PART I

Exchange Rate Information

The euro is our functional currency and the currency in which we report our financial results. The following table sets forth, for each period indicated, the low and high exchange rates of U.S. dollars per euro, the exchange rate at the end of such period and the average of such exchange rates on the last day of each month during such period, based on the noon buying rate of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York for the euro. As used in this document, the term “noon buying rate” refers to the rate of exchange for the euro, expressed in U.S. dollars per euro, as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York for customs purposes. The exchange rates set forth below demonstrate trends in exchange rates, but the actual exchange rates used throughout this annual report may vary.

The following table sets forth, for each of the last six months, the low and high exchange rates for euros expressed in U.S. dollars and the exchange rate at the end of the month based on the noon buying rate as described above.

On December 31, 2017, the noon buying rate of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York for the euro was €1.00 = US$1.2022. Unless otherwise indicated, currency translations in this annual report reflect the December 31, 2017 exchange rate.

On March 16, 2018, the noon buying rate of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York for the euro was €1.00 = $1.2280.

B.       CAPITALIZATION AND INDEBTEDNESS

Not applicable.

C.       REASONS FOR THE OFFER AND USE OF PROCEEDS

Not applicable.

D.       RISK FACTORS

Our business faces significant risks. You should carefully consider all of the information set forth in this annual report and in our other filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, or the SEC, including the following risk factors which we face and which are faced by our industry. Our business, financial condition or results of operations could be materially and adversely affected if any of these risks occurs. This report also contains forward‑looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. Our actual results could differ materially and adversely from those anticipated in these forward‑looking statements as a result of certain factors including the risks described below and elsewhere in this annual report and our other SEC filings. See “Cautionary Statement with Respect to Forward-Looking Statements” above.

Risks Related to Our Financial Position and Need for Additional Capital

We are a clinical‑stage biopharmaceutical company and have incurred significant losses since our inception. We expect to incur losses for the foreseeable future and may never achieve or maintain profitability.

We are a clinical‑stage biopharmaceutical company with a limited operating history. Since our inception, we have incurred significant operating losses. We incurred losses for the year and total comprehensive losses of €21.4 million and €28.1 million for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2017, respectively. As of December 31, 2017, we had accumulated losses of €100.6 million. Our losses resulted principally from costs incurred in research and development, preclinical testing, clinical development of our product candidates as well as costs incurred for research programs and from general and administrative costs associated with our operations. In the future, we intend to continue to conduct research and development, preclinical testing, clinical trials and regulatory compliance activities that, together with anticipated selling, general and administrative expenses, will result in incurring further significant losses for the next several years. Our losses, among other things, will continue to cause our working capital and shareholders’ equity to decrease. We anticipate that our expenses will increase substantially if and as we:

Since our inception in 2008, we have invested most of our resources in developing our product candidates, building our intellectual property portfolio, developing our supply chain, conducting business planning, raising capital and providing general and administrative support for these operations. We do not currently have any approved products and have never generated any revenue from product sales. To date, we have funded our operations through public and private placements of equity securities, upfront, milestone and expense reimbursement payments received from our collaborators, funding from governmental bodies and interest income from the investment of our cash, cash equivalents and financial assets.

To become and remain profitable, we must succeed in developing and eventually commercializing products that generate significant revenue. This will require us to be successful in a range of challenging activities, including completing preclinical testing and clinical trials of our product candidates, discovering and developing additional product candidates, obtaining regulatory approval for any product candidates that successfully complete clinical trials, establishing manufacturing and marketing capabilities and ultimately selling any products for which we may obtain regulatory approval. We are only in the preliminary stages of most of these activities. We may never succeed in these activities and, even if we do, may never generate revenue that is significant enough to achieve profitability.

Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with pharmaceutical and biological product development, we are unable to accurately predict the timing or amount of increased expenses or when, or if, we will be able to achieve profitability. If we are required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, the European Medicines Agency, or EMA, or other comparable foreign authorities to perform studies in addition to those we currently anticipate, or if there are any delays in completing our clinical trials or the development of any of our product candidates, our expenses could increase and revenue could be further delayed.

Even if we do generate product royalties or product sales, we may never achieve or sustain profitability on a quarterly or annual basis. Our failure to sustain profitability would depress the market price of the ADSs and could impair our ability to raise capital, expand our business, diversify our product offerings or continue our operations. A decline in the market price of the ADSs also could cause you to lose all or a part of your investment.

We may need substantial additional funding in order to complete the development and commercialization of our product candidates. Failure to obtain this necessary capital when needed may force us to delay, limit or terminate certain of our product development or research operations.

To date, we have funded our operations through public and private placements of equity securities, upfront, milestone and expense reimbursement payments received from our collaborators, funding from governmental bodies and interest income from the investment of our cash, cash equivalents and financial assets. We expect to require additional funding in the future to sufficiently finance our operations and advance development of our product candidates.

We expect that our existing cash, cash equivalents and investments will enable us to fund our operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements through at least the next 12 months. 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 future capital requirements for ARGX‑113, ARGX‑110 or our preclinical programs will depend on many factors, including:

Our ability to raise additional funds will depend on financial, economic and market conditions and other factors, over which we may have no or limited control. If adequate funds are not available on commercially acceptable terms when needed, we may be forced to delay, reduce or terminate the development or commercialization of all or part of our research programs or product candidates or we may be unable to take advantage of future business opportunities.

Raising additional capital may cause dilution to holders of our ordinary shares or purchasers of ADSs 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 revenues, we expect to finance our operations with our existing cash, cash equivalents and current financial assets, the net proceeds from our initial U.S. and follow-on public offerings, revenue from our collaborations, funding from governmental bodies and interest income from the investment of our cash, cash equivalents and financial assets. In order to further advance development of our product candidates, discover additional product candidates and pursue our other business objectives, however, we will need to seek additional funds.

We cannot guarantee that future financing will be available in sufficient amounts or on commercially reasonable terms, if at all. Moreover, the terms of any financing may adversely affect the holdings or the rights of holders of our ordinary shares or the ADSs and the issuance of additional securities, whether equity or debt, by us, or the possibility of such issuance, may cause the market price of the ADSs to decline. The sale of additional equity or convertible securities would dilute all of our existing shareholders and the terms of these securities may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect your rights as a holder of ADSs. The incurrence of indebtedness could result in increased fixed payment obligations and we may be required to agree to certain restrictive covenants, such as limitations on our ability to incur additional debt, limitations on our ability to acquire, sell or license intellectual property rights and other operating restrictions that could adversely impact our ability to conduct our business. We could also be required to seek funds through arrangements with collaborators or others at an earlier stage than otherwise would be desirable and we may be required to relinquish rights to some of our technologies or product candidates or otherwise agree to terms unfavorable to us, any of which may have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results and prospects. Further, any additional fundraising efforts may divert our management from its day‑to‑day activities, which may adversely affect our ability to develop and commercialize our product candidates.

If we are unable to obtain funding on a timely basis, we may be required to significantly curtail, delay or discontinue one or more of our research or development programs or the commercialization of any of our product

candidates, 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.

Our limited operating history may make it difficult for you to evaluate the success of our business to date and to assess our future viability.

Since our inception in 2008, we have invested most of our resources in developing our product candidates, building our intellectual property portfolio, developing our supply chain, conducting business planning, raising capital and providing general and administrative support for these operations. Our most advanced candidate, ARGX‑113, completed a Phase 2 clinical trial for the treatment of MG and is in a Phase 2 clinical trial of ARGX‑113 for the treatment of ITP. In September 2017, we also initiated a third Phase 2 clinical trial of ARGX‑113 for the treatment of PV, and in October 2017, we initiated a Phase 1 clinical trial of a subcutaneous formulation of ARGX‑113 for the treatment of chronic autoimmune diseases. We have not yet demonstrated an ability to obtain regulatory approvals, manufacture a commercial‑scale product or conduct sales and marketing activities necessary for successful product commercialization. In addition, given our limited operating history, we may encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays and other known and unknown factors in achieving our business objectives. If we are successful at completing the approval process for one of our product candidates, we may consider transitioning from our current research and development focus to focusing on commercializing our products. We may not be successful in such a transition or may incur greater costs than expected, which would materially adversely affect our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operation. Additionally, we expect our financial condition and operating results to continue to fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter and year to year due to a variety of factors, many of which are beyond our control. Consequently, any predictions you make about our future success or viability may not be as accurate as they could be if we had a longer operating history or more experience developing antibody‑based drugs.

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

All of our product candidates are in preclinical or early‑stage clinical development. Clinical drug development is a lengthy and expensive process with uncertain timelines and uncertain outcomes. If clinical trials of our product candidates, particularly ARGX‑113 and ARGX‑110, are prolonged or delayed, we or our collaborators may be unable to obtain required regulatory approvals, and therefore will be unable to commercialize our product candidates on a timely basis or at all, which will adversely affect our business.

To obtain the requisite regulatory approvals to market and sell any of our product candidates, we or our collaborator for such candidates must demonstrate through extensive preclinical studies and clinical trials that our products are safe, pure and potent or effective in humans. Clinical testing is expensive and can take many years to complete, and its outcome is inherently uncertain. Failure can occur at any time during the clinical trial process and our future clinical trial results may not be successful.

We may experience delays in our ongoing clinical trials and we do not know whether planned clinical trials will begin on time, need to be redesigned, enroll 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 the following:

We could 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 or ethics committees, by the Data Review Committee, or DRC, or Data Safety Monitoring Board, or DSMB, for such trial or by the EMA, the FDA or other regulatory authorities. Such authorities may impose such a suspension or termination due to a number of factors, including failure to conduct the clinical trial in accordance with regulatory requirements or our clinical protocols, inspection of the clinical trial operations or trial site by the EMA, the FDA or other regulatory authorities resulting in the imposition of a clinical hold, unforeseen safety issues or adverse side effects, including those relating to the class to which our product candidates belong, 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. If we experience delays in the completion of, or termination of, any clinical trial of our product candidates, the commercial prospects of our product candidates will be harmed, and our ability to generate product revenues 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 revenues. Significant clinical trial delays could also allow our competitors to bring products to market before we do or shorten any periods during which we have the exclusive right to commercialize our product candidates and impair our ability to commercialize our product candidates and may harm our business and results of operations.

Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly. 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 or result in the development of our product candidates being stopped early.

Clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with the FDA, the EMA and other applicable regulatory authorities’ legal requirements and regulations, and are subject to oversight by these governmental agencies and IRBs at the medical institutions where the clinical trials are conducted or ethics committees. In addition, clinical trials must be conducted with supplies of our product candidates produced under current good manufacturing practices, or cGMP, requirements and other regulations. Furthermore, we rely on CROs and clinical trial sites to ensure the proper and timely conduct of our clinical trials and while we have agreements governing their committed activities, we have limited influence over their actual performance. We depend on our collaborators and on medical institutions and CROs to conduct our clinical trials in compliance with Good Clinical Practice, or GCP, requirements. To the extent our collaborators or the CROs or investigators fail to enroll participants for our clinical trials, fail to conduct the study to GCP standards or are delayed for a significant time in the execution of trials, including achieving full enrollment, we may be affected by increased costs, program delays or both, which may harm our business. In addition, clinical trials that are conducted in countries outside the European Union and the United States may subject us to further delays and expenses as a result of increased shipment costs, additional regulatory requirements and the engagement of non‑European Union and non‑U.S. CROs, as well as expose us to risks associated with clinical investigators who are unknown to the FDA or the EMA, and different standards of diagnosis, screening and medical care.

Preclinical drug development is uncertain. Some or all of our preclinical programs, such as ARGX‑115, ARGX‑112 and ARGX‑116, may experience delays or may never advance to clinical trials, which would adversely affect our ability to obtain regulatory approvals or commercialize these product candidates on a timely basis or at all, which would have an adverse effect on our business.

In order to obtain FDA or EMA approval to market a new biological product we must demonstrate proof of safety, purity and potency or efficacy in humans. To meet these requirements we will have to conduct adequate and well‑controlled clinical trials. Before we can commence clinical trials for a product candidate, we must complete extensive preclinical testing and studies that support our planned Investigational New Drug application, or IND, in the United States, or a Clinical Trial Authorization Application, or CTA, in Europe. While we have an IND in effect for ARGX‑113 for the treatment of MG with the FDA, we have not conducted any of our clinical development to date in the United States. We cannot be certain of the timely completion or outcome of our preclinical testing and studies and cannot predict if the FDA or EMA will accept our proposed clinical programs or if the outcome of our preclinical testing and studies will ultimately support the further development of these product candidates. Thus, we cannot be sure that we will be able to submit INDs or CTAs for our preclinical programs on the timelines we expect, if at all, and we cannot be sure that submission of INDs or CTAs will result in the FDA or EMA allowing clinical trials to begin.

Conducting preclinical testing is a lengthy, time‑consuming and expensive process. The length of time may vary substantially according to the type, complexity, novelty and intended use of the product candidate, and often can be several years or more per product candidate. Delays associated with product candidates for which we are directly conducting preclinical testing and studies may cause us to incur additional operating expenses. Moreover, we may continue to be affected by delays associated with the preclinical testing and studies of certain product candidates conducted by our potential partners over which we have no control. The commencement and rate of completion of preclinical studies and studies for a product candidate may be delayed by many factors, including, for example:

Moreover, even if clinical trials do begin for these preclinical programs, our development efforts may not be successful, and clinical trials that we conduct or that third parties conduct on our behalf may not demonstrate sufficient safety, purity and potency or efficacy to obtain the requisite regulatory approvals for any of our product candidates or product candidates employing our technology. Even if we obtain positive results from preclinical studies or initial clinical trials, we may not achieve the same success in future trials.

The results of preclinical studies and early‑stage clinical trials of our product candidates may not be predictive of the results of later‑stage clinical trials. Initial success in our ongoing clinical trials may not be indicative of results obtained when these trials are completed or in later stage trials.

Product candidates in later stages of clinical trials may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy traits despite having progressed through preclinical studies and initial clinical trials. Furthermore, there can be no assurance that any of our clinical trials will ultimately be successful or support further clinical development of any of our product candidates. There is a high failure rate for drugs and biologics proceeding through clinical trials. A number of companies in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries have suffered significant setbacks in clinical development even after achieving promising results in earlier studies, and any such setbacks in our clinical development could have a material adverse effect on our business and operating results.

Interim, topline 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, topline or preliminary data from our clinical trials. Preliminary and interim data from our clinical trials may change as more patient data become available. Preliminary or interim data from our clinical trials are not necessarily predictive of final results. Preliminary and interim data are subject to the risk that one or more of the clinical outcomes may materially change as patient enrollment continues, more patient data become available and we issue our final clinical trial report. Interim, topline and preliminary data also remain subject to audit and verification procedures that may result in the final data being materially different from the preliminary data we previously published. As a result, preliminary and interim data should be viewed with caution until the final data are available. Material adverse changes in the final data compared to the interim data could significantly harm our business prospects.

Our product candidates may have serious adverse, undesirable or unacceptable side effects which may delay or prevent marketing approval. If such side effects are identified during the development of our product candidates or following approval, if any, we may need to abandon our development of such product candidates, the commercial profile of any approved label may be limited, or we may be subject to other significant negative consequences following marketing approval, if any.

