UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 20-F

OR

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024

OR

OR

For the transition period from _______________________ to ______________________________

Commission File Number 001-41231

TC BIOPHARM (HOLDINGS) PLC

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)

Scotland X0

(Jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)

Maxim 1, 2 Parklands Way

Holytown, Motherwell, ML1 4WR

Scotland, United Kingdom

+44 (0) 141 433 7557

(Address of principal executive offices)

Bryan Kobel, Chief Executive Officer

Maxim 1, 2 Parklands Way

Holytown, Motherwell, ML1 4WR

Scotland, United Kingdom

+44 (0) 141 433 7557

b.kobel@tcbiopharm.com

(Name, Telephone, E-mail and/or Facsimile number and Address of Company Contact Person)

Securities registered or to be registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: None

Securities registered or to be registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:

American Depositary Shares, each representing four thousand (4,000) Ordinary Shares, nominal value £0.0001 per share

Warrants, each warrant representing the right to purchase one American Depositary Share

Securities for which there is a reporting obligation pursuant to Section 15(d) of the Act: None

Indicate the number of outstanding shares of each of the issuer’s classes of capital or common stock as of the close of the period covered by the annual report: 1,991,478,441 ordinary shares.

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

If this report is an annual or transition report, indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. 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 or an emerging growth company. See definition of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

If an emerging growth company that prepares its financial statements in accordance with U.S. GAAP, 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. ☐

† The term “new or revised financial accounting standard” refers to any update issued by the Financial Accounting Standards Board to its Accounting Standards Codification after April 5, 2012.

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. ☐

Indicate by check mark which basis of accounting the registrant has used to prepare the financial statements included in this filing:

If “Other” has been checked in response to the previous question, indicate by check mark which financial statement item the registrant has elected to follow. Item 17 ☐ Item 18 ☐

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). ☐

If this is an annual report, indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes ☐ No ☒

TABLE OF CONTENTS

GENERAL INFORMATION

In this annual report on Form 20-F (“Annual Report”), unless the context requires otherwise, TC BioPharm (Holdings) plc (formerly TC BioPharm (Holdings) Limited, which was re-registered as a public limited company on January 10, 2022) and its subsidiaries (“Subsidiar(y/ies)”), and TC BioPharm Limited (our principal trading/operational subsidiary) shall collectively be referred to as “TCB,” “the Company,” “the Group”, “we,” “us,” and “our” unless otherwise noted.

PRESENTATION OF FINANCIAL AND OTHER DATA

The consolidated financial statement data as at December 31, 2024 and 2023 and for the years ended December 31, 2024, 2023 and 2022, have been derived from our consolidated financial statements, which have been prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, or GAAP, as issued by the Financial Accounting Standards Board, or FASB and audited in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States).

Our financial information is presented in pounds sterling. For the convenience of the reader, in this Annual Report, unless otherwise indicated, translations from pounds sterling into U.S. dollars were made at the rate of £1 to $1.252, which was the noon buying rate of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York on December 31, 2024. Such U.S. dollar amounts are not necessarily indicative of the amounts of U.S. dollars that could actually have been purchased upon exchange of pounds sterling at the dates indicated or any other date. All references in this Annual Report to “$” mean U.S. dollars and all references to “£” and “GBP” mean pounds sterling.

INFORMATION REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Annual Report contains estimates and forward-looking statements, principally in the sections titled “Risk Factors,” “Operating and Financial Review and Prospects” and “Business.” Some of the matters discussed concerning our operations and financial performance include forward-looking statements and estimates within the meaning of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The terminology such as “may,” “will,” “could,” “should,” “expects,” “anticipates,” “intends,” “plans,” “believes,” “seeks,” “estimates” and other comparable terminology are intended to identify forward-looking statements and estimates.

