PART I

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. See “Cautionary Statement with Respect to Forward-Looking Statements.” 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 €28.1 million and €66.6 million for the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2018, respectively. As of December 31, 2018, we had accumulated losses of €169.6 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 addition, we expect to continue to incur significant costs associated with our listings in the United States and in

Europe. In the future, we intend to continue to conduct research and development, preclinical testing, clinical trials and regulatory compliance activities, and we intend to establish a sales, marketing and distribution infrastructure. These expenses, together with anticipated 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.

Our future capital requirements for efgartigimod, cusatuzumab (ARGX-110) or our preclinical programs will depend on many factors, including:

We expect that the costs of development and commercialization will significantly increase due to the extended product development roadmap for cusatuzumab as part of our collaboration with Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., or Janssen. Although this collaboration agreement provides a joint decision process to approve the development plan as well as the budget, we will not control the actual amounts spent within such approved budget and we cannot control or guarantee that these funds are spent in the most efficient way.

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. As a result, we will need additional financing to support our continuing operations. Until such time as we can generate significant revenue from product sales, if ever, we expect to finance our operations through a combination of public or private equity or debt financings or other sources, which may include collaborations with third parties. Adequate additional financing may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all. 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.   The inability for us to raise capital as and when needed would have a negative impact on our financial condition and our ability to pursue our business strategy. As a result, 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 ADSs restrict our operations or require us to relinquish rights to our technologies or product candidates.

In order to further advance development of our product candidates, discover additional product candidates and pursue our other business objectives, 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, efgartigimod, completed a Phase 2 clinical trial for the treatment of MG and ITP. In September 2018, we launched our first Phase 3 clinical trial in MG. We also have a third ongoing Phase 2 clinical trial of efgartigimod for the treatment of PV and announced the analysis of efgartigimod in a fourth indication, CIDP. We also concluded a

Phase 1 clinical trial of a subcutaneous formulation of efgartigimod 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 and commercializing 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 efgartigimod and cusatuzumab, 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‑116 and ARGX‑117, 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. 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, we have observed adverse events and treatment emergent adverse events in our clinical studies to date, and we may see additional adverse events and TEAEs in our  ongoing and future trials, which may be more serious than those observed to date, and as a result, our ongoing and future trials may not support this conclusion.

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 efgartigimod, are based on our SIMPLE Antibody TM 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 TM platform, our NHance ® and ABDEG TM 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 field 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, or GSK, (Benlysta/lupus); F. Hoffman-La Roche AG, or Roche (Rituxan/often used off label); and 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. is selling 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; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; UCB S.A.; Ra Pharmaceuticals; and Momenta Pharmaceuticals, among others, are developing drugs that may have utility for the treatment of MG. We are aware that Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Dova Pharmaceuticals; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Immunomedics; Protalex, Inc.; Principia Biopharma and others are developing drugs that may have utility for the treatment of ITP. We are aware that Roche is selling Rituxan for the treatment of moderate to severe PV and Principia, Alexion 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.; Alexion; Immunovant; and Affibody.

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 Daurismo (Pfizer), 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 cusatuzumab in the future, if it is approved. We anticipate that we will face intense and increasing competition as new treatments enter the market and advanced technologies become available.

There are several monoclonal antibody drug discovery companies 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 ABBV-151 (formerly named 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 U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the European Medicines Agency 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:

Since its enactment, some of the provisions of the ACA have yet to be fully implemented, while certain provisions have been subject to judicial, congressional, and executive challenges. As a result, there have been delays in the implementation of, and action taken to repeal or replace, certain aspects of the ACA. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld certain key aspects of the legislation, including a tax-based shared responsibility payment imposed on certain individuals who fail to maintain qualifying health coverage for all or part of a year, which is commonly known as the requirement that all individuals maintain health insurance coverage or pay a penalty, referred to as the “individual mandate.” However, as a result of tax reform legislation passed in December 2017, the individual mandate has been eliminated effective January 1, 2019. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the repeal of the individual mandate will cause 13 million fewer Americans to be insured in 2027 and premiums in insurance markets may rise.

Since January 2017, President Trump has signed several executive orders and other directives designed to delay, circumvent, or loosen certain requirements mandated by the ACA. One such Executive Order terminates the cost-sharing subsidies that reimburse insurers under the ACA. Several state Attorneys General filed suit to stop the administration from terminating the subsidies, but their request for a restraining order was denied by a federal judge in California on October 25, 2017. The loss of the cost share reduction payments is expected to increase premiums on certain policies issued by qualified health plans under the ACA. Further, on June 14, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that the federal government was not required to pay more than $12 billion in ACA risk corridor payments to third-party payors who argued were owed to them. The effects of this gap in reimbursement on third-party payors, the viability of the ACA marketplace, providers, and potentially our business, are not yet known.