Undesirable side effects that may be caused by our product candidates could cause us or regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay or halt clinical trials and could result in a more restrictive label or the delay or denial of regulatory approval by the FDA, the EMA or other comparable foreign authorities. While our preclinical and clinical studies for our product candidates to date have generally been well tolerated from a risk‑benefit perspective, the results from ongoing and future trials may not support this conclusion.

In the single ascending dose part of the Phase 1 clinical trial of ARGX‑113, there were no drug‑ or infusion‑related serious adverse events associated with doses up to 50 mg/kg. The most frequently reported drug‑related adverse events included abnormal white blood cell count, increased C‑reactive protein levels, headache, dizziness and chills. All of these adverse events were mild or moderate and reported only in the two highest dose groups (25 mg/kg and 50 mg/kg). In the multiple ascending dose part of the Phase 1 clinical trial of ARGX‑113, one serious adverse event, hyperventilation, was observed in the multiple ascending dose part. This event, which occurred six days after drug administration, was considered by the clinical investigator as unlikely to be related to ARGX‑113. Some patients had changes to C‑reactive protein levels that were considered clinically significant. The most frequently reported drug‑related adverse events included headache, feeling cold, chills and fatigue, all of which were mild or moderate and reported only in the highest dose group of 25 mg/kg.

In the Phase 2 clinical trial of ARGX‑113 in MG, most adverse events were characterized as mild and not deemed to be drug‑related. Twenty (out of twenty-four) patients reported at least one treatment emergent adverse event, or TEAE, and nearly all were considered as mild ( i.e. , Grade 1), except for seven patients who experienced a moderate adverse event. No TEAEs Grade 3 or higher were reported. The most frequent TEAEs deemed to be drug‑related per investigator were headache in 25.0% of patients, monocyte count decrease in 16.7% of patients and rhinorrhea in 8.3%

of patients receiving ARGX‑113, respectively. Herpes zoster (shingles) of moderate intensity was reported in one patient and deemed to be possibly drug‑related by the investigator. One patient in the ARGX‑113 group moved to rescue therapy. No clinically significant laboratory, vital signs and/or electrocardiogram findings were observed. No deaths, serious adverse events or TEAEs leading to discontinuation of treatment were reported during the trial.

In the dose‑escalation part of the Phase 1 part of our Phase 1/2 clinical trial for ARGX‑110 in patients with advanced malignancies expressing CD70, we observed serious adverse events in some patients, including seven patient deaths, of which five deaths were attributed to disease progression, one death was attributed to sepsis and one death was attributed to respiratory failure. None of these deaths were deemed to be drug‑related according to the investigator. In the first two completed safety‑expansion cohorts (one in patients with CD70‑positive solid tumors and one in patients with CD70‑positive hematological tumors), a similar tolerability profile as seen in the dose‑escalation part was observed. Fourteen patient deaths were reported in these cohorts (all at a dose of 5 mg/kg), of which 10 deaths were attributed to disease progression, one death was attributed to aspergillosis, one death was attributed to a fatal pleural hemorrhage, one death was attributed to pneumonia and one death, which was deemed drug‑related by the investigator, occurred in a heavily pre‑treated patient with Waldenstrom Macroglobulinemia and was attributed to sepsis and general condition deterioration. In this context, heavily pre‑treated means having failed multiple lines of prior treatment. In the dose‑escalation part, anti‑drug antibodies were observed in all doses except the 10 mg dose and appeared to be inversely related to the administered dose. In our two completed safety‑expansion cohorts, anti‑drug antibodies were detected.

In a preclinical mouse efficacy model of acute lymphocytic leukemia, or ALL, the administration of an ARGX‑110 variant at higher doses led to the acute death of some animals with high tumor load. The cause of death in this preclinical mouse study has not been determined, although a literature search conducted on our behalf revealed some similarities of this symptomatology with anecdotal reports in ALL patients treated with compounds having antibody‑dependent cell‑mediated cytotoxicity enhanced, or ADCC‑enhanced, Fc regions who experienced a cytokine storm, a potentially fatal immune reaction to immunotherapy. We are not currently evaluating ARGX‑110 for patients with ALL and have no intention of doing so. However, we cannot guarantee that we will not see evidence of cytokine storm or similar adverse events, which could potentially lead to serious life threatening side‑effects or even death, in patients with other forms of cancer, such as those being evaluated in our current Phase 1/2 clinical trial in patients with either AML or high‑risk MDS.

We are conducting one Phase 2 clinical trial in cutaneous T‑cell lymphoma, or CTCL; and one Phase 1/2 clinical trial in AML and high‑risk MDS; and one Phase 1 clinical trial in nasopharyngeal carcinoma. In the Phase 1 safety‑expansion cohorts in patients with CD70‑positive CTCL and in patients with CD70‑positive PTCL and Phase 2 clinical trial in CTCL, one Grade 3 event deemed to be drug‑related was observed in 1 mg/kg and 5 mg/kg doses. No grade 4 drug‑related toxicities were observed among this patient population. In the dose‑escalation part of the Phase 1/2 clinical trial of ARGX‑110 in combination with azacitidine in patients with AML or high‑risk MDS, in the first set of six evaluable patients receiving doses of 1 mg/kg and 3 mg/kg we observed 17 Grade 3 and 4 adverse events in patients receiving the 1 mg/kg dose (one with intermittent cases of thrombocytopenia) and 14 Grade 3 and 4 adverse events in patients receiving the 3 mg/kg dose (one with intermittent cases of anemia). Evaluation of the 10 mg/kg cohort is ongoing, and to date the observed tolerability profile in the 10 mg/kg dose cohort appears to be in line with the lower dose cohorts.

In the dose‑escalation part of the Phase 1 clinical trial for ARGX‑111 in treatment‑refractory patients whose tumors overexpress c‑Met, we observed 19 serious adverse events in 12 patients (four events in two patients at a dose of 0.3 mg/kg, two events in one patient at a dose of 1 mg/kg, seven events in six patients at a dose of 3 mg/kg and six events in three patients at a dose of 10 mg/kg). Except for six events of infusion‑related reactions and one event of bone pain, no drug‑related serious adverse events were observed. Seven patient deaths were reported (one at a dose of 0.3 mg/kg, one at a dose of 1 mg/kg, four at a dose of 3 mg/kg and one at a dose of 10 mg/kg), all of which were due to underlying disease and disease progression and were not deemed to be drug‑related according to the investigator. In the completed safety‑expansion cohort of ARGX‑111 in five treatment‑refractory MET‑amplified cancer patients using a 3 mg/kg dose of ARGX‑111 every two weeks, eight serious adverse events were seen in four of these patients. Except for one case of infusion‑related reaction, none of those were deemed drug‑related according to the investigator. One patient death attributed to disease progression and pneumonia was reported and was not deemed to be drug‑related according to the investigator.

The results of future clinical studies may show that our product candidates cause undesirable or unacceptable side effects or even death. In such an event, our trials could be suspended or terminated and the FDA, the EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities could order us to cease further development of or deny approval of our product candidates for any or all targeted indications. The drug‑related side effects could affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled patients to complete the trial or result in potential product liability claims. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly. Further, because all of our product candidates and preclinical programs, other than ARGX‑113, are based on our SIMPLE Antibody platform, any adverse safety or efficacy findings related to any product candidate or preclinical program may adversely impact the viability of our other product candidates or preclinical programs.

Additionally, if any of our product candidates receives marketing approval and we or others later identify undesirable or unacceptable side effects caused by such products, a number of potentially significant negative consequences could result, including:

Any of these events could prevent us, our collaborators or our potential future partners from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of the affected product or could substantially increase commercialization costs and expenses, which in turn could delay or prevent us from generating significant revenue from the sale of our products.

We face significant competition for our drug discovery and development efforts, and if we do not compete effectively, our commercial opportunities will be reduced or eliminated. We may not be successful in our efforts to use and expand our SIMPLE Antibody platform, our NHance and ABDEG technologies, or the licensed POTELLIGENT technology, to build a pipeline of product candidates and develop marketable products due to significant competition and technological change, which could limit or eliminate the market opportunity for our product candidates and technology platforms.

The market for pharmaceutical products is highly competitive. Our competitors include many established pharmaceutical companies, biotechnology companies, universities and other research or commercial institutions, many of which have substantially greater financial, research and development resources than we have. Large pharmaceutical companies, in particular, have extensive experience in clinical testing, obtaining regulatory approvals, recruiting patients and manufacturing pharmaceutical products. Smaller and early stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. These third parties compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel, establishing clinical trial sites

and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, the development of our products. The fields in which we operate are characterized by rapid technological change and innovation. There can be no assurance that our competitors are not currently developing, or will not in the future develop, technologies and products that are equally or more effective or are more economically attractive than any of our current or future technology or product. Competing products or technology platforms may gain faster or greater market acceptance than our products or technology platforms and medical advances or rapid technological development by competitors may result in our product candidates or technology platforms becoming non‑competitive or obsolete before we are able to recover our research and development and commercialization expenses. If we, our product candidates or our technology platforms do not compete effectively, it may have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operation.

Competition in the autoimmune space is intense and involves multiple monoclonal antibodies, other biologics and small molecules either already marketed or in development by many different companies including large pharmaceutical companies such as AbbVie Inc. (Humira/rheumatoid arthritis); Amgen Inc. (Enbrel/rheumatoid arthritis); Biogen, Inc. (Tysabri/multiple sclerosis); GlaxoSmithKline plc (Benlysta/lupus); F. Hoffmann‑La Roche AG, or Roche (Rituxan/often used off label) and Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc., or Janssen (Remicade/rheumatoid arthritis and Stelara/psoriasis). In some cases, these competitors are also our collaborators. In addition, these and other pharmaceutical companies have monoclonal antibodies or other biologics in clinical development for the treatment of autoimmune diseases. In addition to the current standard of care, we are aware that Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. has received FDA approval for Soliris for the treatment of adult patients with generalized MG who are anti‑acetylcholine receptor antibody positive and that GSK; Roche; Novartis AG; CSL Behring; Grifols, S.A.; BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc.; Curavac and Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., among others, are developing drugs that may have utility for the treatment of MG. We are aware that Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Eisai Inc.; Bristol‑Myers Squibb; Shire Immunomedics; Protalex Inc. and others are developing drugs that may have utility for the treatment of ITP. We are aware that Roche and Syntimmune, Inc. and others are developing drugs that may have utility for the treatment of PV. Furthermore, we are aware of competing products specifically targeting FcRn and being developed by UCB S.A.; Momenta, Inc.; Syntimmune, Inc. and Hannal Biotech.

Competition in the leukemia and lymphoma space is intense, with many compounds in clinical trials by large multinational pharmaceutical companies and specialized biotech companies. Rituxan (Roche), Adcetris (Seattle Genetics Inc./Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd), Darzalex (Janssen) and Poteligeo (Kyowa Hakko Kirin Co., Ltd.) are some examples of monoclonal antibodies approved for the treatment of Hodgkin’s lymphoma, non‑Hodgkin’s lymphoma, multiple myeloma or other blood cancers. We are aware of AML drugs recently approved by the FDA, such as Mylotarg (Pfizer), Rydapt (Amgen), Vyxos (Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) and IDHIFA (Agios, Inc. and Celgene). In addition, we are aware of a number of other companies with development stage programs that may compete with ARGX‑110 in the future. We anticipate that we will face intense and increasing competition as new treatments enter the market and advanced technologies become available.

Similarly, other companies have monoclonal antibody drug discovery platforms that may compete with us in the search for novel therapeutic antibody targets, including Adimab LLC; Merus N.V.; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Xencor Inc.; and MorphoSys AG. We are aware that a product candidate in development by Scholar Rock, Inc. may compete with ARGX‑115 and a product candidate in development by Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. may compete with ARGX‑116, if they are approved.

We depend on enrollment of patients in our clinical trials for our product candidates. If we are unable to enroll patients in our clinical trials, our research and development efforts and business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially adversely affected.

Identifying and qualifying patients to participate in our clinical trials is critical to our success. Patient enrollment depends on many factors, including the size and nature of the patient population, eligibility criteria for the trial, the proximity of patients to clinical sites, the design of the clinical protocol, the availability of competing clinical trials, the availability of new drugs approved for the indication the clinical trial is investigating, and clinicians’ and patients’ perceptions as to the potential advantages of the drug being studied in relation to other available therapies. Since some of our product candidates are focused on addressing rare diseases and conditions, there are limited patient

pools from which to draw in order to complete our clinical trials in a timely and cost‑effective manner. For example, the number of patients suffering from each of MG; ITP; PV; T‑cell lymphoma, or TCL; and acute myeloid leukemia, or AML, is small and has not been established with precision. If the actual number of patients with these disorders is smaller than we anticipate, we may encounter difficulties in enrolling patients in our clinical trials, thereby delaying or preventing development and approval of our drug candidates. Even once enrolled we may be unable to retain a sufficient number of patients to complete any of our trials.

Furthermore, our efforts to build relationships with patient communities may not succeed, which could result in delays in patient enrollment in our clinical trials. In addition, any negative results we may report in clinical trials of our drug candidate may make it difficult or impossible to recruit and retain patients in other clinical trials of that same drug candidate. Delays in the completion of any clinical trial of our product candidates will increase our costs, slow down our product candidate development and approval process and delay or potentially jeopardize our ability to commence product sales and generate revenue. In addition, some 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.

We may become exposed to costly and damaging liability claims, either when testing our product candidates in the clinic or at the commercial stage; and our product liability insurance may not cover all damages from such claims.

We are exposed to potential product liability and professional indemnity risks that are inherent in the research, development, manufacturing, marketing and use of pharmaceutical products. Currently, we have no products that have been approved for commercial sale; however, the current and future use of product candidates by us and our corporate collaborators in clinical trials, and the potential sale of any approved products in the future, may expose us to liability claims. These claims might be made by patients who use the product, healthcare providers, pharmaceutical companies, our corporate collaborators or others selling such products. Any claims against us, regardless of their merit, could be difficult and costly to defend and could materially adversely affect the market for our product candidates or any prospects for commercialization of our product candidates. Although the clinical trial process is designed to identify and assess potential side effects, it is always possible that a drug, even after regulatory approval, may exhibit unforeseen side effects. If any of our product candidates were to cause adverse side effects during clinical trials or after approval of the product candidate, we may be exposed to substantial liabilities. Physicians and patients may not comply with any warnings that identify known potential adverse effects and patients who should not use our product candidates. Regardless of the merits or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in:

Although we maintain adequate product liability insurance for our product candidates, it is possible that our liabilities could exceed our insurance coverage. We intend to expand our insurance coverage to include the sale of commercial products if we obtain marketing approval for any of our product candidates. However, we may not be able to maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost or obtain insurance coverage that will be adequate to satisfy any liability that may arise. If a successful product liability claim or series of claims is brought against us for uninsured liabilities or in excess of insured liabilities, our assets may not be sufficient to cover such claims and our business operations could be impaired.

Should any of the events described above occur, this could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The regulatory approval processes of the FDA, the EMA and comparable foreign authorities are lengthy, time consuming and inherently unpredictable, and if we are ultimately unable to obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates, our business will be substantially harmed.

The time required to obtain approval by the FDA, the EMA and comparable foreign authorities is unpredictable but typically takes many years, if obtained at all, following the commencement of clinical trials and depends upon numerous factors, including the substantial discretion of the regulatory authorities. In addition, approval policies, regulations, or the type and amount of clinical data necessary to gain approval may change during the course of a product candidate’s clinical development and may vary among jurisdictions. We have not obtained regulatory approval for any product candidate and it is possible that none of our existing product candidates or any product candidates we may seek to develop in the future will ever obtain regulatory approval.