Forward-looking statements are subject to known and unknown risks, uncertainties, assumptions and other factors that could cause our actual results of operations, financial condition, liquidity, performance, prospects, opportunities, achievements or industry results, as well as those of the markets we serve or intend to serve, to differ materially from those expressed in, or suggested by, these forward-looking statements. Factors that could cause actual results, financial condition, liquidity, performance, prospects, opportunities, achievements or industry results to differ materially include, but are not limited to, those discussed under “Risk Factors” in this Annual Report. Additional risks that we may currently deem immaterial or that are not presently known to us could also cause the forward-looking events discussed in this Annual Report not to occur. These forward-looking statements are based on assumptions regarding our present and future business strategies and the environment in which we expect to operate in the future. You should read this annual report and the documents that we reference in this annual report completely and with the understanding that our actual future results may be materially different from what we expect.

Forward-looking statements and estimates speak only at the date they were made, and we undertake no obligation to update or to review any forward-looking statement or estimate because of new information, future events or other factors. Forward-looking statements and estimates involve risks and uncertainties and are not guarantees of future performance. Our future results may differ materially from those expressed in these forward-looking statements and estimates.

WEBSITE DISCLOSURE

We maintain a public website at https://tcbiopharm.com and use our website as a routine channel of distribution of company information, including press releases, analyst presentations, and supplemental financial information, as a means of disclosing material non-public information and for complying with our disclosure obligations under Regulation FD. Our website includes an investors’ section through which we make available, free of charge, our Annual Reports on Form 20-F, Reports on Form 6-K, as well as any amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to the Exchange Act as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it to, the SEC. Accordingly, investors should monitor our website in addition to following press releases, filings with the SEC, and public conference calls and webcasts.

None of the information provided on our website, in our press releases or public conference calls and webcasts or through social media is incorporated into, or deemed to be a part of, this Annual Report or in any other report or document we file with the SEC, and any references to such website is intended to be inactive textual references only.

PART I

Not Applicable.

Not Applicable.

Not Applicable.

Not Applicable.

Not Applicable.

Summary of Risk Factors

Our business is subject to a number of risks and uncertainties, including those risks discussed at length in the section below titled “Risk Factors.” These risks include among others the following:

Risks Related to Our Financial Position and Need for Additional Capital

We have incurred net losses every year since our inception and expect to continue to incur net losses in the future and may never achieve profitability.

We have generated losses since our inception in 2013. Since then, we have devoted substantially all of our resources to research and development efforts relating to our genetically unmodified and genetically engineered GD-T cell candidates, including engaging in activities to manufacture and supply our GD-T cell candidates for clinical trials, conducting initial clinical trials of our lead candidates, general and administrative support for these operations, and protecting our intellectual property. Based on our current plans, we do not expect to generate product or royalty revenues until we obtain marketing approval for, and commercialize, any of our GD-T cell-based candidates.

For the fiscal years ended December 31, 2024 and 2023, we incurred net losses of £12.2 million and £5.9 million, respectively. As of December 31, 2024, we had an accumulated deficit of £51.0 million. We expect to continue incurring significant losses as we continue with our research and development and clinical programs and to incur general and administrative costs associated with our operations. The extent of funding required to develop our product candidates is difficult to estimate given the novel nature of our GD-T cell-based cell therapy candidates and their un-proven route to market. Ultimately, our profitability is dependent upon the successful development, approval, and commercialization of our GD-T cell-based therapeutic candidates and achieving a level of revenues adequate to support our cost structure. We may never achieve profitability and until we do, we will continue to need to raise additional cash.

Our ADSs are currently quoted on the OTC Pink marketplace, which results in a limited public market for our ADSs and may make obtaining future debt or equity financing more difficult for us.

On March 21, 2025, our ADSs were delisted from the Nasdaq Capital Market. We have appealed the determination to the Nasdaq Listing and Hearing Review Council. In the interim, notwithstanding the suspension of trading on Nasdaq, our ADSs is eligible for quotation on the OTC Pink maintained by OTC Markets under the symbol, “TCBPY”.