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, it has enacted laws that modify certain provisions of the ACA, such as removing or delaying penalties, starting January 1, 2019, for not complying with the ACA’s individual mandate to carry health insurance, delaying the implementation of certain ACA-mandated fees, and increasing the point-of-sale discount that is owed by pharmaceutical manufacturers who participate in Medicare Part D. On December 14, 2018, a U.S. District Court judge in the Northern District of Texas ruled that the individual mandate portion of the ACA is an essential and inseverable feature of the ACA, and therefore because the mandate was repealed as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the remaining provisions of the ACA are invalid as well. The Trump administration and CMS have both stated that the ruling will have no immediate effect, and on December 30, 2018, the same judge issued an order staying the judgment pending appeal. It is unclear how this decision and any subsequent appeals and other efforts to repeal and replace the ACA will impact the ACA and our business. Litigation and legislation over the ACA are likely to continue, with unpredictable and uncertain results. We will continue to evaluate the effect that the ACA and its possible repeal and replacement has on 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 2012 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 2027 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. the Trump administration’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2019 contains further drug price control measures that could be enacted during the 2019 budget process or in other future legislation, including, for example, measures to permit Medicare Part D plans to negotiate the price of certain drugs under Medicare Part B, to allow some states to negotiate drug prices under Medicaid, and to eliminate cost sharing for generic drugs for low-income patients. Additionally, the Trump administration released a "Blueprint" to lower drug prices and reduce out of pocket costs of drugs that contains additional proposals to increase manufacturer competition, increase the negotiating power of certain federal healthcare programs, incentivize manufacturers to lower the list price of their products and reduce the out of pocket costs of drug products paid by consumers. While any proposed measures will require authorization through additional legislation to become effective, Congress and the Trump administration have each indicated that it will continue to seek new legislative and/or administrative measures to control drug costs. At the state level, legislatures are increasingly 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.

CMS may develop new payment and delivery models, such as bundled payment models. CMS has recently proposed regulations that would give states greater flexibility in setting benchmarks for insurers in the individual and small group marketplaces, which may have the effect of relaxing the essential health benefits required under the ACA for plans sold through such marketplaces. On November 30, 2018, CMS announced a proposed rule that would amend the Medicare Advantage and Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit regulations to reduce out of pocket costs for plan enrollees and allow Medicare plans to negotiate lower rates for certain drugs. Among other things, the proposed rule changes would allow Medicare Advantage plans to use pre authorization (PA) and step therapy (ST) for six protected classes of drugs and, with certain exceptions, permit plans to implement PA and ST in Medicare Part B drugs; and change the definition of “negotiated prices” as well as add a definition of “price concession” in the regulations. It is unclear whether these proposed changes will be accepted, and if so, what effect such changes will have on our business.

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 and privacy 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 may 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 other states and countries in which we conduct our business. See also the risk factor titled “We may fail to comply with evolving European and other privacy laws.” below. 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. Defending against any such actions can be costly and time-consuming and may require significant financial and personnel resources. Therefore, even if we are successful in defending against any such actions that may be brought against us, our business may be impaired. Further, if any of the physicians or other healthcare providers or entities with whom we expect to do business is found to be not in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government funded healthcare programs.

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. Furthermore, on January 31, 2019, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and HHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) proposed an amendment to one of the existing Anti-Kickback safe harbors (42 C.F.R. 1001.952(h)) which would prohibit certain pharmaceutical manufacturers from offering rebates to pharmacy benefit managers (“PBMs”) in the Medicare Part D and Medicaid managed care programs. The proposed amendment would remove protection for "discounts" from Anti-Kickback enforcement action, and would include criminal and civil penalties for knowingly and willfully offering, paying, soliciting, or receiving remuneration to induce or reward the referral of business reimbursable under federal health care programs. At the same time, HHS also proposed to create a new safe harbor to protect point-of-sale discounts that drug manufacturers provide directly to patients, and adds another safe harbor to protect certain administrative fees paid by manufacturers to PBMs. If this proposal is adopted, in whole or in part, it could affect the pricing and reimbursement for any products for which we receive approval in the future. 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.

We may fail to comply with evolving European and other privacy laws.

In Europe, Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of October 24, 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, or the Directive, and Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of July 12, 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (as amended by Directive 2009/136/EC), or the e-Privacy-Directive, have required the European Union, or EU member states, to implement data protection laws to meet strict privacy requirements. Violations of these requirements can result in administrative measures, including fines, or criminal sanctions. The e-Privacy Directive will likely be replaced in time by a new e-Privacy Regulation which may impose additional obligations and risk for our business.

Beginning on May 25, 2018, the Directive was replaced by Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of April 27, 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, or the GDPR. The GDPR imposes a broad range of strict requirements on companies subject to the GDPR, such as us, including requirements relating to having legal bases for processing personal information relating to identifiable individuals and transferring such information outside the European Economic Area, or the EEA, including to the United States, providing details to those individuals regarding the processing of their personal information, keeping personal information secure, having data processing agreements with third parties who process personal information, responding to individuals’ requests to exercise their rights in respect of their personal information, reporting security breaches involving personal data to the competent national data protection authority and affected individuals, appointing data protection officers, conducting data protection impact assessments, and record-keeping. The GDPR substantially increases the penalties to which we could be subject in the event of any non-compliance, including fines of up to 10,000,000 Euros or up to 2% of our total worldwide annual turnover for certain comparatively minor offenses, or up to 20,000,000 Euros or up to 4% of our total worldwide annual turnover for more serious offenses. Given the new law, we face uncertainty as to the exact interpretation of the new requirements, and we may be unsuccessful in implementing all measures required by data protection authorities or courts in interpretation of the new law.

In particular, national laws of member states of the EU are in the process of being adapted to the requirements under the GDPR, thereby implementing national laws which may partially deviate from the GDPR and impose different obligations from country to country, so that we do not expect to operate in a uniform legal landscape in the EU. Also, in the field of handling genetic data, the GDPR specifically allows national laws to impose additional and more specific requirements or restrictions, and European laws have historically differed quite substantially in this field, leading to additional uncertainty.

