​

​

​

​

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K/A

Amendment No. 2

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Commission File Number 001-36598

CELLECTAR BIOSCIENCES, INC.

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its Charter)

​

100 Campus Drive

Florham Park, New Jersey 07932

(Address of principal executive offices, including zip code)

(608) 441-8120

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

​

Securities Registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:

None

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes ☐ No ☒

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act. Yes ☐ No ☒

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes ☒ No ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit such files). Yes ☒ No ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, a smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company,” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

​

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed a report on and attestation to its management’s assessment of the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting under Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (15 U.S.C. 7262(b)) by the registered public accounting firm that prepared or issued its audit report. ☐

If securities are registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act, indicate by check mark whether the financial statements of the registrant included in the filing reflect the correction of an error to previously issued financial statements. ☒

Indicate by check mark whether any of those error corrections are restatements that required a recovery analysis of incentive-based compensation received by any of the registrant’s executive officers during the relevant recovery period pursuant to §240.10D-1(b). ☒

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes ☐ No ☒

The aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates computed by reference to the price at which the common equity was last sold, or the average bid and asked price of such common equity, as of June 30, 2023, was $18,922,339.

As of March 21, 2024, there were 32,260,510 shares of the registrant’s $0.00001 par value common stock outstanding.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Portions of the registrant’s definitive proxy statement for the Registrant’s 2023 Annual Meeting of Stockholders are incorporated by reference in Part III of this annual report on Form 10-K/A. The definitive proxy statement will be filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission within 120 days after the end of the fiscal year covered by this annual report on Form 10-K/A.

​

​

CELLECTAR BIOSCIENCES, INC.

FORM 10-K/A

TABLE OF CONTENTS

​

​

EXPLANATORY NOTE

On July 15, 2024, the Audit Committee of Cellectar Biosciences, Inc.’s (the “Company”) Board of Directors engaged Deloitte & Touche, LLP (“Deloitte”) as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm for the year ending December 31, 2024. The Company’s prior auditors, Baker Tilly US, LLP, were discharged on July 8, 2024, as reported in the Company’s Form 8-K dated July 11, 2024.

On August 9, 2024, the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Board”) concluded that the Company’s previously-issued (i) audited consolidated financial statements for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2023 and December 31, 2022, contained in its Annual Reports on Form 10-K and (ii) unaudited interim condensed consolidated financial statements for the periods ending March 31, 2023, June 30, 2023, September 30, 2023, and March 31, 2024 contained in its Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q (collectively, the “Non-Reliance Periods”), as well as its disclosures related to such financial statements, including any reports, earnings releases, and investor presentations, and related communications issued by or on behalf of the Company with respect to the Non-Reliance Periods, should no longer be relied upon due to errors in such financial statements, and therefore a restatement of these prior financial statements is required. The determination by the Board was made upon the recommendation of the Audit Committee of the Board and after consultation with the Company’s management team.

On August 28, 2024, the Audit Committee of the Board engaged Deloitte to re-audit the Company’s financial statements for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2023 and 2022. Management had determined that the accounting for certain warrants and preferred stock issued by the Company was incorrect, necessitating an in-depth review. Management’s review identified material misstatements related to the accounting treatment for the warrants in question, previously issued preferred stock, and certain expenses previously classified as research and development should have been classified as general and administrative, necessitating a restatement of the previously issued financial statements for the same periods.

We are filing this Amendment No. 2 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K (this “Annual Report” or this “10-K”) to restate the Company’s financial statements for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2023 and 2022. The following items have also been restated, as appropriate, to correct the errors noted above:

We do not intend to file a separate amended Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2022, or amended Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q/A for the quarterly periods ended March 31, 2023, June 30, 2023, September 30, 2023, March 31, 2022, June 30, 2022, or September 30, 2022. The financial statements presented for each quarter as included in Note 15, Restatement of Previously Issued Quarterly Financial Statements, in Item 8. Financial Statements, of this Annual Report have also been restated.

For more information, see Note 14, Restatement of Previously Issued Financial Statements, and Note 15, Restatement of Previously Issued Quarterly Financial Statements, in Item 8. Financial Statements, of this Annual Report.

In connection with the restatement, the Audit Committee of the Board concluded, with the concurrence of management, that there were deficiencies in the principles associated with the control environment, risk assessment, control activities, information and communication and monitoring components of internal control, based on the criteria established by the COSO Framework, that constitute material weaknesses, either individually or in the aggregate, as of December 31, 2023 and 2022. As further discussed in Item 9A. Controls and Procedures of this Annual Report, management has concluded that the Company did not maintain an effective internal control environment over financial reporting resulting in material weaknesses as of December 31, 2023 and 2022, and further concluded that the material weaknesses applied to the interim periods ended September 30, 2023, June 30, 2023, March 31, 2023, September 30, 2022, June 30, 2022, and March 31, 2022.

In addition, as required by Rule 12b-15 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), new certifications by the Company’s principal executive officer and principal financial officer are filed herewith as exhibits to this Amendment No. 2 pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) of the Exchange Act and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. 1350).

Investors should rely only on the financial information and other disclosures, including the adjusted or restated financial information, included in this Form 10-K/A, as applicable, and should not rely on any previously furnished or filed reports, earnings releases, investor presentations, or similar communications, regarding these periods.

​

​

FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This annual report on Form 10-K/A of Cellectar Biosciences, Inc. (the “Company”, “Cellectar”, “we”, “us”, “our”) contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, which we refer to as the Exchange Act. Examples of our forward-looking statements include:

In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by terminology, such as “expects,” “anticipates,” “intends,” “estimates,” “plans,” “believes,” “seeks,” “may,” “should,” “could,” “would” or the negative of such terms or other similar expressions. Accordingly, these statements involve estimates, assumptions and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed in them. Forward-looking statements also involve risks and uncertainties, many of which are beyond our control. Any forward-looking statements are qualified in their entirety by reference to the factors discussed throughout this annual report on Form 10-K/A.

You should read this report completely and with the understanding that our actual future results may be materially different from what we expect. You should assume that the information appearing in this report is accurate as of the date hereof only. Because the risk factors referred to herein could cause actual results or outcomes to differ materially from those expressed in any forward-looking statements made by us or on our behalf, you should not place undue reliance on any forward-looking statements. Further, any forward-looking statement speaks only as of the date on which it is made, and we undertake no obligation to update any forward-looking statement to reflect events or circumstances after the date on which the statement is made or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events. New factors emerge from time to time, and it is not possible for us to predict which factors will arise. In addition, we cannot assess the impact of each factor on our business or the extent to which any factor, or combination of factors, may cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in any forward-looking statements.

This annual report on Form 10-K/A contains trademarks and service marks of Cellectar Biosciences, Inc. Unless otherwise provided in this annual report on Form 10-K/A, trademarks identified by ™ are trademarks of Cellectar Biosciences, Inc. All other trademarks are the properties of their respective owners.

​

PART I

Item 1.     Business.

Business Overview

We are a late-stage clinical biopharmaceutical company focused on the discovery, development and commercialization of drugs for the treatment of cancer. Our core objective is to leverage our proprietary phospholipid ether drug conjugate ™ (PDC™) delivery platform to develop PDCs that are designed to specifically target cancer cells and deliver improved efficacy and better safety as a result of fewer off-target effects. We believe that our PDC platform possesses the potential for the discovery and development of the next generation of cancer-targeting treatments, and we plan to develop PDCs both independently and through research and development collaborations.

Our lead PDC therapeutic, iopofosine I 131 (iopofosine) is a small-molecule PDC designed to provide targeted delivery of iodine-131 directly to cancer cells, while limiting exposure to healthy cells. We believe this profile differentiates iopofosine from many traditional on-market treatments and radiotherapeutics. Our CLOVER-WaM Phase 2 pivotal study of iopofosine in patients with relapsed/refractory (r/r) Waldenstrom’s macroglobulinemia (WM) has completed, and our Phase 2b studies in r/r multiple myeloma (MM) patients and r/r central nervous system lymphoma (CNSL) are ongoing. The CLOVER-2 Phase 1a study for a variety of pediatric cancers has concluded and a Phase 1b study in pediatric patients with high grade glioma is enrolling. Additionally, a Phase 1 Investigator-initiated study conducted by the University of Wisconsin Madison of iopofosine I 131 in combination with external beam radiation in patients with recurrent head and neck cancer has also completed. As with all clinical trials, adverse events, serious adverse events or fatalities may arise during a clinical trial resulting from medical problems that may not be related to clinical trial treatments.

The CLOVER-1 Phase 2 study, conducted in r/r B-cell malignancies, met the primary efficacy endpoints from the Part A dose-finding portion. The CLOVER-1 Phase 2b study, where iopofosine remains under further evaluation in highly refractory MM and CNSL patients, is ongoing.

The CLOVER-WaM study was a pivotal registration study evaluating iopofosine in WM patients that were r/r to at least two prior lines of therapy including having failed or had a suboptimal response to a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor (BTKi). The study completed enrollment in the fourth quarter of 2023, and initial top line data from the study was reported in January 2024. CLOVER-WaM was a single-arm study with a target enrollment of 50 patients. Topline safety data was reported on 45 patients meeting criteria for the modified Intent to Treat (mITT) population with a data cut-off date of January 3, 2024. Topline efficacy evaluable population (41) is defined as patients who are in the mITT and had follow up of at least 60 days post last dose. The CLOVER-WaM study met its primary endpoint with a major response rate (MRR) of 61% (95% confidence interval [44.50%, 75.80%, two-sided p value < 0.0001]) exceeding the FDA agreed-upon statistical hurdle of 20%. The overall response rate (ORR) in evaluable patients was 75.6%, and 100% of patients experienced disease control. Responses were durable, with median duration of response not reached and 76% of patients remaining progression free at a median follow-up of eight months. These outcomes exceed real world data, which demonstrate a 4-12% MRR and a duration of response of approximately six months or less despite continuous treatment in a patient population that is less pretreated and not refractory to multiple classes of drugs. Notably, iopofosine I 131 monotherapy achieved an 7.3% complete remission (CR) rate in this highly refractory WM population. Iopofosine I 131 was well tolerated and its toxicity profile was consistent with the Company’s previously reported safety data. There were no treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) leading to discontinuation. The rates of Grade 3 or greater TRAEs observed in more than 10% of patients included thrombocytopenia (55%), neutropenia (37%), and anemia (26%). All patients recovered from cytopenias with no reported aplastic sequalae. Importantly, there were no clinically significant bleeding events, and the rate of febrile neutropenia was 2%. There were no treatment-related deaths in the study.

The CLOVER-2 Phase 1a pediatric study was an open-label, sequential-group, dose-escalation study to evaluate the safety and tolerability of iopofosine in children and adolescents with relapsed or refractory malignant solid tumors (neuroblastoma, Ewing’s sarcoma, osteosarcoma, and rhabdomyosarcoma) and lymphoma or recurrent or refractory malignant brain tumors (high grade glioma, glioblastoma, etc.) for which there are no standard treatments. The study was conducted internationally at seven leading pediatric cancer centers. The CLOVER-2 Phase 1b pediatric study is an open-label, dose finding study evaluating the activity of two different doses and dosing regimens of iopofosine in children and adolescents with r/r malignant brain tumors (high grade gliomas). This study is partially funded (~$2M) by a National Institutes of Health SBIR grant from the National Cancer Institute.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted iopofosine Fast Track Designation for lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma (LPL) and WM patients having received two or more prior treatment regimens, as well as r/r MM and r/r diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Orphan Drug Designations (ODDs) have been granted for LPL/WM, MM, neuroblastoma, soft tissue sarcomas including rhabdomyosarcoma, Ewing’s sarcoma and osteosarcoma. Iopofosine was also granted Rare Pediatric Disease Designation (RPDD) for the treatment of neuroblastoma, rhabdomyosarcoma, Ewing’s sarcoma and osteosarcoma. The European Commission granted ODD to iopofosine for treatment of r/r MM and WM, as well as PRIME designation for WM.

Additionally, in June 2020, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) granted us Small and Medium-Sized Enterprise (SME) status by the EMA’s Micro, Small and Medium-sized Enterprise office. SME status allows us to participate in significant financial incentives that include a 90% to 100% EMA fee reduction for scientific advice, clinical study protocol design, endpoints and statistical considerations, quality inspections of facilities and fee waivers for selective EMA pre-and post-authorization regulatory filings, including orphan drug and PRIME designations. We are also eligible to obtain EMA certification of quality and manufacturing data prior to review of clinical data. Other financial incentives include EMA-provided translational services of all regulatory documents required for market authorization, further reducing the financial burden of the market authorization process.

Our product pipeline also includes a PDC-based alpha-emitter radiotherapeutic series (CLR12120) in IND enabling studies, preclinical PDC small molecule chemotherapeutic programs, an oligo-conjugate program, a peptide-conjugate program, and several partnered PDC assets. We are evaluating the CLR 12120 series with multiple alpha emitting isotopes, such as actinium and astatine in both solid and hematologic malignancies. The other programs are being developed for solid tumors.

We have leveraged our PDC platform to establish three ongoing collaborations featuring four unique payloads and mechanisms of action. Through research and development collaborations, our strategy is to generate near-term capital, supplement internal resources, gain access to novel molecules or payloads, accelerate product candidate development, and broaden our proprietary and partnered product pipelines.

Our PDC platform is designed to provide selective delivery of a diverse range of oncologic payloads to cancerous cells, whether a hematologic cancer or solid tumor; a primary tumor, or a metastatic tumor; and cancer stem cells. The PDC platform’s mechanism of entry is designed not to rely upon a specific cell surface epitope or antigen as are required by other targeted delivery platforms but rather a unique change in the tumor cell membrane. Our PDC platform takes advantage of a metabolic pathway (beta oxidation) utilized by nearly all tumor cell types in all stages of the tumor cycle. Tumor cells modify the cell membrane to create specific, highly organized microdomains by which to transport lipids and long chain fatty acids into the cytoplasm, as a result of the utilization of this metabolic pathway. Our PDCs are designed to bind to these regions and directly enter the intracellular compartment. This mechanism allows the PDC molecules to accumulate in tumor cells over time, which we believe can enhance drug efficacy. The direct intracellular delivery allows our molecules to avoid the specialized, highly acidic cellular compartment known as lysosomes, which allows a PDC to deliver payloads that previously could not be delivered in this targeted manner. Additionally, molecules targeting specific cell surface epitopes face challenges in completely eliminating a tumor because the targeted antigens are limited in the total number presented on the cell surface, limiting total potential uptake and resulting in heterogenous uptake across the tumor, have longer cycling time from internalization to relocation on the cell surface, again diminishing their availability for binding, and are not present on all of the tumor cells because of the heterogenous nature of cancer cells, further increasing the unequal distribution of the drug across the tumor. This means a subpopulation of tumor cells always exists that cannot be addressed by therapies targeting specific surface epitopes. Additionally, the epitope utilized is also present on other normal tissue, resulting in off-target toxicities.

Beyond the benefits provided by the mechanism of entry, the PDC platform features include the capacity to link with almost any molecule, provide a significant increase in targeted oncologic payload delivery, a more uniform delivery, and the ability to target all types of tumor cells. As a result, we believe that we can create PDCs to treat a broad range of cancers with the potential to improve the therapeutic index of oncologic drug payloads, enhance or maintain efficacy while also reducing adverse events by minimizing drug delivery to healthy cells, and increasing delivery to cancerous cells and cancer stem cells.

We employ a drug discovery and development approach that allows us to efficiently design, research and advance drug candidates. Our iterative process allows us to rapidly and systematically produce multiple generations of incrementally improved targeted drug candidates without the expense of having to generate significant compound libraries.

A description of our PDC product candidates follows:

Clinical Pipeline

Our lead PDC therapeutic, iopofosine, is a small-molecule PDC designed to provide targeted delivery of iodine-131 directly to cancer cells, while limiting exposure to healthy cells. We believe this profile differentiates iopofosine from many traditional on-market treatments and treatments in development. Iopofosine was recently evaluated in the completed CLOVER-WaM Phase 2 pivotal study in patients with r/r WM, while evaluation is ongoing in a Phase 2b study in r/r MM and CNS lymphoma patients and the CLOVER-2 Phase 1b study for pediatric patients with high grade gliomas. Adverse events across all studies have been largely restricted to fatigue (39%), and cytopenias; specifically, thrombocytopenia (75%), anemia (61%), neutropenia (54%), leukopenia (56%), and lymphopenia (34%). Fatalities resulting from infection have occurred in patients treated with iopofosine.

The CLOVER-WaM pivotal Phase 2b study completed enrollment of WM patients that have received at least two previous lines of therapy including those that failed or had a suboptimal response to a BTKi therapy in 4Q 2023. Topline safety data was reported on 45 patients meeting the criteria for the mITT population with a data cut-off date of January 3, 2024. Topline efficacy evaluable population (n=41) was defined as patients who were in the mITT and had follow up of at least 60 days post last dose. The CLOVER-WaM study met its primary endpoint with a MRR of 61% (95% confidence interval [44.50%, 75.80%, two-sided p value < 0.0001]) exceeding the agreed-upon statistical hurdle of 20%. The ORR in evaluable patients was 75.6%, and 100% of patients experienced disease control. Responses were durable, with median duration of response not reached and 76% of patients remaining progression free at a median follow-up of eight months. These outcomes exceed real world data, which demonstrate a 4-12% MRR and a duration of response of approximately six months or less despite continuous treatment in a patient population that is less pretreated and not refractory to multiple classes of drugs. Notably, iopofosine monotherapy achieved a 7.3% complete remission (CR) rate in this highly refractory WM population. Iopofosine I 131 was well tolerated and its toxicity profile was consistent with the Company’s previously reported safety data. There were no treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) leading to discontinuation. The rates of Grade 3 or greater TRAEs observed in more than 10% of patients included thrombocytopenia (55%), neutropenia (37%), and anemia (26%). All patients recovered from cytopenias with no reported aplastic sequalae. Importantly, there were no clinically significant bleeding events, and the rate of febrile neutropenia was 2%. There were no treatment-related deaths in the study.

The CLOVER-1 Phase 2 study met the primary efficacy endpoints from the Part A dose-finding portion, conducted in r/r B-cell malignancies, and is now enrolling an MM and CNSL expansion cohort (Phase 2b). The Phase 2b study will evaluate highly refractory MM patients in triple class, quad- and penta-drug refractory patients, including post-BCMA immunotherapy patients and r/r CNSL patients. The initial Investigational New Drug (IND) application was accepted by the FDA in March 2014 with multiple INDs submitted since that time. The Phase 1 study was designed to assess the compound’s safety and tolerability in patients with r/r MM and to determine maximum tolerated dose (MTD), and was initiated in April 2015. The study completed enrollment and the final clinical study report is expected in the first half of 2025. Initiated in March 2017, the primary goal of the Phase 2a study was to assess the compound’s efficacy in a broad range of hematologic cancers.

The CLOVER-2 Phase 1a pediatric study was conducted internationally at seven leading pediatric cancer centers. The study was an open-label, sequential-group, dose-escalation study to evaluate the safety and tolerability of iopofosine in children and adolescents with relapsed or refractory cancers, including malignant brain tumors, neuroblastoma, sarcomas, and lymphomas (including Hodgkin’s lymphoma). The maximum tolerated dose was determined to be greater than 60mCi/m² administered as a fractionated dose. CLOVER-2 Phase 1b study is an open-label, international dose-finding study evaluating two different doses and dosing regiments of iopofosine in r/r pediatric patients with high grade gliomas. These cancer types were selected for clinical, regulatory and commercial rationales, including the radiosensitive nature and continued unmet medical need in the r/r setting, and the rare disease determinations made by the FDA based upon the current definition within the Orphan Drug Act.

In December 2014, the FDA granted ODD for iopofosine for the treatment of MM. In 2018, the FDA granted ODD and RPDD for iopofosine for the treatment of neuroblastoma, rhabdomyosarcoma, Ewing’s sarcoma and osteosarcoma. In May 2019, the FDA granted Fast Track Designation for iopofosine for the treatment of MM and in July 2019 for the treatment of DLBCL. In September 2019 iopofosine received ODD from the European Union for MM. In December 2019, the FDA and the European Union each granted ODD for iopofosine for the treatment of WM. In September 2023, the European Union granted PRIME designation for iopofosine for the treatment of r/r WM. The FDA granted Fast Track designation for iopofosine for the treatment of r/r LPL and WM in May 2020.

As the result of iopofosine’s RPDD designation, we may be eligible to receive a priority review voucher (PRV) if the product receives approval for any of the treatment of neuroblastoma, rhabdomyosarcoma, Ewing’s sarcoma or osteosarcoma. The FDA may

award PRV to sponsors of a product application for a RPDD that meet its specified criteria. The key criteria to receiving PRV is that the drug be approved for a rare pediatric disease and treat a serious or life-threatening manifestation of the disease or condition that primarily affects individuals under the age of 18. In order to receive a PRV, a sponsor must obtain approval of a “rare pediatric disease product application,” which is a human drug application for prevention or treatment of a rare pediatric disease and which contains no active ingredient, including any ester or salt thereof, that has been approved by the FDA; is deemed eligible for priority review; is submitted under section 505(b)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) or section 351(a) of the Public Health Service Act (PHSA); relies on clinical data derived from studies examining a pediatric population and dosages of the drug intended for that population; does not seek approval for an adult indication in the original rare pediatric disease application; and is approved after September 30, 2016. Under this program, a sponsor who receives an approval for a drug or biologic for a rare pediatric disease can receive a PRV that can be redeemed to receive a priority review of a subsequent marketing application for a different product. Additionally, the PRV’s can be exchanged or sold to other companies so that the receiving company may use the voucher. Congress has only authorized the rare pediatric disease priority review voucher program until September 30, 2024. However, if a drug candidate receives RPDD before September 30, 2024, it is eligible to receive a voucher if it is approved before September 30, 2026.