As a result of the delisting of our ADSs by Nasdaq, selling our ADSs could be more difficult because smaller quantities of ADSs would likely be bought and sold, transactions could be delayed, and security analysts’ coverage of us may be reduced. In addition, broker-dealers have certain regulatory burdens imposed upon them, which may discourage broker-dealers from effecting transactions in shares of our common stock, further limiting the liquidity of our common stock. As a result, the market price of our ADSs may be depressed, and you may find it more difficult to sell our ADSs. In addition, such delisting from the Nasdaq and continued or further declines in our stock price could also greatly impair our ability to raise additional necessary capital through equity or debt financing - for example, we are not able to utilize our At-the-market Program or the equity line of credits unless our ADSs are listed on Nasdaq.

Because our ADSs currently trades at prices below $5.00 per share, we are subject to “penny stock” rules.

As a company whose securities are traded at a low price per share, we are subject to additional regulatory requirements under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, commonly referred to as the “penny stock rules.” These rules impose certain disclosure and trading restrictions on broker-dealers who engage in transactions in penny stocks, defined generally as equity securities with a price of less than $5.00 per share. The penny stock rules require broker-dealers to provide specific disclosures to investors prior to executing transactions in penny stocks. These disclosures include information about the risks associated with investing in penny stocks, the salesperson’s compensation, and the bid and offer quotations for the penny stock. Additionally, the rules require broker-dealers to obtain written consent from investors before executing transactions in penny stocks, confirming that the investors have received the required disclosures and understand the risks involved.

The trading restrictions imposed by the penny stock rules may limit the liquidity and marketability of our securities. As a result, investors may find it more difficult to sell their shares at prevailing market prices or to find a willing buyer for their shares. This limited liquidity may contribute to greater price volatility and wider bid-ask spreads for our securities, which could negatively impact the market price of our ADSs. Furthermore, the additional regulatory requirements associated with trading as a penny stock may deter broker-dealers from facilitating transactions in our securities. This reduced market-making activity may further exacerbate the liquidity and trading challenges faced by investors in our stock.

In addition to the “penny stock” rules described above, FINRA has adopted rules that require that in recommending an investment to a customer, a broker-dealer must have reasonable grounds for believing that the investment is suitable for that customer. Prior to recommending speculative low priced securities to their non-institutional customers, broker-dealers must make reasonable efforts to obtain information about the customer’s financial status, tax status, investment objectives and other information. Under interpretations of these rules, FINRA believes that there is a high probability that speculative low priced securities will not be suitable for at least some customers. The FINRA requirements make it more difficult for broker-dealers to recommend that their customers buy our common stock, which may limit your ability to buy and sell our stock and have an adverse effect on the market for our shares.

Investors should be aware of the risks associated with trading in penny stocks, including limited liquidity, heightened price volatility, and the potential for regulatory scrutiny. These risks may make it more difficult for investors to buy or sell our securities at favorable prices and could result in losses for investors.

Our ability to generate revenue from sales of our therapeutic candidates and become profitable depends significantly on our success in a number of factors.

We continue to focus on development activities for our technologies and implementation of the early parts of our business plan. We may never achieve commercial success and continue to operate in the research and development stage, without commercially launching any products at this time. We have limited historical financial data upon which we may base our projected revenue and base our planned operating expenses. Our limited operating history makes it difficult for potential investors to evaluate our potential product candidates, drug therapies or prospective operations and business prospects. As a development stage company, we are subject to all the risks inherent in the initial organization, business development, financing, unexpected expenditures, and complications and delays that often occur in a new business. Investors should evaluate an investment in us in light of the uncertainties encountered by developing companies in a competitive environment. There can be no assurance that our efforts will be successful or that we will ultimately be able to attain profitability.