We must also ensure that we maintain adequate safeguards to enable the transfer of personal data outside of the EEA, in particular to the United States in compliance with European data protection laws, including the GDPR. We expect that we will continue to face uncertainty as to whether our efforts to comply with our obligations under European privacy laws will be sufficient. If we are investigated by a European data protection authority, we may face fines and other penalties. Any such investigation or charges by European data protection authorities could have a negative effect on our existing business and on our ability to attract and retain new clients or pharmaceutical partners. We may also experience hesitancy, reluctance, or refusal by European or multi-national clients or pharmaceutical partners to continue to use our products and solutions due to the potential risk exposure as a result of the current (and, in particular, future) data protection obligations imposed on them by certain data protection authorities in interpretation of current law, including the GDPR. Such clients or pharmaceutical partners may also view any alternative approaches to compliance as being too costly, too burdensome, too legally uncertain, or otherwise objectionable and therefore decide not to do business with us. Any of the foregoing could materially harm our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

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 efgartigimod 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.

Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of any product candidates for which we may obtain regulatory approval. 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.

Even if our product candidates are approved for marketing, sales of such product candidates will depend, in part, on the extent to which third-party payors, including government health programs in the United States (such as Medicare and Medicaid), commercial health insurers, and managed care organizations, provide coverage and establish adequate reimbursement levels for such product candidates. 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.

In the United States and markets in other countries, 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 and patients who are prescribed treatments for their conditions and providers performing the prescribed services generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the associated healthcare costs. Patients are unlikely to use any product candidates we may develop unless coverage is provided and reimbursement is adequate to cover a significant portion of the cost of such product candidates. 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. The process for determining whether a payor will provide coverage for a product may be separate from the process for setting the price or reimbursement rate that the payor will pay for the product once coverage is approved. Third-party payors are increasingly challenging the price and examining the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of medical products and services and imposing controls to manage costs, especially on 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 candidates and other therapies to be 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 candidates, pricing of existing drugs may limit the amount we will be able to charge for our product candidates. 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. Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific products on an approved list, also known as a formulary, which might not include all of the approved products for a particular indication.

In order to secure coverage and reimbursement for any product candidate that might be approved for sale, we may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of the product candidate, and the cost of these studies would be in addition to the costs required to obtain FDA or other comparable marketing approvals. Even after pharmacogenomic studies are conducted, product candidates may not be considered medically necessary or cost-effective. A decision by a third-party payor not to cover any product candidates we may develop could reduce physician utilization of such product candidates once approved and have a material adverse effect on our sales, results of operations and financial condition. Additionally, a payor's decision to provide coverage for a product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. For example, the payor may require co-payments that patients find unacceptably high. Further, one payor's determination to provide coverage for a product does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage and reimbursement for the product, and the level of coverage and reimbursement can differ significantly from payor to payor. Third-party reimbursement and coverage may not be adequate to enable us to maintain price levels sufficient to realize an appropriate return on our investment in product development. The insurance coverage and reimbursement status of newly-approved products for orphan diseases is particularly uncertain, and failure to obtain or maintain adequate coverage and reimbursement for any such product candidates could limit our ability to generate revenue.

The containment of healthcare costs also has become a priority for U.S. federal and state and international governments and the prices of pharmaceuticals have been a focus in this effort. Governments have shown

significant interest in implementing cost-containment programs, including price controls, restrictions on reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic products. For example, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, or collectively the ACA, contains provisions that may reduce the profitability of drug products through increased rebates for drugs reimbursed by Medicaid programs, extension of Medicaid rebates to Medicaid managed care plans, and mandatory discounts for certain Medicare Part D beneficiaries and annual fees based on pharmaceutical companies’ share of sales to federal health care programs.   Adoption of price controls and cost-containment measures, and the adoption of more restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could further limit our potential revenue from the sale of any product candidates for which we may obtain approval. Coverage policies and third-party reimbursement rates may change at any time. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for one or more of our product candidates for which we or our collaborators receive marketing approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future. 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.

Further, there have been several recent U.S. congressional inquiries and proposed federal and proposed and enacted state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, reduce the costs of drugs under Medicare and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug products. At the federal level, Congress and the Trump administration have each indicated that it will continue to pursue new legislative and/or administrative measures to control drug costs. Individual state legislatures have become increasingly aggressive in passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing. Some of these measures include price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access, marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, measures designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. In addition, regional health care 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 health care programs. These measures could reduce the ultimate demand for our products, once approved, or put pressure on our product pricing.

Outside the United States, we will face challenges in obtaining adequate coverage and payment for any product candidates we may develop. Pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals is subject to governmental control in many countries. Pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can extend well beyond the receipt of regulatory marketing approval for a product candidate and may require us to conduct a clinical trial that compares the effectiveness of any product candidates we may develop to other available therapies to support cost-effectiveness. The conduct of such a clinical trial could be expensive, involve additional risk and result in delays in our commercialization efforts.