CLOVER-WaM: Phase 2 Pivotal Study in: Patients with r/r Waldenstrom’s Macroglobulinemia

We participated in a Type C guidance meeting with the FDA in September 2020. The results of that guidance meeting provided us with an agreed upon path for conducting the CLOVER-WaM study; a single arm, pivotal study in WM patients that have received and relapsed or were refractory to two prior lines of therapy, including having failed or had a suboptimal response to BTKi therapy. WM is a rare, indolent, and incurable form of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) that is composed of a patient population in need of new and better treatment options.

The study enrolled 65 WM patients who have received at least two prior lines of therapy, failed both lines of therapy including having failed or had a suboptimal response to a BTKi (i.e. ibrutinib). Patients in the trial received 4-doses of iopofosine over two cycles (cycle one: days 1, 15, and cycle two: days 57, 71) with each dose administered as a 15mCi/m² infusion. The primary endpoint of the trial is major response rate (MRR) defined as a partial response (a minimum of a 50% reduction in IgM) or better in patients that receive a minimum total body dose (TBD) of 60 mCi with secondary endpoints of treatment-free survival (treatment-free remission), duration of response and progression-free survival. An independent data monitoring committee (iDMC) performed an interim safety and futility evaluation on the first 10 patients enrolled. If three of the 10 patients experienced a Clinically Significant Toxicity (CST) then the dose would have been reduced to 12.5 mCi/m². We believe this design aligned with the feedback received from the FDA during the guidance meeting held in September 2020 and subsequent interactions. The FDA accepted the dose to be tested, our proposal for a safety and futility assessment to be conducted on the first 10 patients, the endpoint to be assessed, the statistical analysis plan and study size of approximately 50 patients in the mITT population (>60mCi TBD). Based upon this agreement, the pivotal study was initiated. The interim futility and safety assessment occurred in 2022 and the iDMC determined the study exceeded the futility threshold and that the CST threshold was not met, therefore the study should continue to enroll with no change to the dosing regimen. The study achieved full enrollment in the fourth quarter 2023 and topline safety data was reported on 45 patients meeting the criteria for the mITT population with a data cut-off date of January 3, 2024. Among mITT patients, median age was 71 years, median IgM level prior to treatment with iopofosine was 2,185, 90% were refractory to either a BTKi (18/36 50%) or anti-CD20 therapy (18/41 40%), with 26.7% multiclass refractory, and 80% of patients were previously treated with a BTKi therapy. Topline efficacy evaluable population (n=41) was defined as patients who were in the mITT and had follow up of at least 60 days post last dose. The CLOVER WaM study met its primary endpoint with a major response rate (MRR) of 61% (95% confidence interval [44.50%, 75.80%, two-sided p value < 0.0001]) exceeding the agreed upon statistical hurdle of 20%. The overall response rate (ORR) in evaluable patients was 75.6%, and 100% of patients experienced disease control. Responses were durable, with median duration of response not reached and 76% of patients remaining progression free at a median follow-up of eight months. These outcomes exceed real world data, which demonstrate a 4-12% MRR and a duration of response of approximately six months or less despite continuous treatment in a patient population that is less pretreated and not refractory to multiple classes of drugs. Notably, iopofosine monotherapy achieved an 7.3% complete remission (CR) rate in this highly refractory WM population. Iopofosine I 131 was well tolerated and its toxicity profile was consistent with the Company’s previously reported safety data. There were no treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) leading to discontinuation. The rates of Grade 3 or greater TRAEs observed in more than 10% of patients included thrombocytopenia (55%), neutropenia (37%), and anemia (26%). All patients recovered from cytopenias with no reported aplastic sequalae. Importantly, there were no clinically significant bleeding events, and the rate of febrile neutropenia was 2%. There were no treatment-related deaths in the study.

CLOVER-1: Phase 2 Study in Select B-Cell Malignancies

The Phase 2 CLOVER-1 study was an open-label study designed to determine the efficacy and safety of CLR 131 in select B-cell malignancies (multiple myeloma (MM), indolent chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL)/small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL), lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma (LPL)/Waldenstrom’s macroglobulinemia (WM), marginal zone lymphoma (MZL), mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), DLBCL, and central nervous system lymphoma (CNSL) who have been previously treated with standard therapy for their underlying malignancy. As of March 2022, the study arms for CLL/SLL, LPL/WM, MZL, MCL, and DLBCL were closed. Dosing of patients varied by disease state cohort and was measured in terms of TBD.

In July 2016, we were awarded a $2,000,000 National Cancer Institute (NCI) Fast-Track Small Business Innovation Research grant to further advance the clinical development of iopofosine. The funds supported the Phase 2 study initiated in March 2017 to define the clinical benefits of iopofosine in r/r MM and other niche hematologic malignancies with unmet clinical need. These niche hematologic malignancies include CLL, SLL, MZL, LPL/WM and DLBCL. The study was conducted in approximately 10 U.S. cancer centers in patients with orphan-designated relapse or refractory hematologic cancers. The planned study enrollment was up to 80 patients.

The study’s primary endpoint was clinical benefit response (CBR), with secondary endpoints of ORR, PFS, time to next treatment (TtNT), median Overall Survival (mOS), DOR and other markers of efficacy following patients receiving one of three TBDs of iopofosine (<50mCi, ~50mCi and >60mCi), with the option for a second cycle approximately 75-180 days later. Dosages were provided either as a single bolus or fractionated (the assigned dose level split into two doses) given day 1 and day 15. Over the course of the study the dosing regimen of iopofosine advanced from a single bolus dose to two cycles of fractionated administrations of 15 mCi/m² per dose on days 1, 15 (cycle 1), and days 57, 71 (cycle 2). Adverse events occurring in at least 25% of subjects were fatigue (39%) and cytopenias, specifically, thrombocytopenia (75%), anemia (61%), neutropenia (54%), leukopenia (51%), and lymphopenia (25%). Serious adverse events occurring in greater than 5% of subjects were restricted to thrombocytopenia (9%) and febrile neutropenia (7.5%).

Phase 2a Study: Patients with r/r Waldenstrom’s Macroglobulinemia Cohort

Patients in the r/r WM cohort all received TBD of ≥ 60 mCi (25 mCi/m² single bolus, 31.25 mCi/m² fractionated, 37.5 mCi/m² fractionated, or two cycles of mCi/m² fractionated) either as a bolus dose or fractionated. Current data from our Phase 2a CLOVER-1 clinical study show a 100% ORR in six WM patients and an 83.3% major response rate with one patient achieving a complete response (CR), which reached 39 months post-last treatment. While median treatment free survival (TFS), also known as treatment free remission (TFR), and DOR have not been reached, the average treatment TFS/TFR is currently at 330 days. We believe this may represent an important improvement in the treatment of r/r WM as we believe no approved or late-stage development treatments for second- and third-line patients have reported a CR to date. Based on study results to date, patients continue to tolerate iopofosine well, with the most common adverse events being cytopenias and fatigue.

Phase 2a Study: Patients with r/r Multiple Myeloma Cohort

In September 2020, we announced that a 40% ORR was observed in the subset of refractory MM patients deemed triple class refractory who received 60 mCi or greater TBD. Triple class refractory is defined as patients that are refractory to immunomodulatory, proteasome inhibitors and anti-CD38 antibody drug classes. The 40% ORR (6/15 patients) represents triple class refractory patients enrolled in Part A of Cellectar’s CLOVER-1 study and additional patients enrolled in Part B from March through May 2020 and received >60mCi TBD (25 mCi/m2 single bolus, 31.25 mCi/m2 fractionated, 37.5 mCi/m2 fractionated, or two cycles of mCi/m2 fractionated) either as a bolus dose or fractionated. Patients with MM received 40 mg of dexamethasone concurrently beginning within 24 hours of the first CLR 131 infusion. All MM patients enrolled in the expansion cohort are required to be triple class refractory. The additional six patients enrolled in 2020 were heavily pre-treated with an average of nine prior multi-drug regimens. Three patients received a TBD of > 60 mCi and three received less than 60 mCi. Consistent with the data released in February 2020, patients receiving > 60 mCi typically exhibit greater responses. Based on study results to date, patients continue to tolerate iopofosine well, with the most common and almost exclusive treatment-emergent adverse events are cytopenias, such as thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, and anemia.

In December 2021, we presented data from 11 MM patients from our ongoing Phase 2 CLOVER-1 study in a poster at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) Annual Meeting and Exposition. The MM patients were at least triple class refractory (defined as refractory to an immunomodulatory agent, proteasome inhibitor and monoclonal antibody) with data current as of May

2021. Patients had a median of greater than 7 prior therapies with 50% classified as high risk. Initial results in these patients showed an ORR of 45.5%, a CBR of 72.7%, and a disease control rate (DCR) of 100%. Median PFS was 3.4 months. In a subset of five quad/penta drug refractory patients, efficacy increased, demonstrating an ORR of 80% and CBR of 100% in this highly treatment refractory group. The most commonly observed treatment emergent adverse events were cytopenias that included Grade 3 or 4 thrombocytopenia (62.5%), anemia (62.5%), neutropenia (62.5%) and decreased white blood cell count (50%). Treatment emergent adverse events were mostly limited to bone marrow suppression in line with prior observations. No patients experienced treatment emergent adverse events of neuropathy, arrhythmia, cardiovascular event, bleeding, ocular toxicities, renal function, alterations in liver enzymes, or infusion-site reactions or adverse events. We continue to enrich the r/r MM patient cohort with patients that are even more refractory, specifically enrolling patients that are quad-class refractory (triple class plus refractory to any of the recent approved product classes) and have relapsed post-BCMA immunotherapy. We reported in the Blood Cancer Journal in August 2022 that iopofosine demonstrated a 50% ORR in patients receiving >60mCi total administered dose (3/6 patients).

Phase 2a: Patients with r/r non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma Cohort

In February 2020, we announced positive data from our Phase 2a CLOVER-1 study in patients with NHL patients were treated with three different doses (<50mCi, ~50mCi and >60mCi TBD. Patients in the r/r NHL cohort received TBD of either ≥ 60 mCi or < 60 mCi (25 mCi/m2 single bolus, 31.25 mCi/m2 fractionated, 37.5 mCi/m2 fractionated, or two cycles of mCi/m2 fractionated) either as a bolus dose or fractionated. Patients with r/r NHL who received <60mCi TBD and the >60mCi TBD had a 42% and 43% ORR, respectively and a combined rate of 42%. These patients were also heavily pre-treated, having a median of three prior lines of treatment (range, 1 to 9) with the majority of patients being refractory to rituximab and/or ibrutinib. The patients had a median age of 70 with a range of 51 to 86. All patients had bone marrow involvement with an average of 23%. In addition to these findings, subtype assessments were completed in the r/r B-cell NHL patients. Patients with DLBCL demonstrated a 30% ORR with one patient achieving a CR, which continues at nearly 24 months post-treatment. The ORR for CLL/SLL and MZL patients was 33%.

Based upon the dose response observed in the Phase 2a study for patients receiving TBDs of 60mCi or greater, we determined that patient dosing of iopofosine in the pivotal study would be >60mCi TBD. Therefore, patients are now grouped as receiving <60mCi or >60mCi TBD.

The most frequently reported adverse events in all patients were cytopenias, which followed a predictable course and timeline. The frequency of adverse events did not increase as doses were increased and the profile of cytopenias remained consistent. Importantly, our assessment is that these cytopenias have had a predictable pattern to initiation, nadir and recovery and are treatable. The most common grade ≥3 events at the highest dose (75mCi TBD) were hematologic toxicities including thrombocytopenia (65%), neutropenia (41%), leukopenia (30%), anemia (24%) and lymphopenia (35%). No patients experienced cardiotoxicities, neurological toxicities, infusion site reactions, peripheral neuropathy, allergic reactions, cytokine release syndrome, keratopathy, renal toxicities, or changes in liver enzymes. The safety and tolerability profile in patients with r/r NHL was similar to r/r MM patients except for fewer cytopenias of any grade. Based upon iopofosine being well tolerated across all dose groups, the observed response rate, and especially in difficult to treat patients such as high risk and triple class refractory or penta-refractory, and corroborating data showing the potential to further improve upon current ORRs and durability of those responses, the study has been expanded to test a two-cycle dosing optimization regimen with a target TBD >60 mCi/m² of iopofosine.

In May 2020, we announced that the FDA granted Fast Track Designation for iopofosine in WM in patients having received two or more prior treatment regimens.

Phase 1 Study in Patients with r/r Multiple Myeloma

In February 2020, final results from a multicenter, Phase 1 dose escalation clinical trial of iopofosine in r/r MM were presented. The trial was designed to evaluate the safety and potential initial efficacy of iopofosine administered in an up to 30-minute I.V. infusion either as a single bolus dose or as a fractionated dose in heavily pretreated MM patients. The study enrolled a total of 26 evaluable patients at three trial sites. For the trial, which used a modified three-plus-three dose escalation design, 15 evaluable patients were dosed in single bolus doses from 12.5mCi/m2 up to 31.25mCi/m2 (TBD 20.35-59.17 mCi) and 11 evaluable patients were dosed in fractionated dosing cohorts of 31.25mCi/m2 to 40mCi/m2 (TBD 54.915-89.107 mCi). An iDMC did not identify dose-limiting toxicities in any cohort. Of the 26 evaluable patients in the trial, a partial response was observed in 4 of 26 patients (15.4%) and stable disease or minimal response in 22 of 26 patients (84.6%), for a disease control rate of 100%. A significant decrease in M-protein and free light chain (FLC) was also observed.

Iopofosine in combination with dexamethasone was under investigation in adult patients with r/r MM. MM is an incurable cancer of the plasma cells and is the second most common form of hematologic cancer. Patients had to be refractory to or relapsed from at least one proteasome inhibitor and at least one immunomodulatory agent. The clinical study was a standard three-plus-three dose escalation safety study to determine the maximum tolerable dose. We use the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) definitions of response, which involve monitoring the surrogate markers of efficacy, M protein and FLC. The IMWG defines a PR as a 50% or greater decrease in M protein or to 50% or greater decrease in FLC levels (for patients in whom M protein is unmeasurable). Secondary objectives included the evaluation of therapeutic activity by assessing surrogate efficacy markers, which include M protein, FLC, PFS and OS. All patients were heavily pretreated with an average of five prior lines of therapy. An iDMC assessed the safety of iopofosine up to its planned maximum single, bolus dose of 31.25 mCi/m² or a TBD of ~63 mCi. The four single dose cohorts examined were: 12.5 mCi/m² (~25mCi TBD), 18.75 mCi/m² (~37.5mCi TBD), 25 mCi/m²(~50mCi TBD), and 31.25 mCi/m²(~62.5mCi TBD), all in combination with low dose dexamethasone (40 mg weekly). Of the five patients in the first cohort, four were assessed as achieving stable disease and one patient progressed at Day 15 after administration and was taken off the study. Of the five patients admitted to the second cohort, all five were assessed as achieving stable disease; however, one patient progressed at Day 41 after administration and was taken off the study. Four patients were enrolled to the third cohort, and all were assessed as achieving stable disease. In September 2017, we announced safety and tolerability data for cohort 4, in which patients were treated with a single infusion up to 30-minutes of 31.25mCi/m² of iopofosine, which was tolerated by the three patients in the cohort. Additionally, all three patients experienced CBR with one patient achieving a partial response (PR). The patient experiencing a PR had an 82% reduction in FLC. This patient did not produce M protein, had received seven prior lines of treatment including radiation, stem cell transplantation and multiple triple combination treatments including one with daratumumab that was not tolerated. One patient experiencing stable disease attained a 44% reduction in M protein. In January 2019, we announced that the pooled mOS data from the first four cohorts was 22.0 months. In late 2018, we modified this study to evaluate a fractionated dosing strategy to potentially increase efficacy and decrease adverse events.

Cohorts five and six received fractionated dosing of 31.25 mCi/m²(~62.5mCi TBD) and 37.5 mCi/m² (~75mCi TBD), each administered on day 1 and day 8. Following the determination that all prior dosing cohorts were tolerated, we initiated a cohort seven utilizing a 40mCi/m2 (~95mCi TBD) fractionated dose administered 20mCi/m2 (~40mCi TBD) on days 1 and day 8. Cohort seven was the highest pre-planned dose cohort and subjects have completed the evaluation period. The study completed enrollment and the final clinical study report is expected in the first half of 2022. Adverse events occurring in at least 25% of subjects were fatigue (26%) and cytopenias, specifically, thrombocytopenia (90%), anemia (65%), neutropenia (55%), leukopenia (61%), and lymphopenia (58%). Serious adverse events occurring in greater than two subjects were restricted to febrile neutropenia n=3 (9.7%).

In May 2019, we announced that the FDA granted Fast Track Designation for iopofosine in fourth line or later r/r MM. Iopofosine is currently being evaluated in our ongoing CLOVER-1 Phase 2 clinical study in patients with r/r MM and other select B-cell lymphomas. Patients in the study received up to four, approximately 20-minute, IV infusions of iopofosine over 3 months, with doses given 14 days apart in each cycle and a maximum of two cycles. Low dose dexamethasone 40 mg weekly (20mg in patients ≥ 75), was provided for up to 12 weeks. The planned study enrollment was up to 80 patients. Its primary endpoint was clinical benefit rate (CBR), with additional endpoints of ORR, PFS, median overall survival (OS) and other markers of efficacy. Over the course of the study the dosing regimen of iopofosine advanced from a single bolus dose to two cycles of fractionated administrations of 15 mCi/m2 per dose on days 1, 15 (cycle 1), and days 57, 71 (cycle 2). Following treatment with iopofosine, approximately 91% of patients experience a reduction in tumor marker with approximately 73% experiencing greater than 37% reduction.

CLOVER 2: Phase 1 Study in r/r Pediatric Patients with select Solid tumors, Lymphomas and Malignant Brain Tumors

In December 2017, the Division of Oncology at the FDA accepted our IND and study design for the Phase 1 study of iopofosine in children and adolescents with select rare and orphan designated cancers. This study was initiated during the first quarter of 2019. In December 2017, we submitted an IND application for r/r pediatric patients with select solid tumors, lymphomas and malignant brain tumors. The Phase 1 clinical study of iopofosine is an open-label, sequential-group, dose-escalation study evaluating the safety and tolerability of intravenous administration of iopofosine in children and adolescents with relapsed or refractory malignant solid tumors (neuroblastoma, Ewing’s sarcoma, osteosarcoma, rhabdomyosarcoma) and lymphoma or recurrent or refractory malignant brain tumors for which there are no standard treatments. Secondary objectives of the study are to identify the recommended efficacious dose of iopofosine and to determine preliminary antitumor activity (treatment response) of iopofosine in children and adolescents.

In August 2020, based on data on four dose levels from 15mCi/m² up to 60mCi/m2, the iDMC permitted the beginning of the evaluation of the next higher dose cohort, at 75mCi/m2. The iDMC advised, based upon the initial data, to enrich the 60 mCi/m2 dose level for patients over the age of 10 with HGG and Ewing sarcoma. Changes in various tumor parameters appeared to demonstrate

initial response and tumor uptake. This includes patients with relapsed HGGs with over five months of PFS. In November 2020, we announced clinical data providing that iopofosine had been measured in pediatric brain tumors, confirming that systemic administration of iopofosine crosses the blood brain barrier and is delivered into tumors and that the data show disease control in heavily pretreated patients with ependymomas. In November 2021, we announced favorable data on changes in various tumor parameters in a Phase 1 study in children and adolescents with relapsed and refractory high-grade gliomas (HGGs) and soft tissue sarcomas. Pediatric HGGs are a collection of aggressive brain and central nervous system tumor subtypes (i.e. diffuse intrinsic pontine gliomas, glioblastomas, astrocytomas, ependymomas, etc.) with about 400 new pediatric cases diagnosed annually in the U.S. Children with these tumors have a poor prognosis and limited 5-year survival. Adverse events occurring in at least 25% of subjects were fatigue, headache, nausea and vomiting (28% respectively), and cytopenias, specifically, thrombocytopenia (67%), anemia (67%), neutropenia (61%), leukopenia (56%), and lymphopenia (33%). There were no serious adverse events occurring in more than 2 subjects. The Part A portion of this Phase 1 study has concluded, and part B has initiated to determine the appropriate dosing regimen in pediatric patients with r/r HGG. In 2022, the NCI awarded Cellectar a $1,900,000 SBIR Phase 2 grant to explore iopofosine in pediatric HGG.

In 2018, the FDA granted ODD and RPDD for iopofosine for the treatment of neuroblastoma, rhabdomyosarcoma, Ewing’s sarcoma and osteosarcoma. If iopofosine should be approved for any of these pediatric indications, the first approved RPDD would enable us to receive a priority review voucher. Priority review vouchers can be used by the sponsor to receive priority review for a future New Drug Application (NDA) or Biologic License Application (BLA) submission, which would reduce the FDA review time from 12 months to six months. Currently, these vouchers can also be transferred or sold to another entity. In December 2020, the FDA extended the Priority Review Voucher Program through September 2026 for rare pediatric diseases.