We have no GD-T cell-based therapeutic candidates approved for commercial sale and have not generated any revenue from sales of our GD-T cell-based therapeutic candidates, and do not anticipate generating any revenue from sales of our GD-T cell-based therapeutic candidates until sometime after we receive regulatory approval, if at all, for the commercial sale of a GD-T cell-based therapeutic candidate. We intend to fund future operations through our existing and future collaboration and licensing agreements for other therapeutic targets and through additional equity financings. Our ability to generate revenue and achieve profitability depends on our success in many factors, including:

Even if one or more of our GD-T cell-based therapeutic candidates is approved for commercial sale, we anticipate incurring significant costs associated with commercializing any approved GD-T cell-based therapeutic candidate. Our expenses will increase beyond our current expectations if the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the FDA, or the United Kingdom Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, the MHRA, or any other regulatory agency require changes to our manufacturing processes or assays, or for us to perform preclinical programs and clinical or other types of trials in addition to those that we currently anticipate. If we are successful in obtaining regulatory approvals to market one or more of our GD-T cell-based therapeutic candidates, our revenue will be dependent, in part, upon the size of the markets in the territories for which we gain regulatory approval, the accepted price for the GD-T cell-based therapeutic candidate, the ability to get reimbursement at any price, and whether we own the commercial rights for that territory. If the number of our addressable disease patients is not as significant as we estimate, the indication approved by regulatory authorities is narrower than we expect, or the reasonably accepted population for treatment is narrowed by competition, physician choice or treatment guidelines, we may not generate significant revenue from sales or supplies of such GD-T cell-based therapeutic candidates, even if approved. If we are not able to generate revenue from the sale of any approved GD-T cell-based therapeutic candidates, we may never become profitable.

If we fail to obtain additional financing as needed, we may be unable to complete the development and commercialization of our GD-T cell-based product candidates.

Our operations have required substantial amounts of cash since inception. We expect to continue to spend substantial amounts to continue the development of our GD-T cell-based therapeutic candidates, including for clinical trials. We expect to use our operating capital to advance and accelerate the clinical development of our therapeutic candidates, therefore, changing circumstances beyond our control may cause us to increase our spending significantly faster than we currently anticipate, we believe we will require additional capital, likely in significant amounts, for the further development and commercialization of our GD-T cell-based therapeutic candidates.

We cannot be certain that additional funding will be available on acceptable terms, or at all. We have no committed source of additional capital. If we are unable to raise additional capital in sufficient amounts or on terms acceptable to us, we may have to significantly delay, scale back or discontinue the development or commercialization of our GD-T cell-based therapeutic candidates or other research and development initiatives. Our license and supply agreements may also be terminated if we are unable to meet the milestone obligations under these agreements. We could be required to seek collaborators for our GD-T cell-based therapeutic candidates at an earlier stage than otherwise would be desirable or on terms that are less favorable than might otherwise be available or relinquish or license on unfavorable terms our rights to our GD-T cell-based therapeutic candidates in markets where we otherwise would seek to pursue development or commercialization ourselves. Any of the above events could significantly harm our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations and cause the price of either of our ADSs or Warrants, or both, to decline.

We, as well as our independent registered public accounting firm, have expressed substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern.

Our recurring losses from operations and negative cash flow raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. As a result, our independent registered public accounting firm included an explanatory paragraph in its report on our consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2024 with respect to this uncertainty.

Our ability to continue as a going concern ultimately is dependent upon our generating cash flow from sales that are sufficient to fund operations or finding adequate financing to support our operations. To date, we have had no product revenues and relied on equity-based financing from the sale of securities subscribed by our founders and related parties and in various private placements, and receipts from collaboration partners. Our research and development plans may not be successful in creating a marketable product, and our business plan may not be successful in achieving a sustainable business and generating revenues. We completed our initial public offering (“IPO”) in February 2022, which, together with additional funds that we have raised since then and funds we plan to raise during 2025, we believe will provide funding to enable us to progress our planned clinical trial program in our lead product, OmnImmune®, into 2025 and beyond. We have no firm arrangements in place for all the anticipated, required financing to be able to fund our operations during and beyond 2025 and otherwise to implement fully our business plan. If we are unable to continue our operations as planned, we may have to curtail some or all of our business plan and operations. In such case, investors will lose all or a portion of their investment.

We anticipate needing additional financing over the medium to longer term to execute our business plan and fund operations, which additional financing may not be available on reasonable terms or at all.