Our product candidates could fail to receive regulatory approval for many reasons, including the following:

This lengthy approval process as well as the unpredictability of future clinical trial results may result in our failing to obtain regulatory approval to market any of our product candidates, which would significantly harm our business, results of operations and prospects. The FDA, the EMA and other comparable foreign authorities have substantial discretion in the approval process, and determining when or whether regulatory approval will be obtained for any of our product candidates. Even if we believe the data collected from clinical trials of our product candidates are promising, such data may not be sufficient to support approval by the FDA, the EMA or any other regulatory authority.

In addition, even if we were to obtain approval, regulatory authorities may approve any of our product candidates for fewer or more limited indications than we request, may not approve the price we intend to charge for our products, may grant approval contingent on the performance of costly post‑marketing clinical trials, or may approve a product candidate with a label that does not include the labeling claims necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of that product candidate. Any of the foregoing scenarios could materially harm the commercial prospects for our product candidates.

Even if our product candidates obtain regulatory approval, we will be subject to ongoing obligations and continued regulatory review, which may result in significant additional expense. Additionally, our product candidates, if approved, could be subject to labeling and other restrictions and market withdrawal and we may be subject to penalties if we fail to comply with regulatory requirements or experience unanticipated problems with our products.

If the FDA, the EMA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority approves any of our product candidates, the manufacturing processes, labeling, packaging, distribution, adverse event reporting, storage, advertising, promotion and recordkeeping for the product will be subject to extensive and ongoing regulatory requirements. These requirements include submissions of safety and other post‑marketing information and reports, registration, as well as continued compliance with cGMPs and GCPs for any clinical trials that we conduct post‑approval, all of which may result in significant expense and limit our ability to commercialize such products. In addition, any regulatory approvals that we receive for our product candidates may also be subject to limitations on the approved indicated uses for which the product may be marketed or to the conditions of approval, or contain requirements for potentially costly post‑marketing testing, including Phase 4 clinical trials, and surveillance to monitor the safety and efficacy of the product candidate.

Our product candidates are classified as biologics in the United States and, therefore, can only be sold if we obtain a BLA from the FDA. The holder of a BLA is obligated to monitor and report adverse events and any failure of a product to meet the specifications in the BLA. The holder of a BLA must also submit new or supplemental applications and obtain FDA approval for certain changes to the approved product, product labeling or manufacturing process. Failure to comply with a BLA or any other ongoing regulatory obligation may result in suspension of approval to manufacture or distribute the relevant product, as well as fines or imprisonment for violations.

If there are changes in the application of legislation, regulations or regulatory policies, or if problems are discovered with a product or our manufacture of a product, or if we or one of our distributors, licensees or co‑marketers fails to comply with regulatory requirements, the regulators could take various actions. These include imposing fines on us, imposing restrictions on the product or its manufacture and requiring us to recall or remove the product from the market. The regulators could also suspend or withdraw our marketing authorizations, requiring us to conduct additional clinical trials, change our product labeling or submit additional applications for marketing authorization. If any of these events occurs, our ability to sell such product may be impaired, and we may incur substantial additional expense to comply with regulatory requirements, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

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 revenues.

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 compounds, product candidates or therapeutic areas 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. If we make incorrect determinations regarding the market potential of our product candidates or misread trends in the biopharmaceutical industry, in particular for our lead product candidates, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially adversely affected.

Risks Related to Commercialization of Our Product Candidates

Enacted and future 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 foreign jurisdictions, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory 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 United States 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 of 2010, or collectively the ACA, became law. The ACA is a sweeping law intended to broaden access to health insurance, reduce or constrain the growth of healthcare spending, enhance remedies against fraud and abuse, add new transparency requirements for the healthcare and health insurance industries, impose new taxes and fees on the health industry and impose additional health policy reforms.

Among the provisions of the ACA of importance to our potential product candidates are the following:

There have been legal and political challenges to certain aspects of the ACA. Since January 2017, President Trump has signed two executive orders and other directives designed to delay, circumvent, or loosen certain requirements mandated by the ACA. Concurrently, Congress has considered legislation that would repeal or repeal and replace all or part of the ACA. While Congress has not passed repeal legislation, the future of the ACA remains uncertain. We continue to evaluate how the ACA and recent efforts to repeal and replace or limit the implementation of the ACA will impact our business.

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted. These new laws may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding. For example, on August 2, 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, created measures for spending reductions by Congress. A Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, tasked with recommending a targeted deficit reduction of at least $1.2 trillion for the years 2013 through 2021, was unable to reach required goals, thereby triggering the legislation’s automatic reduction to several government programs. This includes aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year. These reductions went into effect on April 1, 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, including without limitation the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, will remain in effect through 2025 unless additional Congressional action is taken. On January 2, 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 may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other health care funding, which could have a material adverse effect on our customers and accordingly, our financial operations.

Moreover, payment methodologies may be subject to changes in healthcare legislation and regulatory initiatives. For example, CMS may develop new payment and delivery models, such as bundled payment models. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has set a goal of moving 30% of Medicare payments to alternative payment models by 2016 and 50% of Medicare payments into these alternative payment models by the end of 2018. In addition, recently there has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products. Specifically, there have been several recent U.S. Congressional inquiries and proposed bills designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, reduce the cost of prescription drugs under Medicare, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs. 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.

Further, legislative and regulatory proposals have been made to expand post‑approval requirements and restrict sales and promotional activities for pharmaceutical products. We cannot be sure whether additional legislative changes will be enacted, or whether FDA regulations, guidance or interpretations will be changed, or what the impact of such changes on the marketing approvals, if any, of our product candidates, may be. In addition, increased scrutiny by the

U.S. Congress of the FDA’s approval process may significantly delay or prevent marketing approval, as well as subject us to more stringent product labeling and post‑marketing conditions and other requirements.

Individual states in the United States have also become increasingly aggressive in passing legislation and implementing 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 products or put pressure on our product pricing, which could negatively affect our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects.

In the European Union, similar political, economic and regulatory developments may affect our ability to profitably commercialize our current or any future products. 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 any products for which we obtain marketing approval. In international markets, 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, either in the United States or abroad. If we or our collaborators are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we or our collaborators 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, which would adversely affect our business.

We may be subject to healthcare laws, regulation and enforcement. Our failure to comply with these laws could harm our results of operations and financial conditions.

Although we do not currently have any products on the market, our current and future operations may be directly, or indirectly through our customers and third‑party payors, subject to various U.S. federal and state healthcare laws and regulations, including, without limitation, the U.S. federal Anti‑Kickback Statute. Healthcare providers, physicians and others play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of any products for which we obtain marketing approval. These laws impact, among other things, our proposed sales, marketing and education programs and constrain our business and financial arrangements and relationships with third‑party payors, healthcare professionals who participate in our clinical research program, healthcare professionals and others who recommend, purchase, or provide our approved products, and other parties through which we market, sell and distribute our products for which we obtain marketing approval. In addition, we may be subject to patient data privacy and security regulation by both the U.S. federal government and the states in which we conduct our business. Finally, our current and future operations are subject to additional healthcare‑related statutory and regulatory requirements and enforcement by foreign regulatory authorities in jurisdictions in which we conduct our business. The laws that may affect our ability to operate include:

It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices may 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 are 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, exclusion of drugs from government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, additional reporting requirements and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or similar agreement to resolve allegations of non‑compliance with these laws, reputational harm and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations.

The risk of us being found in violation of these laws is increased by the fact that many of them have not been fully interpreted by the regulatory authorities or the courts, and their provisions are open to a variety of interpretations. For example, the definition of the “remuneration” under the federal Anti‑Kickback Statute has been interpreted to include anything of value. Further, courts have found that if “one purpose” of remuneration is to induce referrals, the federal Anti‑Kickback Statute is violated.

Additionally, recent healthcare reform legislation has strengthened federal and state healthcare fraud and abuse laws. For example, the ACA amends the intent requirement of the federal Anti‑Kickback Statute and criminal healthcare fraud statutes to clarify that liability under these statutes does not require a person or entity to have actual knowledge of the statutes or a specific intent to violate them. Moreover, the ACA provides that the government may assert that a claim that includes items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti‑Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the civil False Claims Act. Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of the statutory exceptions and safe harbors available, it is possible that some of our business activities could be subject to challenge under one or more of such laws.

Efforts to ensure that our business arrangements with third parties will comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations will involve substantial costs. Any action against us for violation of these laws, even if we successfully defend against it, could cause us to incur significant legal expenses and divert our management’s attention from the operation of our business. The shifting compliance environment and the need to build and maintain robust and expandable systems to comply with multiple jurisdictions with different compliance or reporting requirements increases the possibility that a healthcare company may run afoul of one or more of the requirements.

If we fail to obtain orphan drug designation or obtain or maintain orphan drug exclusivity for our products, our competitors may sell products to treat the same conditions and our revenue will be reduced.

Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may designate a 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, after a recommendation from the EMA’s Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products, or COMP, the European Commission 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 user‑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. 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.

We may from time to time seek orphan drug designation in the United States or Europe for certain indications addressed by our product candidates. For example, in September 2017, the FDA granted orphan drug designation for the use of ARGX‑113 for the treatment of MG. Even if we are able to obtain orphan designation, we may not be the first to obtain marketing approval for such indication due to the uncertainties associated with developing pharmaceutical products. In addition, exclusive marketing rights in the United States may be limited if we seek approval for an indication broader than the orphan‑designated indication or may be lost if the FDA later determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient quantities of the product to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition. Further, even if we obtain orphan drug exclusivity for a product, that exclusivity may not effectively protect the product 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 the EMA can subsequently approve the same drug with the same active moiety for the same condition if the FDA or the EMA concludes that the later drug 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 nor gives the drug any advantage in the regulatory review or approval process.

The successful commercialization of our product candidates will depend in part on the extent to which governmental authorities and health insurers establish adequate reimbursement levels and pricing policies. Failure to obtain or maintain adequate coverage and reimbursement for our product candidates, if approved, could limit our ability to market those products and decrease our ability to generate revenue.

The availability and adequacy of coverage and reimbursement by governmental healthcare programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, private health insurers and other third‑party payors are essential for most patients to be able to afford products such as our product candidates, assuming approval. Our ability to achieve acceptable levels of coverage and reimbursement for products by governmental authorities, private health insurers and other organizations will have an effect on our ability to successfully commercialize, and attract additional collaboration partners to invest in the development of our product candidates. Assuming we obtain coverage for a given product by a third‑party payor, the resulting reimbursement payment rates may not be adequate or may require co‑payments that patients find unacceptably high. We cannot be sure that coverage and reimbursement in the United States, the European Union or elsewhere will be available for any product that we may develop, and any reimbursement that may become available may be decreased or eliminated in the future.

Third‑party payors increasingly are challenging prices charged for pharmaceutical products and services, and many third‑party payors may refuse to provide coverage and reimbursement for particular drugs when an equivalent generic drug or a less expensive therapy is available. It is possible that a third‑party payor may consider our product candidate and other therapies as substitutable and only offer to reimburse patients for the less expensive product. Even if we show improved efficacy or improved convenience of administration with our product candidate, pricing of existing drugs may limit the amount we will be able to charge for our product candidate. These payors may deny or revoke the reimbursement status of a given drug product or establish prices for new or existing marketed products at levels that are too low to enable us to realize an appropriate return on our investment in product development. If reimbursement is not available or is available only at limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize our product candidates, and may not be able to obtain a satisfactory financial return on products that we may develop.

There is significant uncertainty related to the insurance coverage and reimbursement of newly approved products. In the United States, third‑party payors, including private and governmental payors, such as the Medicare and Medicaid programs, play an important role in determining the extent to which new drugs and biologics will be covered. The Medicare and Medicaid programs increasingly are used as models for how private payors and other governmental payors develop their coverage and reimbursement policies for drugs and biologics. Some third‑party payors may require pre‑approval of coverage for new or innovative devices or drug therapies before they will reimburse health care providers who use such therapies. 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.

Obtaining and maintaining reimbursement status is time‑consuming and costly. No uniform policy for coverage and reimbursement for drug products exists among third‑party payors in the United States. Therefore, coverage and reimbursement for drug products can differ significantly from payor to payor. As a result, the coverage determination process is often a time‑consuming and costly process that will require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of our products to each payor separately, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be applied consistently or obtained in the first instance. Furthermore, rules and regulations regarding reimbursement change frequently, in some cases at short notice, and we believe that changes in these rules and regulations are likely.

Outside the United States, international operations are generally subject to extensive governmental price controls and other market regulations, and we believe the increasing emphasis on cost‑containment initiatives in Europe, Canada and other countries has and will continue to put pressure on the pricing and usage of our product candidates. In many countries, the prices of medical products are subject to varying price control mechanisms as part of national health systems. Other countries allow companies to fix their own prices for medical products, but monitor and control company profits. Additional foreign price controls or other changes in pricing regulation could restrict the amount that we are able to charge for our product candidates. Accordingly, in markets outside the United States, the reimbursement for our products may be reduced compared with the United States and may be insufficient to generate commercially reasonable revenue and profits.

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 healthcare 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 any products for which we obtain marketing approval.

Moreover, increasing efforts by governmental and third‑party payors in the European Union, the United States and abroad to cap or reduce healthcare costs may cause such organizations to limit both coverage and the level of reimbursement for newly approved products and, as a result, they may not cover or provide adequate payment for our product candidates. 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 entry of new products.

The future commercial success of our product candidates will depend on the degree of market acceptance of our potential products among physicians, patients, healthcare payers and the medical community.

Our product candidates are at varying stages of development and we may never have a product that is commercially successful. To date, we have no product authorized for marketing. Our lead product candidates are in early stages of clinical development. Our lead product candidates will require further clinical investigation, regulatory review, significant marketing efforts and substantial investment before they can provide us with any revenues. Moreover, preclinical and clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses, and many other companies that have believed their product candidates performed satisfactorily in preclinical studies and clinical trials have nonetheless failed to obtain regulatory approval for the marketing of their product. Due to the inherent risk in the development of pharmaceutical products, it is probable that not all or none of the product candidates in our portfolio will successfully complete development and be commercialized. We do not expect to be able to commercialize any of our products for a number of years. Furthermore, when available on the market, our products may not achieve an adequate level of acceptance by physicians, patients and the medical community, and we may not become profitable. In addition, efforts to educate the medical community and third‑party payers on the benefits of our products may require significant resources and may never be successful which would prevent us from generating significant revenues or becoming profitable.

Market acceptance of our future products by physicians, patients and healthcare payers will depend on a number of factors, many of which are beyond our control, including, but not limited to:

If our product candidates fail to gain market acceptance, this will have a material adverse impact on our ability to generate revenues to provide a satisfactory, or any, return on our investments. Even if some products achieve market acceptance, the market may prove not to be large enough to allow us to generate significant revenues.

We have never commercialized a product candidate before and may lack the necessary expertise, personnel and resources to successfully commercialize our products on our own or together with suitable collaboration partners.

We do not have a sales or marketing infrastructure and have no experience in the sale or marketing of pharmaceutical products. To achieve commercial success for any approved product, we must develop or acquire a sales and marketing organization, outsource these functions to third parties or enter into collaboration arrangements with third parties.