Phase 1 Study in r/r Head and Neck Cancer

In August 2016, the University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center (UWCCC) was awarded a five-year Specialized Programs of Research Excellence (SPORE) grant of $12,000,000 from the NCI and the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research to improve treatments and outcomes for head and neck cancer (HNC) patients. HNC is the sixth most common cancer across the world with approximately 56,000 new patients diagnosed every year in the U.S. As a key component of this grant, the UWCCC researchers completed testing of iopofosine in various animal HNC models and initiated the first human clinical study enrolling up to 30 patients combining iopofosine and external beam radiation treatment (EBRT) with recurrent HNC in the fourth quarter of 2019. UWCCC has completed the part A portion of a safety and tolerability study of iopofosine in combination with EBRT and preliminary data suggest safety and tolerability in relapsed or refractory HNC. The reduction in the amount or fractions (doses) of EBRT has the potential to diminish the (number and severity of) adverse events associated with EBRT. Patients with HNC typically receive approximately 60-70 Grays (Gy) of EBRT given as 2 – 3 Gy daily doses over a six-week timeframe. Patients can experience long-term tumor control following re-irradiation in this setting; however, this approach can cause severe injury to normal tissue structures, significant adverse events and diminished quality of life. Part B of the study was to assess the safety and potential benefits of iopofosine in combination with EBRT in a cohort of up to 24 patients. This portion of the study has fully enrolled, and data were reported at the ASTRO 2024 conference on March 2, 2024. Complete remission was achieved in 64% of patients, with an ORR of 73% (n=11). Prior to treatment with iopofosine I 131, six patients had multiple recurrence and one had metastatic disease, both of which are indicative of poor outcomes. Additionally, the study demonstrated durability of tumor control with an overall survival of 67% and progression free survival of 42% at 12 months. Eleven patients (92%) experienced a treatment-related adverse event. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurring in 20% or more patients were thrombocytopenia (75%), lymphopenia (75%), leukopenia (75%), neutropenia (67%), and anemia (42%). Observed adverse events were consistent with the known toxicity profile of iopofosine I 131, with cytopenias being the most common. All patients recovered. We believe that these data support the notion of enhanced patient outcomes when combining the use of iopofosine I 131 in combination with external beam radiation for a treatment of solid tumors.

Preclinical Pipeline

We believe our PDC platform has potential to provide targeted delivery of a diverse range of oncologic payloads, as exemplified by the product candidates listed below, that may result in improvements upon current standard of care (SOC) for the treatment of a broad range of human cancers:

Technology Overview

Our product candidates are based on a cancer-targeting delivery platform of optimized phospholipid ether (PLE) analogs (phospholipid ether proprietary delivery vehicle) that interact with lipid rafts. Lipid rafts are specialized regions of a cell’s membrane phospholipid bilayer that contain high concentrations of cholesterol and sphingolipids and serve to organize cell surface and intracellular signaling molecules. As a result of enrichment and stabilization of lipid rafts in cancer cells, including cancer stem cells, our product candidates provide selective targeting preferentially to cancer cells over normal healthy cells. The cancer-targeting PLE delivery vehicle was deliberately designed to be combined with therapeutic, diagnostic and imaging molecules. For example, the cytotoxic radioisotope, iodine-131, can be attached via a stable covalent bond to the PLE resulting in our lead PDC, iopofosine. Non-radioactive molecules, including many classes of small molecule chemotherapeutic compounds, oligos, peptides and other molecules can also be attached to the delivery vehicle.

In parallel to advancing the clinical development of our lead PDC, iopofosine, in both adult and pediatric orphan indications, we remain focused on exploring the creation of additional PDCs ranging from newly discovered to well-characterized anti-cancer agent payloads. The objective is to develop PDC chemotherapeutics through conjugation of our delivery vehicle and non-targeted anti-cancer agents to improve therapeutic indices and expand potential indications through the targeted delivery of chemotherapeutic payloads Other than CLR 12120, all are from non-radiotherapeutic treatment modalities, i.e. small-molecule, peptide, or oligonucleotide cancer-targeting chemotherapeutics in pre-clinical research. To date, multiple cancer-targeting product profiles have been generated from a single chemical core structure that is the foundation of our technology platform. We also believe that additional cytotoxic PDCs may be developed possessing enhanced therapeutic indices versus the original, non-targeted cytotoxic payload as a monotherapy.

Malignant tumor targeting, including targeting of cancer stem cells, has been demonstrated in vivo in animal models as well as in clinical studies. Mice without intact immune systems and inoculated with Panc-1 (pancreatic carcinoma) cells, were injected with CLR 1502, 24 or 96 hours prior to imaging. In vivo optical imaging showed pronounced accumulation of CLR 1502 in tumors versus non-target organs and tissues. Similarly, positron emission tomography (PET) imaging of tumor-bearing animals (colon, glioma, triple negative breast, and pancreatic tumor xenograft models) administered the imaging agent CLR 124 clearly shows selective uptake and retention by both primary tumors and metastases, including cancer stem cells. PET/CT analysis following co-injection of iopofosine (for therapy) and CLR 124 (for imaging) revealed time-dependent tumor responses and disappearance over nine days in a cancer xenograft model. We believe that the capability of our technology to target and be selectively retained by cancer stem cells in vivo was demonstrated by treating glioma stem cell-derived orthotopic tumor-bearing mice with another fluorescent-labeled PDC (CLR 1501), and then removing the tumor and isolating cancer stem cells, which continued to display CLR 1501 labeling even after three weeks in cell culture.

The basis for selective tumor targeting of our compounds lies in differences between the plasma membranes of cancer cells as compared to those of most normal cells. Data suggests that lipid rafts serve as portals of entry for PDCs such as iopofosine and our multiple series of drug conjugates. The marked selectivity of our compounds for cancer cells versus non-cancer cells likely results from cancer cells maintenance of an overabundance of lipid rafts and the stabilization of these microdomains within the plasma membrane as compared to normal cells. Following cell entry via lipid rafts, iopofosine is transported into the cytoplasm, where it traffics along the Golgi apparatus and is distributed to various peri-nuclear organelles (including mitochondria and the endoplasmic reticulum). The pivotal role played by lipid rafts is underscored by the fact that disruption of lipid raft architecture significantly eliminates uptake of our PDC delivery vehicle into cancer cells.

Products in Development

Iopofosine

Iopofosine is a small molecule, radioconjugate, composed of our proprietary PLE, 18-(p-[I-131]iodophenyl) octadacyl phosphocholine, acting as a cancer-targeting delivery and retention vehicle, covalently labeled with iodine-131, a cytotoxic (cell-killing) radioisotope with a half-life of eight days that is already in common use to treat thyroid, pediatric tumors and other cancer types including NHL. Iopofosine binds to the cell surface of cancer cells and is delivered into the cytoplasm of the cancer cell. It is this “intracellular radiation” mechanism of cancer cell killing, coupled with delivery to a wide range of malignant tumor types that we believe provides iopofosine with anti-cancer activity and a unique product profile. Selective uptake and retention have been demonstrated in cancer stem cells compared with normal cells, offering the prospect of longer lasting anti-cancer activity.

Tumor treatment with radioactive isotopes has been used as a fundamental cancer therapeutic for decades. The goals of targeted cancer therapy — selective delivery of effective doses of isotopes that destroy tumor tissue, sparing of surrounding normal tissue, and non-accumulation in vital organs such as the liver and kidneys — remain goals of new therapies as well. We believe our targeted delivery technology has the potential to achieve these goals. Iopofosine has been shown in animal models and various clinical studies to reliably, and near-universally, accumulate in cancer cells including cancer stem cells. This strategy has allowed us to take a multi-indication approach in the development and potential commercialization of iopofosine. To date, the Company has focused on rare cancers with significant unmet need including WM, MM, sarcomas, and HGG, among others.

Market Overview

Our target market is broad and represents the market for the treatment of cancer. The American Cancer Society estimates 1 in 3 people will develop cancer in their lifetime. Approximately 1.92 million new cancer cases will be diagnosed in the U.S. in 2022 and approximately 609,360 cancer deaths in the U.S. The global market for cancer drugs reached $148 billion in annual sales (2020), and with a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 7.7% could reach $288 billion by 2030, according to a report dated August 2022 by Straits Research. This growth will be driven by emerging targeted therapies, which are expected to change the cancer treatment landscape (Cowen Report 2020), and an increased use of cancer drug combination regimens.

Waldenstrom’s macroglobulinemia

WM is a rare and incurable disease defined by specific genotypic subtypes that defines patient responses and long-term outcomes. The U.S. annual incidence is 1,500 – 1,900 with prevalence of approximately 26,000 and 110,000 patients globally. WM is a lymphoma, or cancer of the lymphatic system. The disease occurs in a type of white blood cell called a B-lymphocyte or B-cell, which normally matures into a plasma cell that plays an important part in the body’s immune system by manufacturing immunoglobulins (antibodies) to help the body fight infection. In WM, there is a malignant change to the B-cell in the late stages of maturing, and it continues to proliferate into a clone of identical cells, primarily in the bone marrow but also in the lymph nodes and other tissues and organs of the lymphatic system. These clonal cells over-produce an antibody of a specific class called IgM.

WM cells have characteristics of both cancerous B-lymphocytes (NHL) and plasma cells (MM), and they are called lymphoplasmacytic cells. For that reason, WM is classified as a type of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma called LPL. About 95% of LPL cases are WM; the remaining 5% do not secrete IgM and consequently are not classified as WM.

Several drugs have demonstrated activity either alone or in combinations but only a single class of BTKi’s, in the form of two drugs (ibrutinib and zanubrutinib), have received regulatory approval. Treatment is mainly focused on the control of symptoms and the prevention of organ damage. Front-line treatments for WM include rituximab alone or in combination with other agents, including ibrutinib. In the salvage therapy (second line or later) setting, BTKi’s, and other combinations are considered (bendamustine, proteosome inhibitors, etc.). Ibrutinib and zanubrutinib are the only drugs to receive regulatory approval (in 2015 and 2020, respectively) as a salvage therapy; in late 2019, ibrutinib was approved for front-line treatment in combination with rituximab. Factors such as long-term cytopenias, age, hyper-viscosity, the need for quick disease control, lymphadenopathy, co-morbidities, and IgM-related end-organ damage are key considerations in the choice of treatment.

Multiple Myeloma

According to the National Cancer Institute SEER database, multiple myeloma is the second most common hematologic cancer with a U.S. incidence rate of 32,270 and a relapse or refractory patient population of 43,727. In 2022, Datamonitor Healthcare

estimated the MM dollar market size to be over $23B in 2023 and is forecasted to increase to nearly $47B in 2031. The increase in drug sales over this period will be mainly driven by the increasing incidence of MM with the U.S. market remaining the largest potential market. It is believed the largest growth will occur in patients receiving at least three lines of treatment because of the expanding elderly population, increases in treatment population and increasing rates of survival from earlier lines of treatment. According to data obtained from Decision Resource Group, over 40% of patients in later lines of therapy, while eligible, refuse treatment because of higher treatment failure, severity of adverse events and difficulty of treatment dosing regimen. The average response rates for patients receiving their fourth and fifth-line treatment are 15% and 8% response rates, respectively. Additionally, the mOS for these patients also decreases by line of therapy and is less than 9 months post third-line treatment.

Based on the iopofosine Phase 1 and Phase 2 product profile demonstrated in fifth-line patients to date, we believe iopofosine may address the unmet medical need in the heavily pre-treated patient population described above.

B-Cell Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma

B-cell Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma (BCNHL) represents cancers of the lymphatic system. BCNHL may be indolent or aggressive and circulate in the blood or form tumors in lymph nodes. According to the American Cancer Society, the estimated 2023 US incidence of BCNHL was 68,468 cases. Nine types of B-cell lymphomas include CLL, SLL, MCL, MZL, and the most common lymphoma, DLBCL. According to a report dated June 2019 by Global Data Research Group, the BCNHL market was valued at $7.2 billion for 2022, with a forecasted increase to $11.7 billion in 2032 at a CAGR of 4.9%.

We believe there is a significant unmet medical need in B-cell lymphoma as a result of continued high mortality and poor response rates remain in second and third- line treatments compounded by the limited durability of responses.

Based on the iopofosine Phase 2 product profile demonstrated in DLBCL patients to date treated with a single dose, we believe iopofosine may address the unmet medical need in the patient population described above as well.

Neuroblastoma

Neuroblastoma, a neoplasm of the sympathetic nervous system, is the most common extracranial solid tumor of childhood, accounting for approximately 7-10% of childhood cancers and 50% of infant cancers, in the U.S. The NCI states the incidence is about 10.54 cases per 1 million per year in children younger than 15 years and 90% are younger than 5 years at diagnosis. Over 800 new cases are diagnosed each year in North America. Approximately 50% of patients present with metastatic disease requiring systemic treatment. Clinical consequences include abdominal distension, proptosis, bone pain, pancytopenia, fever and paralysis.

Although treatment rates have improved within the clinical paradigm, half of children with neuroblastoma still relapse or fail to respond to upfront therapy. Survival for those with relapsed or refractory neuroblastoma currently reports as a four-year overall survival rate of 20%.

High Grade Glioma

High Grade Glioma (HGG) is a fast-growing tumor of glial cells in the brain or spinal cord. The WHO classifies these as Grade 3 or 4 based on the growth rate, and these tumors are often incurable. Approximately 10-20% of pediatric tumors are HGG, amounting to a global incidence of approximately 33,000 cases. Available treatment options are limited to surgery, radiation therapy, and aggressive chemotherapeutic combinations. Prognosis continues to improve with development of targeted therapies, but the five-year overall survival rate is still less than 20%.

Sarcomas

Sarcomas represent a heterogeneous disease group. Sarcomas grow in connective tissue, or cells that connect or support other kinds of tissue in the body. These tumors are most common in the bones, muscles, tendons, cartilage, nerves, and blood vessels. Sarcomas represent 15% of all pediatric tumors and 21% of pediatric solid tumors. The National Cancer Institute SEER database estimates that there were 2,060 incidences in 2019. The median age at diagnosis was 3, the median age of death was 5.

We are focused on 3 subsets of sarcomas:

Based on information from Market Insights, Epidemiology, and Market Forecast, the global market value of the pediatric sarcoma market is expected to nearly double from $490 million in 2022 to $1.01 billion in 2029. This growth is expected to be driven by the high rate of recurrence in pediatrics, increased incidence in select markets and new high-priced therapies coming to the market.

Manufacturing

Iopofosine drug product is made via a five-step synthetic process. The release specifications for the drug product have been established and validated. Through process improvements, we have been able to achieve longer expiry dating for the compound extending finished product shelf-life to further facilitate ex-U.S. distribution from North America.

We have successfully executed large scale production of the drug substance via a contract manufacturing organization that has been inspected and approved by the FDA and the EMA. We have also demonstrated 60-month stability for the drug substance in desiccated and refrigerated forms at small scale and are replicating this at large scale.

AtomVie (formerly known as The Centre for Probe Development and Commercialization (CPDC)), a validated Current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMPs) manufacturing organization specializing in radiopharmaceuticals, is our primary source to supply drug product for our ongoing research and clinical studies, including our Phase 1 and Phase 2 studies of iopofosine. We believe that AtomVie and our other third-party manufacturers have the ability to supply large scale clinical and commercial scale material.

Sales and Marketing

The US WM market represents approximately $2.1 billion and is a very concentrated market, with 10 states harboring 60% of the WM cases. Based upon the concentrated nature of the US WM market, we plan to pursue building a scalable and efficient commercial team to commercialize iopofosine. We are currently exploring options for the WM opportunity outside of the US market, which will seek to establish an arrangement with one or more biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies with strong product development and commercialization expertise and distribution infrastructure in Europe and parts of global markets.

Potential Commercial Competition to Our Current and Future Clinical-Stage Compounds

Currently, many classes of approved products with various mechanisms of action exist, including immune-modulating agents, proteasome inhibitors, histone deacetylase inhibitors, monoclonal antibodies, corticosteroids, and traditional chemotherapeutics for the treatment of liquid and solid tumors. There also remain a significant number of compounds being researched and developed for the treatment of cancer. We are focused on the product development and commercialization of adult and pediatric orphan designated indications with unmet clinical need. While multiple adult hematology indications for iopofosine were evaluated, WM was selected based on iopofosine’s efficacy and safety profile demonstrated to date. Other considerations such as the regulatory pathway, unmet clinical need, limited commercial competition and cost efficiencies were also assessed. We believe iopofosine is a therapeutic option in either adult or pediatric relapse or refractory settings either as a monotherapy or in combination with currently approved agents, some of which are radio-sensitizing and maintain a differential adverse event profile from that of iopofosine.

Intellectual Property

Our core technology platform is based on research conducted at the University of Michigan in 1994, where phospholipid ether analogs were initially designed, synthesized, radiolabeled, and evaluated. This research was transferred to the University of Wisconsin-Madison between 1998 and the subsequent founding of Cellectar in 2000 to further develop and commercialize the technology. We obtained exclusive rights to the related technology patents owned by University of Michigan in 2003 and continued development of the PDC platform while obtaining ownership of numerous additional patents and patent applications (with various

expiry until 2034 without extensions). We have established a broad U.S. and international intellectual property rights portfolio around our proprietary cancer-targeting PLE technology platform including iopofosine and our PDC Programs.

PDC Chemotherapeutic Programs

In November 2015, we converted our previously filed provisional patent application for Phospholipid-Ether Analogs as Cancer Targeting Drug Vehicles to non-provisional US and International (PCT) patent applications and were published by the U.S. Patent & Trade Office (USPTO) in May of 2016. These patent applications further protect composition of matter and method of use for PDCs developed with our proprietary phospholipid-ether delivery vehicle conjugated with any existing or future cytotoxic agents, including chemotherapeutics for targeted delivery to cancer cells and cancer stem cells. Additional cytotoxic PDC compounds are covered by pending patent applications directed to the composition of matter and method of use for cancer therapy provide intellectual property protection is possible in the U.S. and up to 157 additional countries. These applications, if granted, offer protection extending through at least 2035 in the U.S. and key international markets.

Iopofosine

We have taken a broad approach to creating market exclusivity for iopofosine both within the U.S., and globally, including all major markets. This approach includes numerous patents, patent applications and regulatory filings to provide maximum market exclusivity. Our patent portfolio for iopofosine includes all the typical filings as well as unique methods of use, methods of synthesis, use in combinations, use to treat cancer stem cells, novel formulations, etc. In addition to our patents, we were granted ODD for iopofosine by the FDA for the treatment of MM in December 2014 and for WM in January 2020. Furthermore, we received ODD from the European Union for MM in September 2019, and for WM in January 2021. We expect to file additional orphan designations for other rare diseases. We continue to evaluate iopofosine in additional hematologic and solid tumor orphan designated indications. Our patents have a variety of expected expiration dates with some potentially being extended on a country-by-country basis. In 2018, the FDA a granted orphan drug and a RPDD for iopofosine for the treatment of neuroblastoma, rhabdomyosarcoma, Ewing’s sarcoma and osteosarcoma. We initiated a Phase 1 study in 2019.

We expect to continue to file patent applications and acquire licenses to other patents covering methods of use, composition of matter, formulation, method of synthesis and other patentable claims related to iopofosine and new PDCs. These patent applications will be filed in key commercial markets worldwide.

In addition to the above noted patents/applications directed to iopofosine and our PDC pipeline portfolio, we own other patents/applications directed to different forms of phospholipid ethers, methods of use and methods of manufacturing of phospholipid ethers.

Separate from any patent protection and following product approval by regulatory authorities, data exclusivity may be available for various compounds for up to 10 years on a country-by-country basis (e.g., up to five years in the U.S. and up to ten years in Europe).

Licenses / Collaborations

In August 2018, we entered into a collaboration with Orano Med for the development of novel PDCs utilizing Orano Med’s alpha emitter lead-212 conjugated to our phospholipid ether; the companies evaluated the new PDCs in up to three oncology indications. The collaboration successfully met its endpoints. The in vivo animal data demonstrated that the PDC combined with an alpha emitting radioisotope resulted in significant reduction in tumor volumes in all animal models tested. However, because of the limited half-life and associated logistical challenges associated with lead-212, Cellectar elected to advance an alternative alpha-emitting radioisotope.

In July 2021, we entered into a co-development and commercialization collaboration with LegoChemBio, a clinical stage biotechnology company to utilize their proprietary drug conjugate linker-toxin platform to further enhance our portfolio of next generation PDC therapeutics.

Research and Development

Our primary activity to date has been research and development. The research had historically been conducted at our facility in Madison, Wisconsin and through third-party laboratories and academic universities. Starting in 2018, we no longer used the facility in Madison, Wisconsin for these activities. Clinical development has been completed primarily through contract research organizations

at hospitals and academic centers. We have established a collaboration outsourcing model to leverage third-party expertise, accelerate project timelines, improve productivity and limit spend and fixed costs. Our research and development expenses were approximately $27,266,000 and $18,266,000 for 2023 and 2022, respectively.

Regulation

The production, distribution, and marketing of products employing our technology, and our development activities, are subject to extensive governmental regulation in the U.S. and in other countries. In the U.S., we are subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended, and the regulations of the FDA, as well as to other federal, state, and local statutes and regulations, including the federal, state and local laws and regulations governing the storage, use and disposal of hazardous materials, including radioactive isotopes. These laws, and similar laws outside the U.S., govern the clinical and pre-clinical testing, research and development, manufacture, quality control, safety, effectiveness, approval, labeling, distribution, sale, import, export, storage, record-keeping, reporting, advertising and promotion, sampling, and tracking and tracing of drugs. Product development and approval within this regulatory framework, if successful, will take many years and involve the expenditure of substantial resources. Violations of regulatory requirements at any stage may result in various adverse consequences, including the delay in approving or refusal to approve a product by the FDA or other health authorities. Violations of regulatory requirements also may result in enforcement actions, which include civil money penalties, injunctions, seizure of regulated product, and civil and criminal charges. The following paragraphs provide further information on certain legal and regulatory issues with a particular potential to affect our operations or future marketing of products employing our technology.

U.S. Research, Development, and Product Approval Process

In the US, the FDA approves and regulates drugs under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) and implementing regulations. The failure to comply with requirements under the FDCA and other applicable laws at any time during the product development process, approval process or after approval may subject an applicant and/or sponsor to a variety of administrative or judicial sanctions, including refusal by the FDA to approve pending applications, withdrawal of an approval, imposition of a clinical hold, issuance of warning letters and other types of letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, refusals of government contracts, restitution, disgorgement of profits, or civil or criminal investigations and penalties.