The proceeds from our February 2022 IPO, together with additional capital raised since then and funds that we plan to continue to raise during 2025, are expected to provide capital to further develop our drug product candidates and fund our overall business plan until at least May 2026. We will require additional capital in the future to fully develop our technologies and potential products to the stage of a commercial launch. We cannot give now any indication of the amount of future funding that we will need or give any assurance that we will be able to obtain all the necessary funding that we may need. We may pursue additional funding through various financing sources, including the private and public sale of our equity and debt securities, licensing fees for our product candidates, joint ventures with capital partners and project type financing. We also may seek government-based financing, such as development and research grants. There can be no assurance that funds will be available on commercially reasonable terms, if at all. If financing is not available on satisfactory terms, we may be unable to pursue further our business plan and we may be unable to continue operations, in which case investors may lose their entire investment. Alternatively, we may consider changes in our business plan that might enable us to achieve aspects of our business objectives and lead to some commercial success with a smaller amount of capital, but we cannot assure that changes in our business plan will result in revenues or maintain value in an investment in the company.

As of May 7, 2025, the Company had cash on hand of $2.7 million (£2.0 million), which will not be sufficient to enable the Group to meet the cash requirements required to enable it to conduct its business plan through the going concern period (being to May 9, 2026) (“Going Concern Period”). With existing resources, we expect to be able to fund current operations to June 2025.

Risks Related to Development, Clinical Testing and Commercialization of Our Investigational Therapies and Any Future Therapeutic Candidates

Our GD-T cell therapies represent a novel approach to cancer treatment that could result in heightened regulatory scrutiny, delays in clinical development, or delays in or our ability to achieve regulatory approval or commercialization of our therapeutic candidates.

Our products are novel cancer treatment approaches that carry inherent development risks. We are therefore constantly evaluating and adapting our therapeutic candidates following the results obtained during development work and the ongoing clinical trials. Further development, characterization and evaluation may be required, depending on the results obtained, in particular where such results suggest any potential safety risk for patients. The need to develop further assays, or to modify in any way the protocols related to our therapeutic candidates to improve safety or effectiveness, may delay a clinical program, regulatory approval or commercialization, if approved at all, of any therapeutic candidate. Consequently, this may have a material impact on our ability to receive milestone payments and/or generate revenues from our therapeutic candidates and raise equity capital. In addition, given the novelty of our GD-T cell therapeutic candidates, the end users and medical personnel require a substantial amount of education and training in their administration of our cell therapy. Regulatory authorities have very limited experience with commercial cell therapies for disease treatment. As a result, regulators may be more risk averse or require substantial dialogue and education as part of the normal regulatory approval process for each stage of development of our therapeutic candidates.

GD-T cell therapy creates significantly increased risk in terms of side-effect profile, ability to satisfy regulatory requirements associated with clinical trials, and the long-term efficacy of administered cells.

Development of a pharmaceutical or biologic therapy product has inherent risks based on differences in patient population and responses to therapy and treatment. The mechanism of action and impact on other systems and tissues within the human body following administration of GD-T cell therapy products is not completely understood, which means that we cannot predict the long-term effects of treatment with the GD-T cell therapy product. We are aware that certain patients may not respond to GD-T cell therapy and other patients may relapse. The percentage of the patient population in which these events may occur is unknown, but the inability of patients to respond and the possibility of relapse may impact our ability to conduct clinical trials, to obtain regulatory approvals, if at all, and to successfully commercialize our therapeutic products.

Our GD-T cell therapeutic candidates and their application are not fully scientifically understood and are still undergoing validation and investigation. The utility of our GD-T cell products may depend on persistence, potency, durability and infiltration capacity of the GD-T cells within a patient’s body. The level of persistence and the factors affecting such persistence, potency and infiltration capacity in patients are not completely understood, which presents an additional risk to the ongoing development and use of our therapeutic candidates. Certain steps involved in validating and carrying out testing require access to samples (for example tissue samples or cell samples) from third parties. Such samples may be obtained from universities or research institutions and will often be provided subject to satisfaction of certain terms and conditions. There can be no guarantee that we will be able to obtain samples in sufficient quantities to enable development of and use of the full preclinical safety testing program for CAR-T therapeutic candidates undergoing development. In addition, the terms under which such samples are available may not be acceptable to us or may restrict our use of any generated results or require us to make payments to third parties.