We may decide to establish our own sales and marketing capabilities and promote our product candidates if and when regulatory approval has been obtained in the major European Union countries and the United States. There are risks involved should we decide to establish our own sales and marketing capabilities or enter into arrangements with third parties to perform these services. Even if we establish sales and marketing capabilities, we may fail to launch our products effectively or to market our products effectively since we have no experience in the sales and marketing of pharmaceutical products. In addition, recruiting and training a sales force is expensive and time consuming and could delay any product launch. In the event that any such launch is delayed or does not occur for any reason, we would have prematurely or unnecessarily incurred these commercialization expenses, and our investment would be lost if we cannot

retain or reposition our sales and marketing personnel. Factors that may inhibit our efforts to commercialize our products on our own include:

If we enter into arrangements with third parties to perform sales and marketing services, our product revenues or the profitability of these product revenues to us could be lower than if we were to market and sell any products that we develop ourselves. Such collaborative arrangements may place the commercialization of our products outside of our control and would make us subject to a number of risks including that we may not be able to control the amount or timing of resources that our collaborative partner devotes to our products or that our collaborator’s willingness or ability to complete its obligations, and our obligations under our arrangements may be adversely affected by business combinations or significant changes in our collaborator’s business strategy. In addition, we may not be successful in entering into arrangements with third parties to sell and market our products or may be unable to do so on terms that are favorable to us. Acceptable third parties may fail to devote the necessary resources and attention to sell and market our products effectively.

If we do not establish sales and marketing capabilities successfully, either on our own or in collaboration with third parties, we may not be successful in commercializing our products, which in turn would have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

Our product candidates for which we intend to seek approval as biologic products may face competition sooner than anticipated.

The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, or BPCIA, created an abbreviated approval pathway for biological products that are biosimilar to or interchangeable with an FDA‑licensed reference biological product. Under the BPCIA, an application for a biosimilar product may not be submitted to the FDA until four years following the date that the reference product was first licensed by the FDA. In addition, the approval of a biosimilar product may not be made effective by the FDA until 12 years from the date on which the reference product was first licensed. During this 12‑year period of exclusivity, another company may still market a competing version of the reference product if the FDA approves a full BLA for the competing product containing the sponsor’s own preclinical data and data from adequate and well‑controlled clinical trials to demonstrate the safety, purity and potency of their product. The law is complex and is still being interpreted and implemented by the FDA. As a result, its ultimate impact, implementation and meaning are subject to uncertainty.

We believe that any of our product candidates approved as a biological product under a BLA should qualify for the 12‑year period of exclusivity. However, there is a risk that this exclusivity could be shortened due to congressional action or otherwise, or that the FDA will not consider our product candidates to be reference products for competing products, potentially creating the opportunity for generic competition sooner than anticipated. Other aspects of the BPCIA, some of which may impact the BPCIA exclusivity provisions, have also been the subject of recent litigation. Moreover, the extent to which a biosimilar, once approved, will be substituted for any one of our reference products in a way that is similar to traditional generic substitution for non‑biological products is not yet clear, and will depend on a number of marketplace and regulatory factors that are still developing.

Risks Related to Our Business and Industry

Nearly all aspects of our activities are subject to substantial regulation. No assurance can be given that any of our product candidates will fulfill regulatory compliance. Failure to comply with such regulations could result in delays, suspension, refusals and withdrawal of approvals, as well as fines.

The international biopharmaceutical and medical technology industry is highly regulated by the FDA, the EMA and other comparable foreign authorities and by other national or supra‑national regulatory authorities that impose substantial requirements covering nearly all aspects of our activities notably on research and development, manufacturing, preclinical tests, clinical trials, labeling, marketing, sales, storage, record keeping, promotion and pricing of our product candidates. Such regulation is further subject to regular review by the FDA, the EMA and other comparable foreign authorities which may result in changes in applicable regulation. If we do not comply with one or more of these requirements in a timely manner, or at all, our product development could experience significant delays as a result of the FDA, the EMA or other comparable regulatory authorities recommending non‑approval or restrictions on approval of a product candidate, leading to an inability to successfully commercialize any of our product candidates, which would materially harm our business. Any failure of any of our product candidates in clinical studies or to receive regulatory approval could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. If any of our product candidates fails to obtain approval on the basis of any applicable condensed regulatory approval process, this will prevent such product candidate from obtaining approval in a shortened time frame, or at all, resulting in increased expenses which would materially harm our business.

Compliance with requirements laid down by local regulatory authorities is necessary in each country where we, or any of our partners or licensees, conduct said activities in whole or in part. Local regulatory authorities notably include the EMA and the FDA. In order to market our future products in regions such as the European Economic Area, United States of America, Asia Pacific and many other foreign jurisdictions, we must obtain separate regulatory approvals. The approval procedures vary among countries and can require additional clinical testing, and the time required to obtain approval may differ from that required to obtain for example FDA or EMA approval. Moreover, clinical studies conducted in one country may not be accepted by regulatory authorities in other countries. Approval by the FDA or EMA does not ensure approval by the comparable foreign authorities in other countries, and approval by one or more foreign regulatory authorities does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other foreign countries or by the FDA or EMA.

There can be no assurance that our product candidates will fulfil the criteria required to obtain necessary regulatory approval to access the market. Also, at this time, we cannot guarantee or know the exact nature, precise timing and detailed costs of the efforts that will be necessary to complete the remainder of the development of our research programs and products candidates. Each of the FDA, the EMA and other comparable foreign authorities may impose its own requirements, may discontinue an approval or revoke a license, may refuse to grant approval, or may require additional data before granting approval, notwithstanding that approval may have been granted by the FDA, the EMA or one or more other comparable foreign authority. The FDA, the EMA or other comparable foreign authorities may also approve a product candidate for fewer or more limited indications or patient sub‑segments than requested or may grant approval subject to the performance of post‑marketing studies. The EMA’s, the FDA’s or other regulatory authority’s approval may be delayed, limited or denied for a number of reasons, most of which are beyond our control. Such reasons could include, among others, the production process or site not meeting the applicable requirements for the manufacture of regulated products, or the products not meeting applicable requirements for safety, purity or potency, or efficacy, during the clinical development stage or after marketing. No assurance can be given that clinical trials will be approved the FDA, the EMA or other comparable foreign authorities or that products will be approved for marketing by such regulatory authorities in any pre‑determined indication or intended use. Any of the FDA, the EMA and other comparable foreign authorities may disagree with our interpretation of data submitted for their review.

We and our collaborative partners are, or may become subject to, numerous ongoing other regulatory obligations, such as data protection, environmental, health and safety laws and restrictions on the experimental use of animals. The costs of compliance with such applicable regulations, requirements or guidelines could be substantial, and failure to comply could result in sanctions, including fines, injunctions, civil penalties, denial of applications for marketing authorization of our products, delays, suspension or withdrawal of approvals, license revocation, seizures or

recalls of products, operating restrictions and criminal prosecutions, any of which could significantly increase our or our collaborative partners’ costs or delay the development and commercialization of our product candidates.

Because we are subject to environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, we may become exposed to liability and substantial expenses in connection with environmental compliance or remediation activities which may adversely affect our business and financial condition.

Our operations, including our research, development, testing and manufacturing activities, are subject to numerous environmental, health and safety laws and regulations. These laws and regulations govern, among other things, the controlled use, handling, release and disposal of and the maintenance of a registry for, hazardous materials and biological materials, such as chemical solvents, human cells, carcinogenic compounds, mutagenic compounds and compounds that have a toxic effect on reproduction, laboratory procedures and exposure to blood‑borne pathogens. If we fail to comply with such laws and regulations, we could be subject to fines or other sanctions.

As with other companies engaged in activities similar to ours, we face a risk of environmental liability inherent in our current and historical activities, including liability relating to releases of or exposure to hazardous or biological materials. Environmental, health and safety laws and regulations are becoming more stringent. We may be required to incur substantial expenses in connection with future environmental compliance or remediation activities, in which case, our production and development efforts may be interrupted or delayed and our financial condition and results of operations may be materially adversely affected.

Our employees, independent contractors, principal investigators, CROs, consultants, vendors and collaboration partners may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including noncompliance with regulatory standards and requirements, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

We are exposed to the risk that our employees, independent contractors, principal investigators, CROs, consultants, vendors and collaboration partners may engage in fraudulent conduct or other illegal activities. Misconduct by these parties could include intentional, reckless and negligent conduct or unauthorized activities that violate: (i) the regulations of the FDA, the EMA and other comparable foreign authorities, including those laws that require the reporting of true, complete and accurate information to such authorities; (ii) manufacturing standards; (iii) federal and state data privacy, security, fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations in the United States and abroad; or (iv) laws that require the reporting of true, complete and accurate financial information and data. Specifically, 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. Activities subject to these laws could also involve the improper use or misrepresentation of information obtained in the course of clinical trials or creating fraudulent data in our preclinical studies or clinical trials, which could result in regulatory sanctions and cause serious harm to our reputation. 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 comply with such laws or regulations. Additionally, we are subject to the risk that a person 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 and results of operations, including the imposition of significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, monetary fines, disgorgements, possible exclusion from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other U.S. federal healthcare programs, individual imprisonment, additional reporting requirements and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or similar agreement to resolve allegations of non‑compliance with these laws, other sanctions, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings and curtailment of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations.

Our high dependency on public perception of our products may negatively influence the success of these products.

If any of our product candidates are approved for commercial sale, we will be highly dependent upon consumer perceptions of the safety and quality of our products. We could be adversely affected if we were subject to negative publicity or if any of our products or any similar products distributed by other companies prove to be, or are asserted to be, harmful to patients. Because of our dependence upon consumer perception, any adverse publicity associated with illness or other adverse effects resulting from patients’ use or misuse of our products or any similar products distributed by other companies could have a material adverse impact on our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

Future adverse events in research into the cancer, inflammation and severe autoimmune diseases that we focus our research efforts on, or the biopharmaceutical industry more generally, could also result in greater governmental regulation, stricter labeling requirements and potential regulatory delays in the testing or approvals of our products. Any increased scrutiny could delay or increase the costs of obtaining regulatory approval for our product candidates.

Failure to successfully identify, develop and commercialize additional products or product candidates could impair our ability to grow.

Although a substantial amount of our efforts will focus on the continued preclinical and clinical testing and potential approval of our product candidates in our current pipeline, a key element of our long‑term growth strategy is to develop and market additional products and product candidates. Because we have limited financial and managerial resources, research programs to identify product candidates will require substantial additional technical, financial and human resources, whether or not any product candidates are ultimately identified. The success of this strategy depends partly upon our ability to identify, select and develop promising product candidates and products. Our technology platforms may fail to discover and to generate additional product candidates that are suitable for further development. All product candidates are prone to risks of failure typical of pharmaceutical product development, including the possibility that a product candidate may not be suitable for clinical development as a result of its harmful side effects, limited efficacy or other characteristics that indicate that it is unlikely to be a product that will receive approval by the FDA, the EMA and other comparable foreign regulatory authorities and achieve market acceptance. If we do not successfully develop and commercialize product candidates based upon our technological approach, we may not be able to obtain product or collaboration revenues in future periods, which would adversely affect our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

Our long‑term growth strategy to develop and market additional products and product candidates is heavily dependent on precise, accurate and reliable scientific data to identify, select and develop promising pharmaceutical product candidates and products. Our business decisions may therefore be adversely influenced by improper or fraudulent scientific data sourced from third parties. Any irregularities in the scientific data used by us to determine our focus in research and development of product candidates and products could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

Service or supply failures, or other failures, business interruptions or other disasters affecting the manufacturing facilities of any party participating in the supply chain would adversely affect our ability to supply our products.

Our product candidates are biologics and require processing steps that are more difficult than those required for most chemical pharmaceuticals. Accordingly, multiple steps are needed to control the manufacturing processes. Problems with these manufacturing processes, even minor deviations from the normal process or from the materials used in the manufacturing process, which may not be detectable by us in a timely manner, could lead to product defects or manufacturing failures, resulting in lot failures, product recalls, product liability claims and insufficient inventory.

Also, certain raw materials or other products necessary for the manufacture and formulation of our product candidates, some of which are difficult to source, are provided by single‑source unaffiliated third‑party suppliers. In addition, we rely on certain third parties to perform filling, finishing, distribution, laboratory testing and other services related to the manufacture of our product candidates, and to supply various raw materials and other products. We would be unable to obtain these raw materials, other products, or services for an indeterminate period of time if any of these

third parties were to cease or interrupt production or otherwise fail to supply these materials, products, or services to us for any reason, including due to regulatory requirements or actions (including recalls), adverse financial developments at or affecting the supplier, failure by the supplier to comply with cGMPs, contamination, business interruptions, or labor shortages or disputes. In any such circumstances, we may not be able to engage a backup or alternative supplier or service provider in a timely manner or at all. This, in turn, could materially and adversely affect our ability to supply product candidates, which could materially and adversely affect our business and future prospects.

Certain of the raw materials required in the manufacture and the formulation of our product candidates may be derived from biological sources, including mammalian tissues, bovine serum and human serum albumin. There are certain European regulatory restrictions on using these biological source materials. If we are required to substitute for these sources to comply with European regulatory requirements, our clinical development or commercial activities may be delayed or interrupted.

Our business may be adversely affected as a result of computer system failures.

Any of the internal computer systems belonging to us or our third‑party service providers are vulnerable to damage from computer viruses, unauthorized access, natural disasters, terrorism, war and telecommunication and electrical failure. Any system failure, accident or security breach that causes interruptions in our own or in third‑party service vendors’ operations could result in a material disruption of our product development programs. For example, the loss of clinical trial data from completed or future clinical trials could result in delays in our or our partners’ regulatory approval efforts and significantly increase our costs in order to recover or reproduce the lost data. To the extent that any disruption or security breach results in a loss or damage to our data or applications, or inappropriate disclosure of confidential or proprietary information, we may incur liability, our product development programs and competitive position may be adversely affected and the further development of our product candidates may be delayed. Furthermore, we may incur additional costs to remedy the damage caused by these disruptions or security breaches.

Risks Related to Our Dependence on Third Parties

We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties, including independent clinical investigators and CROs, to conduct our preclinical studies and clinical trials. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or meet expected deadlines, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for or commercialize our product candidates and our business could be substantially harmed.

We have relied upon and plan to continue to rely upon third parties, including independent clinical investigators and third‑party CROs, to conduct our preclinical studies and clinical trials and to monitor and manage data for our ongoing preclinical and clinical programs. We rely on these parties for execution of our preclinical studies and clinical trials, and control only certain aspects of their activities. Nevertheless, we are responsible for ensuring that each of our studies and trials is conducted in accordance with the applicable protocol, legal and regulatory requirements and scientific standards, and our reliance on these third parties does not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities. We and our third party contractors and CROs are required to comply with GCP requirements, which are regulations and guidelines enforced by the FDA, the EMA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities for all of our products in clinical development. Regulatory authorities enforce these GCPs through periodic inspections of trial sponsors, principal investigators and trial sites. If we, our investigators or any of our CROs fail to comply with applicable GCPs, the clinical data generated in our clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA, the EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require us to perform additional clinical trials before approving our marketing applications. We cannot assure you that upon inspection by a given regulatory authority, such regulatory authority will determine that any of our clinical trials comply with GCP regulations. In addition, our clinical trials must be conducted with product produced under cGMP regulations. Our failure to comply with these regulations may require us to repeat clinical trials, which would delay the regulatory approval process.