In the European Union, pricing and reimbursement schemes vary widely from country to country. Some countries provide that products may be marketed only after a reimbursement price has been agreed upon. Some countries may require the completion of additional studies that compare the cost-effectiveness of a particular product candidate to currently available therapies (so called health technology assessments, or HTAs) in order to obtain reimbursement or pricing approval. For example, the European Union provides options for its member states to restrict the range of products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices of medicinal products for human use. European Union member states may approve a specific price for a product or may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the product on the market. Other member states allow companies to fix their own prices for products, but monitor and control prescription volumes and issue guidance to physicians to limit prescriptions. Recently, many countries in the European Union have increased the amount of discounts required on pharmaceuticals, and these efforts could continue as countries attempt to manage healthcare expenditures, especially in light of the severe

fiscal and debt crises experienced by many countries in the European Union. Political, economic and regulatory developments may further complicate pricing negotiations, and pricing negotiations may continue after reimbursement has been obtained. Reference pricing used by various European Union member states and parallel trade (arbitrage between low-priced and high-priced member states) can further reduce prices. Special pricing and reimbursement rules may apply to orphan drugs. Inclusion of orphan drugs in reimbursement systems tend to focus on the medical usefulness, need, quality and economic benefits to patients and the healthcare system in relation to those drugs. Acceptance of any medicinal product for reimbursement may come with cost, use and often volume restrictions, which again can vary by country. In addition, results-based rules of reimbursement may apply. There can be no assurance that any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for pharmaceutical products will allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements for any of our product candidates, if approved in those countries.

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.

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.

Healthcare providers and third-party payors play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of our pharmaceutical product candidates even if they are granted marketing approval. We may not be able to successfully achieve support among such third parties for our product candidates, and our relationships with such parties are subject to regulations.

Our current and future arrangements with providers, researchers, consultants, third-party payors and customers are subject to broadly applicable federal and state fraud and abuse, anti-kickback, false claims, transparency and patient privacy laws and regulations and other healthcare laws and regulations that may constrain our business and/or financial arrangements. Restrictions under applicable federal and state healthcare laws and regulations include, without limitation, the following:

Some state laws require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry's voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government in addition to requiring pharmaceutical manufacturers to report information related to payments to physicians and other health care providers or marketing expenditures. State and foreign laws also govern the privacy and security of health information in some circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and often are not pre-empted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts.

We will be required to spend substantial time and money to ensure that our business arrangements with third parties comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations. Recent healthcare reform legislation has strengthened these federal and state healthcare 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.

Violations of these laws can subject us to criminal, civil and administrative sanctions, including monetary penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, individual imprisonment and exclusion from participation in 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 required curtailment or restructuring of our operations. Moreover, we expect that there will continue to be federal and state laws and regulations, proposed and implemented, that could impact our future operations and business.

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 product, 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. We may suffer data leaks or become the target of cyber-attacks, as a result of which our financial assets, confidential information and/or intellectual property may be materially negatively impacted. We may not be able to successfully protect our computer systems against unauthorized access by third parties.

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. Like other companies, we have on occasion experienced, and will continue to experience, threats to our data and systems, including malicious codes and viruses, phishing, business email compromise attacks, or other cyber-attacks. The number and complexity of these threats continue to increase over time. 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. If the integrity of our cybersecurity systems is breached, the effects may be significant, including remediation expenses, lost revenues, litigation costs, and increased insurance premiums and may also experience reputational damage and the

erosion of shareholder value. Furthermore, we may incur additional costs to remedy the damage caused by these disruptions or security breaches.

In order to successfully commercialize and market our products in the future, we may need to implement additional enterprise resource management systems, which is a complex process that may cause us to face delays. We may also need to implement computer systems, such as additional global enterprise research systems, or ERP systems, in which we have limited experience and which may prove a complex process that could cause delays in our commercialization process.

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 Janssen, AbbVie, 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.

For our financial reporting, we are partially dependent on financial information received from our collaborative partners, which we do not control and which may not be received in a timely manner and which may not be accurate. Our reliance on financial information received from our collaboration partners may impact our own internal and external financial reporting and any delay in the provision of such financial information to us or any failure by us to identify mistakes in the financial information provided to us may cause our own financial statements to be partially inaccurate.

We have collaborated, and plan to continue to collaborate, with third parties on product candidates that we believe have promising utility in disease areas or patient populations that are better served by resources of larger biopharmaceutical companies. See “Collaborations” in “Item 4B.—Business Overview” for a more detailed description of these collaborations. As part of some of these collaborations, our collaboration partners are responsible for providing us with financial information regarding specific projects, including funds spent, liabilities incurred and expected future costs, on which we rely for our own financial reporting. In the event that our collaboration partners fail to provide us with the necessary financial information within the agreed upon timeframes, or if such financial information proves partially inaccurate, this is likely to impact the accuracy of our own financial reporting. Any inaccuracy in our financial reporting could cause investors to lose confidence in our financial reporting, which may negatively impact the price of our ADSs.

Risks Related to Intellectual Property

We rely on patents and other intellectual property rights to protect our product candidates and the SIMPLE Antibody TM , NHance ® and ABDEG TM 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 TM , NHance ® and ABDEG TM 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 TM , NHance ® and ABDEG TM 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 TM , NHance ® and ABDEG TM 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 cusatuzumab and ARGX‑111. The patent relating to cusatuzumab 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 involves 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 we or our employees or consultants 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; Keith Woods, our Chief Operating 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; 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, commercial, regulatory and financial 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 years 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 Janssen, 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.

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 the Nasdaq Stock Exchange and with the majority of our operations outside the Netherlands.

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 outside the Netherlands. For example, we 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.

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 underway 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 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, 2018, we had €117.1 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.