The research, development, and approval process in the U.S. and elsewhere is intensive and rigorous and generally takes many years to complete. The typical process required by the FDA before a therapeutic drug may be marketed in the U.S. includes:

Pre-Clinical Testing

During pre-clinical testing, studies are performed with respect to the chemical and physical properties of candidate formulations. Preclinical studies include laboratory evaluation as well as in vitro and animal studies to assess product chemistry, formulation, and toxicity, and activity of the drug for initial testing in humans and to establish a rationale for therapeutic use. These studies are subject to applicable GLP requirements. Biological testing is typically done in animal models to demonstrate the activity of the compound against the targeted disease or condition and to assess the apparent effects of the new product candidate on various organ systems, as well as its relative therapeutic effectiveness and safety. The results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature and plans for clinical studies, among other things, are submitted to the FDA as part of an IND. Some long-term preclinical testing, including but not limited to animal tests of reproductive adverse events and carcinogenicity, and long-term toxicity studies, may continue after the IND is submitted.

Submission of IND

An IND must be submitted to the FDA and become effective before studies in humans may commence. An IND is an exemption from the FDCA that allows an unapproved new drug to be shipped in interstate commerce for use in an investigational clinical trial and a request for FDA authorization to administer an investigational drug to humans. In support of the IND, applicants must submit a protocol for each clinical trial and any subsequent protocol amendments. In addition, the results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature, among other things, are submitted to the FDA as part of an IND. The FDA requires a 30-day waiting period after the submission of each IND before clinical trials may begin. At any time during this 30-day period, or thereafter, the FDA may raise concerns or questions about the conduct of the trials as outlined in the IND and impose a clinical hold or partial clinical hold. In this case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before clinical trials can begin or resume. An IRB representing each institution participating in the clinical trial must review and approve the plan for any clinical trial before it commences at that institution, and the IRB must conduct continuing review and reapprove the study at least annually. An IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial.

Clinical Studies

Clinical study programs in humans generally follow a three-phase process. Typically, Phase 1 studies are conducted in small numbers of healthy volunteers or, on occasion, in patients afflicted with the target disease. Phase 1 studies are conducted to determine the metabolic and pharmacological action of the product candidate in humans and the side effects associated with increasing doses, and, if possible, to gain early evidence of effectiveness. During Phase 1, sufficient information about the drug’s safety and tolerability, pharmacokinetics and pharmacological effects should be obtained to permit the design of well-controlled, scientifically valid, Phase 2 studies. In Phase 2, controlled clinical studies are generally conducted in larger groups of patients having the target disease or condition in order to determine the common short-term side effects and risks associated with the drug, and to obtain preliminary data on the safety and effectiveness of the product candidate and optimal dosing. This phase also helps determine further the safety profile of the product candidate. In Phase 3, large-scale clinical studies are generally conducted in patients having the target disease or condition to provide sufficient data of effectiveness and safety of the product candidate that is needed to evaluate the overall benefit-risk relationship of the drug and to provide an adequate basis for physician labeling, as required by U.S. regulatory agencies.

In the case of products for certain serious or life-threatening diseases, the initial human testing may be done in patients with the disease rather than in healthy volunteers. Because these patients are already afflicted with the target disease or condition, it is possible that such studies will also provide results traditionally obtained in Phase 2 studies. These studies are often referred to as “Phase 1/2” studies. However, even if patients participate in initial human testing and a Phase 1/2 study is carried out, the sponsor is still responsible for obtaining all the data usually obtained in both Phase 1 and Phase 2 studies.

U.S. law requires that studies conducted to support approval for product marketing be “adequate and well controlled.” In general, this means that either a placebo or a product already approved for the treatment of the disease or condition under study must be used as an active reference control, however, if testing in a patient population that does not have an approved treatment and where it would be unethical to only provide a placebo, single-arm, open label studies may be acceptable in coordination with the FDA. Studies must also be conducted in compliance with good clinical practice requirements, and informed consent must be obtained from all study subjects. The clinical study process for a new compound can take ten years or more to complete.

At any time during this 30-day period, or thereafter, the FDA may raise concerns or questions about the conduct of the trials as outlined in the IND and impose a clinical hold or partial clinical hold. The FDA may prevent clinical studies from beginning or may place clinical studies on hold at any point in this process if, among other reasons, it concludes that study subjects are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. In this case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before clinical trials can begin or resume. Studies may also be prevented from beginning or may be terminated by institutional review boards, which must review and approve all research involving human subjects. Side effects or adverse events that are reported during clinical studies can delay, impede, or prevent marketing authorization. Similarly, adverse events that are reported after marketing authorization can result in additional limitations being placed on a product’s use and, potentially, the termination of ongoing clinical trials and withdrawal of the product from the market.

Submission of NDA

Following the completion of clinical studies, the data are analyzed to determine whether the studies support an application for product approval. In the U.S., if the product is regulated as a drug, an NDA must be submitted and approved before commercial marketing may begin. The NDA must include, among other things, a substantial amount of data and other information concerning the safety and effectiveness of the compound from preclinical, laboratory, animal, toxicology and human clinical testing, as well as data and information on manufacturing, product quality and stability, and proposed product labeling.

Each domestic and foreign manufacturing establishment, including any contract manufacturers we may decide to use, must be listed in the NDA and must be registered with the FDA. The application generally will not be approved until the FDA conducts a manufacturing inspection, approves the applicable manufacturing process and determines that the facility is in compliance with cGMP requirements. Additionally, before approving an NDA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCP. In addition, as a condition of approval, the FDA may require an applicant to develop a REMS. REMS use risk minimization strategies beyond professional labeling to ensure that the benefits of the product outweigh the potential risks. To determine whether a REMS is needed, the FDA will consider the size of the population likely to use the product, seriousness of the disease or condition to be treated by the drug, expected benefit of the product, expected duration of treatment, seriousness of known or potential adverse events, and whether the product is a new molecular entity.

Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, as amended, the FDA receives fees for reviewing an NDA and supplements thereto, as well as annual fees for commercial manufacturing establishments and for approved products. These fees can be significant. For fiscal year 2024, the application fee for an application requiring clinical data alone is $4,048,695, although we may qualify for a waiver of these FDA filing fees since we are a small business entity. In addition, the sponsor of an approved NDA is also subject to annual program fees. Application and program fees are typically increased annually.

Each NDA submitted for FDA approval is usually reviewed for administrative completeness to permit a substantive review within 60 days following receipt of the application. If deemed complete, the FDA will “file” the NDA, thereby triggering substantive review of the application. The FDA may request additional information rather than accept an NDA for filing. In this event, the application must be resubmitted with the additional information. The resubmitted application is also subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth substantive review. The FDA has established performance goals for the review of NDAs— six months from the filing date for applications subject to priority review and ten months from the filing date for applications subject to standard review. However, the FDA is not legally required to complete its review within these periods, and these performance goals may change over time.

The FDA’s review of an application may involve review and recommendations by an independent FDA advisory committee. The FDA is required to refer an application for a novel drug to an advisory committee or explain why such referral was not made. Typically, an advisory committee is a panel of independent experts, including clinicians and other scientific experts, that reviews, evaluates and provides a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions.

On the basis of the FDA’s evaluation of the NDA and accompanying information, including the results of the inspection of the manufacturing facilities, the FDA may issue an approval letter or a complete response letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the product with specific prescribing information for specific indications. A complete response letter generally outlines the deficiencies in the submission and may require substantial additional testing or information in order for the FDA to reconsider the application. If and when those deficiencies have been addressed to the FDA’s satisfaction in a resubmission of the NDA, the FDA will

issue an approval letter. The FDA intends to review such resubmissions in two or six months depending on the type of information included. Even with submission of this additional information, the FDA ultimately may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval.

Even if the FDA approves a product, it may limit the approved therapeutic uses for the product as described in the product labeling, require that warning statements be included in the product labeling, require that additional studies, including Phase 4 studies, be conducted following approval as a condition of the approval, impose restrictions and conditions on product distribution, prescribing, or dispensing in the form of a REMS, or otherwise limit the scope of any approval. The FDA may prevent or limit further marketing of a product based on the results of post-market studies or surveillance programs. After approval, many types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications, manufacturing changes and additional labeling claims, are subject to further testing requirements and submission to the FDA of a supplemental NDA (sNDA), which may require FDA review and approval. prior to implementation. An NDA supplement for a new indication typically requires clinical data similar to that in the original application, and the FDA uses the same procedures and actions in reviewing NDA supplements as it does in reviewing NDAs.

Expedited Approval Pathways

The FDA is authorized to designate certain products for expedited review if they are intended to address an unmet medical need in the treatment of a serious or life-threatening disease or condition. These programs are referred to as Fast Track designation, Breakthrough Therapy designation and Priority Review designation. In addition, accelerated approval offers the potential for approval based on a surrogate or intermediate clinical endpoint. In May 2014, the FDA published a final Guidance for Industry titled “Expedited Programs for Serious Conditions Drugs and Biologics,” which provides guidance on the FDA programs that are intended to facilitate and expedite development and review of new drug candidates as well as threshold criteria generally applicable to concluding that a drug candidate is a candidate for these expedited development and review programs.

The FDA may designate a product for Fast Track review if it is intended, whether alone or in combination with one or more other products, for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, and nonclinical or clinical data demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for such a disease or condition. For Fast Track products, sponsors may have greater interactions with the FDA and the FDA may initiate review of sections of a Fast Track product’s application before the application is complete. This rolling review may be available if the FDA determines, after preliminary evaluation of clinical data submitted by the sponsor, that a Fast Track product may be effective. The sponsor must also provide, and the FDA must approve, a schedule for the submission of the remaining information and the sponsor must pay applicable user fees. However, the FDA’s review clock for a Fast Track application does not begin until the last section of the application is submitted. In addition, the Fast Track designation may be withdrawn by the FDA if the FDA believes that the designation is no longer supported by data emerging in the clinical trial process.

A product may be designated as a Breakthrough Therapy if it is intended, either alone or in combination with one or more other products, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing available therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. The FDA may take certain actions with respect to Breakthrough Therapies, including holding meetings with the sponsor throughout the development process; providing timely advice to the product sponsor regarding development and approval; involving more senior staff in the review process; assigning a cross disciplinary project lead for the review team; rolling review; and, taking other steps to design the clinical trials in an efficient manner.

The FDA intends to review applications for standard review drug products within ten months of the 60-day filing date; and applications for priority review drugs within six months. Priority review can be applied to drugs that the FDA determines treat a serious condition, and if approved, would offer a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness. The FDA determines, on a case-by-case basis, whether the proposed product represents a significant improvement when compared with other available therapies. Significant improvement may be illustrated by evidence of increased effectiveness in the treatment of a condition, elimination or substantial reduction of a treatment limiting product reaction, documented enhancement of patient compliance that may lead to improvement in serious outcomes, and evidence of safety and effectiveness in a new subpopulation.

RPDD by the FDA enables priority review voucher (PRV) eligibility upon U.S. market approval of a designated drug for rare pediatric diseases. The RPDD-PRV program is intended to encourage development of therapies to prevent and treat rare pediatric diseases. The voucher, which is awarded upon NDA or BLA approval to the sponsor of a designated RPDD can be sold or transferred to another entity and used by the holder to receive priority review for a future NDA or BLA submission, which reduces the FDA review time of such future submission from ten to six months.

Accelerated Approval Pathway

The FDA may grant accelerated approval to a drug for a serious or life-threatening condition that provides a meaningful therapeutic advantage to patients over available treatments based upon a determination that the drug has an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. The FDA may also grant accelerated approval for such drug for such a condition when the product has an effect on an intermediate clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality (IMM) and that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on IMM or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. Drugs granted accelerated approval must meet the same statutory standards for safety and effectiveness as those granted traditional approval.

For the purposes of accelerated approval, a surrogate endpoint is a marker, such as a laboratory measurement, radiographic image, physical sign or other measure that is thought to predict clinical benefit but is not itself a measure of clinical benefit. Surrogate endpoints can often be measured more easily or more rapidly than clinical endpoints. An intermediate clinical endpoint is a measurement of a therapeutic effect that is considered reasonably likely to predict the clinical benefit of a drug, such as an effect on IMM. The FDA has limited experience with accelerated approvals based on intermediate clinical endpoints but has indicated that such endpoints generally may support accelerated approval where the therapeutic effect measured by the endpoint is not itself a clinical benefit and basis for traditional approval, if there is a basis for concluding that the therapeutic effect is reasonably likely to predict the ultimate clinical benefit of a drug. The accelerated approval pathway is most often used in settings in which the course of a disease is long, and an extended period of time is required to measure the intended clinical benefit of a drug, even if the effect on the surrogate or intermediate clinical endpoint occurs rapidly. Thus, accelerated approval has been used extensively in the development and approval of drugs for treatment of a variety of cancers in which the goal of therapy is generally to improve survival or decrease morbidity and the duration of the typical disease course requires lengthy and sometimes large trials to demonstrate a clinical or survival benefit.

The accelerated approval pathway is contingent on a sponsor’s agreement to conduct, in a diligent manner, additional post-approval confirmatory studies to verify and describe the drug’s clinical benefit. As a result, a drug candidate approved on this basis is subject to rigorous post-marketing compliance requirements, including the completion of Phase 4 or post-approval clinical trials to confirm the effect on the clinical endpoint. Failure to conduct required post-approval studies, or confirm a clinical benefit during post-marketing studies, would allow the FDA to withdraw the drug from the market on an expedited basis. In addition, all promotional materials for drugs approved under accelerated regulations are subject to prior review by the FDA.

Post NDA Regulation

Significant and pervasive continuing legal and regulatory requirements also apply after FDA approval to market under an NDA. These include, among other things, requirements related to adverse event and other reporting, product advertising and promotion, and ongoing adherence to cGMP requirements, as well as the need to submit appropriate new or supplemental applications and obtain FDA approval for certain changes to the approved product labeling, or manufacturing process. The FDA also enforces the requirements of the Prescription Drug Marketing Act and its implementing regulations which, among other things, impose various requirements in connection with the distribution of product samples to physicians. The FDA also enforces the Drug Supply Chain Security Act, or DSCSA, which regulates the distribution and tracing of prescription drugs and prescription drug samples at the federal level, sets minimum standards for the regulation of drug distributors by the states, and imposes requirements to track and trace drug products, ensure accountability in distribution and to identify and remove counterfeit and other illegitimate products from the market.

In addition, drug manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved drugs are required to register their establishments with the FDA and state agencies and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and these state agencies for compliance with cGMP requirements. Changes to the manufacturing process are strictly regulated and often require prior FDA approval before being implemented. FDA regulations also require investigation and correction of any deviations from cGMP and impose reporting and documentation requirements upon the sponsor and any third-party manufacturers that the sponsor may decide to use. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money, and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain cGMP compliance.

Once an approval is granted, the FDA may withdraw the approval if compliance with regulatory requirements and standards is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the market. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory

requirements, may result in revisions to the approved labeling to add new safety information; imposition of post-market studies or clinical trials to assess new safety risks; or imposition of distribution or other restrictions under a REMS program.

The FDA strictly regulates marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of products that are placed on the market. Drugs may be promoted only for the approved indications and consistent with the provisions of the approved label. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label uses may be subject to significant liability. However, physicians may, in their independent medical judgment, prescribe legally available products for off-label uses. The FDA does not regulate the behavior of physicians in their choice of treatments, but the FDA does restrict manufacturer’s communications on the subject of off-label use of their products.

The regulatory framework applicable to the production, distribution, marketing and/or sale of our product pipeline may change significantly from the current descriptions provided herein in the time that it may take for any of our products to reach a point at which an NDA is approved.

Overall research, development, and approval times depend on a number of factors, including the period of review at the FDA, the number of questions posed by the FDA during review, how long it takes to respond to the FDA’s questions, the severity or life-threatening nature of the disease in question, the availability of alternative treatments, the availability of clinical investigators and eligible patients, the rate of enrollment of patients in clinical studies, and the risks and benefits demonstrated in the clinical studies.

Orphan Drug Designation and Exclusivity

Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may designate a drug product as an “orphan drug” if it is intended to treat a rare disease or condition, generally meaning that it affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the US, or more in cases in which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making a drug product available in the US for treatment of the disease or condition will be recovered from sales of the product. A company must request ODD before submitting an NDA for the drug and rare disease or condition. ODD does not shorten the goal dates for the regulatory review and approval process, although it does convey certain advantages such as tax benefits and exemption from the application fee. After the FDA grants ODD, the name of the drug and its potential orphan-designated use are disclosed publicly by the FDA.

If a product with orphan designation receives the first FDA approval for the disease or condition for which it has such designation, the product generally will receive orphan drug exclusivity. Orphan drug exclusivity means that the FDA may not approve another sponsor’s marketing application for the same drug for the same indication for seven years, except in certain limited circumstances. Orphan exclusivity does not block the approval of a different drug for the same rare disease or condition, nor does it block the approval of the same drug for different indications. If a drug designated as an orphan drug ultimately receives marketing approval for an indication broader than what was designated in its orphan drug application, it may not be entitled to exclusivity. Orphan exclusivity will not bar approval of another product under certain circumstances, including if a subsequent product with the same drug for the same indication is shown to be clinically superior to the approved product on the basis of greater efficacy or safety, or providing a major contribution to patient care, or if the company with orphan drug exclusivity is not able to meet market demand.

Pediatric Studies and Exclusivity

Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act of 2003, an NDA or supplement thereto must contain data that are adequate to assess the safety and effectiveness of the drug product for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations, and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective. With enactment of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act of 2012 (the FDASIA), sponsors must also submit pediatric study plans prior to the assessment data.

Those plans must contain an outline of the proposed pediatric study or studies the applicant plans to conduct, including study objectives and design, any deferral or waiver requests, and other information required by regulation. The applicant, the FDA and the FDA’s internal review committee must then review the information submitted, consult with each other and agree upon a final plan. The FDA or the applicant may request an amendment to the plan at any time.

The FDA may, on its own initiative or at the request of the applicant, grant deferrals for submission of some or all pediatric data until after approval of the product for use in adults, or full or partial waivers from the pediatric data requirements. Additional requirements and procedures relating to deferral requests and requests for extension of deferrals are contained in FDASIA. Unless otherwise required by regulation, the pediatric data requirements do not apply to products with orphan designation.

Pediatric exclusivity is another type of non-patent marketing exclusivity in the U.S. and, if granted, provides for the attachment of an additional six months of marketing protection to the term of any existing regulatory exclusivity, including the non-patent and orphan exclusivity. This six-month exclusivity may be granted if an NDA sponsor submits pediatric data that fairly respond to a written request from the FDA for such data. The data do not need to show the product to be effective in the pediatric population studied; rather, if the clinical trial is deemed to fairly respond to the FDA’s request, the additional protection is granted. If reports of requested pediatric studies are submitted to and accepted by the FDA within the statutory time limits, whatever statutory or regulatory periods of exclusivity or patent protection cover the product are extended by six months. This is not a patent term extension, but it effectively extends the regulatory period during which the FDA cannot approve another application.

Abbreviated New Drug Applications for Generic Drugs

In 1984, with passage of the Hatch-Waxman Amendments to the FDCA, Congress established an abbreviated regulatory scheme allowing the FDA to approve generic drugs that are shown to contain the same active ingredients as, and to be bioequivalent to, drugs previously approved by the FDA pursuant to NDAs. To obtain approval of a generic drug, an applicant must submit an abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) to the agency. An ANDA is a comprehensive submission that contains, among other things, data and information pertaining to the active pharmaceutical ingredient, bioequivalence, drug product formulation, specifications and stability of the generic drug, as well as analytical methods, manufacturing process validation data and quality control procedures. ANDAs are “abbreviated” because they generally do not include preclinical and clinical data to demonstrate safety and effectiveness. Instead, in support of such applications, a generic manufacturer may rely on the preclinical and clinical testing previously conducted for a drug product previously approved under an NDA, known as the reference listed drug (RLD).

Specifically, for an ANDA to be approved, the FDA must find that the generic version is identical to the RLD with respect to the active ingredients, the route of administration, the dosage form and the strength of the drug. An applicant may submit an ANDA suitability petition to request the FDA’s prior permission to submit an abbreviated application for a drug that differs from the RLD in route of administration, dosage form, or strength, or for a drug that has one different active ingredient in a fixed combination drug product (i.e., a drug product with multiple active ingredients). At the same time, the FDA must also determine that the generic drug is “bioequivalent” to the innovator drug. Under the statute, a generic drug is bioequivalent to a RLD if “the rate and extent of absorption of the drug do not show a significant difference from the rate and extent of absorption of the listed drug.” Upon approval of an ANDA, the FDA indicates whether the generic product is “therapeutically equivalent” to the RLD in its publication “Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations,” also referred to as the “Orange Book.” Physicians and pharmacists may consider a therapeutic equivalent generic drug to be fully substitutable for the RLD. In addition, by operation of certain state laws and numerous health insurance programs, the FDA’s designation of therapeutic equivalence often results in substitution of the generic drug without the knowledge or consent of either the prescribing physician or patient.

505(b)(2) New Drug Applications

As an alternative path to FDA approval for modifications to formulations or uses of products previously approved by the FDA pursuant to an NDA, an applicant may submit an NDA under Section 505(b)(2) of the FDCA. Section 505(b)(2) was enacted as part of the Hatch-Waxman Amendments and permits the filing of an NDA where at least some of the information required for approval comes from studies not conducted by, or for, the applicant, and for which the applicant has not obtained a right of reference. If the 505(b)(2) applicant can establish that reliance on the FDA’s previous findings of safety and effectiveness is scientifically and legally appropriate, it may eliminate the need to conduct certain preclinical studies or clinical trials of the new product. The FDA may also require companies to perform additional bridging studies or measurements, including clinical trials, to support the change from the previously approved reference drug. The FDA may then approve the new drug candidate for all, or some, of the label indications for which the reference drug has been approved, as well as for any new indication sought by the 505(b)(2) applicant.

Hatch-Waxman Patent Certification and the 30-month Stay

In seeking approval for a drug through an NDA, applicants are required to list with the FDA each patent whose claims cover the applicant’s product. Upon approval of a drug, each of the patents listed in the application for the drug is then published in the FDA’s Orange Book.