Further, these investigators and CROs are not our employees and we will not be able to control, other than by 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. 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.

Our CROs have the right to terminate their agreements with us in the event of an uncured material breach. In addition, some of our CROs have an ability to terminate their respective agreements with us if it can be reasonably demonstrated that the safety of the subjects participating in our clinical trials warrants such termination, if we make a general assignment for the benefit of our creditors or if we are liquidated.

There is a limited number of third‑party service providers that specialize or have the expertise required to achieve our business objectives. If any of our relationships with these third‑party CROs or clinical investigators terminate, we may not be able to enter into arrangements with alternative CROs or investigators or to do so on commercially reasonable terms. If CROs or clinical investigators 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 trials may be extended, delayed or terminated and we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for or successfully commercialize our product candidates. As a result, our results of operations and the commercial prospects for our product candidates would be harmed, our costs could increase and our ability to generate revenues could be delayed.

Switching or adding additional CROs (or investigators) 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, there can be no assurance that we will not encounter similar challenges or delays in the future or that these delays or challenges will not have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition and prospects.

We rely and will continue to rely on collaborative partners regarding the development of our research programs and product candidates. If we fail to enter into new strategic relationships our business, financial condition, commercialization prospects and results of operations may be materially adversely affected.

We are, and expect to continue to be, dependent on partnerships with partners relating to the development and commercialization of our existing and future research programs and product candidates. We currently have collaborative research relationships with various pharmaceutical companies such as AbbVie and Shire and with various academic and research institutions worldwide, for the development of product candidates resulting from such collaborations. We had, have and will continue to have discussions on potential partnering opportunities with various pharmaceutical companies. If we fail to enter into or maintain collaborations on reasonable terms or at all, our ability to develop our existing or future research programs and product candidates could be delayed, the commercial potential of our products could change and our costs of development and commercialization could increase.

Our dependence on collaborative partners subjects us to a number of risks, including, but not limited to, the following:

We face significant competition in seeking appropriate collaborative partners. Our ability to reach a definitive agreement for a partnership will depend, among other things, upon an assessment of the collaborator’s resources and expertise, the terms and conditions of the proposed partnership and the proposed collaborator’s evaluation of a number of factors. These factors may include the design or results of clinical trials, the likelihood of regulatory approval, the potential market for the subject product candidate, the costs and complexities of manufacturing and delivering such product candidate to patients, the potential of competing products, the existence of uncertainty with respect to our ownership of technology, which can exist if there is a challenge to such ownership regardless of the merits of the challenge and industry and market conditions generally. The collaborator may also consider alternative product candidates or technologies for similar indications that may be available to collaborate on and whether such a partnership could be more attractive than the one with us.

We rely on third parties to supply and manufacture our product candidates, and we expect to continue to rely on third parties to manufacture our products, if approved. The development of such product candidates and the commercialization of any products, if approved, could be stopped, delayed or made less profitable if any such third party fails to provide us with sufficient quantities of product candidates or products or fails to do so at acceptable quality levels or prices or fails to maintain or achieve satisfactory regulatory compliance

We do not currently have, nor do we plan to acquire, the infrastructure or capability internally to manufacture our product candidates for use in the conduct of our clinical studies or for commercial supply, if our products are approved. Instead, we rely on, and expect to continue to rely on contract manufacturing organizations, or CMOs. We currently rely mainly on Lonza Sales AG, or Lonza, based in Slough, UK and Singapore for the manufacturing of the drug substance of all our products and the production cell line POTELLIGENT CHOK1SV jointly owned by Lonza and BioWa, Inc. for clinical and commercial scale production of ADCC enhanced antibody products. Reliance on third‑party providers may expose us to more risk than if we were to manufacture our product candidates ourselves. We do not control the manufacturing processes of the CMOs we contract with and are dependent on those third parties for the production of our product candidates in accordance with relevant regulations (such as cGMP), which includes, among other things, quality control, quality assurance and the maintenance of records and documentation.

If we were to experience an unexpected loss of supply of or if any supplier were unable to meet our demand for any of our product candidates, we could experience delays in our research or planned clinical studies or commercialization. We could be unable to find alternative suppliers of acceptable quality, in the appropriate volumes and at an acceptable cost. Moreover, our suppliers are often subject to strict manufacturing requirements and rigorous testing requirements, which could limit or delay production. The long transition periods necessary to switch manufacturers and suppliers, if necessary, would significantly delay our clinical studies and the commercialization of our products, if approved, which would materially adversely affect our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operation.

In complying with the manufacturing regulations of the FDA, the EMA and other comparable foreign authorities, we and our third‑party suppliers must spend significant time, money and effort in the areas of design and development, testing, production, record‑keeping and quality control to assure that the products meet applicable specifications and other regulatory requirements. The failure to comply with these requirements could result in an enforcement action against us, including the seizure of products and shutting down of production. We and any of these third‑party suppliers may also be subject to audits by the FDA, the EMA or other comparable foreign authorities. If any of our third‑party suppliers fails to comply with cGMP or other applicable manufacturing regulations, our ability to develop and commercialize the products could suffer significant interruptions. We face risks inherent in relying on a single CMO, as any disruption, such as a fire, natural hazards or vandalism at the CMO could significantly interrupt our manufacturing capability. We currently do not have alternative production plans in place or disaster‑recovery facilities available. In case of a disruption, we will have to establish alternative manufacturing sources. This would require substantial capital on our part, which we may not be able to obtain on commercially acceptable terms or at all. Additionally, we would likely experience months of manufacturing delays as we build or locate replacement facilities and seek and obtain necessary regulatory approvals. If this occurs, we will be unable to satisfy manufacturing needs on a timely basis, if at all. Also, operating any new facilities may be more expensive than operating our current facility. Further, business interruption insurance may not adequately compensate us for any losses that may occur and we would have to bear the additional cost of any disruption. For these reasons, a significant disruptive event of the manufacturing facility could have drastic consequences, including placing our financial stability at risk.

The manufacturing of all of our product candidates requires using cells which are stored in a cell bank. We have one master cell bank for each product manufactured in accordance with cGMP. Working cell banks have not yet been manufactured. Half of each master cell bank is stored at a separate site so that in case of a catastrophic event at one site we believe sufficient vials of the master cell banks are left at the alternative storage site to continue manufacturing. We believe sufficient working cell banks could be produced from the vials of the master cell bank stored at a given site to assure product supply for the future. However, it is possible that we could lose multiple cell banks and have our manufacturing significantly impacted by the need to replace these cell banks, which could materially adversely affect our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

Risks Related to Intellectual Property

We rely on patents and other intellectual property rights to protect our product candidates and the SIMPLE Antibody, NHance and ABDEG platform technologies, the enforcement, defense and maintenance of which may be challenging and costly. Failure to enforce or protect these rights adequately could harm our ability to compete and impair our business.

Our commercial success depends in part on obtaining and maintaining patents and other forms of intellectual property rights for our product candidates, methods used to manufacture those products and the methods for treating patients using those products, or on licensing in such rights. Failure to protect or to obtain, maintain or extend adequate patent and other intellectual property rights could materially adversely affect our ability to develop and market our products and product candidates.

We cannot be certain that patents will be issued or granted with respect to applications that are currently pending, or that issued or granted patents will not later be found to be invalid or enforceable. The patent position of biopharmaceutical companies is generally uncertain because it involves complex legal and factual considerations. The standards applied by the European Patent Office, the United States Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, and foreign patent offices in granting patents are not always applied uniformly or predictably. For example, there is no uniform worldwide policy regarding patentable subject matter or the scope of claims allowable in biopharmaceutical patents. Consequently, patents may not issue from our pending patent applications. As such, we do not know the degree of future protection that we will have on our proprietary products and technology. The scope of patent protection that the European Patent Office and the USPTO will grant with respect to the antibodies in our antibodies product pipeline is uncertain. It is possible that the European Patent Office and the USPTO will not allow broad antibody claims that cover antibodies closely related to our product candidates as well as the specific antibody. As a result, upon receipt of EMA or FDA approval, competitors may be free to market antibodies almost identical to ours, including biosimilar antibodies, thereby decreasing our market share. However, a competitor cannot submit to the FDA an application for a biosimilar product based on one of our products until four years following the date of approval of our “reference product,” and the FDA may not approve such a biosimilar product until 12 years from the date on which the reference product was approved. See the section of this annual report titled “Item 4.—Business—Government Regulation—Licensure and Regulation of Biologics in the United States—Biosimilars and Exclusivity” for more details regarding biosimilar regulatory exclusivities.

The patent prosecution process is expensive and time‑consuming, and we and our current or future licensors, licensees or collaboration partners may not be able to prepare, file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner. It is also possible that we or our licensors, licensees or collaboration partners will fail to identify patentable aspects of inventions made in the course of development and commercialization activities before it is too late to obtain patent protection on them. Further, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our and our current or future licensors’, licensees’ or collaboration partners’ patent rights are highly uncertain. Our and our licensors’ pending and future patent applications may not result in patents being issued that protect our technology or products, in whole or in part, or that effectively prevent others from commercializing competitive technologies and products. Moreover, in some circumstances, we may not have the right to control the preparation, filing and prosecution of patent applications, or to maintain the patents, or we may need to enter into new license or royalty agreements, covering technology that we license from or license to third parties or have developed in collaboration with our collaboration partners and are reliant on patent procurement activities of our licensors, licensees or collaboration partners. Therefore, these patents and applications may not be prosecuted and enforced in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business. If our current or future licensors, licensees or collaboration partners fail to establish, maintain or protect such patents and other intellectual property rights, such rights may be reduced or eliminated. If our licensors, licensees or collaboration partners are not fully cooperative or disagree with us as to the prosecution, maintenance or enforcement of any patent rights, such patent rights could be compromised. The patent examination process may require us or our licensors, licensees or collaboration partners to narrow the scope of the claims of our or our licensors’, licensees’ or collaboration partners’ pending and future patent applications, which may limit the scope of patent protection that may be obtained. We cannot assure you that all of the potentially relevant prior art relating to our patents and patent applications has been found. If such prior art exists, it 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, third parties may initiate an opposition, interference, re‑examination, post‑grant review, inter partes review, nullification or derivation action in court or before patent offices, or similar proceedings challenging the validity, enforceability or scope of such patents, which may result in the patent claims being narrowed or invalidated. Our and our licensors’, licensees’ or collaboration partners’ patent applications cannot be enforced against third parties practicing the technology claimed in such applications unless and until a patent issues from such applications, and then only to the extent the issued claims cover the technology.

Because patent applications are confidential for a period of time after filing, and some remain so until issued, we cannot be certain that we or our licensors were the first to file any patent application related to a product candidate. Furthermore, as to the United States, if third parties have filed such patent applications on or before March 15, 2013, an interference proceeding can be initiated by such third parties to determine who was the first to invent any of the subject matter covered by the patent claims of our applications. If third parties have filed such applications after March 15, 2013, a derivation proceeding can be initiated by such third parties to determine whether our invention was derived from theirs. Even where we have a valid and enforceable patent, we may not be able to exclude others from practicing our invention where the other party can show that they used the invention in commerce before our filing date, or if the other party is able to obtain a compulsory license.

Issued patents covering one or more of our products or the SIMPLE Antibody, NHance and ABDEG platform technologies could be found invalid or unenforceable if challenged in court.

To protect our competitive position, we may from time to time need to resort to litigation in order to enforce or defend any patents or other intellectual property rights owned by or licensed to us, or to determine or challenge the scope or validity of patents or other intellectual property rights of third parties. Enforcement of intellectual property rights is difficult, unpredictable and expensive, and many of our or our licensors’ or collaboration partners’ adversaries in these proceedings may have the ability to dedicate substantially greater resources to prosecuting these legal actions than we or our licensors or collaboration partners can. Accordingly, despite our or our licensors’ or collaboration partners’ efforts, we or our licensors or collaboration partners may not prevent third parties from infringing upon or misappropriating intellectual property rights we own or control, particularly in countries where the laws may not protect those rights as fully as in the European Union and the United States. We may fail in enforcing our rights—in which case our competitors may be permitted to use our technology without being required to pay us any license fees. In addition, however, litigation involving our patents carries the risk that one or more of our patents will be held invalid (in whole or in part, on a claim‑by‑claim basis) or held unenforceable. Such an adverse court ruling could allow third parties to commercialize our products or use our SIMPLE Antibody, NHance and ABDEG platform technologies, and then compete directly with us, without payment to us.

If we were to initiate legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent covering one of our products, the defendant could counterclaim that our patent is invalid or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the United States or in Europe, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity or unenforceability are commonplace. A claim for a validity challenge may be based on failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, for example, lack of novelty, obviousness or non‑enablement. A claim for unenforceability could involve an allegation that someone connected with prosecution of the patent withheld relevant information from the European Patent Office or the USPTO or made a misleading statement, during prosecution. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability during patent litigation is unpredictable. With respect to the validity question, for example, we cannot be certain that there is no invalidating prior art, of which we and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution. If a defendant were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity or unenforceability, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection on one or more of our products or certain aspects of our SIMPLE Antibody, NHance and ABDEG platform technologies. Such a loss of patent protection could have a material adverse impact on our business. Further, litigation could result in substantial costs and diversion of management resources, regardless of the outcome, and this could harm our business and financial results. Patents and other intellectual property rights also will not protect our technology if competitors design around our protected technology without infringing our patents or other intellectual property rights.

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

Our competitive position may suffer if patents issued to third parties or other third‑party intellectual property rights cover our products or elements thereof, our manufacture or uses relevant to our development plans, the targets of our product candidates, or other attributes of our product candidates or our technology. In such cases, we may not be in a position to develop or commercialize products or 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. We are aware of certain U.S. issued patents held by third parties that some may argue cover certain aspects of our product candidates, including ARGX‑110 and ARGX‑111. The patent relating to ARGX‑110 is scheduled to expire in 2026, and the patents relating to ARGX‑111 are scheduled to expire between 2024 and 2032. In the event that a patent has not expired at the time of approval of such product candidate and the patent owner were to bring an infringement action against us, we may have to argue that our product, its manufacture or use does not infringe a valid claim of the patent in question. Alternatively, if we were to challenge the validity of any issued U.S. patent in court, we would need to overcome a statutory presumption of validity that attaches to every U.S. patent. This means that in order to prevail, we would need to present clear and convincing evidence as to the invalidity of the patent’s claims. There is no assurance that a court would find in our favor on questions of infringement or validity. In the event that a patent is successfully asserted against us such that the patent is found to be valid and enforceable and infringed by our product, unless we obtain a license to such a patent, which may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all, we could be prevented from continuing to develop or commercialize our product. Similarly, the targets for certain of our product candidates have also been the subject of research by other companies, which have filed patent applications or have patents on aspects of the targets or their uses. There can be no assurance any such patents will not be asserted against us or that we will not need to seek licenses from such third parties. We may not be able to secure such licenses on acceptable terms, if at all, and any such litigation would be costly and time‑consuming.

It is also possible that we failed to identify relevant patents or applications. For example, certain U.S. applications filed after November 29, 2000 that will not be filed outside the United States may remain confidential until patents issue. In general, patent applications in the United States and elsewhere are published approximately 18 months after the earliest filing from which priority is claimed, with such earliest filing date being commonly referred to as the priority date. Therefore, patent applications covering our products or platform technology could have been filed by others without our knowledge. Furthermore, we operate in a highly competitive field, and given our limited resources, it is unreasonable to monitor all patent applications purporting to gain broad coverage in the areas in which we are active. 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 products or the use of our products.