Furthermore, as explained in detail in “Item 4.A.—History and Development of the Company—Overview of Our Restructuring and Possible Redomiciliation,” we have effected a restructuring of our intellectual property rights involving a transfer of those rights from argenx SE to our Belgian subsidiary argenx BVBA. The restructuring resulted in a taxable amount for argenx SE of €2.4 million, subject to Dutch corporate income tax, and an elimination of its tax loss carryforward for Dutch corporate income tax purposes in an amount of €77.5 million. The restructuring is expected to bring additional deductible costs to the Belgian BVBA for an amount of up to €80 million. However, whether we will be allowed to treat the amount of €80 million as a deductible cost for the Belgian BVBA depends on the outcome of a ruling procedure we have initiated and of which we do not control the outcome. We may not obtain the tax ruling from the Belgian ruling commission, and we may not be allowed to treat the amount of €80 million as a deductible cost for the Belgian BVBA, which would lead to a loss of deductible costs. If the company would become profitable in the future, and these deductible costs are not or no longer useable, we may face a higher tax burden as a result thereof, which would impact our operating results and financial condition for the relevant period.

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.

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.

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 our 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.

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.

Sales of a substantial number of our ADSs and ordinary shares in the public market, or the perception that these sales might occur, could depress the market price of our ADSs and ordinary shares and could impair our

ability to raise capital through the sale of additional equity securities. We are also unable to predict the effect that such sales may have on the prevailing market price of our ADSs and ordinary shares.

Fluctuations in exchange rates may increase the risk of holding our 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 Janssen ,   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 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, 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 and our follow-on U.S. public offerings completed in December 2017 and September 2018. 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 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.

Holders of our ordinary shares outside the Netherlands, and ADS holders may not be able to exercise pre-emptive rights or preferential subscription rights, respectively.

In the event of an increase in our share capital, holders of our ordinary shares are generally entitled under Dutch law to full pre-emptive 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).

However, making pre-emptive 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 or ADSs located in the United States would not be able to participate in a pre-emptive 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 pre-emptive 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). 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). Our corporate affairs are governed by our Articles of Association and by the laws governing companies incorporated in the Netherlands. The rights of shareholders and the responsibilities of members of our board of directors 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 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.

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 compliance initiatives and corporate governance practices.

As a public 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 ). 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 are and will continue to 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. We ceased to be an emerging growth company on December 31, 2018, and, as such, are now 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 challenging and involves substantial accounting expenses. In this regard, we will need to continue to dedicate internal resources, including significant management time, 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 7A.—Major Shareholders.” As of the date of this annual report, these significant shareholders and their affiliates, in the aggregate, own approximately 33.6% of our ordinary shares and ADSs.

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.

Provisions of our Articles of Association or Dutch 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. 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.

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. 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.

We are not obligated to, and do not comply with, all the best practice provisions of the Dutch Corporate Governance Code, 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, 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.”

Claims of U.S. civil liabilities may not be enforceable against us.

We are incorporated under the laws of the Netherlands, and if we complete our possible redomiciliation we will be incorporated under the laws of Belgium. Substantially all of our assets are located outside the United States. The majority of the members of our board of directors reside outside the United States. As a result, it may not be possible for investors to effect service of process within the United States upon such persons or to enforce against them or us in U.S. courts, including judgments predicated upon the civil liability provisions of the U.S. federal securities laws.

The United States currently does not have a treaty with either the Netherlands or Belgium providing for the reciprocal recognition and enforcement of judgments, other than arbitration awards, in civil and commercial

matters. Consequently, a final judgment for payment given by a court in the United States, whether or not predicated solely upon U.S. securities laws, would not automatically be recognized or enforceable in the Netherlands or Belgium. In order to obtain a judgment which is enforceable in the Netherlands, the party in whose favor a final and conclusive judgment of the U.S. court has been rendered will be required to file its claim with a court of competent jurisdiction in the Netherlands. Such party may submit to the Dutch court the final judgment rendered by the U.S. court. If and to the extent that the Dutch court finds that the jurisdiction of the U.S. court has been based on grounds which are internationally acceptable and that proper legal procedures have been observed, the court of the Netherlands will, in principle, give binding effect to the judgment of the U.S. court, unless such judgment contravenes principles of public policy of the Netherlands. Dutch courts may deny the recognition and enforcement of punitive damages or other awards. Moreover, a Dutch court may reduce the amount of damages granted by a U.S. court and recognize damages only to the extent that they are necessary to compensate actual losses or damages. Enforcement and recognition of judgments of U.S. courts in the Netherlands are solely governed by the provisions of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure ( Wetboek van Burgerlijke Rechtsvordering ).

In order to obtain a judgment for the payment of money based on civil liability which is enforceable in Belgium, the judgment must be recognized and be declared enforceable by a Belgian court pursuant to the relevant provisions of the 2004 Belgian Code of Private International Law, or the PIL Code. Recognition or enforcement does not imply a review of the merits of the case and is irrespective of any reciprocity requirement. A U.S. judgment will, however, not be recognized or declared enforceable in Belgium if it infringes upon one or more of the grounds for refusal which are listed in article 25 of the PIL Code. In addition to recognition or enforcement, a judgment by a federal or state court in the United States against us may also serve as evidence in a similar action in a Belgian court if it meets the conditions required for the authenticity of judgments according to the law of the state where it was rendered. In addition, with regard to enforcements by legal proceedings in Belgium (including the recognition of foreign court decisions in Belgium), a registration tax at the rate of 3% of the amount of the judgment is payable by the debtor, if the sum of money which the debtor is ordered to pay by a Belgian court, or by a foreign court judgment that is either (i) automatically enforceable and registered in Belgium, or (ii) rendered enforceable by a Belgian court, exceeds €12,500. The registration tax is payable by the debtor. The debtor is liable for the payment of the registration tax, in the proportion determined by the decision ordering payment or liquidation or determining priority for creditors made or established against it. The debtor(s) are jointly and severally liable in the event that they are ordered to pay jointly and severally. A stamp duty is payable for each original copy of an enforcement judgment rendered by a Belgian court, with a maximum of €1,450.