When an ANDA applicant files its application with the FDA, the applicant is required to certify to the FDA concerning any patents listed for the reference product in the Orange Book, except for patents covering methods of use for which the ANDA applicant is not seeking approval. To the extent that the Section 505(b)(2) applicant is relying on studies conducted for an already approved

product, the applicant is required to certify to the FDA concerning any patents listed for the approved product in the Orange Book to the same extent that an ANDA applicant would. Specifically, the applicant must certify that (i) the required patent information has not been filed; (ii) the listed patent has expired; (iii) the listed patent has not expired but will expire on a particular date and approval is sought after patent expiration; or (iv) the listed patent is invalid or will not be infringed by the new product. The ANDA applicant may also elect to submit a statement certifying that its proposed ANDA label does not contain (or carve out) any language regarding the patented method-of-use rather than certify to a listed method-of-use patent, known as a Section VIII statement. If the applicant does not challenge the listed patents, the ANDA application will not be approved until all the listed patents claiming the referenced product have expired. A certification that the new product will not infringe the already approved product’s listed patents, or that such patents are invalid, is called a Paragraph IV certification. If the ANDA applicant has provided a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA, the applicant must also send notice of the Paragraph IV certification to the NDA and patent holders once the ANDA has been accepted for filing by the FDA. The NDA and patent holders may then initiate a patent infringement lawsuit in response to the notice of the Paragraph IV certification. The filing of a patent infringement lawsuit within 45 days of the receipt of a Paragraph IV certification automatically prevents the FDA from approving the ANDA until the earlier of 30 months, expiration of the patent, settlement of the lawsuit, or a decision in the infringement case that is favorable to the ANDA applicant.

Patent Term Extension

After NDA approval, owners of relevant drug patents may apply for up to a five-year patent extension, which permits patent term restoration as compensation for the patent term lost during the FDA regulatory process. The allowable patent term extension is typically calculated as one-half the time between the effective date of an IND application and the submission date of a NDA, plus the time between NDA submission date and the NDA approval date up to a maximum of five years. The time can be shortened if the FDA determines that the applicant did not pursue approval with due diligence. The total patent term after the extension may not exceed 14 years from the date of product approval. Only one patent applicable to an approved drug is eligible for extension and only those claims covering the approved drug, a method for using it, or a method for manufacturing it may be extended and the application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent in question. However, we may not be granted an extension because of, for example, failing to exercise due diligence during the testing phase or regulatory review process, failing to apply within applicable deadlines, failing to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents or otherwise failing to satisfy applicable requirements.

Exclusivity Under the Hatch-Waxman Amendments

In addition, under the Hatch-Waxman Amendments, the FDA may not approve an ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA referencing a particular drug until any applicable period of non-patent exclusivity for the RLD has expired. The FDCA provides a period of five years of non-patent data exclusivity for a new drug containing a new chemical entity (NCE). For the purposes of this provision, an NCE is a drug that contains no active moiety that has previously been approved by the FDA in any other NDA. An active moiety is the molecule or ion responsible for the physiological or pharmacological action of the drug substance. In cases where such NCE exclusivity has been granted, an ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA may not be submitted to the FDA until the expiration of five years from the date the NDA is approved, unless the submission is accompanied by a Paragraph IV certification, in which case the applicant may submit its application four years following the original product approval.

The FDCA also provides for a period of three years of exclusivity if the NDA includes reports of one or more new clinical investigations, other than bioavailability or bioequivalence studies, that were conducted by or for the applicant and are essential to the approval of the application. This three-year exclusivity period often protects changes to a previously approved drug product, such as a new dosage form, route of administration, combination or indication. Three-year exclusivity would be available for a drug product that contains a previously approved active moiety, provided the statutory requirement for a new clinical investigation is satisfied. Unlike five-year NCE exclusivity, an award of three-year exclusivity does not block the FDA from accepting ANDAs or 505(b)(2) NDAs seeking approval for generic versions of the drug as of the date of approval of the original drug product; it does, however, block the FDA from approving ANDAs or 505(b)(2) NDAs during the period of exclusivity. The FDA typically makes decisions about awards of data exclusivity shortly before a product is approved.

Other U.S. Regulatory Requirements

In the U.S., the research, manufacturing, distribution, marketing, sale, and promotion of drug and biological products are subject to regulation by various federal, state, and local authorities in addition to the FDA, including the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), other agencies of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (e.g., the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services), the U.S. Department of Justice and individual U.S. Attorney offices within the

Department of Justice, and state and local governments. Restrictions under applicable healthcare laws and regulations, include the following:

Efforts to ensure that our business arrangements will comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations will involve substantial costs. It is possible that governmental and enforcement authorities will conclude that our business practices may not comply with current or future statutes, regulations or case law interpreting applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business, including the imposition of civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, disgorgement, monetary fines, individual imprisonment, additional reporting obligations and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or other agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, possible exclusion from participation in federal healthcare programs, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, and curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations.

Our research and development, manufacturing, and administration of our drugs involve the controlled use of hazardous materials, including chemicals and radioactive materials, such as radioactive isotopes. Therefore, we are subject to federal, state and local laws and regulations governing the storage, use and disposal of these materials and some waste products and are required to maintain both a manufacturer’s license and a radioactive materials license with State of Wisconsin agencies.

Moreover, we are now, and may become subject to, additional federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and policies relating to safe working conditions, laboratory practices, the experimental use of animals, and/or the use, storage, handling, transportation, and disposal of human tissue, waste, and hazardous substances, including radioactive and toxic materials and infectious disease agents used in conjunction with our research work.

Foreign Regulatory Requirements

We, and any future collaborative partners, may be subject to widely varying foreign regulations that may be quite different from those of the FDA governing clinical studies, manufacture, product registration and approval, and pharmaceutical sales. Whether or not FDA approval has been obtained, we or any future collaboration partners must obtain a separate approval for a product by the comparable regulatory authorities of foreign countries prior to the commencement of product marketing in these countries. In certain countries, regulatory authorities also establish pricing and reimbursement criteria. The approval process varies from country to country, and the time may be longer or shorter than that required for FDA approval. In addition, under current U.S. law, there are restrictions on the export of products not approved by the FDA, depending on the country involved and the status of the product in that country.

Reimbursement and Pricing Controls

In many of the markets where we, or any future collaborative partners would commercialize a product following regulatory approval, the prices of pharmaceutical products are subject to direct price controls by law and to drug reimbursement programs with varying price control mechanisms. Public and private health care payors control costs and influence drug pricing through a variety of mechanisms, including through negotiating discounts with the manufacturers and through the use of tiered formularies and other mechanisms that provide preferential access to certain drugs over others within a therapeutic class. Payors also set other criteria to

govern the uses of a drug that will be deemed medically appropriate and therefore reimbursed or otherwise covered. In particular, many public and private health care payors limit reimbursement and coverage to the uses of a drug that are either approved by the FDA or that are supported by other appropriate evidence (for example, published medical literature) and appear in a recognized drug compendium.

Pursuant to the Medicaid Drug Rebate Statute (42 U.S.C. § 1396r-8(a)(1)), we will be required to participate in the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program (MDRP) for federal payment to be available for our products under Medicaid and Medicare Part B. Medicaid is a government health insurance program for eligible low-income adults, children, families, pregnant women, and people with certain disabilities. It is jointly funded by the federal and state governments, and it is administered by individual states within parameters established by the federal government. As a result, coverage and reimbursement requirements for drugs and biologics vary by state. For example, drugs and biologics may be covered under the medical or pharmacy benefit, and state Medicaid programs may impose different utilization management controls, such as prior authorization, step therapy, or quantity limits on drugs and biologics, subject to federal limitations for such controls. But all states must generally provide coverage and reimbursement for a manufacturer’s covered outpatient drugs, as that term is defined by applicable law, if a manufacturer participates in the MDRP.

Under the MDRP, we will be required to, among other things, pay a rebate to each state Medicaid program for quantities of our products utilized on an outpatient basis (with some exceptions) that are dispensed to Medicaid beneficiaries and paid for by a state Medicaid program. MDRP rebates are calculated using a statutory formula, state-reported utilization data, and pricing data that are calculated and reported by us on a monthly and quarterly basis to CMS. These data include the average manufacturer price and, in the case of single source and innovator multiple source products, the best price for each drug.

In addition to participating in the MDRP, federal law requires manufacturers to participate in the Public Health Service’s 340B drug pricing program for federal funds to be available for the manufacturer’s drugs under Medicaid and Medicare Part B. The 340B drug pricing program requires participating manufacturers to agree to charge statutorily defined covered entities no more than the 340B “ceiling price” for the manufacturer’s covered outpatient drugs. These 340B covered entities only include health care organizations that have certain federal designations or receive funding from specific federal programs, including Federally Qualified Health Centers, Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program grantees, and certain types of hospitals and specialized clinics, as well as certain hospitals that serve a disproportionate share of low-income patients. The Affordable Care Act expanded the 340B program to include additional types of covered entities: certain children’s hospitals, certain free-standing cancer hospitals, critical access hospitals, certain rural referral centers and certain sole community hospitals, each as defined by the Affordable Care Act. However, “orphan drugs” i.e., those designated under section 526 of the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) are exempted from the ceiling price requirements for these eligible entities added by the Affordable Care Act (except for certain children’s hospitals). The 340B ceiling price is calculated using a statutory formula, which is based on the average manufacturer price and rebate amount for the covered outpatient drug as calculated under the MDRP, and in general, products subject to the MDRP are also subject to the 340B ceiling price calculation and discount requirement. In addition, after multiple delays, the final rule implementing civil monetary penalties against manufacturers for instances of overcharging 340B covered entities became effective on January 1, 2019. Accordingly, we could be subject to such penalties if the government were to find that we knowingly and intentionally overcharged a 340B covered entity.

Federal law requires that for a company to be eligible to have its products paid for with federal funds under the Medicaid and Medicare Part B programs as well as to be purchased by certain federal agencies and grantees, it also must participate in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) pricing program. To participate, we will be required to enter into an FSS contract and other agreements with the VA for our products, which may qualify as “covered drugs.” Under these agreements, we would need to make our products available to the “Big Four” federal agencies—the VA, the Department of Defense (DoD), the Public Health Service (including the Indian Health Service), and the Coast Guard—at pricing that is capped pursuant to a statutory federal ceiling price, or FCP, formula set forth in Section 603 of the Veterans Health Care Act of 1992 (VHCA). The FCP is based on a weighted average non-federal average manufacturer price (Non-FAMP), which manufacturers are required to report on a quarterly and annual basis to the VA. Pursuant to the VHCA, the knowing provision of false information in connection with a Non-FAMP filing can subject a manufacturer to a penalty for each item of false information and could result in other potential liability as well, including liability under the False Claims Act.

FSS contracts are federal procurement contracts that include standard government terms and conditions, separate pricing for each product, and extensive disclosure and certification requirements. All items on FSS contracts are subject to a standard FSS contract clause that requires FSS contract price reductions under certain circumstances where pricing is reduced to an agreed “tracking customer.” Further, in addition to the “Big Four” agencies, all other federal agencies and some non-federal entities are authorized to purchase off FSS contracts. FSS contractors are permitted to charge FSS purchasers other than the Big Four agencies “negotiated

pricing” for covered drugs that is not capped by the FCP; instead, such pricing is negotiated based on a mandatory disclosure of the contractor’s commercial “most favored customer” pricing.

In addition, pursuant to regulations issued by the DoD to implement Section 703 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, each of our covered drugs will be listed on an agreement with the Defense Health Agency (DHA) under which we will agree to honor the “Big Four” pricing for our products when they are dispensed to TRICARE beneficiaries by TRICARE retail network pharmacies. More specifically, we will agree to provide rebates (or refunds) on such utilization. Companies are required to enter into a DHA Agreement for “covered drug” products for the covered drug to be eligible for DoD formulary inclusion and available to TRICARE beneficiaries without preauthorization. The formula for determining the rebate is established in the regulations and our DHA agreement and is based on the difference between the annual Non-FAMP and the FCP (as described above, these price points are required to be calculated by us under the VHCA).

Significant uncertainty exists as to the pricing and reimbursement of products approved by the FDA and other government authorities. There have been several recent US Congressional inquiries and proposed federal legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, reduce the cost of drugs under Medicare, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs. For example, included in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 were several drug price reporting and transparency measures, such as a new requirement for certain Medicare plans to develop tools to display Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit information in real time and for group and health insurance issuers to report information on pharmacy benefit and drug costs to the Secretaries of the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor and the Treasury. Additionally, on March 11, 2021, Congress enacted the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, which included among its provisions a sunset of the Affordable Care Act’s cap on pharmaceutical manufacturers’ rebate liability under the MDRP. Under the Affordable Care Act, manufacturers’ rebate liability was capped at 100% of the average manufacturer price for a covered outpatient drug. Effective January 1, 2024, manufacturers’ MDRP rebate liability will no longer be capped, potentially resulting in a manufacturer paying more in MDRP rebates than it receives on the sale of certain covered outpatient drugs. On February 2, 2022, the Biden Administration signaled its continued commitment to the Cancer Moonshot initiative, which was initially launched in 2016. In its announcement, the administration noted that its new goals under the initiative include addressing inequities in order to ensure broader access to cutting-edge cancer therapeutics and investing in a robust pipeline for new treatments. Additionally, in August 2022, President Biden signed into law the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, which implements substantial changes to the Medicare program, including drug pricing reforms and creation of new Medicare inflation rebates. Namely, the IRA imposes inflation rebates on drug manufacturers for products reimbursed under Medicare Parts B and D if the prices of those products increase faster than inflation; implements changes to the Medicare Part D benefit that, beginning in 2025, will cap beneficiary annual out-of-pocket spending at $2,000, while imposing new discount obligations for pharmaceutical manufacturers; and beginning in 2026, establishes a “maximum fair price” for a fixed number of high expenditure pharmaceutical and biological products covered under Medicare Parts B and D following a price negotiation process with CMS. On October 14, 2022, President Biden issued an Executive Order on Lowering Prescription Drug Costs for Americans, which instructed the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to consider whether to select for testing by the CMS Innovation Center new health care payment and delivery models that would lower drug costs and promote access to innovative drug therapies for beneficiaries enrolled in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Most recently, on February 14, 2023, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a report in response to the October 14, 2022 Executive Order, which, among other things, selects three potential drug affordability and accessibility models to be tested by the CMS Innovation Center. Specifically, the report addresses: (1) a model that would allow Part D Sponsors to establish a “high-value drug list” setting the maximum co-payment amount for certain common generic drugs at $2; (2) a Medicaid-focused model that would establish a partnership between CMS, manufacturers, and state Medicaid agencies that would result in multi-state outcomes-based agreements or certain cell and gene therapy drugs; and (3) a model that would adjust Medicare Part B payment amounts for Accelerated Approval Program drugs to advance the developments of novel treatments.

At the state level, legislatures have increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing, cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. Thus, even if a product candidate is approved, sales of the product will depend, in part, on the extent to which third-party payors provide coverage and establish adequate reimbursement levels for the product. It is likely that additional state and federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand for a pharmaceutical manufacturer’s products or additional pricing pressure.

Employees and Human Capital

As of December 31, 2023, we had twenty employees, all of whom were full-time employees. Of these twenty employees, ten employees were engaged in research and development. None of our employees is subject to a collective bargaining agreement or represented by a trade or labor union. We consider our relationship with our employees to be good.

Our human capital resources objectives include, as applicable, identifying, recruiting, retaining, incentivizing, and integrating our existing and new employees, advisors and consultants. The principal purpose of our equity incentive plans is to attract, retain and reward personnel through the granting of stock-based compensation awards in order to increase stockholder value and the success of our company by motivating such individuals to perform to the best of their abilities and achieve our objectives.

Legal Proceedings

We may be a party to proceedings in the ordinary course of business, however, we do not anticipate that the outcome of such matters and disputes will materially affect our financial statements.

Corporate Information

Cellectar Biosciences, Inc., formerly known as Novelos Therapeutics, Inc., was incorporated in Delaware in June 1996. On April 8, 2011, the Company entered into a business combination with Cellectar, Inc., a privately held Wisconsin corporation that designed and developed products to detect, treat and monitor a wide variety of human cancers. On February 11, 2014, we changed our name to Cellectar Biosciences, Inc. Our common stock is listed on the Nasdaq Capital Market under the symbol CLRB.

Our principal executive offices are located at 100 Campus Drive, Florham Park, New Jersey 07932, and our telephone number is (608) 441-8120. Our corporate website address is www.cellectar.com. Information contained on or accessible through our website is not a part of this annual report.

Item 1A.     Risk Factors.

Investing in our common stock involves a high degree of risk. You should carefully consider the risks described below, together with the other information contained elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A, including Part II, Item 7. “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and Part II, Item 8. “Financial Statements,” as well as our other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC, before deciding whether to invest in our common stock. The occurrence of any of the events or developments described below could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and prospects. In such an event, the market price of our common stock could decline, and you may lose all or part of your investment. Additional risks and uncertainties not presently known to us or that we currently deem immaterial may also impair our business operations.

Summary of Risk Factors

Investing in our securities involves a high degree of risk. You should carefully consider all of the risks discussed in Part I, Item 1A. “Risk Factors” of this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A, not just those discussed under this “Summary of Risk Factors” before making a decision to invest in our securities. The following is a list of some of these risks:

Risks Related to Capital and Our Operations

We will require additional capital in order to continue our operations and may have difficulty raising additional capital.

We expect that we will continue to generate operating losses for the foreseeable future. As of December 31, 2023, our consolidated cash balance was approximately $9.6 million. We believe our cash balance as of December 31, 2023, in combination with the funds generated by the warrants exercised by investors in January, February and July 2024 (see Note 13 to our audited financial statements in Item 8 of this 10-K/A) is adequate to fund our basic budgeted operations into the second quarter of 2025.

During the third quarter ended September 30, 2023, the Company completed a private placement with certain institutional investors expected to result in gross proceeds of up to $102.9 million, including gross proceeds of $24.5 million which the Company

received at closing. In January 2024, the Company’s Tranche A warrants were all exercised resulting in gross proceeds of $44.1 million with net proceeds of approximately $42.8 million after deducting estimated offering expenses, and in July 2024 nearly all of the Company’s Tranche B warrants were exercised and the Company sold new warrant for gross proceeds of $19.4 million (see Note 13 to our audited financial statements). The Company’s ability to execute its current operating plan depends on its ability to obtain additional funding via the sale of equity and/or debt securities, a strategic transaction or other source of capital. The Company plans to continue actively pursuing financing alternatives, however, there can be no assurance that it will obtain the necessary funding, raising substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern within one year of the date these financial statements are issued. The accompanying financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty.

Our capital requirements and our ability to meet them depend on many factors, including:

We may consume available resources more rapidly than currently anticipated, resulting in the need for additional funding sooner than expected. We may seek to raise any additional funds through the issuance of any combination of common stock, preferred stock, warrants and debt financings or by executing collaborative arrangements with corporate partners or other sources, any of which may be dilutive to existing stockholders or have a material effect on our current or future business prospects. If we cannot secure adequate financing when needed, we may be required to delay, scale back or eliminate one or more of our research and development programs or to enter into license or other arrangements with third parties to commercialize products or technologies that we would otherwise seek to develop and commercialize ourselves. In the event that additional funds are obtained through arrangements with collaborative partners or other sources, we may have to relinquish economic and/or proprietary rights to some of our technologies or products under development that we would otherwise seek to develop or commercialize by ourselves. In such an event, our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations may be adversely affected.

The COVID-19 pandemic could materially and adversely affect our business.

The COVID-19 pandemic could significantly disrupt our business and may prevent us from conducting business activities because of spread of the disease, or as a result of shutdowns that may be requested or mandated by federal, state and local governmental authorities. Business disruptions have included restrictions on our ability to travel, as well as temporary closures. While we have not yet experienced any significant impacts as a result of the pandemic other than delays in clinical trial enrollment, it is not possible at this time to estimate the ultimate impact that it could have on our business. The continued impacts of COVID-19 including new virus strains and the measures taken by government authorities have created uncertainties and could delay our ongoing clinical studies or the manufacture or shipment of iopofosine for clinical studies.

Conflicts, military actions, terrorist attacks, natural disasters. public health crises, including the occurrence of a contagious disease or illness, such as the COVID-19 coronavirus, cyber-attacks and general instability could adversely affect our business.

Conflicts, military actions, terrorist attacks, natural disasters, public health crises and cyber-attacks have precipitated economic instability and turmoil in financial markets. Instability and turmoil may result in raw material cost increases. In addition, the long-term effects of climate change on general economic conditions and the pharmaceutical manufacturing and distribution industry in particular are unclear, and changes in the supply, demand or available sources of energy and the regulatory and other costs associated with energy production and delivery may affect the availability or cost of goods and services, including raw materials and other natural resources, necessary to run our businesses. The uncertainty and economic disruption resulting from hostilities, military action, acts of terrorism, natural disasters, public health crises or cyber-attacks may impact our operations or those of our suppliers. Accordingly, any conflict, military action, terrorist attack, natural disasters, public health crises or cyber-attack that impacts us or any of our suppliers, could have a material adverse effect on our business, liquidity, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

War, terrorism, other acts of violence, or natural or manmade disasters may affect the markets in which we operate, our patients and resources required in our research and development activities.

Our business may be adversely affected by political instability, disruption or destruction in a geographic region in which we operate, regardless of cause, including war, terrorism, riot, civil insurrection or social unrest, and natural or manmade disasters, including famine, flood, fire, earthquake, storm or pandemic events and spread of disease, such as the COVID-19 pandemic and the significant military action against Ukraine by Russia. Such events may affect our business by increasing prices for resources required in our research and development activities or limiting our access to patients for our clinical trials which may delay our progress on one or more of our clinical or preclinical drug product candidates.