Third‑party intellectual property right holders, including our competitors, may actively bring infringement claims against us. The granting of orphan drug status in respect of any of our product candidates does not guarantee our freedom to operate and is separate from our risk of possible infringement of third parties’ intellectual property rights. We may not be able to successfully 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 or continue costly, unpredictable and time‑consuming litigation and may be prevented from or experience substantial delays in marketing our products.

If we fail in any such dispute, in addition to being forced to pay damages, we or our licensees may be temporarily or permanently prohibited from commercializing any of our product candidates that are held to be infringing. We might, if possible, also be forced to redesign product candidates so that we no longer infringe the third‑party intellectual property rights. Or, we may be required to seek a license to any such technology that we are found to infringe, which license may not be available on commercially reasonable terms, or at all. Even if we or our licensors or collaboration partners obtain a license, it may be non‑exclusive (for example, the POTELLIGENT platform), thereby giving our competitors access to the same technologies licensed to us or our licensors or collaboration partners. In addition, we could be found liable for monetary damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees, if we are found to have willfully infringed a patent. Any of these events, even if we were to ultimately prevail, could

require us to divert substantial financial and management resources that we would otherwise be able to devote to our business.

In addition, if the breadth or strength of protection provided by our or our licensors’ or collaboration partners’ patents and patent applications is threatened, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to license, develop or commercialize current or future product candidates. 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.

Our ability to compete may be adversely affected if we are unsuccessful in defending against any claims by competitors or others that we are infringing upon their intellectual property rights.

The various markets in which we plan to operate are subject to frequent and extensive litigation regarding patents and other intellectual property rights. In addition, companies producing therapeutics to treat and potentially cure cancer have employed intellectual property litigation as a means to gain an advantage over their competitors. As a result, we may be required to defend against claims of intellectual property infringement that may be asserted by our competitors against us and, if the outcome of any such litigation is adverse to us, it may affect our ability to compete effectively.

Our involvement in litigation, and in, e.g. , any interference, derivation, reexamination, inter partes review, opposition or post‑grant proceedings or other intellectual property proceedings inside and outside of the European Union or the United States may divert management time from focusing on business operations, could cause us to spend significant amounts of money and may have no guarantee of success. Any current and potential intellectual property litigation also could force us to do one or more of the following:

Intellectual property litigation could cause us to spend substantial resources and distract our personnel from their normal responsibilities.

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, this could have a substantial adverse effect on the price of the ADSs. Such litigation or proceedings could substantially increase our operating losses and reduce our resources available for development 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 substantially 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.

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 proprietary rights held by third parties, the growth of our business will likely depend in part on our ability to acquire, in‑license, maintain or use these proprietary rights. We may be unable to acquire or in‑license any compositions, methods of use, processes, or other third‑party intellectual property rights from third parties that we identify 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 may pursue 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 U.S. and non‑U.S. academic institutions to accelerate our preclinical research or development under written agreements with these institutions. 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 applicable product candidate or 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 a license to third‑party intellectual property rights necessary for the development of a product candidate or program, we may have to abandon development of that product candidate or program and our business and financial condition could suffer.

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.

Although we have trademark registrations for arGEN-X, this trademark may be considered as confusing with other registered trademarks and we may not be in a position to keep exclusive rights over the use of it. We do not expect the potential loss of this trademark registration to have an adverse impact on our business as we are not planning to use arGEN-X as a product name.

If we do not obtain protection under the Hatch‑Waxman Amendments and similar non‑U.S. legislation for extending the term of patents covering each of our product candidates, our business may be materially harmed.

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

Depending upon the timing, duration and conditions of 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 Act and similar legislation in the European Union. The Hatch‑Waxman Act permits 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. The patent term extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval, and only one patent applicable to an approved drug may be extended. However, we may not receive an extension if we 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. 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 that product will be shortened and our competitors may obtain approval to market competing products sooner than we expect. As a result, our revenue from applicable products could be reduced, possibly materially.

We enjoy only limited geographical protection with respect to certain patents and may face difficulties in certain jurisdictions, which may diminish the value of intellectual property rights in those jurisdictions.

We often file our first patent application ( i.e. , priority filing) at the UK Intellectual Property Office, the European Patent Office or the USPTO. International applications under the Patent Cooperation Treaty, or PCT, are usually filed within twelve months after the priority filing. Based on the PCT filing, national and regional patent applications may be filed in additional jurisdictions where we believe our product candidates may be marketed. We have so far not filed for patent protection in all national and regional jurisdictions where such protection may be available. In addition, we may decide to abandon national and regional patent applications before grant. Finally, the grant proceeding of each national/regional patent is an independent proceeding which may lead to situations in which applications might in some jurisdictions be refused by the relevant patent offices, while granted by others. It is also quite common that depending on the country, the scope of patent protection may vary for the same product candidate or technology.

Competitors may use our and our licensors’ or collaboration partners’ 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 and our licensors or collaboration partners have patent protection, but enforcement is not as strong as that in the United States and the European Union. These products may compete with our product candidates, and our and our licensors’ or collaboration partners’ patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing.

The laws of some jurisdictions do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as the laws in the United States and the European Union, and companies have encountered significant difficulties in protecting and defending such rights in such jurisdictions. If we or our licensors 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 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 these countries, the patent owner may have limited remedies, which could materially diminish the value of such patent. If we or any of our licensors is forced to grant a license to third parties with respect to any patents relevant to our business, our competitive position may be impaired and our business and results of operations may be adversely affected.

Proceedings to enforce our and our licensors’ or collaboration partners’ patent rights in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial costs and divert our and our licensors’ or collaboration partners’ efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, could put our and our licensors’ or collaboration partners’ patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and our and our licensors’ or collaboration partners’ patent applications at risk of not issuing and could provoke third parties to assert claims against us or our licensors or collaboration partners. We or our licensors or collaboration partners may not prevail in any lawsuits that we or our licensors or collaboration partners initiate and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful.

If we fail to comply with our obligations under the agreements pursuant to which we license intellectual property rights from third parties, or otherwise experience disruptions to our business relationships with our licensors, we could lose the rights to intellectual property that are important to our business.

We are a party to license agreements under which we are granted rights to intellectual property that are important to our business and we expect that we may need to enter into additional license agreements in the future. Existing license agreements impose, and we expect that future license agreements will impose, various development obligations, payment of royalties and fees based on achieving certain milestones, as well as other obligations. If we fail to comply with our obligations under these agreements, the licensor may have the right to terminate the license. The termination of any license agreements or failure to adequately protect such license agreements could prevent us from commercializing product candidates covered by the licensed intellectual property. Several of our existing license agreements are sublicenses from third parties which are not the original licensor of the intellectual property at issue. Under these agreements, we must rely on our licensor to comply with its obligations under the primary license agreements under which such third party obtained rights in the applicable intellectual property, where we may have no relationship with the original licensor of such rights. If the licensors fail to comply with their obligations under these upstream license agreements, the original third‑party licensor may have the right to terminate the original license, which may terminate the sublicense. If this were to occur, we would no longer have rights to the applicable intellectual property and, in the case of a sublicense, if we were not able to secure our own direct license with the owner of the relevant rights, which it may not be able to do at a reasonable cost or on reasonable terms, it may adversely affect our ability to continue to develop and commercialize the product candidates incorporating the relevant intellectual property.

Disputes may arise regarding intellectual property subject to a licensing agreement, including:

If disputes over intellectual property that we have licensed prevent or impair our ability to maintain our current licensing arrangements on acceptable terms, we may be unable to successfully develop and commercialize the affected product candidates.

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:

Changes in patent laws or patent jurisprudence could diminish the value of patents in general, thereby impairing our ability to protect our products.

As is the case with other biotechnology companies, our success is heavily dependent on intellectual property, particularly patents. Obtaining and enforcing patents in the biopharmaceutical industry involve both technological complexity and legal complexity. Therefore, obtaining and enforcing biopharmaceutical patents is costly, time‑consuming and inherently uncertain. In addition, the America Invents Act, or the AIA, has been enacted in the United States, resulting in significant changes to the U.S. patent system.

An important change introduced by the AIA is that, as of March 16, 2013, the United States transitioned to a “first‑to‑file” system for deciding which party should be granted a patent when two or more patent applications are filed by different parties claiming the same invention. A third party that files a patent application in the USPTO after that date but before us could therefore be awarded a patent covering an invention of ours even if we had made the invention before it was made by the third party. This will require us to be cognizant going forward of the time from invention to filing of a patent application, but circumstances could prevent us from promptly filing patent applications on our inventions.

Among some of the other changes introduced by the AIA are changes that limit where a patentee may file a patent infringement suit and providing opportunities for third parties to challenge any issued patent in the USPTO. This applies to all of our U.S. patents, even those issued before March 16, 2013. Because of a lower evidentiary standard in USPTO proceedings compared to the evidentiary standard in U.S. federal courts necessary to invalidate a patent claim, a third party could potentially provide evidence in a USPTO proceeding sufficient for the USPTO to hold a claim invalid even though the same evidence would be insufficient to invalidate the claim if first presented in a district court action. Accordingly, a third party may attempt to use the USPTO procedures to invalidate our patent claims that would not have been invalidated if first challenged by the third party as a defendant in a district court action. The AIA 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.

Additionally, 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 decisions by the U.S. Congress, the federal courts and the USPTO, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that could weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce our existing patents and patents that we might obtain in the future.

Confidentiality agreements with employees and others may not adequately prevent disclosure of trade secrets and protect other proprietary information.

We consider proprietary trade secrets, confidential know‑how and unpatented know‑how to be important to our business. We may rely on trade secrets or confidential know‑how to protect our technology, especially where patent protection is believed to be of limited value. However, trade secrets and confidential know‑how are difficult to maintain as confidential.

To protect this type of information against disclosure or appropriation by competitors, our policy is to require our employees, consultants, contractors and advisors to enter into confidentiality agreements with us. However, current or former employees, consultants, contractors and advisers may unintentionally or willfully disclose our confidential information to competitors, and confidentiality agreements may not provide an adequate remedy in the event of unauthorized disclosure of confidential information. Enforcing a claim that a third party obtained illegally and is using trade secrets or confidential know‑how is expensive, time consuming and unpredictable. The enforceability of confidentiality agreements may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Furthermore, if a competitor lawfully obtained or independently developed any of our trade secrets, we would have no right to prevent such competitor from using that technology or information to compete with us, which could harm our competitive position. Additionally, if the steps taken to maintain our trade secrets are deemed inadequate, we may have insufficient recourse against third parties for misappropriating the trade secret.

Failure to obtain or maintain trade secrets or confidential know‑how trade protection could adversely affect our competitive position. Moreover, our competitors may independently develop substantially equivalent proprietary information and may even apply for patent protection in respect of the same. If successful in obtaining such patent protection, our competitors could limit our use of our trade secrets or confidential know‑how.

Under certain circumstances, we may also decide to publish some know‑how to attempt to prevent others from obtaining patent rights covering such know‑how.

We may be subject to claims by third parties asserting that our employees or we have misappropriated their intellectual property, or claiming ownership of what we regard as our own intellectual property.

Many of our consultants and employees, including our senior management, were previously employed at other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. Some of these consultants and employees executed proprietary rights, non‑disclosure and non‑competition agreements in connection with such previous employment. Although we try to ensure that our consultants and employees 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 these consultants and employees have used or disclosed confidential information or intellectual property, including trade secrets or other proprietary information, of any such consultant’s or employee’s former employer, or have breached their non‑competition agreement. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims.

If we fail in prosecuting or defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel or sustain damages. Such intellectual property rights could be awarded to a third party, and we could be required to obtain a license from such third party to commercialize our technology or

products. Such a license may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Even if we successfully prosecute or defend against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and distract management.

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

Periodic maintenance and annuity fees on any issued patent are due to be paid to the USPTO, the European Patent Office and foreign patent agencies in several stages over the lifetime of the patent. The USPTO, the European Patent Office and various foreign governmental patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar provisions during the patent application process. While an inadvertent lapse can in many cases be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules, there are situations in which noncompliance can result in abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. Non‑compliance events that could result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application include failure to respond to official actions within prescribed time limits, non‑payment of fees and failure to properly legalize and submit formal documents. If we or our licensors or collaboration partners fail to maintain the patents and patent applications covering our product candidates, our competitors might be able to enter the market, which would have an adverse effect on our business.

Risks Related to Our Organization and Operations

Our future growth and ability to compete depends on retaining our key personnel and recruiting additional qualified personnel.

Our success depends upon the continued contributions of our key management, scientific and technical personnel, many of whom have been instrumental for us and have substantial experience with our therapies and related technologies. These key management individuals include the members of our board of directors and executive management, including Tim Van Hauwermeiren, our co‑founder and Chief Executive Officer; Eric Castaldi, our Chief Financial Officer; Prof. Hans de Haard, our co‑founder and Chief Scientific Officer; Dr. Nicolas Leupin, our Chief Medical Officer; Torsten Dreier, our co‑founder and Chief Development Officer; Debbie Allen, our Senior Vice President of Business Development; and Dirk Beeusaert, our General Counsel.

The loss of key managers and senior scientists could delay our research and development activities. In addition, our ability to compete in the highly competitive biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries depends upon our ability to attract and retain highly qualified management, scientific and medical personnel. Many other biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies and academic institutions that we compete against for qualified personnel have greater financial and other resources, different risk profiles and a longer history in the industry than we do. Therefore, we might not be able to attract or retain these key persons on conditions that are economically acceptable. Furthermore, we will need to recruit new managers and qualified scientific personnel to develop our business if we expand into fields that will require additional skills. Our inability to attract and retain these key persons could prevent us from achieving our objectives and implementing our business strategy, which could have a material adverse effect on our business and prospects.

We expect to expand our development, regulatory and sales and marketing capabilities, and as a result, we may encounter difficulties in managing our growth, which could disrupt our operations.

We expect to experience significant growth in the number of our employees and the scope of our operations, particularly in the areas of drug development, regulatory affairs and sales and marketing. To manage our anticipated future growth, we must continue to implement and improve our managerial, operational and financial systems, expand our facilities and continue to recruit and train additional qualified personnel. Due to our limited financial resources and the limited experience of our management team in managing a company with such anticipated growth, we may not be able to effectively manage the expansion of our operations or recruit and train additional qualified personnel. The expansion of our operations may lead to significant costs and may divert our management and business development resources. Any inability to manage growth could delay the execution of our business plans or disrupt our operations.

We may not be able to integrate efficiently or achieve the expected benefits of any acquisitions of complementary businesses, product candidates or technologies.

Since our inception in 2008, we have grown organically without any acquisitions. Should we in the future contemplate to acquire any complementary business, product candidates or technologies, our ability to integrate and manage acquired businesses, product candidates or technologies effectively will depend upon a number of factors including the size of the acquired business, the complexity of any product candidate or technology and the resulting difficulty of integrating the acquired business’s operations, if any. Our relationship with current employees or employees of any acquired business may become impaired. We may also be subject to unexpected claims and liabilities arising from such acquisitions. These claims and liabilities could be costly to defend, could be material to our financial position and might exceed either the limitations of any applicable indemnification provisions or the financial resources of the indemnifying parties. There can also be no assurance that we will be able to assess ongoing profitability and identify all actual or potential liabilities of a business, product candidate or technology prior to its acquisition. If we acquire businesses, product candidates or technologies that result in assuming unforeseen liabilities in respect of which it has not obtained contractual protections or for which protection is not available, this could materially adversely affect our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

Our business is subject to economic, political, regulatory and other risks associated with international operations.