Based on the lack of a treaty as described above, U.S. investors may not be able to enforce against us or members of our board of directors or certain experts named herein who are residents of the Netherlands or Belgium or countries other than the United States any judgments obtained in U.S. courts in civil and commercial matters, including judgments under the U.S. federal securities laws.

We are a foreign private issuer and, as a result, we are not subject to U.S. proxy rules and are subject to Exchange Act reporting obligations that, to some extent, are more lenient and less frequent than those of a U.S. domestic public company.

We report under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, as a non‑U.S. company with foreign private issuer status. Because we qualify as a foreign private issuer under the Exchange Act, we are exempt from certain provisions of the Exchange Act that are applicable to U.S. domestic public companies, including (i) the sections of the Exchange Act regulating the solicitation of proxies, consents or authorizations in respect of a security registered under the Exchange Act; (ii) the sections of the Exchange Act requiring insiders to file public reports of their stock ownership and trading activities and liability for insiders who profit from trades made in a short period of time; and (iii) the rules under the Exchange Act requiring the filing with the SEC of quarterly reports on Form 10‑Q containing unaudited financial and other specified information, or current reports on Form 8‑K, upon the occurrence of specified significant events. In addition, foreign private issuers are not required to file their annual report on Form 20‑F until 120 days after the end of each fiscal year, while U.S. domestic issuers that are accelerated filers are required to file their annual report on Form 10‑K within 75 days after the end of each fiscal year. Foreign private issuers are also exempt from the Regulation Fair Disclosure, aimed at preventing issuers from making selective disclosures of material information. As a result of the above,

you may not have the same protections afforded to shareholders of companies that are not foreign private issuers. However, we are subject to Dutch laws and regulations, and if we complete our possible redomiciliation, Belgian laws and regulations, with regard to such matters and intend to furnish quarterly unaudited financial information to the SEC on Form 6‑K.

As a foreign private issuer and as permitted by the listing requirements of Nasdaq, we rely on certain home country governance practices rather than the corporate governance requirements of Nasdaq.

We qualify as a foreign private issuer. As a result, in accordance with the listing requirements of Nasdaq, we rely on home country governance requirements and certain exemptions thereunder rather than relying on the corporate governance requirements of Nasdaq. In accordance with Dutch law and generally accepted business practices, our Articles of Association do not provide quorum requirements generally applicable to General Meetings. To this extent, our practice varies from the requirement of Nasdaq Listing Rule 5620(c), which requires an issuer to provide in its bylaws for a generally applicable quorum, and that such quorum may not be less than one‑third of the outstanding voting stock. Although we must provide shareholders with an agenda and other relevant documents for the General Meeting, Dutch law does not have a regulatory regime for the solicitation of proxies and the solicitation of proxies is not a generally accepted business practice in the Netherlands, thus our practice will vary from the requirement of Nasdaq Listing Rule 5620(b). In addition, we have opted out of certain Dutch shareholder approval requirements for the issuance of securities in connection with certain events such as the acquisition of stock or assets of another company, the establishment of or amendments to equity‑based compensation plans for employees, a change of control of us and certain private placements. To this extent, our practice varies from the requirements of Nasdaq Rule 5635, which generally requires an issuer to obtain shareholder approval for the issuance of securities in connection with such events. For an overview of our corporate governance principles, see “Item 16G.—Corporate Governance.” Accordingly, you may not have the same protections afforded to shareholders of companies that are subject to these Nasdaq requirements.

We may lose our foreign private issuer status which would then require us to comply with the Exchange Act’s domestic reporting regime and cause us to incur significant legal, accounting and other expenses.

We are a foreign private issuer, and therefore we are not required to comply with all of the periodic disclosure and current reporting requirements of the Exchange Act applicable to U.S. domestic issuers. We may no longer be a foreign private issuer as of June 30, 2019 (the end of our second fiscal quarter in the fiscal year after our initial U.S. public offering), which would require us to comply with all of the periodic disclosure and current reporting requirements of the Exchange Act applicable to U.S. domestic issuers as of January 1, 2020 and would also trigger a 10-K filing for the year ended December 31, 2019. In order to maintain our current status as a foreign private issuer, either (a) a majority of our ordinary shares must be either directly or indirectly owned of record by non‑residents of the United States or (b)(i) a majority of our executive officers or directors may not be U.S. citizens or residents, (ii) more than 50% of our assets cannot be located in the United States and (iii) our business must be administered principally outside the United States. As of March 22, 2019, we believe at least 50% of our outstanding ordinary shares were held by U.S. residents (assuming that all our ordinary shares represented by ADSs were held by residents of the United States). If we lose this status, we would be required to comply with the Exchange Act reporting and other requirements applicable to U.S. domestic issuers, which are more detailed and extensive than the requirements for foreign private issuers. We may also be required to make changes in our corporate governance practices in accordance with various SEC and Nasdaq rules. The regulatory and compliance costs to us under U.S. securities laws if we are required to comply with the reporting requirements applicable to a U.S. domestic issuer may be significantly higher than the cost we would incur as a foreign private issuer. As a result, we expect that a loss of foreign private issuer status would increase our legal and financial compliance costs and would make some activities highly time consuming and costly. We also expect that if we were required to comply with the rules and regulations applicable to U.S. domestic issuers, it would make it more difficult and expensive for us to obtain director and officer liability insurance, and we may be required to accept reduced coverage or incur substantially higher costs to obtain coverage. These rules and regulations could also make it more difficult for us to attract and retain qualified members of our board of directors.

