted to future holders of preferred stock could be used to restrict our ability to merge with, or sell our assets to, a third party and thereby preserve control by the present management.

Provisions of our certificate of incorporation and bylaws and Delaware law also could have the effect of discouraging potential acquisition proposals or tender offers or delaying or preventing a change in control, including changes a stockholder might consider favorable. Such provisions may also prevent or frustrate attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove our management. In particular, the certificate of incorporation and bylaws and Delaware law, as applicable, among other things:

We are also subject to Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law which, subject to certain exceptions, prohibits “business combinations” between a publicly-held Delaware corporation and an “interested stockholder,” which is generally defined as a stockholder who becomes a beneficial owner of 15% or more of a Delaware corporation’s voting stock for a three-year period following the date that such stockholder became an interested stockholder.

A substantial number of shares of common stock may be sold in the market, which may depress the market price for our common stock.

Sales of a substantial number of shares of our common stock in the public market could cause the market price of our common stock to decline. A substantial majority of the outstanding shares of our common stock are freely tradable without restriction or further registration under the Securities Act. As of December 31, 2018, 523.2 million shares of our common stock are issued and outstanding. In addition, as of December 31, 2018, 372.2 million shares of our common stock are issuable upon exercise of outstanding warrants and 82 million shares of our common stock are issuable upon exercise of outstanding options.

We may have claims and lawsuits against us that may result in adverse outcomes.

From time to time, we may be subject to a variety of claims and lawsuits. As described more fully in “Item 3. Legal Proceedings,” of Part I of this Form 10-K, in the past, we were engaged in responding to a shareholder demand for access to certain corporate books and records, and we were also engaged in several shareholder litigations. We believed that that the claims were without merit, fought them vigorously and settled them. We have also had several small litigations, for example relating to certain payables. However, litigation and claims are subject to inherent uncertainties, and adverse rulings or outcomes could occur, and/or could lead to further claims or litigation. Adverse outcomes or further litigation could result in significant monetary damages or injunctive relief that could adversely affect our business. A material adverse impact on our financial statements also could occur for the period in which an unfavorable final outcome becomes probable and its effect becomes reasonably estimable. In addition, litigation and claims may divert material amounts of management time and attention from our business, and/or involve significant legal costs and expenses.