Our business is subject to risks associated with conducting business internationally. Accordingly, our future results could be harmed by a variety of factors, including:

We have obtained significant funding from agencies of the government of the Flemish region of Belgium and have benefited from certain research and development incentives. The tax authorities may challenge our eligibility for or our calculation of such incentives.

We have contracted over the past year numerous funding agreements with agencies of the Flemish government to partially finance our research and development programs. These funding agreements are subject to various criteria linked to employment and investment in the Flemish region of Belgium. We have committed to establish our operational site in the Flemish region, which must remain our major effective operational site, and to maintain our site and all our existing activities, including research and development in the Flemish region. Similarly, our funding agreement with one such agency of the Flemish government requires us to maintain substantial research and development activities in the Flemish region. Such undertakings restrict our ability to choose the most convenient or cost‑effective location of our premises.

If we were to breach these contractual obligations, we may be held liable by the agencies of the Flemish government with which we have funding agreements for any damage incurred by the such agencies resulting from the breach of contract and we could be required to reimburse in full the subsidies granted by such agencies.

Further, pursuant to the general terms of each grant, certain Flemish agencies are entitled to re‑evaluate the subsidies granted to us in case of a fundamental change in our shareholding base, which is not defined in the general terms, but we believe would involve a change of control of us. Any such reevaluation could negatively impact the funding that we receive or have received from the Flemish agencies.

The research and development incentives from which we have benefited as a company active in research and development in Belgium can be offset against Belgian corporate income tax due. The excess portion may be refunded at the end of a five‑year fiscal period for the Belgian research and development incentive. The research and development incentives are both calculated based on the amount of eligible research and development expenditure. The Belgian tax authorities may audit each research and development program in respect of which a tax credit has been claimed and assess whether it qualifies for the tax credit regime. The tax authorities may challenge our eligibility for, or our calculation of, certain tax reductions or deductions in respect of our research and development activities and, should such a claim of the Belgian tax administration be successful, we may be liable for additional corporate income tax, and penalties and interest related thereto, which could have a significant impact on our results of operations and future cash flows. Furthermore, if the Belgian government decide to eliminate, or reduce the scope or the rate of, the research and development incentive benefit, either of which it could decide to do at any time, our results of operations could be adversely affected.

Exchange rate fluctuations or abandonment of the euro currency may materially affect our results of operations and financial condition.

Due to the international scope of our operations, our assets, earnings and cash flows are influenced by movements in exchange rates of several currencies, particularly the U.S. dollar, British pound and Swiss francs. Our functional currency is the euro and the majority of our operating expenses are paid in euros, but we also receive payments from our main business partners AbbVie and Shire in U.S. dollars and we regularly acquire services, consumables and materials in U.S. dollars, Swiss francs and British pounds. Further, potential future revenue may be derived from abroad, particularly from the United States. As a result, our business and share price may be affected by fluctuations in foreign exchange rates between the euro and these other currencies, which may also have a significant impact on our reported results of operations and cash flows from period to period. Currently, we do not have any exchange rate hedging arrangements in place.

In addition, the possible abandonment of the euro by one or more members of the European Union could materially affect our business in the future. Despite measures taken by the European Union to provide funding to certain European Union member states in financial difficulties and by a number of European countries to stabilize their economies and reduce their debt burdens, it is possible that the euro could be abandoned in the future as a currency by countries that have adopted its use. This could lead to the re‑introduction of individual currencies in one or more European Union member states, or in more extreme circumstances, the abandonment of the euro or the dissolution of the European Union. The effects on our business of a potential dissolution of the European Union, the exit of one or more European Union member states from the European Union or the abandonment of the euro as a currency, are impossible to predict with certainty, and any such events could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations

Recent developments relating to the United Kingdom’s referendum vote in favor of withdrawal from the European Union could adversely affect us.

The United Kingdom held a referendum on June 23, 2016 in which a majority voted for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union, or Brexit. As a result of this vote, on March 29, 2017 the United Kingdom officially started the separation process and negotiations are expected to commence to determine the terms of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union as well as its relationship with the European Union going forward, including the terms of trade between the United Kingdom and the European Union. The effects of Brexit have been and are expected to continue to be far‑reaching. Brexit and the perceptions as to its impact may adversely affect business activity and economic conditions in Europe and globally and could continue to contribute to instability in global financial and foreign exchange markets. Brexit could also have the effect of disrupting the free movement of goods, services and people between the United Kingdom and the European Union; however, the full effects of Brexit are uncertain and will depend on any agreements the United Kingdom may make to retain access to European Union markets.

In addition, we expect that Brexit could lead to legal uncertainty and potentially divergent national laws and regulations as the United Kingdom determines which European Union laws to replicate or replace. If the United Kingdom were to significantly alter its regulations affecting the pharmaceutical industry, we could face significant new costs. It may also be time‑consuming and expensive for us to alter our internal operations in order to comply with new regulations. Altered regulations could also add time and expense to the process by which our product candidates receive regulatory approval in the United Kingdom and European Union. Similarly, it is unclear at this time what Brexit’s impact will have on our intellectual property rights and the process for obtaining, maintaining and defending such rights. It is possible that certain intellectual property rights, such as trademarks, granted by the European Union will cease being enforceable in the United Kingdom absent special arrangements to the contrary, and we may be required to refile our trademarks and other intellectual property applications domestically in the United Kingdom. As a result of the Brexit, other European countries may seek to conduct referenda with respect to their continuing membership in the European Union. Given these possibilities and others we may not anticipate, as well as the lack of comparable precedent, we cannot be certain of the full extent to which Brexit could adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We are exposed to unanticipated changes in tax laws and regulations, adjustments to our tax provisions, exposure to additional tax liabilities, or forfeiture of our tax assets.

The determination of our provision for income taxes and other tax liabilities requires significant judgment, including the adoption of certain accounting policies and our determination of whether our deferred tax assets are, and will remain, tax effective. We cannot guarantee that our interpretation or structure will not be questioned by the relevant tax authorities, or that the relevant tax laws and regulations, or the interpretation thereof, including through tax rulings, by the relevant tax authorities, will not be subject to change. Any adverse outcome of such a review may lead to adjustments in the amounts recorded in our financial statements, and could have a materially adverse effect on our operating results and financial condition.

We are subject to laws and regulations on tax levies and other charges or contributions in different countries, including transfer pricing and tax regulations for the compensation of personnel and third parties. Dealings between current and former group companies, as well as additional companies that may form part of our group in the future, are subject to transfer pricing regulations, which may be subject to change and could adversely affect us.

Our effective tax rates could be adversely affected by changes in tax laws, treaties and regulations, both internationally and domestically, or the interpretation thereof by the relevant tax authorities, including changes to the patent income deduction, possible changes to the corporate income tax base, wage withholding tax incentive for qualified research and development personnel in Belgium and other tax incentives and the implementation of new tax incentives such as the innovation deduction. An increase of the effective tax rates could have an adverse effect on our business, financial position, results of operations and cash flows.

In addition, we may not be able to use, or changes in tax regulations may affect the use of, certain tax assets or credits that we have built over the years. For instance, as of December 31, 2017, we had €113.6 million of consolidated tax loss carry forwards. In general, some of these tax loss carry forwards may be forfeited in whole, or in part, as a result of various transactions, or their utilization may be restricted by statutory law in the relevant jurisdiction. Any corporate reorganization by us or any transaction relating to our shareholding structure may result in partial or complete forfeiture of tax loss carry forwards. For instance, under Belgian law, argenx BVBA may lose its tax loss carry forwards in case of a change of control, through an acquisition or otherwise, not meeting legitimate financial or economic needs as well as in case of a tax neutral reorganization, such as a merger or a demerger, involving argenx BVBA. The tax burden would increase if profits, if any, could not be offset against tax loss carry forwards. As such, our redomiciliation as described in “Item 4.A.—Overview of Our Restructuring and Anticipated Redomiciliation—Transfer of Our Registered Office from the Netherlands to Belgium,” will have no impact on the tax loss carry forwards of argenx BVBA. For a description of the tax impact of our restructuring, see the risk factor below and “Item 4.A.—Overview of Our Restructuring and Anticipated Redomiciliation.”

Furthermore, the Belgian government recently announced its intention to limit the use of tax loss carry forwards as of January 1, 2018. If adopted, this rule would result in the tax loss carry forwards (and certain other tax deductions) being no longer tax deductible against 30% of our profits exceeding the first €1.0 million.

The restructuring and its contemplated tax treatment is subject to approval by the Belgian tax authorities.

We have engaged with the Dutch and Belgian tax authorities in order to reach an agreement on the tax effects of our proposed restructuring. The Dutch tax authorities have confirmed in a ruling dated April 20, 2017 that they agree (i) that, for Dutch corporate income tax purposes, the economic ownership of our intellectual property rights was transferred to argenx BVBA on August 28, 2009 and (ii) that the indemnification payment to be paid by argenx BVBA to argenx SE entails an arm’s length consideration for (a) the value of economic ownership of our intellectual property rights at that time, (b) accrued interest thereon and (c) related transfer pricing adjustments. See “Item 4.A.—Overview of Our Restructuring and Anticipated Redomiciliation.”

The Belgian tax authorities have not yet issued a binding ruling confirming these points and may take a different position. The Belgian tax authorities may consider that the economic ownership of the intellectual property rights will not be transferred to argenx BVBA until the completion of our restructuring. The Belgian tax authorities may

not accept the amount of the indemnification payment to be paid by argenx BVBA to argenx SE as agreed upon with the Dutch tax authorities and may disagree with its arm’s length character and its qualification as a deductible cost for argenx BVBA. If the Belgian tax authorities do not accept the qualification of the indemnification payment as a deductible cost for argenx BVBA, we will not be allowed to treat the amount of €80 million as a deductible cost and would thus not be able to offset this amount against potential taxable profits in the future. See “Item 4.A.—Overview of Our Restructuring and Anticipated Redomiciliation.” In addition, as long as our redomiciliation is not successfully completed, we will not qualify for a recently introduced Belgian tax scheme under which argenx SE may transfer losses to argenx BVBA (subject to certain conditions and limitations), which scheme could result in a reduction of argenx BVBA’s corporate tax due.

If our redomiciliation is not successfully completed, we will not be able to reduce our compliance burden and costs.

We face a compliance burden from an organizational and regulatory perspective as a European public company with limited liability under Dutch law with our shares listed on Euronext Brussels and with the majority of our operations in Belgium. Accordingly, depending on the entry into force of major changes to Belgian corporate law, we may seek shareholder approval for our redomiciliation from the Netherlands to Belgium. The redomiciliation is expected to be implemented through a series of complex cross‑border steps, including obtaining shareholder and governmental approvals, all of which are beyond our control. See “Item 4.A.— Overview of Our Restructuring and Anticipated Redomiciliation.” We cannot assure you that we will receive these approvals, and we may be unable to implement our redomiciliation.

If our redomiciliation is not successfully completed, we will remain a European public company with limited liability under Dutch law. In such event, we will not be able to reduce our compliance burden. Our legal and financial compliance costs will remain higher and some activities will continue to be more time‑consuming and costly than if we would be a company incorporated under Belgian law. For example, if our redomiciliation is not successfully completed, we would continue to need the services provided by our independent auditors as required under both Dutch law in respect of argenx SE and Belgian law in respect of argenx BVBA and would continue to owe increased fees in respect thereof. In addition, if our redomiciliation is not successfully completed, we would need to continue leasing our office in Breda, the Netherlands.

Risks Related to the ADSs

The price of the ADSs may be volatile and may fluctuate due to factors beyond our control. An active public trading market may not be sustained. And you may not be able to resell the ADSs at or above the public offering price.

The trading price of the ADSs and the ordinary shares has fluctuated, and is likely to continue to fluctuate, substantially. The trading price of those securities depends on a number of factors, including those described in this “Risk Factors” section, many of which are beyond our control and may not be related to our operating performance. In addition, although the ADSs are listed on the Nasdaq Global Select Market and our ordinary shares are listed on Euronext Brussels, we cannot assure you that a trading market for those securities will be maintained.

Since the ADSs were sold at our initial U.S. public offering in May 2017 at a price of $17.00 per ADS, the price per ADS has ranged as low as $17.33 and as high as $87.00 through March 20, 2018. During this same period, ordinary share prices have ranged from as low as €15.15 to as high as €70.50. The market price of the ADSs may fluctuate significantly due to a variety of factors, many of which are beyond our control, including:

These and other market and industry factors may cause the market price and demand for the ADSs and ordinary shares to fluctuate substantially, regardless of our actual operating performance, which may limit or prevent investors from readily selling their ADSs or ordinary shares and may otherwise negatively affect the liquidity of the ADSs and ordinary shares. In addition, the stock market in general, and biopharmaceutical companies in particular, have experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have often been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of these companies.

We will continue to incur, increased costs as a result of operating as a U.S.‑listed public company, and our board of directors will be required to devote substantial time to new compliance initiatives and corporate governance practices.

As a public company, and particularly after we no longer qualify as an emerging growth company, we will continue to incur significant legal, accounting and other expenses that we did not incur as a public company listed on Euronext Brussels. We are a Dutch European public company with limited liability ( Societas Europaea or SE ). If our redomiciliation is completed, we will be a Belgian European public company with limited liability ( Societas Europaea or SE ). The Sarbanes‑Oxley Act of 2002, the Dodd‑Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the listing requirements of the Nasdaq Stock Market, or Nasdaq, and other applicable securities rules and regulations impose various requirements on non‑U.S. reporting public companies, including the establishment and maintenance of effective disclosure and financial controls and corporate governance practices. Our board of directors and other personnel will be required to devote a substantial amount of time to these compliance initiatives. Moreover, these rules and regulations will continue to increase our legal and financial compliance costs and will make some activities more time‑consuming and costly. For example, we expect that these rules and regulations may make it more difficult and more expensive for us to obtain director and officer liability insurance, which in turn could make it more difficult for us to attract and retain qualified members of our board of directors.

However, these rules and regulations are often subject to varying interpretations, in many cases due to their lack of specificity, and, as a result, their application in practice may evolve over time as new guidance is provided by regulatory and governing bodies. This could result in continuing uncertainty regarding compliance matters and higher costs necessitated by ongoing revisions to disclosure and governance practices.

Pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes‑Oxley Act of 2002, or Section 404, we are required to furnish a report by our board of directors on our internal control over financial reporting. However, while we remain an emerging growth company, we will not be required to include an attestation report on internal control over financial reporting issued by our independent registered public accounting firm. To achieve compliance with Section 404 within the prescribed period, we are engaged in a process to document and evaluate our internal control over financial reporting, which is both costly and challenging. In this regard, we will need to continue to dedicate internal resources, potentially engage outside consultants and adopt a detailed work plan to assess and document the adequacy of internal control over financial reporting, continue steps to improve control processes as appropriate, validate through testing that controls are functioning as documented and implement a continuous reporting and improvement process for internal control over

financial reporting. Despite our efforts, there is a risk that we will not be able to conclude, within the prescribed timeframe or at all, that our internal control over financial reporting is effective as required by Section 404. If we identify one or more material weaknesses, it could result in an adverse reaction in the financial markets due to a loss of confidence in the reliability of our financial statements.