We may lose our status as a Small or Medium Size Enterprise as defined under the European Commission Recommendation of 6 May 2003 (Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC).

We currently qualify as a “Small or Medium Size Enterprise,” or SME, as defined in European Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC, which status is assigned upon application to the European Medicines Agencies for two-year periods to companies meeting certain requirements. Our SME status has been granted for the period from January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2019, after which we may apply for renewal of the SME status. We will only be able to apply for extension of this status if we meet the criteria set out in the European Commission Recommendation of 6 May 2003 regarding SME status at the time of our application for renewal. We will only qualify for renewing our SME status if (i) we have less than 250 employees, and (ii) we either have (a) an annual turnover of less than €50 million or (b) an annual balance sheet total of less than €43 million. On December 31, 2018, we had 105 employees, our annual turnover for the period ending December 31, 2018 totaled €21.5 million and our balance sheet totaled €578.5 million.

If the SME-status is no longer applicable to us for any period following December 31, 2019, we will lose certain benefits currently available to us as a result of qualifying as an SME, including:

Whereas not all of these available benefits are currently used by us, we may want to use some or all of these benefits in the future, which we will not be able to do if we no longer qualify as an SME. As a result, we may face an increased financial burden because certain fee-exemptions no longer apply to us, and we may incur costs to obtain services or assistance currently offered by the EMA from third party service providers.

If we fail to maintain an effective system of internal control over financial reporting, we may not be able to accurately report our financial results or prevent fraud. As a result, shareholders could lose confidence in our financial and other public reporting, which would harm our business and the trading price of the ADSs.

Effective internal controls over financial reporting are necessary for us to provide reliable financial reports and, together with adequate disclosure controls and procedures, are designed to prevent fraud. Any failure to implement required new or improved controls, or difficulties encountered in their implementation could cause us to fail to meet our reporting obligations. In addition, any testing by us conducted in connection with Section 404, or any subsequent testing by our independent registered public accounting firm, may reveal deficiencies in our

internal controls over financial reporting that are deemed to be material weaknesses or that may require prospective or retroactive changes to our financial statements or identify other areas for further attention or improvement. Inferior internal controls could also cause investors to lose confidence in our reported financial information, which could have a negative effect on the trading price of the ADSs.

Our management is required to assess the effectiveness of our internal controls and procedures annually. We ceased to be an emerging growth company on December 31, 2018, and, as such, we will no longer be able to avail ourselves of exemptions from various reporting requirements applicable to other public companies but not to “emerging growth companies.” For example, Section 404 requires us to perform system and process evaluation and testing of our internal control over financial reporting to allow management to report on, and our independent registered public accounting firm potentially to attest to, the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting. We previously availed ourselves of the exemption from the requirement that our independent registered public accounting firm attest to the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting under Section 404. However, we are no longer able to avail ourselves of this exemption. Our management is required to issue an annual report on internal control over financial reporting, and our independent registered public accounting firm is now required to undertake an assessment of our internal control over financial reporting, which could detect problems that our management's assessment might not. Undetected material weaknesses in our internal controls could lead to financial statement restatements and require us to incur the expense of remediation. The rules governing the standards that must be met for our management to assess our internal control over financial reporting pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act are complex and require significant documentation, testing and possible remediation. These stringent standards require that our audit committee be advised and regularly updated on management’s review of internal control over financial reporting in connection with issuing our consolidated financial statements as of and for the year ended December 31, 2018.

Moreover, if we are not able to comply with the requirements of Section 404 applicable to us in a timely manner, or if we or our independent registered public accounting firm identifies deficiencies in our internal control over financial reporting that are deemed to be material weaknesses, the market price of the ADSs or ordinary shares could decline, and we could be subject to sanctions or investigations by the SEC or other regulatory authorities, which would require additional financial and management resources. Furthermore, investor perceptions of our company may suffer if deficiencies are found, and this could cause a decline in the market price of the ADSs or ordinary shares. Irrespective of compliance with Section 404, any failure of our internal control over financial reporting could have a material adverse effect on our stated operating results and harm our reputation. If we are unable to implement these requirements effectively or efficiently, it could harm our operations, financial reporting, or financial results and could result in an adverse opinion on our internal control over financial reporting from our independent registered public accounting firm.

We have identified material weaknesses relating to the effectiveness of risk assessment, design and operating effectiveness of control activities, information and communication and monitoring activities as of December 31, 2018. If our remediation of these material weaknesses is not effective, or if we experience additional material weaknesses in the future or otherwise fail to maintain an effective system of internal controls in the future, we may not be able to accurately or timely report our financial condition or results of operations, which may adversely affect investor confidence in us and, as a result, the value of the ADSs.

In connection with the risk assessment process and the design and implementation of our updated internal control frameworks as of December 31, 2018, we identified material weaknesses relating to the effectiveness of risk assessment, design and implementation and operating effectiveness of control Activities, information and communication and monitoring activities as of December 31, 2018. A material weakness is a deficiency, or combination of deficiencies, in internal control over financial reporting such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of our financial statements will not be prevented or detected on a timely basis. The company commenced the risk assessment process and the design and implementation of updated internal control frameworks for activities related to argenx. These processes covered the following activities: revenues and accounts receivable, other income, expenditure and payables, the financial closing and reporting process and general information technology controls, or GITC. The GITC deficiencies are related to the financial reporting system and the scope and conclusion of the service auditors’ reports for the service organizations used by argenx’s

accounting software. These risk assessment activities were undertaken to establish control frameworks necessary to support the company. However, the risk assessment process and the design and implementation of these control frameworks were not completed as of December 31, 2018, and certain business process controls and GITCs were not implemented in a timely manner to operate with a sufficient number of instances or for a sufficient period of time to have effective monitoring activities as of December 31, 2018.