Our products, before they can be commercialized, will require regulatory approval.

We cannot commercialize a product candidate until the appropriate regulatory authorities have reviewed and approved the product candidate. Approval by the FDA, the MHRA and comparable other regulatory authorities is lengthy and unpredictable, and depends upon numerous factors. Approval policies, regulations, or the type and amount of clinical data necessary to gain approval may change during the course of a product candidate’s clinical development and may vary among jurisdictions, which may cause delays in the approval or the decision not to approve an application. We have not obtained commercialization regulatory approval for any product candidate, and it is possible that any of our product candidates will never obtain regulatory approval.

Applications for product candidates we may develop could fail to receive regulatory approval for many reasons, including but not limited to:

The lengthy approval process, as well as the unpredictability of the results of clinical trials, may result in our failing to obtain regulatory approval to market a product candidate in the United States, the UK, the EU or elsewhere, which would significantly harm our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

We may encounter substantial delays in completing our clinical trials, which in turn will result in additional costs and may ultimately prevent successful or timely completion of the clinical development and commercialization of our product candidates.

We must conduct extensive clinical trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of the product candidates in humans before commercialization. Clinical testing is expensive, time-consuming and uncertain as to outcome. We cannot guarantee that any clinical trials will be conducted as planned or completed on schedule, if at all. A failure of one or more clinical trials can occur at any stage of testing. Events that may prevent successful or timely completion of clinical development include:

We could also encounter delays if a clinical trial is suspended or terminated by us or by regulators and related reviewing authorities such as IRBs of the institutions in which such trials are being conducted, by an independent Safety Review Board. Suspension or termination of a clinical trial might be due to a number of factors, including failure to conduct the clinical trial in accordance with regulatory requirements or our clinical protocols, inspection of the clinical trial operations or trial site resulting in the imposition of a clinical hold, unforeseen safety issues or adverse side effects, or failure to demonstrate a benefit from using a therapy. In addition, if we make manufacturing or formulation changes to our product candidates, we may need to conduct additional studies to bridge our modified product candidates to earlier versions. In addition, any delays in completing our clinical trials will increase our costs, slow down our product candidate development and approval process and jeopardize our ability to obtain regulatory approvals, commence product sales and generate revenues. Any of these occurrences may significantly harm our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

Manufacturing and administering our GD-T cell-based therapeutic candidates is complex, and we may encounter difficulties in production, particularly with respect to process development or scaling-up of our manufacturing capabilities. If we encounter such difficulties, our ability to supply of our GD-T cell therapeutic candidates for clinical trials or for commercial purposes could be delayed or stopped.

Manufacturing and administrating our GD-T cell-based therapeutics candidates is complex and highly regulated. The manufacture process of our GD-T cell-based therapeutics involves complex processes, including peripheral blood mononuclear cell isolation from leukapheresis material, stimulation of the GD-T cells, expansion of the cells to obtain a desired dose, and ultimately infusion of the cells to the patient’s body. On occasions the GD-T cell therapeutic could be genetically modified, which could involve manufacturing of lentiviral vectors containing the gene of our interest (for example Chimeric Antigen Receptor) and transducing the cells or a method such as electroporation or nucleofection of a plasmid containing the gene of interest to the cells. As a result of the complexities, our manufacturing and supply costs are likely to be higher than those in more traditional manufacturing processes and the manufacturing process is less reliable and more difficult to reproduce. Our manufacturing process is, and will be, susceptible to product loss or failure due to logistical issues, including manufacturing issues associated with the differences in patients’ white blood cells, interruptions in the manufacturing process, contamination, equipment or reagent failure, supplier error and variability in GD-T cell-based therapeutic candidate and patient characteristics. Even minor deviations from normal manufacturing processes could result in reduced production yields, product defects, and other supply disruptions. If microbial, viral or other contaminations are discovered in our GD-T cell-based therapeutic candidates or in the manufacturing facilities in which our GD-T cell based therapeutic candidates are made or administered, the manufacturing facilities may need to be closed for an extended period of time to investigate and remedy the contamination. As our GD-T cell-based therapeutic candidates progress through preclinical programs and clinical trials towards approval and commercialization, it is expected that various aspects of the manufacturing and administration process will be altered in an effort to optimize processes and results.