Certain significant shareholders own a substantial number of our securities and as a result, may be able to exercise control over us, including the outcome of shareholder votes. These shareholders may have different interests from us or your interests.

We have a number of significant shareholders. For an overview of our current significant shareholders, please see “Item 7.A.—Major Shareholders.”

Currently, we are not aware that any of our existing shareholders have entered or will enter into a shareholders’ agreement with respect to the exercise of their voting rights. Nevertheless, depending on the level of attendance at our general meetings of shareholders, or the General Meeting, these significant shareholders could, alone or together, have the ability to determine the outcome of decisions taken at any such General Meeting. Any such voting by these shareholders may not be in accordance with our interests or those of our shareholders. Among other consequences, this concentration of ownership may have the effect of delaying or preventing a change in control and might therefore negatively affect the market price of the ADSs.

Future sales, or the possibility of future sales, of a substantial number of our securities could adversely affect the price of the shares and dilute shareholders.

If our existing shareholders sell, or indicate an intent to sell, substantial amounts of our securities in the public market, the trading price of the ADSs could decline significantly. In addition, ordinary shares subject to outstanding options under our equity incentive plans and the ordinary shares reserved for future issuance under our equity incentive plan will become eligible for sale in the public market in the future, subject to certain legal and contractual limitations. In addition, we intend to register all ordinary shares that we may issue under our equity compensation plans. Once we register these ordinary shares, they can be freely sold in the public market upon issuance, subject to volume limitations applicable to affiliates and lock‑up agreements.

Provisions of our Articles of Association or Dutch corporate law, or, following our redomiciliation, our Belgian Articles of Association or Belgian corporate law, might deter acquisition bids for us that might be considered favorable and prevent or frustrate any attempt to replace or remove the then board of directors.

Provisions of our Articles of Association may make it more difficult for a third party to acquire control of us or effect a change in our board of directors. We have adopted several provisions that may have the effect of making a takeover of our company more difficult or less attractive. These provisions include a requirement that certain matters, including an amendment of our Articles of Association, may only be brought to our shareholders for a vote upon a proposal by our board of directors. If we complete our redomiciliation, Belgian corporate law will allow for various protective measures. In addition, several provisions of Belgian corporate law and certain other provisions of Belgian law, such as obligations to disclose significant shareholdings and merger control regulations, may apply to us following completion of our redomiciliation and may make an unsolicited tender offer, merger, change in management or other change in control of our company more difficult. These provisions could discourage potential takeover attempts that other shareholders may consider to be in their best interest and could adversely affect the market price of our securities. These provisions may also have the effect of depriving ADS holders of the opportunity to sell their ADSs at a premium. In addition, the board of directors of Belgian companies may in certain instances, and subject to prior authorization by the shareholders, deter or frustrate public takeover bids through dilutive issuances of equity securities (pursuant to the authorized capital) or through share buy‑backs. Although the authorization of the board of directors to increase a company’s share capital through contributions in kind or in cash with restriction or limitation of the preferential subscription right of the existing shareholders is suspended upon the notification to the company by the FSMA of a public takeover bid on the securities of the company, the company’s shareholders at the General Meeting can, under certain conditions, expressly authorize the board of directors to increase the capital of the company by issuing shares in an amount of not more than 10% of the existing shares of the company at the time of such a public takeover bid. If

Belgian corporate law is amended, these and/or other provisions may have a similar effect. See “Management Upon Redomiciliation.”

Fluctuations in exchange rates may increase the risk of holding ADSs and ordinary shares.

Due to the international scope of our operations, our assets, earnings and cash flows are influenced by movements in exchange rates of several currencies, particularly the euro, U.S. dollar, British pound and Swiss franc. Our functional currency is the euro, and the majority of our operating expenses are paid in euros, but we also receive payments from our main business partners AbbVie and Shire in U.S. dollars, and we regularly acquire services, consumables and materials in U.S. dollars, Swiss francs and British pounds. Further, potential future revenue may be derived from abroad, particularly from the United States. As a result, our business and the price of the ADSs and ordinary shares may be affected by fluctuations in foreign exchange rates between the euro and these other currencies, which may also have a significant impact on our reported results of operations and cash flows from period to period. Currently, we do not have any exchange rate hedging arrangements in place.

Moreover, because our ordinary shares currently trade on Euronext Brussels in euros, and the ADSs will trade on the Nasdaq Global Select Market in U.S. dollars, fluctuations in the exchange rate between the U.S. dollar and the euro may result in temporary differences between the value of the ADSs and the value of our ordinary shares, which may result in heavy trading by investors seeking to exploit such differences.

In order to finance the growth of our activities in the United States, notably with the opening of our U.S. office in October 2017, we have invested in U.S. dollar denominated cash deposit accounts and in current financial assets with a significant portion of the proceeds from our initial U.S. public offering completed in May 2017. Depending on the exchange rate fluctuations of the U.S. dollar, this may result in unrealized exchange rate losses which may impact negatively the reporting of our cash, cash equivalents and current financial assets at reporting dates when translating to euros these U.S. denominated cash deposits accounts and current financial assets. In addition, as a result of fluctuations in the exchange rate between the U.S. dollar and the euro, the U.S. dollar equivalent of the proceeds that a holder of the ADSs would receive upon the sale on Euronext Brussels of any ordinary shares withdrawn from the depositary and the U.S. dollar equivalent of any cash dividends paid in euros on our ordinary shares represented by the ADSs could also decline.

Holders of ADSs are not treated as holders of our ordinary shares.

Holders of ADSs are not treated as holders of our ordinary shares, unless they withdraw the ordinary shares underlying their ADSs in accordance with the deposit agreement and applicable laws and regulations. The depositary is the holder of the ordinary shares underlying the ADSs. Holders of ADSs therefore do not have any rights as holders of our ordinary shares, other than the rights that they have pursuant to the deposit agreement. See “Item 12.D.—American Depositary Shares.”

Holders of ADSs may be subject to limitations on the transfer of their ADSs and the withdrawal of the underlying ordinary shares.

ADSs are transferable on the books of the depositary. However, the depositary may close its books at any time or from time to time when it deems expedient in connection with the performance of its duties. The depositary may refuse to deliver, transfer or register transfers of ADSs generally when our books or the books of the depositary are closed, or at any time if we or the depositary think it is advisable to do so because of any requirement of law, government or governmental body, or under any provision of the deposit agreement, or for any other reason, subject to the right of ADS holders to cancel their ADSs and withdraw the underlying ordinary shares. Temporary delays in the cancellation of your ADSs and withdrawal of the underlying ordinary shares may arise because the depositary has closed its transfer books or we have closed our transfer books, the transfer of ordinary shares is blocked to permit voting at a shareholders’ meeting or we are paying a dividend on our ordinary shares. In addition, ADS holders may not be able to cancel their ADSs and withdraw the underlying ordinary shares when they owe money for fees, taxes and similar charges and when it is necessary to prohibit withdrawals in order to comply with any laws or governmental regulations that apply to ADSs or to the withdrawal of ordinary shares or other deposited securities.

You will not have the same voting rights as the holders of our ordinary shares and may not receive voting materials in time to be able to exercise your right to vote.

Except as described in this annual report and the deposit agreement, holders of the ADSs will not be able to exercise voting rights attaching to the ordinary shares represented by the ADSs. Under the terms of the deposit agreement, holders of the ADSs may instruct the depositary to vote the ordinary shares underlying their ADSs. Otherwise, holders of ADSs will not be able to exercise their right to vote unless they withdraw the ordinary shares underlying their ADSs to vote them in person or by proxy in accordance with applicable laws and regulations and our Articles of Association. Even so, ADS holders may not know about a meeting far enough in advance to withdraw those ordinary shares. If we ask for the instructions of holders of the ADSs, the depositary, upon timely notice from us, will notify ADS holders of the upcoming vote and arrange to deliver our voting materials to them. Upon our request, the depositary will mail to holders a shareholder meeting notice that contains, among other things, a statement as to the manner in which voting instructions may be given. We cannot guarantee that ADS holders will receive the voting materials in time to ensure that they can instruct the depositary to vote the ordinary shares underlying their ADSs. A shareholder is only entitled to participate in, and vote at, the meeting of shareholders, provided that its shares are recorded in its name at midnight (Central European Time) at the end of the twenty‑eighth day preceding the date of the meeting of shareholders. In addition, the depositary’s liability to ADS holders for failing to execute voting instructions or for the manner of executing voting instructions is limited by the deposit agreement. As a result, holders of ADSs may not be able to exercise their right to give voting instructions or to vote in person or by proxy and they may not have any recourse against the depositary or us if their ordinary shares are not voted as they have requested or if their shares cannot be voted.

We do not expect to pay cash dividends in the foreseeable future.

We have not paid any cash dividends since our incorporation. Even if future operations lead to significant levels of distributable profits, we currently intend that any earnings will be reinvested in our business and that cash dividends will not be paid until we have an established revenue stream to support continuing cash dividends. In addition, payment of any future dividends to shareholders would be subject to shareholder approval at our General Meeting, upon proposal of the board of directors, which proposal would be subject to the approval of the majority of the non‑executive directors after taking into account various factors including our business prospects, cash requirements, financial performance and new product development. In addition, payment of future cash dividends may be made only if our shareholders’ equity exceeds the sum of our paid‑in and called‑up share capital plus the reserves required to be maintained by Dutch law or by our Articles of Association. If we complete our redomiciliation, under Belgian corporate law, we may pay dividends only up to an amount equal to the excess of our shareholders’ equity over the sum of (i) paid‑up or called‑up share capital, and (ii) reserves not available for distribution pursuant to law or our Belgian Articles of Association, based on the most recent statutory audited financial statements, prepared in accordance with the generally accepted accounting principles in Belgium, or Belgian GAAP. In addition, under Belgian law, prior to distributing dividends, we must allocate an amount of 5% of our annual net profit on an unconsolidated basis to a legal reserve in our unconsolidated financial statements until such reserve equals 10% of our share capital. If Belgian corporate law is amended, these and/or other provisions may contain similar restrictions. See “Description of Share Capital and Group Structure Upon Completion of Our Redomiciliation.” Accordingly, investors cannot rely on cash dividend income from ADSs and any returns on an investment in the ADSs will likely depend entirely upon any future appreciation in the price of the ADSs.

Holders of our ordinary shares outside the Netherlands, or, if we complete our redomiciliation, Belgium, and ADS holders, may not be able to exercise preemptive rights.

In the event of an increase in our share capital, holders of our ordinary shares are generally entitled under Dutch law to full preemptive rights, unless these rights are excluded either by a resolution of the shareholders at the General Meeting, or by a resolution of the board of directors (if the board of directors has been designated by the shareholders at the General Meeting for this purpose). If we complete our redomiciliation, in the event of a share capital increase for cash by way of the issue of new shares, or in the event of an issue of shares, convertible bonds or warrants, or equity interests, all our shareholders will generally have a preferential subscription right unless these rights are restricted or canceled either by a resolution of the shareholders at the General Meeting or by a resolution of our board of directors in Belgium, or our Belgian Board, (if the Belgian Board has been authorized by the shareholders at the General Meeting for

this purpose). See “Description of Share Capital and Group Structure Upon Completion of Our Redomiciliation—Preferential Subscription Rights.” If Belgian corporate law is amended, these and/or similar provisions may contain similar rights. See “Description of Share Capital and Group Structure Upon Completion of Our Redomiciliation.” However, making preemptive rights available to holders of ordinary shares or ADSs representing ordinary shares also requires compliance with applicable securities laws in the jurisdictions where holders of those securities are located, which we may be unable or unwilling to do. In particular, holders of ordinary shares located in the United States and holders of the ADSs would not be able to participate in a preemptive rights offering unless we registered the securities to which the rights relate under the Securities Act or an exemption from the registration requirements of that Act is available. In addition, ADS holders would not be able to participate in a preemptive rights offering unless we made arrangements with the depositary to extend that offering to ADS holders, which we are not required to do.

We are a Dutch European public company with limited liability (Societas Europaea or SE). If we complete our redomiciliation, we will be a Belgian European public company with limited liability (Societas Europaea or SE). The rights of our shareholders may be different from the rights of shareholders in companies governed by the laws of U.S. jurisdictions.

We are a Dutch European public company with limited liability ( Societas Europaea or SE ). If we complete our redomiciliation, we will be a Belgian European public company with limited liability ( Societas Europaea or SE ). Our corporate affairs are, or will be, governed by our Articles of Association and by the laws governing companies incorporated in the Netherlands, and if we complete our redomiciliation, by our Belgian Articles of Association and by the laws governing companies incorporated in Belgium, respectively. The rights of shareholders and the responsibilities of members of our board of directors or if our redomiciliation is completed our Belgian Board may be different from the rights and obligations of shareholders in companies governed by the laws of U.S. jurisdictions. In the performance of its duties, our board of directors is required by Dutch law to, and the Belgian Board may under Belgian law, consider the interests of our company, our shareholders, our employees and other stakeholders, in all cases with due observation of the principles of reasonableness and fairness. It is possible that some of these parties will have interests that are different from, or in addition to, your interests as a shareholder. See “Item 16G.—Corporate Governance”  and “Description of Share Capital and Group Structure Upon Completion of Our Redomiciliation—Comparison of Belgian Corporate Law and U.S. Corporate Law—Corporate Governance.”

We are not obligated to, and do not comply with, all the best practice provisions of the Dutch Corporate Governance Code, and we do not expect to comply with all principles and provisions of the Belgian Corporate Governance Code if we complete our redomiciliation, which may affect your rights as a shareholder.

As a Dutch European public company with limited liability ( Societas Europaea or SE ), we are subject to the Dutch Corporate Governance Code dated December 8, 2016, which is in force as of the financial year starting on or after January 1, 2017, or the DCGC. The DCGC contains both principles and best practice provisions for board of directors, management boards, supervisory boards, shareholders and general meetings of shareholders, financial reporting, auditors, disclosure, compliance and enforcement standards. The DCGC applies to all Dutch companies listed on a regulated market, including Euronext Brussels. The principles and best practice provisions apply to our board of directors (in relation to role and composition, conflicts of interest and independency requirements, board committees and remuneration), shareholders and the General Meeting (for example, regarding anti‑takeover protection and our obligations to provide information to our shareholders) and financial reporting (such as external auditor and internal audit requirements). We do not comply with all the best practice provisions of the DCGC. As a Dutch company, we are required to disclose in our annual report, filed in the Netherlands, whether we comply with the provisions of the DCGC. If we do not comply with the provisions of the DCGC (for example, because of a conflicting Nasdaq requirement or otherwise), we must list the reasons for any deviation from the DCGC in our annual report. See “Item 16G.—Corporate Governance.”

If we complete our redomiciliation, as a Belgian European public company with limited liability ( Societas Europaea or SE ), we will be subject to the Belgian Corporate Governance Code of March 12, 2009, or the Belgian Corporate Governance Code. The Belgian Corporate Governance Code contains principles, provisions and guidelines for the management and control of companies. The Belgian Corporate Governance Code applies to all Belgian companies listed on a regulated market, including Euronext Brussels. If we complete our redomiciliation, the principles, provisions