We are implementing measures designed to improve our internal control over financial reporting to remediate these material weaknesses, including the following:

We cannot assure you that the measures we have taken to date, and are continuing to implement, will be sufficient to remediate the material weaknesses we have identified or avoid potential future material weaknesses. If the steps we take do not correct the material weaknesses in a timely manner, we will be unable to conclude that we maintain effective internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, there could continue to be a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of our financial statements would not be prevented or detected on a timely basis.

As a public company, we are required to maintain internal control over financial reporting and to report any material weaknesses in such internal controls. Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires that we evaluate and determine the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting and provide a management report on internal control over financial reporting. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act also requires that our management report on internal control over financial reporting be attested to by our independent registered public accounting firm.

We are in the process of designing and implementing the internal control over financial reporting required to comply with this obligation, which process will be time consuming, costly and complicated. If we identify any additional material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting, if we are unable to comply with the requirements of Section 404 in a timely manner, if we are unable to assert that our internal control over financial reporting is effective, or when required in the future, if our independent registered public accounting firm is unable to express an opinion as to the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting, investors may lose confidence in the accuracy and completeness of our financial reports and the market price of the ADSs could be adversely affected, and we could become subject to investigations by the Nasdaq Global Select Market or Euronext Brussels, the SEC, or other regulatory authorities, which could require additional financial and management resources.

If securities or industry analysts cease coverage of us, or publish inaccurate or unfavorable research about our business, the price of the ADSs and our trading volume could decline.

The trading market for the ADSs will depend in part on the research and reports that securities or industry analysts publish about us or our business. If no or too few securities or industry analysts cover us, the trading price for the ADSs would likely be negatively affected. If one or more of the analysts who cover us downgrade the ADSs or publish inaccurate or unfavorable research about our business, the price of the ADSs would likely decline. If one

or more of these analysts cease coverage of us or fail to publish reports on us regularly, demand for the ADSs could decrease, which might cause the price of the ADSs and trading volume to decline.

We do not anticipate being treated as a passive foreign investment company, or PFIC, for U.S. federal income tax purposes for the 2018 taxable year, but this conclusion is a factual determination that is made annually and thus may be subject to change. If we were to qualify as a PFIC, this could result in adverse U.S. tax consequences to certain U.S. holders.

Generally, if, for any taxable year, at least 75% of our gross income is passive income, or at least 50% of the value of our assets is attributable to assets that produce passive income or are held for the production of passive income, including cash, we would be characterized as a passive foreign investment company, or PFIC, for U.S. federal income tax purposes. For purposes of these tests, passive income includes dividends, interest, and gains from the sale or exchange of investment property and rents and royalties other than rents and royalties which are received from unrelated parties in connection with the active conduct of a trade or business. Our status as a PFIC depends on the composition of our income and the composition and value of our assets (for which purpose the total value of our assets may be determined in part by the market value of the ordinary shares and the ADSs, which are subject to change) from time to time. If we are characterized as a PFIC, U.S. holders of ADSs may suffer adverse tax consequences, including having gains realized on the sale of ADSs treated as ordinary income, rather than capital gain, the loss of the preferential rate applicable to dividends received on ADSs by individuals who are U.S. holders, and having interest charges apply to distributions by us and the proceeds of sales of ADSs. See “Item 10.E—Taxation—Certain Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Considerations to U.S. Holders—Passive Foreign Investment Company Considerations.”

Based upon the expected value of our assets, including any goodwill, and the expected composition of our income and assets, we do not anticipate being treated as a PFIC with respect to the 2018 taxable year. However, our status as a PFIC is a fact‑intensive determination made on an annual basis, and we cannot provide any assurances regarding our PFIC status for the current, prior or future taxable years.

Overview of Our Restructuring and Possible Redomiciliation

Background

From our incorporation in 2008 until August 28, 2009, our research and development activities were performed in the Netherlands by argenx N.V. and its legal predecessors arGEN-X B.V. and arGEN-X N.V. On August 28, 2009, we moved our research and development activities to Belgium for various business reasons. Accordingly, as of August 28, 2009, our wholly owned subsidiary, argenx BVBA, or the Belgian BVBA, has performed all research and development activities under a license provided by argenx N.V. and has assigned all resulting intellectual property rights to argenx N.V. As a consequence, argenx N.V. remained the legal owner of the intellectual property rights relating to our platform technologies until these intellectual property rights were transferred to argenx BVBA on May 5, 2017 as described below.

Since all our research and development activities have been performed by the Belgian BVBA since August 28, 2009, we considered that value creation was not adequately aligned with our intellectual property ownership structures as required under the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting project of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. In order to achieve such alignment, on May 5, 2017, we transferred the legal ownership of all intellectual property rights of argenx SE to the Belgian argenx BVBA, effective retroactively as of January 1, 2017. As a result, as of January 1, 2017, (i) argenx BVBA holds all legal and economic ownership of our intellectual property rights, and (ii) the research and development agreement between argenx SE and the Belgian BVBA has been terminated.