Our business and operations may be materially adversely affected in the event of computer system failures or security breaches.

Despite the implementation of security measures, our internal computer systems, and those of our third-party manufacturers, contract research organizations and other third parties on which we rely, are vulnerable to damage from computer viruses, unauthorized access, cyber-attacks, phishing attempts, natural disasters, fire, terrorism, war and telecommunication and electrical failures. If such an event were to occur and interrupt our operations, it could result in a material disruption in our business. For example, the loss of clinical study data from ongoing or planned clinical studies could result in delays in our regulatory approval efforts and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data. To the extent that any disruption or security breach results in a loss of or damage to our data or applications, loss of trade secrets, inappropriate disclosure of confidential or proprietary information, including protected health information or personal data of employees or former employees, lack of access to our clinical data, or disruption of the manufacturing process, we could incur liability and the further development of our drug candidates could be delayed. We may also be vulnerable to cyber-attacks or other malfeasance by hackers. This type of breach of our cybersecurity may compromise our confidential and financial information, adversely affect our business, or result in legal proceedings. Further, these cybersecurity breaches may inflict reputational harm upon us that may result in decreased market value and erode public trust.

Failure to meet investor and stakeholder expectations regarding environmental, social and corporate governance, or “ESG” matters may damage our reputation.

There is an increasing focus from certain investors, employees and other stakeholders concerning ESG matters. Additionally, public interest and legislative pressure related to public companies’ ESG practices continue to grow. If our ESG practices fail to meet

investor, employee or other stakeholders’ evolving expectations and standards for responsible corporate citizenship in areas including environmental stewardship, Board of Directors and employee diversity, human capital management, corporate governance and transparency, our reputation, brand, appeal to investors and employee retention may be negatively impacted, which could have a material adverse effect on our business or financial condition.

Our ability to utilize our net operating loss carryforwards and certain other tax attributes may be limited.

Our ability to utilize our federal net operating loss and tax credit carryforwards may be limited under Sections 382 and 383 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the Code). The limitations apply if we experience an “ownership change”, generally defined as a greater than 50 percentage point change in the ownership of our equity by certain stockholders over a rolling three-year period. Similar provisions of state tax law may also apply. We have not evaluated whether such an ownership change has occurred previously. If we have experienced an ownership change at any time since our formation, we may already be subject to limitations on our ability to utilize our existing net operating losses and other tax attributes to offset taxable income. In addition, future changes in our stock ownership, which may be outside of our control, may trigger an ownership change and, consequently, the limitations under Sections 382 and 383 of the Code. As a result, if or when we earn net taxable income, our ability to use our net operating loss carryforwards and other tax attributes to offset such taxable income may be subject to limitations, which could adversely affect our future cash flows.

Risks Related to Manufacturing and Supply

We rely on a collaborative outsourced business model, and disruptions with our third-party collaborators, including potential disruptions at our sole source supplier of iopofosine, AtomVie, may impede our ability to gain FDA approval and delay or impair commercialization of any products.

We are in the preclinical and clinical study phases of product development and commercialization. We have closed manufacturing operations located at our former corporate headquarters in Wisconsin and have implemented a collaboration outsourcing model to more efficiently manage costs. We rely significantly on contracts with third parties to use their facilities to conduct our research, development and manufacturing.

We have engaged AtomVie, which has been a validated cGMP manufacturing organization specializing in radiopharmaceuticals, as our exclusive source to supply drug product for our ongoing research and clinical studies, including our Phase 1 and Phase 2 studies of iopofosine.

In addition, we rely exclusively on contract research organizations to conduct research and development. Any inability of these organizations to fulfill the requirements of their agreements with us may delay or impair our ability to gain FDA approval and commercialization of our drug delivery technology and products.

Our reliance on third-party collaborators exposes us to risks related to not being able to directly oversee the activities of these parties. Furthermore, these collaborators, whether foreign or domestic, may experience regulatory compliance difficulties, mechanical shutdowns, employee strikes, or other unforeseeable acts that may delay fulfillment of their agreements with us. This may lead to the stopping or delay of our clinical trials or commercial manufacturing activity. For example, in 2018, our CMO, AtomVie, was placed on import alert following an FDA inspection, which resulted in our studies being placed on a clinical hold, until we received an FDA exception allowing us to import our study drug for use in clinical trials. The import alert on AtomVie was removed in 2019. Failure of any of these collaborators to provide the required services in a timely manner or on commercially reasonable terms could materially delay the development and approval of our products, increase our expenses, and materially harm our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

Our current and anticipated future dependence upon these third-party manufacturers may adversely affect our ability to develop and commercialize product candidates on a timely and competitive basis, which could have an adverse effect on sales, results of operations and financial condition. If we were required to transfer manufacturing processes to other third-party manufacturers and we were able to identify an alternative manufacturer, we would still need to satisfy various regulatory requirements. Satisfaction of these requirements could cause us to experience significant delays in receiving an adequate supply of our products and products in development and could be costly. Moreover, we may not be able to transfer processes that are proprietary to the manufacturer, if any. These manufacturers may not be able to produce material on a timely basis or manufacture material at the quality level or in the quantity required to meet our development timelines and applicable regulatory requirements and may also experience a shortage in qualified personnel, including as a result of the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. We may not be able to maintain or renew our existing third-party manufacturing arrangements, or enter into new arrangements, on acceptable terms, or at all. Our third-party

manufacturers could terminate or decline to renew our manufacturing arrangements based on their own business priorities, at a time that is costly or inconvenient for us. If we are unable to contract for the production of materials in sufficient quantity and of sufficient quality on acceptable terms, our planned clinical trials may be significantly delayed. Manufacturing delays could postpone the filing of our IND applications and/or the initiation or completion of clinical trials that we have currently planned or may plan in the future.

Drug manufacturers are subject to ongoing periodic unannounced inspection by the FDA, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the EMA, national competent authorities in the EU and UK and other federal and state government and regulatory agencies to ensure strict compliance with cGMP and other government regulations and corresponding foreign standards. We do not have control over third-party manufacturers’ compliance with these regulations and standards and they may not be able to comply. Switching manufacturers may be difficult because the number of potential manufacturers is limited. It may be difficult or impossible for us to find a replacement manufacturer quickly on acceptable terms, or at all. Additionally, if we are required to enter into new supply arrangements, we may not be able to obtain approval from the FDA of any alternate supplier in a timely manner, or at all, which could delay or prevent the clinical development and commercialization of any related product candidates. Failure of our third-party manufacturers or us to comply with applicable regulations, whether because of the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic or otherwise, could result in sanctions being imposed on us, including fines, civil penalties, delays in or failure to grant marketing approval of our product candidates, injunctions, delays, suspension or withdrawal of approvals, license revocation, seizures or recalls of products and compounds, operating restrictions and criminal prosecutions, warning or similar letters or civil, criminal or administrative sanctions against the company, any of which could adversely affect our business.

We believe that we have a good working relationship with our third-party collaborators. However, should the situation change, we may be required to relocate these activities on short notice, and we do not currently have access to alternate facilities to which we could relocate our research, development and/or manufacturing activities. The cost and time to establish or locate an alternate research, development and/or manufacturing facility to develop our technology would be substantial and would delay obtaining FDA approval and commercializing our products.

Furthermore, if our products are approved for commercial sale, we will need to work with our existing third-party collaborators to ensure sufficient capacity, or engage additional parties with the capacity, to commercially manufacture our products in accordance with FDA and other regulatory requirements. There can be no assurance that we would be able to successfully establish any such capacity or identify suitable manufacturing partners on acceptable terms.

Risks Related to Research and Development and the FDA

We cannot assure the successful development and commercialization of our compounds in development.

At present, our success is dependent on one or more of the following to occur: the successful development of iopofosine for the treatment of a hematologic or solid tumor cancer including Waldenstrom’s macroglobulinemia, multiple myeloma and B-Cell lymphomas or the treatment of pediatric solid tumors and lymphomas; the development of new PDCs, specifically new products developed from our PDC program, and the advancement of our PDC agents through research and development; and/or commercialization partnerships.

We are a late-stage clinical biopharmaceutical company focused on the discovery, development and commercialization of drugs for the treatment of cancer. We leverage our PDC platform to specifically target cancer cells. The PDC platform possesses the potential for the discovery and development of the next generation of cancer-targeting agents. The PDC platform features include the capacity to link with almost any molecule, the delivery of a significant increase in targeted oncologic payload, and the ability to target all tumor cells. As a result, we believe that we can generate PDCs to treat a broad range of cancers with the potential to improve the therapeutic index of oncologic drug payloads, enhance or maintain efficacy while reducing adverse events by minimizing drug delivery to healthy cells, and increase delivery to cancerous cells and cancer stem cells.

Our proposed products and their potential applications are in clinical and manufacturing/process development and face a variety of risks and uncertainties inherent in the development of pharmaceutical products, including the following:

If we are unsuccessful in dealing with any of these risks, or if we are unable to successfully advance the development of our cancer-targeting and delivery technologies for some other reason, our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations may be adversely affected.

With respect to our own compounds in development, we have established anticipated timelines with respect to the initiation of clinical trials based on existing knowledge of the compounds. However, we cannot provide assurance that we will meet any of these timelines for clinical development. Additionally, the initial results of a completed earlier clinical trial of a product candidate do not necessarily predict final results and the results may not be repeated in later clinical trials.

Because of the uncertainty of whether the accumulated preclinical evidence (PK, pharmacodynamic, safety and/or other factors) or early clinical results will be observed in later clinical trials, we can make no assurances regarding the likely results from our future clinical trials or the impact of those results on our business.

Failure to complete the development of our technologies, obtain government approvals, including required FDA approvals, or comply with ongoing governmental regulations could prevent, delay or limit introduction or sale of proposed products and result in failure to achieve revenues or maintain our ongoing business.

Our research and development activities and the manufacture and marketing of our intended products are subject to extensive regulation for safety, efficacy and quality by numerous government authorities in the U.S. and abroad. Before receiving approval to market our proposed products by the FDA, we will have to demonstrate that our products are safe and effective for the patient population for the diseases that are to be treated. Clinical studies, manufacturing and marketing of drugs are subject to the rigorous testing and approval process of the FDA and equivalent foreign regulatory authorities. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and other federal, state and foreign statutes and regulations govern and influence the testing, manufacturing, labeling, advertising, distribution and promotion of drugs and medical devices. As a result, clinical studies and regulatory approval can take many years to accomplish and require the expenditure of substantial financial, managerial and other resources.

We cannot predict whether regulatory clearance or approval will be obtained for any product that we hope to develop. Of particular significance to us are the requirements relating to research and development and testing. The activities associated with the

research, development and commercialization of iopofosine and other future candidates in our pipeline must undergo extensive clinical trials, which can take many years and require substantial expenditures, subject to extensive regulation by the FDA and other regulatory agencies in the U.S. and by comparable authorities in other countries. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals in the U.S. and other foreign jurisdictions is expensive, and lengthy, if approval is obtained at all.

Before commencing clinical trials in humans, we, or our collaborative partners, will need to submit and receive approval from the FDA of an IND application. Clinical trials are subject to oversight by institutional review boards and the FDA and:

We do not know whether we will be permitted to undertake clinical trials of potential products beyond the trials already concluded and the trials currently in process. It will take us or our collaborative partners several years to complete any such testing, and failure can occur at any stage of testing. Interim results of trials do not necessarily predict final results, and acceptable results in early trials may not be repeated in later trials. A number of companies in the pharmaceutical industry, including biotechnology companies, have suffered significant setbacks in advanced clinical trials, even after achieving promising results in earlier trials.

Before receiving FDA approval or similar approval in the European Union or other jurisdiction to market a product, we must demonstrate with substantial clinical evidence that the product is safe and effective in the patient population and the indication that will be treated. Data obtained from preclinical and clinical activities are susceptible to varying interpretations that could delay, limit or prevent regulatory approvals. Our clinical trials may fail to produce results satisfactory to the FDA or regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions. The regulatory process also requires preclinical testing, and data obtained from preclinical and clinical activities are susceptible to varying interpretations. In connection with clinical trials of our product candidates, we may face the following risks among others:

The FDA has substantial discretion in the approval process and may refuse to approve any NDA or sNDA and decide that our data is insufficient for approval and require additional preclinical, clinical or other studies. Varying interpretations of the data obtained

from preclinical and clinical testing could delay, limit or prevent regulatory approval of our products for any individual, additional indications.

To be commercially viable, we must successfully research, develop, manufacture, introduce, obtain the required regulatory approval described above for, our product candidates, in order to market and distribute our product candidates. This includes meeting a number of critical developmental milestones, including:

The timeframe necessary to achieve these developmental milestones may be long and uncertain, and we may not successfully complete these milestones for any of our intended products in development.

In addition to the risks previously discussed, our technology is subject to developmental risks that include the following:

In addition, delays or rejections may be encountered based upon additional government regulation from future legislation or administrative action or changes in FDA policy during the period of product development, clinical trials and FDA regulatory review. Failure to comply with applicable FDA or other applicable regulatory requirements may result in criminal prosecution, civil penalties, recall or seizure of products, total or partial suspension of production or injunction, adverse publicity, as well as other regulatory action against our potential products or us.

To conduct the clinical studies that are necessary to obtain approval by the FDA to market a product, it is necessary to receive clearance from the FDA to conduct such clinical studies. The FDA can halt clinical studies at any time for safety reasons or because we or our clinical investigators do not follow the FDA’s requirements for conducting clinical studies. If any of our studies are halted, we will not be able to obtain FDA approval until and unless we can address the FDA’s concerns. If we are unable to receive clearance to conduct clinical studies for a product, we will not be able to achieve any revenue from that product in the U.S., as it is illegal to sell any drug for use in humans in the U.S. without FDA approval.

If regulatory approval of a product is granted, this approval will be limited to those indications or disease states and conditions for which the product is demonstrated through clinical trials to be safe and efficacious. We cannot assure you that any compound developed by us, alone or with others, will prove to be safe and efficacious in clinical trials and will meet all of the applicable regulatory requirements needed to receive marketing approval.

Even if we do ultimately receive FDA approval for any of our products, these products will be subject to extensive ongoing regulation, including regulations governing manufacturing, labeling, packaging, testing, dispensing, prescription and procurement quotas, record keeping, reporting, handling, shipment and disposal of any such drug. Failure to obtain and maintain required registrations or to comply with any applicable regulations could further delay or preclude development and commercialization of our drugs and subject us to enforcement action.

Outside the US, our ability, or that of our collaborative partners, to market a product is contingent upon receiving a marketing authorization from the appropriate regulatory authorities. This foreign regulatory approval process typically includes all of the risks and costs associated with FDA approval described above and may also include additional risks and costs, such as the risk that such foreign regulatory authorities, which often have different regulatory and clinical trial requirements, interpretations and guidance from the FDA, may require additional clinical trials or results for approval of a product candidate, any of which could result in delays, significant additional costs or failure to obtain such regulatory approval. There can be no assurance, however, that we or our collaborative partners will not have to provide additional information or analysis, or conduct additional clinical trials, before receiving approval to market product candidates.

The FDA has granted rare pediatric disease designation, RPDD, to iopofosine for treatment of neuroblastoma, rhabdomyosarcoma, Ewing’s sarcoma and osteosarcoma; however, we may not be able to realize any value from such designation.

Iopofosine has received RPDD designation from the FDA for the treatment of neuroblastoma, rhabdomyosarcoma, osteosarcoma and Ewing’s sarcoma. The FDA defines a “rare pediatric disease” as a disease that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the U.S. primarily under the age of 18 years old, or a patient population greater than 200,000 in the U.S. when there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making available the drug in the U.S. will be recovered from sales in the U.S. for that drug or biological product. Under the FDA’s Rare Pediatric Disease Priority Review Voucher Program, upon the approval of an NDA or a BLA for the treatment of a rare pediatric disease, the sponsor of such application could be eligible for a Rare Pediatric Disease Priority Review Voucher that can be redeemed to obtain priority review for a subsequent NDA or BLA. The sponsor of a rare pediatric disease drug product receiving a priority review voucher may transfer (including by sale) the voucher to another sponsor. The voucher may be further transferred any number of times before the voucher is used, as long as the sponsor making the transfer has not yet submitted the application.

The FDA may also revoke any priority review voucher if the rare pediatric disease drug for which the voucher was awarded is not marketed in the U.S. within one year following the date of approval. In addition, the priority review voucher is only awarded to an NCE. Thus, if iopofosine is approved first for an indication that is not a rare pediatric disease, our application may not be eligible to receive the voucher. There is no assurance we will receive a Rare Pediatric Disease Priority Review Voucher or that it will result in a faster development process, review or approval for a subsequent marketing application. Also, although Priority Review Vouchers may be sold or transferred to third parties, there is no guaranty that we will be able to realize any value if we were to sell a Priority Review Voucher. In December 2020, the Priority Review Voucher Program was extended by the FDA permitting additional grants through September 2026 for rare pediatric diseases. It is possible that even if we obtain approval for iopofosine and qualify for a priority review voucher, the program may no longer be in effect at the time of such approval.

Clinical studies involve a lengthy and expensive process with an uncertain outcome, and results of earlier studies may not be predictive of future study results.

To obtain regulatory approval for the commercialization of our product candidates, we must conduct, at our own expense, extensive clinical studies to demonstrate safety and efficacy of these product candidates. Clinical testing is expensive, it can take many years to complete, and its outcome is uncertain. Failure can occur at any time during the clinical study process.

We may experience delays in clinical testing of our product candidates. We do not know whether planned clinical studies will begin on time, need to be redesigned, or be completed on schedule, if at all. Clinical studies can be delayed for a variety of reasons, including delays in obtaining regulatory approval to commence a study, reaching agreement on acceptable clinical study terms with prospective sites, obtaining institutional review board approval to conduct a study at a prospective site, recruiting patients to participate in a study, or obtaining sufficient supplies of clinical study materials. Many factors affect patient enrollment, including the size of the patient population, the proximity of patients to clinical sites, the eligibility criteria for the study, competing clinical studies, and new drugs approved for the conditions we are investigating. Prescribing physicians will also have to decide to use our product candidates over existing drugs that have established safety and efficacy profiles or other drugs undergoing development in clinical studies. Any delays in completing our clinical studies will increase our costs, slow down our product development and approval process, and delay our ability to generate revenue.

Additionally, the results of preclinical studies and early clinical studies of our product candidates do not necessarily predict the results of later-stage clinical studies. Product candidates in later stages of clinical studies may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy traits despite having progressed through initial clinical testing. The data collected from clinical studies of our product candidates may not be sufficient to support the submission of an NDA or to obtain regulatory approval in the U.S. or elsewhere. Because of the uncertainties associated with drug development and regulatory approval, we cannot determine if or when we will have an approved product for commercialization or will achieve sales or profits.

Furthermore, we typically rely on third-party clinical investigators to conduct our clinical trials and other third-party organizations to oversee the operations of such trials and to perform data collection and analysis. The clinical investigators are not our employees, and we cannot control the amount or timing of resources that they devote to our programs. Failure of the third-party organizations to meet their obligations, whether because of the impacts of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic or otherwise, could adversely affect clinical development of our products. As a result, we may face additional delaying factors outside our control if these parties do not

perform their obligations in a timely fashion. For example, any number of those issues could arise with our clinical trials causing a delay. Delays of this sort could occur for the reasons identified above or other reasons. If we have delays in conducting the clinical trials or obtaining regulatory approvals, our product development costs will increase. For example, we may need to make additional payments to third-party investigators and organizations to retain their services or we may need to pay recruitment incentives. If the delays are significant, our financial results and the commercial prospects for our product candidates will be harmed, and our ability to become profitable will be delayed. Moreover, these third-party investigators and organizations may also have relationships with other commercial entities, some of which may compete with us. If these third-party investigators and organizations assist our competitors at our expense, it could harm our competitive position.

Our clinical studies may not demonstrate sufficient levels of efficacy necessary to obtain the requisite regulatory approvals for our drugs, and our proposed drugs may not be approved for marketing.

We may not be able to initiate or continue clinical studies or trials for our product candidates if we are unable to locate and enroll a sufficient number of eligible patients to participate in these clinical trials as required by the FDA or other regulatory authorities, whether a result of the impacts of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic or otherwise. Even if we are able to enroll a sufficient number of patients in our clinical trials, if the pace of enrollment is slower than we expect, the development costs for our product candidates may increase and the completion of our clinical trials may be delayed, or our clinical trials could become too expensive to complete. Significant delays in clinical testing could negatively impact our product development costs and timing. Our estimates regarding timing are based on a number of assumptions, including assumptions based on past experience with our other clinical programs. If we are unable to enroll the patients in these trials at the projected rate, the completion of the clinical program could be delayed and the costs of conducting the program could increase, either of which could harm our business.

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

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

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

Risks Related to Legal Compliance and Litigation

Controls we or our third-party collaborators have in place to ensure compliance with all applicable laws and regulations may not be effective.

We and our third-party collaborators are subject to federal, state and local laws and regulations governing the storage, use and disposal of hazardous materials and waste products. Current or future regulations may impair our research, development, manufacturing and commercialization efforts. The inability of our third-party collaborators to maintain the required licenses and permits for any reason will negatively impact our manufacturing, and research and development activities. In addition, we may be required to indemnify third-party collaborators against certain liabilities arising out of any failure by them to comply with such regulations and/or laws. If we or our third-party collaborators fail to comply with any of these regulations and/or laws, a range of consequences could result, including the suspension or termination of clinical studies, failure to obtain approval of a product candidate, restrictions on our products or manufacturing processes, withdrawal of our products from the market, significant fines, exclusion from government healthcare programs, or other sanctions or litigation.

We are exposed to product, clinical and preclinical liability risks that could create a substantial financial burden should we be sued.

Our business exposes us to potential product liability and other liability risks that are inherent in the testing, manufacturing and marketing of pharmaceutical products. In addition, the use in our clinical studies of pharmaceutical products that we, or our current or potential collaborators, may develop and then subsequently sell, may cause us to bear a portion of, or all, product liability risks. While we carry an insurance policy covering up to $5,000,000 per occurrence and $5,000,000 in the aggregate for liability incurred in connection with such claims should they arise, there can be no assurance that our insurance will be adequate to cover all situations. Moreover, there can be no assurance that such insurance, or additional insurance if required, will be available or, if available, will be available on commercially reasonable terms. Furthermore, our current and potential partners with whom we have collaborative agreements, or our future licensees, may not be willing to indemnify us against these types of liabilities and may not themselves be sufficiently insured or have a net worth sufficient to satisfy any product liability claims. A successful product liability claim or series of claims brought against us could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

Risks Related to Intellectual Property

We expect to rely on our patents as well as specialized regulatory designations such as orphan drug classification for our product candidates, but regulatory drug designations may not confer marketing exclusivity or other expected commercial benefits.

We expect to file for ODD or other regulatory designations (fast track, break-through, priority review, etc.) as appropriate for our product candidates. We have been granted ODD in the U.S. for iopofosine as a therapeutic for the treatment of multiple myeloma, neuroblastoma, osteosarcoma, rhabdomyosarcoma, Ewing’s sarcoma and lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma/Waldenstrom’s macroglobulinemia. Additionally, we have been granted ODD in Europe for iopofosine as a therapeutic for the treatment of multiple myeloma and Waldenstrom’s macroglobulinemia.

Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan drug designation to a drug or biologic intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is defined as one occurring in a patient population of fewer than 200,000 in the US, or a patient population greater than 200,000 in the US where there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing the drug will be recovered from sales in the US. In the US, 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 that has orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for the disease for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan drug exclusivity, which means that the FDA may not approve any other applications, including a full NDA, to market the same drug for the same indication for seven years, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan drug exclusivity or where the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient product quantity.

Even though we have received ODD as described above, we may not be the first to obtain marketing approval for the orphan-designated indication because of the uncertainties associated with developing pharmaceutical products. For any product candidate for which we have been or will be granted ODD in a particular indication, it is possible that another company also holding ODD for the same product candidate will receive marketing approval for the same indication before we do. If that were to happen, our applications for that indication may not be approved until the competing company’s period of exclusivity expires. In addition, exclusive marketing rights in the US for iopofosine for an orphan-designated indication or any future product candidate 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. We will not be able to rely on it to exclude other companies from manufacturing or selling products using the same principal molecular structural features for the same indication beyond these timeframes without our patent portfolio. Even if we were the first to obtain marketing authorization for an orphan drug indication, there are circumstances under which a competing product may be approved for the same indication during the seven-year period of marketing exclusivity, such as if the later product is shown to be clinically superior to the product with orphan exclusivity. Even after an orphan product is approved, the FDA can subsequently approve the same drug with the same active moiety for the same condition if the FDA concludes that the later drug is safer, more effective, or makes a major contribution to patient care. In addition, exclusive marketing rights in the US for iopofosine or any future product candidate 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. Further, the seven-year marketing exclusivity, if granted, would not prevent competitors from obtaining approval of the same product candidate as ours for indications other than those in which we have been granted ODD, or for other indications if not for our patent portfolio, or for the use of other types of products in the same indications as our orphan product. Furthermore, although the ODD and exclusivity are in effect right now, the FDA has the authority to modify this assessment at any time. 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.

In addition, Congress is considering updates to the orphan drug provisions of the FDCA in response to a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Any changes to the orphan drug provisions could change our opportunities for, or likelihood of success in obtaining, orphan drug exclusivity and would materially adversely affect our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects.

Fast track designation by the FDA may not actually lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process and does not assure FDA approval of our product candidates.

If a product candidate is intended for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening condition and the product candidate demonstrates the potential to address unmet medical need for this condition, the sponsor may apply for FDA fast track designation. Fast track designation applies to the combination of the product and the specific indication for which it is being studied. The sponsor of a fast track product has opportunities for more frequent interactions with the review team during product development, and the FDA may consider for review sections of the NDA on a rolling basis before the complete application is submitted, if the sponsor provides a schedule for the submission of the sections of the NDA, the FDA agrees to accept sections of the NDA and determines that the schedule is acceptable, and the sponsor pays any required user fees upon submission of the first section of the NDA.

However, fast track designation does not change the standards for approval and does not ensure that the product candidate will receive marketing approval or that approval will be granted within any particular timeframe. As a result, while the FDA has granted fast track designation to iopofosine for WM patients having received two or more prior treatment regimens and/or we may seek and receive fast track designation for our future product candidates, we may not experience a faster development process, review or approval compared to conventional FDA procedures. In addition, the FDA may withdraw fast track designation if it believes that the designation is no longer supported by data from our clinical development program. Fast track designation alone does not guarantee qualification for the FDA’s priority review procedures.

We may face litigation from third parties claiming our products infringe on their intellectual property rights, particularly because there is often substantial uncertainty about the validity and breadth of medical patents.

We may be exposed to future litigation by third parties based on claims that our technologies, products or activities infringe on the intellectual property rights of others or that we have misappropriated the trade secrets of others. This risk is exacerbated by the fact that the validity and breadth of claims covered in medical technology patents, and the breadth and scope of trade-secret protection, involve complex legal and factual questions for which important legal principles are unresolved. Any litigation or claims against us, whether valid or not, could result in substantial costs, place a significant strain on our financial and managerial resources, and harm our reputation. License agreements that we may enter into in the future would likely require that we pay the costs associated with defending this type of litigation. In addition, intellectual property litigation or claims could force us to do one or more of the following:

If we are unable to adequately protect or enforce our rights to intellectual property or to secure rights to third-party patents, we may lose valuable rights, experience reduced market share, assuming any, or incur costly litigation to protect our intellectual property rights.

Our ability to obtain licenses to patents, maintain trade-secret protection, and operate without infringing the proprietary rights of others will be important to commercializing any products under development. Therefore, any disruption in access to the technology could substantially delay the development of our technology.

The patent positions of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, such as ours, for products that involve licensing agreements are frequently uncertain and involve complex legal and factual questions. In addition, the coverage claimed in a patent application can be significantly reduced before the patent is issued or in subsequent legal proceedings. Consequently, our patent applications and any issued and licensed patents may not provide protection against competitive technologies or may be held invalid if challenged or circumvented. To the extent we license patents from third parties, the early termination of any such license agreement would result in the loss of our rights to use the covered patents, which could severely delay, inhibit or eliminate our ability to develop and commercialize compounds based on the licensed patents. Our competitors may also independently develop products similar to ours or design around or otherwise circumvent patents issued or licensed to us. In addition, the laws of some foreign countries may not protect our proprietary rights to the same extent as U.S. law.

We also rely on trade secrets, technical know-how and continuing technological innovation to develop and maintain our competitive position. Although we generally require our employees, consultants, advisors, and collaborators to execute appropriate confidentiality and assignment-of-inventions agreements, our competitors may independently develop substantially equivalent proprietary information and techniques, reverse engineer our information and techniques, or otherwise gain access to our proprietary technology. We may be unable to meaningfully protect our rights in trade secrets, technical know-how and other non-patented technology.

We may have to resort to litigation to protect our rights for certain intellectual property or to determine the scope, validity or enforceability of our intellectual property rights. Enforcing or defending our rights would be expensive, could cause diversion of our resources, and may not prove successful. Any failure to enforce or protect our rights could cause us to lose the ability to exclude others from using our technology to develop or sell competing products.

Risks Related to Our Employees

We rely on a small number of key personnel who may terminate their employment with us at any time, and our success will depend on our ability to hire additional qualified personnel.

Our success depends to a significant degree on the continued services of our executive officers, including our Chief Executive Officer, James V. Caruso. Our management and other employees may voluntarily terminate their employment with us at any time, and there can be no assurance that these individuals will continue to provide services to us. Our success will depend on our ability to attract and retain highly skilled personnel. We may be unable to recruit such personnel on a timely basis, if at all. The loss of services of key personnel, or the inability to attract and retain additional qualified personnel, could result in delays in development or approval of our products, loss of sales and diversion of management resources.

Confidentiality agreements with employees and others may not adequately prevent disclosure of our trade secrets and other proprietary information and may not adequately protect our intellectual property, which could limit our ability to compete.

We operate in the highly technical field of research and development of small-molecule drugs and rely, in part, on trade-secret protection in order to protect our proprietary trade secrets and unpatented know-how. However, trade secrets are difficult to protect, and we cannot be certain that our competitors will not develop the same or similar technologies on their own. We have taken steps, including entering into confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants, outside scientific collaborators, sponsored researchers and other advisors, to protect our trade secrets and unpatented know-how. These agreements generally require that the other party keep confidential and not disclose to third parties all confidential information developed by the party or made known to the party by us during the course of the party’s relationship with us. Also, we typically obtain agreements from these parties that inventions conceived by them in the course of rendering services to us will be our exclusive property. However, these agreements may not be honored and may not effectively assign intellectual property rights to us. Enforcing a claim that a party has illegally obtained, and is using our trade secrets or know-how, is difficult, expensive, and time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition,

courts outside the U.S. may be less willing to protect trade secrets or know-how. The failure to obtain or maintain trade-secret protection could adversely affect our competitive position.

We may be subject to claims that our employees have wrongfully used or disclosed alleged trade secrets of their current or former employers.

As is common in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry, we engage individuals who were previously employed at other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors or who are employed by academic research institutions. Although no claims against us are currently pending, we may be subject to claims that we, or these employees, have used or disclosed trade secrets or other proprietary information of their current or former employers, either inadvertently or otherwise. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. Even if we are successful in defending against these claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management.

Risks Related to Commercialization of our Products

Acceptance of our products in the marketplace is uncertain and failure to achieve market acceptance will prevent or delay our ability to generate revenues.

Our future financial performance will depend, at least in part, on the introduction and customer acceptance of our proposed products. Even if approved for marketing by the necessary regulatory authorities, our products may not achieve market acceptance. The degree of market acceptance will depend on several factors, including:

Physicians, patients, payors, or the medical community in general, may be unwilling to accept, use, or recommend any of our products. If we are unable to obtain regulatory approval or commercialize and market our proposed products as planned, we may not achieve any market acceptance or generate revenue. If we are unable to sustain anticipated levels of sales growth from our products, if approved, we may need to reduce our operating expenses, access other sources of cash or otherwise modify our business plans, which could have a negative impact on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Regulatory approval for any approved product is limited by the FDA, the European Commission, and other regulators, to those specific indications and conditions for which clinical safety and efficacy have been demonstrated, and we may incur significant liability if it is determined that we are promoting the “off-label” use of any of our future product candidates if approved.

Any regulatory approval is limited to those specific diseases, indications and patient populations for which a product is deemed to be safe and effective by the FDA, the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) of the European Medicines Agency and other regulators. In addition to the FDA approval required for new formulations, any new indication for an approved product also requires FDA approval. If we are not able to obtain FDA approval for any desired future indications for our products and product candidates, our ability to effectively market and sell our products may be reduced and our business may be adversely affected.

While physicians may choose to prescribe drugs for uses that are not described in the product’s labeling and for uses that differ from those tested in clinical studies and approved by the regulatory authorities, our ability to promote the products is limited to those indications and patient populations that are specifically approved by the FDA or similar regulatory authorities in jurisdictions outside the U.S. These “off-label” uses are common across medical specialties and may constitute an appropriate treatment for some patients in varied circumstances. We have implemented compliance and monitoring policies and procedures, including a process for internal review of promotional materials, to deter the promotion for off-label uses. We cannot guarantee that these compliance activities will prevent or timely detect off-label promotion by sales representatives or other personnel in their communications with health care professionals, patients and others, particularly if these activities are concealed from the Company. Regulatory authorities in the US generally do not regulate the behavior of physicians in their choice of treatments. Regulatory authorities do, however, restrict communications by pharmaceutical companies on the subject of off-label use. If our promotional activities fail to comply with the FDA’s or other competent national authority’s regulations or guidelines, we may be subject to warnings from, or enforcement action by, these regulatory authorities. In addition, our failure to follow FDA rules and guidelines relating to promotion and advertising may cause the FDA to issue warning letters or untitled letters, suspend or withdraw an approved product from the market, require a recall or institute fines, which could result in the disgorgement of money, operating restrictions, injunctions or civil or criminal enforcement, and other consequences, any of which could harm our business.

Notwithstanding the regulatory restrictions on off-label promotion, the FDA and other regulatory authorities allow companies to engage in truthful, non-misleading and non-promotional scientific exchange concerning their products. We engage in medical education activities and communicate with investigators and potential investigators regarding our clinical trials. If the FDA or other regulatory or enforcement authorities determine that our communications regarding our marketed product are not in compliance with the relevant regulatory requirements and that we have improperly promoted off-label uses, or that our communications regarding our investigational products are not in compliance with the relevant regulatory requirements and that we have improperly engaged in pre-approval promotion, we may be subject to significant liability, including civil and administrative remedies as well as criminal sanctions.

Any product for which we have obtained regulatory approval, or for which we obtain approval in the future, is subject to, or will be subject to, extensive ongoing regulatory requirements by the FDA, EMA and other comparable regulatory authorities, and if we fail to comply with regulatory requirements or if we experience unanticipated problems with our products, we may be subject to penalties, we may be unable to generate revenue from the sale of such products, our potential for generating positive cash flow will be diminished, and the capital necessary to fund our operations will be increased.

Any product for which we have obtain regulatory approval in the future, along with the manufacturing processes and practices, post-approval clinical research, product labeling, advertising and promotional activities for such product, are subject to continual requirements of, and review by, the FDA, the EMA and other comparable international regulatory authorities. These requirements include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, registration and listing requirements, current good manufacturing practices (cGMP) requirements relating to manufacturing, quality control, quality assurance and corresponding maintenance of records and documents, requirements regarding the distribution of samples to physicians, import and export requirements and recordkeeping. If we or our suppliers encounter manufacturing, quality or compliance difficulties with respect to any of our product candidates, when and if approved, whether because of the impacts of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic (including as a result of disruptions of global shipping and the transport of products) or otherwise, we may be unable to obtain or maintain regulatory approval or meet commercial demand for such products, which could adversely affect our business, financial conditions, results of operations and growth prospects.

In addition, the FDA often requires post-marketing testing and surveillance to monitor the effects of products. The FDA, the EMA and other comparable international regulatory agencies may condition approval of our product candidates on the completion of such post-marketing clinical studies. These post-marketing studies may suggest that a product causes undesirable side effects or may present a risk to the patient. Additionally, the FDA may require a REMS to help ensure that the benefits of the drug outweigh its risks. A REMS may be required to include various elements, such as a medication guide or patient package insert, a communication plan to educate healthcare providers of the drug’s risks, limitations on who may prescribe or dispense the drug, requirements that patients enroll in a registry or undergo certain health evaluations or other measures that the FDA deems necessary to ensure the safe use of the drug.

Discovery after approval of previously unknown problems with any of our products, manufacturers or manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in actions such as:

If such regulatory actions are taken, the value of our company and our operating results will be adversely affected. Additionally, if the FDA, the EMA or any other comparable international regulatory agency withdraws its approval of a product that is or may be approved, we will be unable to generate revenue from the sale of that product in the relevant jurisdiction, our potential for generating positive cash flow will be diminished and the capital necessary to fund our operations will be increased. Accordingly, we continue to expend significant time, money and effort in all areas of regulatory compliance, including manufacturing, production, product surveillance, post-marketing studies and quality control.

If any of our third-party contractors fail to perform their responsibilities to comply with FDA rules and regulations, the marketing and sales of our products could be delayed and we may be subject to enforcement action, which could decrease our revenues.

Conducting our business requires us to manage relationships with third-party contractors. As a result, our success depends partially on the success of these third parties in performing their responsibilities to comply with FDA rules and regulations. Although we pre-qualify our contractors and we believe that they are fully capable of performing their contractual obligations, we cannot directly control the adequacy and timeliness of the resources and expertise that they apply to these activities.

If any of our partners or contractors fail to fulfil their obligations in an adequate and timely manner or fail to comply with the FDA’s rules and regulations, then the marketing and sales of our products could be delayed. The FDA may also take enforcement actions against us based on compliance issues identified with our contractors. If any of these events occur, we may incur significant liabilities, which could decrease our revenues. For example, sales and medical science liaison or MSL personnel, including contractors, must comply with FDA requirements for the advertisement and promotion of products.

If manufacturers obtain approval for generic versions of our products, once approved, or of products with which we compete, our business may be harmed.

Under the FDCA, the FDA can approve an abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) for a generic version of a branded drug without the ANDA applicant undertaking the clinical testing necessary to obtain approval to market a new drug. Generally, in place of such clinical studies, an ANDA applicant usually needs only to submit data demonstrating that its product has the same active ingredient(s), strength, dosage form and route of administration and that it is bioequivalent to the branded product.

The FDCA requires that an applicant for approval of a generic form of a branded drug certify either that its generic product does not infringe any of the patents listed by the owner of the branded drug in the Orange Book or that those patents are not enforceable. This process is known as a paragraph IV challenge. Upon notice of a paragraph IV challenge, a patent owner has 45 days to bring a patent infringement suit in federal district court against the company seeking ANDA approval of a product covered by one of the owner’s patents. If this type of suit is commenced, the FDCA provides a 30-month stay on the FDA’s approval of the competitor’s application. If the litigation is resolved in favor of the ANDA applicant or the challenged patent expires during the 30-month stay period, the stay is lifted, and the FDA may thereafter approve the application based on the standards for approval of ANDAs. Once an ANDA is approved by the FDA, the generic manufacturer may market and sell the generic form of the branded drug in competition with the branded medicine.

The ANDA process can result in generic competition if the patents at issue are not upheld or if the generic competitor is found not to infringe the owner’s patents. If this were to occur with respect to iopofosine or any future products, once approved, with which our products compete, our business would be harmed.

Unforeseen safety issues could emerge with our products, once approved, that could require us to change the prescribing information to add warnings, limit use of the product, and/or result in litigation. Any of these events could have a negative impact on our business.

Discovery of unforeseen safety problems or increased focus on a known problem with respect to our products, once approved, could impact our ability to commercialize our products and could result in restrictions on its permissible uses, including withdrawal of the medicine from the market.

If we or others identify additional undesirable side effects caused by our products after approval:

Any of these events could prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of our products, once approved and could substantially increase our operating costs and expenses, which in turn could delay or prevent us from generating significant revenue from sale of any products for which we obtain approval.

If a safety issue emerges post-approval, we may become subject to costly product liability litigation by our customers, their patients or payers. Product liability claims could divert management’s attention from our core business, be expensive to defend, and result in sizable damage awards against us that may not be covered by insurance. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against claims that our approved products caused injuries, we will incur substantial liabilities. Regardless of merit or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in:

The market for our proposed products is rapidly changing and competitive, and new therapeutics, drugs and treatments that may be developed by others could impair our ability to develop our business or become competitive.

The pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries are subject to rapid and substantial technological change. Developments by others may render our technologies and proposed products noncompetitive or obsolete, or we may be unable to keep pace with technological developments or other market factors. Technological competition from pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, universities, governmental entities and others diversifying into the field is intense and expected to increase. Most of these entities have significantly greater research and development capabilities and budgets than we do, as well as substantially more marketing, manufacturing, financial and managerial resources. These entities represent significant competition for us. Acquisitions of, or investments in, competing pharmaceutical or biotechnology companies by large corporations could increase our competitors’ financial, marketing, manufacturing and other resources.

Our resources are limited, and we may experience management, operational or technical challenges inherent in our activities and novel technologies. Competitors have developed, or are in the process of developing, technologies that are, or in the future may be, the basis for competition. Some of these technologies may accomplish therapeutic effects similar to those of our technology, but through different means. Our competitors may develop drugs and drug delivery technologies that are more effective than our intended products and, therefore, present a serious competitive threat to us.

The potential widespread acceptance of therapies that are alternatives to ours may limit market acceptance of our products even if they are commercialized. Many of our targeted diseases and conditions can also be treated by other medication or drug delivery technologies. These treatments may be widely accepted in medical communities and have a longer history of use. The established use of these competitive drugs may limit the potential for widespread acceptance of our technologies and products if commercialized.

As a result of continued changes in marketing, sales and distribution, we may be unsuccessful in our efforts to sell our proposed products, develop a direct sales organization, or enter into relationships with third parties.

We have not established marketing, sales or distribution capabilities for our proposed products. Until such time as our proposed products are further along in the development process, we will not devote any meaningful time and resources to this effort. At the appropriate time, we will determine whether we will develop our own sales and marketing capabilities or enter into agreements with third parties to sell our products.

We have limited experience in developing, training or managing a sales force. If we choose to establish a direct sales force, we may incur substantial additional expenses in developing, training and managing such an organization. We may be unable to build a sales force on a cost-effective basis or at all. In addition, we will compete with many other companies that currently have extensive marketing and sales operations. Our marketing and sales efforts may be unable to compete against these other companies. We may be unable to establish a sufficient sales and marketing organization on a cost-effective or timely basis, if at all.

If we choose to enter into agreements with third parties to sell our proposed products, we may be unable to establish or maintain third-party relationships on a commercially reasonable basis, if at all. In addition, these third parties may have similar or more established relationships with our competitors.

We may be unable to engage qualified distributors. Even if engaged, these distributors may:

If we fail to develop sales, marketing and distribution channels, we would experience delays in product sales and incur increased costs, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operation.

If we are unable to convince physicians of the benefits of our intended products, we may incur delays or additional expense in our attempt to establish market acceptance.

Achieving use of our products in the target market of cancer diagnosis and treatment may require physicians to be informed regarding these products and their intended benefits. The time and cost of such an educational process may be substantial. Inability to successfully carry out this physician education process may adversely affect market acceptance of our proposed products. We may be unable to educate physicians, in sufficient numbers, in a timely manner regarding our intended proposed products to achieve our marketing plans and product acceptance. Any delay in physician education may materially delay or reduce demand for our proposed products. In addition, we may expend significant funds towards physician education before any acceptance or demand for our proposed products is created, if at all.

Efforts to educate the physicians, patients, healthcare payors and others in the medical community on the benefits of our product candidates may require significant resources and may not be successful. If any of our product candidates are approved, if at all, but do

not achieve an adequate level of acceptance, we may not generate significant product revenue and we may not become profitable on a sustained basis.

If our products are unable to obtain adequate reimbursement from third-party payors, or if additional healthcare reform measures are adopted, it could hinder or prevent the commercial success of our product candidates.

The commercial success of any product for which we obtain regulatory approval in the future will depend substantially on the extent to which the costs of our product or product candidates are or will be paid by third-party payors, including government health care programs and private health insurers. There is a significant trend in the health care industry by public and private payers to contain or reduce their costs, including by taking the following steps, among others: decreasing the portion of costs payers will cover, ceasing to provide full payment for certain products depending on outcomes or not covering certain products at all. If payers implement any of the foregoing with respect to our products, it would have an adverse impact on our revenue and results of operations. If coverage is not available, or reimbursement is limited, we, or any of our collaborative partners, may not be able to successfully commercialize our product candidates in some jurisdictions. Even if coverage is provided, the approved reimbursement amount may not be at a rate that covers our costs, including research, development, manufacture, sale and distribution. In the U.S., no uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for products exists among third-party payors; therefore, coverage and reimbursement levels for products can differ significantly from payor to payor. As a result, the coverage determination process is often a time consuming and costly process that may require us to provide scientific, clinical or other 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.

In both the U.S. and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory proposals to change the healthcare system in ways that could affect our ability to sell our products profitably. For example, the Affordable Care Act which was passed in March 2010 and substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers, has been subject to judicial, legislative, and regulatory efforts to replace it or to alter its interpretation or implementation. Congress has considered legislation that would repeal or repeal and replace all or part of the Affordable Care Act. While Congress has not passed comprehensive repeal legislation, several bills affecting the implementation of certain taxes under the Affordable Care Act have been enacted. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 included a provision that repealed the tax-based shared responsibility payment imposed by the Affordable Care Act on certain individuals who fail to maintain qualifying health coverage for all or part of a year that is commonly referred to as the “individual mandate”. In addition, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2020 fully repealed the Affordable Care Act’s mandated “Cadillac” tax on high-cost employer-sponsored health coverage and medical device tax and also eliminated the health insurer tax. On June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the most recent judicial challenge to the Affordable Care Act brought by several states without specifically ruling on the constitutionality of the law. It is unclear how future actions before the Supreme Court, other such litigation, and the healthcare reform measures of the Biden administration will impact the Affordable Care Act.

Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the U.S. since the Affordable Care Act was enacted. In August 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, created measures for spending reductions by Congress. A Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, tasked with recommending a targeted deficit reduction of at least $1.2 trillion for the years 2013 through 2021, was unable to reach required goals, thereby triggering the legislation’s automatic reduction to several government programs. This includes aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect in April 2013, and, a result of subsequent legislative amendments, will remain in effect into 2031, unless additional Congressional action is taken. However, COVID-19 relief support legislation suspended the 2% Medicare sequester from May 1, 2020 through March 31, 2022 with a subsequent reduction to 1% implemented from April 1, 2022 until June 30, 2022. To offset the temporary suspension during the COVID-19 pandemic, in 2030, reductions in Medicare payments will be 2.25% for the first half of the year, and 3% in the second half of the year. In January 2013, President Obama signed into law the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (ATRA), which, among other things, further reduced Medicare payments to several providers, including hospitals and cancer treatment centers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years.

There have been, and likely will continue to be, legislative and regulatory proposals at the foreign, federal and state levels directed at broadening the availability of healthcare and containing or lowering the cost of healthcare. We cannot predict the initiatives that may be adopted in the future. If we or any third parties we may engage are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we or such third parties are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, our product candidates may lose any regulatory approval that may have been obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability.

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

In the U.S., there have been several recent Congressional inquiries and federal legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer-sponsored patient assistance programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs. See Part I, Item 1, Business-Regulation-Reimbursement and Pricing Controls for more information on recent healthcare reform measures that may affect our ability to operate.

We cannot predict the likelihood, nature, or extent of health reform initiatives that may arise from future legislation or administrative action. However, we expect these initiatives to increase pressure on drug pricing. Further, certain broader legislation that is not targeted to the health care industry may nonetheless adversely affect our profitability. Any additional healthcare reform measures 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.

We may be subject, directly or indirectly, to federal and state healthcare fraud and abuse laws, false claims laws and other federal and state healthcare laws, and the failure to comply with such laws could result in substantial penalties. Our employees, independent contractors, consultants, principal investigators, CROs, commercial partners and vendors may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including noncompliance with regulatory standards and requirements.

Our business operations and current and future arrangements with investigators, healthcare professionals, consultants, third-party payers and customers, may expose us to broadly applicable federal, state and foreign fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations including anti-kickback and false claims laws, data privacy and security laws, and transparency reporting laws. These laws may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we conduct our operations, including how we research, market, sell and distribute any product for which we have obtained regulatory approval, or for which we obtain regulatory approval in the future. In particular, the promotion, sales and marketing of healthcare items and services, as well as certain business arrangements in the healthcare industry, are subject to extensive laws and regulations intended to prevent fraud, misconduct, bribery kickbacks, self-dealing and other abusive or inappropriate practices. These laws and regulations may restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, including promoting off-label uses of our products, commission compensation, certain customer incentive programs, certain patient support offerings, and other business arrangements generally. Activities subject to these laws also involve the improper use or misrepresentation of information obtained in the course of patient recruitment for clinical trials, creating fraudulent data in our preclinical studies or clinical trials or illegal misappropriation of drug product, which could result in regulatory sanctions and cause serious harm to our reputation. See “Part I, Item 1, Business – Regulation – Other U.S. Regulatory Requirements” of this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for more information on the healthcare laws and regulations that may affect our ability to operate.

We are also exposed to the risk of fraud, misconduct or other illegal activity by our employees, independent contractors, consultants, principal investigators, CROs, commercial partners and vendors. Misconduct by these parties could include intentional, reckless and/or negligent conduct that fails to: comply with the laws of the FDA and other similar foreign regulatory bodies; provide true, complete and accurate information to the FDA and other similar foreign regulatory bodies; comply with manufacturing standards we have established; comply with federal and state data privacy, security, fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations in the US and similar foreign fraudulent misconduct laws; or report financial information or data accurately or to disclose unauthorized activities to us. It is not always possible to identify and deter employee misconduct, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent inappropriate conduct may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to be in compliance with such laws or regulations.

We are also subject to the risk that a person or government could allege such fraud or other misconduct, even if none occurred. Efforts to ensure that our business arrangements will comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations will involve substantial costs. It is possible that governmental and enforcement authorities will conclude that our business practices may not comply with current or future statutes, regulations or case law interpreting applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business, including the imposition of significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, disgorgement, monetary fines, imprisonment, additional reporting obligations and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or other agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, possible exclusion from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other federal healthcare programs, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future

earnings, and curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations.

Risks Related to Internal Controls

We identified certain misstatements to our previously issued financial statements and have restated the financial statements described below, which has exposed us to additional risks and uncertainties.

As discussed in the Explanatory Note and Notes 14 and 15 of our consolidated financial statements, we have restated our previously issued audited financial statements as of and for the years ended December 31, 2022 and 2023 and our interim financial statements as of and for the quarterly periods ended March 31, 2023 through September 30, 2023 and March 31, 2022 through September 30, 2022.

As a result of the misstatements discussed and the Restatement, we have become subject to a number of additional risks and uncertainties and unanticipated costs for accounting, legal and other fees and expenses, including risks of lawsuit relating to securities offered by us in public and private offerings as well as claims by purchasers of our shares of common stock in the public market. Any actions, lawsuits or other legal proceedings related to the misstatements or the Restatement could result in liabilities, reputational harm and defense and other costs, regardless of the outcome of the lawsuit or proceeding.

We cannot ensure that litigation or other claims by stockholders will not be brought in the future arising out of the Restatement. We may also be subject to further examinations, investigations, proceedings and orders by regulatory authorities as a result of the Restatement. Any such further actions could be expensive and damaging to our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Failure to maintain effective internal controls could adversely affect our ability to meet our reporting requirements.

We are required to establish and maintain appropriate internal controls over financial reporting. Rules adopted by the SEC pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 require an annual assessment of internal controls over financial reporting and for certain issuers an attestation of this assessment by the issuer’s independent registered public accounting firm. The standards to assess that our internal controls over financial reporting are effective are evolving and complex, require significant documentation and testing, and may require remediation if they are not met. We expect to incur significant expenses and to devote resources to Section 404 compliance on an ongoing basis. It is difficult for us to predict how long it will take or costly it will be to complete the assessment of the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting for each year and to remediate any deficiencies in our internal control over financial reporting. As a result, we may not be able to complete the assessment and remediation process on a timely basis. In addition, although attestation requirements by our independent registered public accounting firm are not presently applicable to us, we could become subject to these requirements in the future, and we may encounter problems or delays in completing the implementation of any resulting changes to internal controls over financial reporting.

Effective internal controls are necessary for us to provide reasonable assurance with respect to our financial reports and to effectively prevent fraud. Failure to maintain effective internal controls could adversely affect our public disclosures regarding our business, prospects, financial condition, or results of operations. In addition, management’s assessment of internal controls over financial reporting may identify weaknesses and conditions that need to be addressed in our internal controls over financial reporting or other matters that may raise concerns for investors. Any actual or perceived weaknesses and conditions that need to be addressed in our internal control over financial reporting or disclosure of management’s assessment of our internal controls over financial reporting our business and results of operations could be harmed, we could fail to meet our reporting obligations, and there could be a material adverse effect on our common stock price. There are identified material weaknesses that are described further in Item 9A. below. These material weaknesses resulted in our historical financial statements requiring restatement, as is noted above, and delayed our required filings with the SEC, a situation that could recur in the event that we do not effectively remediate the existing material weaknesses and/or experience additional material weaknesses.

Risks Related to Our Equity Securities

Failure to meet Nasdaq’s continued listing requirements could result in the delisting of our common stock, negatively impact the price of our common stock and negatively impact our ability to raise additional capital.

If our common stock becomes subject to delisting, it would be subject to rules that impose additional sales practice requirements on broker-dealers who sell our securities. The additional burdens imposed upon broker-dealers by these requirements could discourage

broker-dealers from effecting transactions in our common stock. This would adversely affect the ability of investors to trade our common stock and would adversely affect the value of our common stock. These factors could contribute to lower prices and larger spreads in the bid and ask prices for our common stock. If we seek to implement a further reverse stock split in order to remain listed on Nasdaq, the announcement or implementation of such a reverse stock split could negatively affect the price of our common stock.

Our stock price has experienced price fluctuations.

There can be no assurance that the market price for our common stock will remain at its current level, and a decrease in the market price could result in substantial losses for investors. The market price of our common stock may be significantly affected by one or more of the following factors:

Our common stock could be further diluted as the result of the issuance of additional shares of common stock, convertible securities, warrants or options.

In the past, we have issued common stock, convertible securities (such as convertible preferred stock and notes payable) and warrants to raise capital. We have also issued equity as compensation for services and incentive compensation for our employees and directors. We have shares of common stock reserved for issuance upon the exercise of certain of these securities and may increase the shares reserved for these purposes in the future. Our issuance of additional common stock, convertible securities, options and warrants could dilute our common stock, affect the rights of our stockholders, reduce the market price of our common stock, result in adjustments to exercise prices of outstanding warrants (resulting in these securities becoming exercisable for, as the case may be, a greater number of shares of our common stock), or obligate us to issue additional shares of common stock to certain of our stockholders.

Provisions of our certificate of incorporation, by-laws, and Delaware law may make an acquisition of us or a change in our management more difficult.

Certain provisions of our certificate of incorporation and by-laws could discourage, delay or prevent a merger, acquisition or other change in control that stockholders may consider favorable, including transactions in which an investor might otherwise receive a premium for its shares. These provisions also could limit the price that investors might be willing to pay in the future for shares of our common stock or warrants, thereby depressing the market price of our common stock. Stockholders who wish to participate in these transactions may not have the opportunity to do so.

Furthermore, these provisions could prevent or frustrate attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove our management. These provisions:

In addition, because we are incorporated in Delaware, we are governed by the provisions of Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, which may, unless certain criteria are met, prohibit large stockholders, in particular those owning 15% or more of our outstanding voting stock, from merging or combining with us for a prescribed period of time.

Item 1B.     Unresolved Staff Comments

None.

Item 1C.     Cybersecurity

We have implemented processes designed to identify, review and manage risks from potential cybersecurity-related data breaches, unauthorized intrusions of our information technology systems, and other information security losses on or through our information technology systems that could result in adverse effects on the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of our systems and electronic information. These processes are managed and monitored by our third-party information technology service providers, as supervised by our Chief Financial Officer (CFO). Our CFO has experience in overseeing our cybersecurity and information technology programs. We rely heavily on information technology consultants for advice and expertise on monitoring evolving industry standards and to monitor our compliance with applicable policies. Our processes include mechanisms, controls, technologies, and systems designed to prevent or mitigate data loss, theft, misuse, or other security incidents or vulnerabilities affecting the data and maintain a stable information technology environment. With the assistance of our third-party vendors, we conduct regular information technology risk evaluations and security audits. Our information technology team conducts due diligence on key technology vendors, contractors and suppliers. We also provide ongoing education communications on cyber and information security, among other topics, and monitor phishing campaigns or other misrepresented system access requests to identify any employees that might need additional training.

The Board of Directors, with the assistance of the Audit Committee, has oversight for the most significant risks facing us and for our processes to identify, prioritize, assess, manage, and mitigate those risks. As part of its oversight responsibilities, the Audit Committee receives periodic updates on cybersecurity and information technology matters and related risk exposures from our CFO.

As of the date of this report, we have not identified any cybersecurity threats or intrusions that have materially affected our strategy, results of operations or financial condition. We and our third-party service providers have, however, been the target of cybersecurity threats and we expect these threats to continue. For additional information regarding risks from cybersecurity threats, please refer to Item 1A, “Risk Factors,” in this annual report on Form 10-K/A.

Item 2.     Properties.

We lease administrative office space in Florham Park, New Jersey and Middleton, Wisconsin. On December 30, 2022, we entered into an Amended Agreement of Lease (the “Amended Lease”), with Campus 100 LLC for the Florham Park space. The space in New Jersey consists of approximately 4,000 square feet and is rented for approximately $12,100 per month under an agreement that expires on April 30, 2029, subject to one additional five-year extension. The space in Wisconsin consists of approximately 300 square feet and is rented for approximately $3,400 per month under an agreement that expires on February 28, 2025.

Item 3.     Legal Proceedings.

None.

Item 4.     Mine Safety Disclosures.

Not applicable.

PART II

Item 5.     Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities.

MARKET FOR COMMON EQUITY

Market Information

Our common stock is listed on the Nasdaq Capital Market under the ticker symbol CLRB.

On March 22, 2024, there were 100 holders of record of our common stock. This number does not include stockholders for whom shares were held in a “nominee” or “street” name.

We have not declared or paid any cash dividends on our common stock and do not anticipate declaring or paying any cash dividends in the foreseeable future. We currently expect to retain future earnings, if any, for the continued development of our business.

Our transfer agent and registrar is Equiniti Trust Company LLC, 6201 15^th Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11219.

Equity compensation plans

The following table provides information as of December 31, 2023, regarding shares authorized for issuance under our equity compensation plans, including individual compensation arrangements.

Equity compensation plan information

​

Recent Sales of Unregistered Equity Securities

On October 20, 2022, we entered into a Securities Purchase Agreement with certain purchasers named therein, pursuant to which we agreed to issue and sell additional securities in an SEC-registered transaction, common warrants to purchase up to an aggregate of 3,275,153 shares of our common stock. On the same day we entered into a Private Placement Purchase Agreement with certain purchasers named therein, pursuant to which we agreed to issue and sell pre-funded warrants to purchase up to an aggregate of 1,875,945 shares of our common stock and common warrants to purchase up to an aggregate of 1,875,945 shares of our common stock.

On September 8, 2023, in a private placement with certain institutional investors, we issued 1,225 shares of Series E-1 preferred stock, along with Tranche A warrants to purchase 2,205 shares of Series E-3 preferred stock and Tranche B warrants to purchase 1,715 shares of Series E-4 preferred stock. Shares of Series E preferred stock were issued at a fixed price of $20,000 per share, resulting in gross proceeds of $24.5 million and net proceeds of approximately $22.2 million after placement agent fees and other customary expenses. The conversion prices for the preferred stock are as follows: for the Series E-1 or E-2 preferred stock, $1.82 per share of common stock, or a total of 13,461,538 shares of common stock; for the Series E-3 preferred stock, $3.185 per share of common stock, or a total of 13,846,154 shares of common stock; and for the Series E-4 preferred stock, $4.7775 per share of common stock, or a total of 7,179,487 shares of common stock, in each case subject to appropriate adjustment in the event of any stock dividend, stock split, combination or other similar recapitalization.

​

Item 6.     [Reserved]

Item 7.     Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.

Restatement

The accompanying Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations gives effect to the restatement adjustments made to the previously reported consolidated financial statements for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2023 and 2022, and for the fiscal quarters ended: March 31, June 30, and September 30, 2023, as well as March 31, June 30, and September 30, 2022. For additional information and a detailed discussion of the restatement, see Note 14: Restatement of Previously Issued Financial Statements in the Notes to our Restated Consolidated Financial Statements included in this Annual Report under Item 8. Financial Statements.

Overview

We are a late-stage clinical biopharmaceutical company focused on the discovery, development and commercialization of drugs for the treatment of cancer. Our core objective is to leverage our proprietary PDC delivery platform to develop PDCs that are designed to specifically target cancer cells and deliver improved efficacy and better safety as a result of fewer off-target effects. Our PDC platform possesses the potential for the discovery and development of the next generation of cancer-targeting treatments, and we plan to develop PDCs both independently and through research and development collaborations.

Our lead PDC therapeutic, iopofosine I 131, is a small-molecule PDC designed to provide targeted delivery of iodine-131 directly to cancer cells, while limiting exposure to healthy cells. We believe this profile differentiates iopofosine from many traditional on-market treatments. Iopofosine was recently evaluated in the completed CLOVER-WaM Phase 2 pivotal study in patients with r/r WM, while evaluation is ongoing in a Phase 2b study in r/r MM and CNS lymphoma patients and the CLOVER-2 Phase 1b study for pediatric patients with high grade gliomas.

Results of Operations

Research and development expenses. Research and development expenses consist of costs incurred in identifying, developing, testing, and manufacturing product candidates, which primarily include the cost of manufacturing materials, fees paid to contract research organizations, fees paid to medical institutions for clinical studies, and costs to secure intellectual property. We analyze our research and development expenses based on four categories as follows: clinical projects, manufacturing and related, preclinical projects, and general fixed and overhead costs that are not allocated to the functional project costs, including personnel costs, facility costs, and related overhead costs.

General and administrative expenses. General and administrative expenses consist primarily of salaries and other related costs for personnel in executive, finance, and administrative functions. Other costs include insurance, costs for public company activities, investor relations, directors’ fees, and professional fees for legal and accounting services.

Twelve Months Ended December 31, 2023 and 2022

Research and Development. Research and development expenses for the year ended December 31, 2023, were approximately $27,266,000, compared to approximately $18,266,000 for the year ended December 31, 2022.

The following table provides a summary of research and development costs by category for the years ended December 31, 2023 and 2022:

​

The overall increase in research and development expenses of approximately $9,000,000, or 49%, was primarily a result of an increase in manufacturing and related costs related to greater production sourcing necessary to support clinical trials and establish commercial production capabilities of approximately $5,103,000 and clinical project costs of approximately $2,168,000, driven by the timing of the activities related to our pivotal and pediatric trials, and an increase in general research and development costs of approximately $1,677,000 primarily attributable to increased personnel-related costs.

General and Administrative. General and administrative expenses for the year ended December 31, 2023, were approximately $11,694,000, compared to approximately $10,548,000 in 2022. The increase of $1,146,000, or 11% in general and administrative costs was primarily driven by an increase in personnel costs partially offset by a reduction in professional fees.

Other income (expense), net. Other income (expense), net for 2023 was an expense of approximately $3,870,000, as compared to approximately $3,039,000 of expense in 2022. The decrease was largely a result of the cost of the September 2023 financing being substantially lower than that of the October 2022 financing, partially offset by the impact of the warrant revaluation having an unfavorable impact in 2023, whereas in 2022 the impact was favorable. Interest income, net, improved to approximately $387,000 in 2023 as compared to approximately $153,000 in 2022. The increase in interest earned is a result of higher interest rates supporting stronger returns on money market cash equivalents coupled with higher average balances of cash on hand in 2023.

Three Months Ended March 31, 2023 and 2022

​

​

In the three months ended March 31, 2023 and 2022, research and development expenses increased approximately 72%, primarily a result of increased clinical project costs driven by the timing of the activities related to our pivotal trial, an increase in manufacturing and related costs related to production sourcing, general research and development costs due to an increase in personnel, and pre-clinical project costs.

The decrease in general and administrative expense of $90,000, or 4%, was primarily driven by a decrease in professional fees, partially offset by an increase in personnel costs, including stock-based compensation expense.

The gain on valuation of warrants was nearly $1.4 million in the first quarter of 2023 as compared to a $100,000 loss in 2022. Fluctuations in the fair value of warrants outstanding correlate to changes in the Company’s stock price, with a decrease in the stock price decreasing the fair value of the warrants, thereby resulting in a gain.

Three Months Ended June 30, 2023 and 2022

​