We have identified some improvements to our manufacturing and administration processes, but these changes may not achieve the intended objectives, and could cause our GD-T cell-based therapeutic candidates to perform differently and affect the results of planned clinical trials or other future clinical trials. The changes may require amendments to be made to regulatory applications which may further delay the timeframes under which modified manufacturing processes can be used for any GD-T cell-based therapeutic candidate. For example, we are planning to introduce automated enclosed systems to our production process. This will require development work to ensure that these modifications do not alter the characteristics of the product. If the GD-T cell-based therapeutic candidate manufactured under the new process has a worse safety or efficacy profile than the prior investigational product, we may need to re-evaluate the use of that manufacturing process, which could significantly delay the progress of our clinical trials.

Developing a commercially viable process is a difficult and uncertain task and there are risks associated with scaling to the level required for advanced clinical trials or commercialization, including, among others, increased costs, potential problems with process scale-out, process reproducibility, stability issues, lot consistency, and timely availability of reagents or raw materials. We may ultimately be unable to reduce the expenses associated with our GD-T cell-based therapeutic candidates to levels that will allow us to achieve a profitable return on investment. If we are unable to demonstrate that our commercial scale product is comparable to the product used in clinical trials, we may not receive regulatory approval for that product without additional clinical trials. Even if we are successful, our manufacturing capabilities could be affected by increased costs, unexpected delays, equipment failures, labor shortages, natural disasters, power failures and numerous other factors that could prevent us from realizing the intended benefits of our manufacturing strategy, which in turn could have a material adverse effect on our business.

We may seek expedited approval in the European Union and United States for our therapeutic candidates, but we may not be able to obtain or maintain such designation.

The FDA and the European Medicines Agency, the EMA, have established programs to expedite drug development and regulatory review. The FDA has four main expedited programs: fast track (introduced in 1987), accelerated approval (1992), priority review (1992), and breakthrough therapy (2012). A priority review designation in North America will direct overall attention and resources to the evaluation of applications for drugs that, if approved, would be significant improvements in the safety or effectiveness of the treatment, diagnosis, or prevention of serious conditions when compared to standard applications. Significant improvement may be demonstrated by the following examples:

We intend to seek breakthrough therapy designation for some or all of our therapeutic candidates, but there can be no assurance that we will receive breakthrough therapy designation. Additionally, other treatments from competing companies may obtain the designations and impact our ability to develop and commercialize our therapeutic candidates, which may adversely impact our business, financial condition or results of operation. We may also seek fast track designation. If a drug or biologic candidate is intended for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening condition or disease and the drug demonstrates the potential to address unmet medical needs for the condition, the sponsor may apply for fast track designation. Under the fast track program, the sponsor of a new drug or biologic candidate may request that the FDA designate the candidate for a specific indication as a fast track drug or biologic concurrent with, or after, the submission of the IND for the candidate. The FDA must determine if the drug or biologic candidate qualifies for fast track designation within 60 days of receipt of the sponsor’s request. Even if we do apply for and receive fast track designation, we may not experience a faster development, review or approval process compared to conventional FDA procedures. The FDA may withdraw fast track designation if it believes that the designation is no longer supported by data from our clinical development program. We may also seek accelerated approval for products that have obtained fast track designation. Under the FDA’s fast track and accelerated approval programs, the FDA may approve a drug or biologic for a serious or life-threatening illness that provides meaningful therapeutic benefit to patients over existing treatments based upon a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit, or on a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than irreversible morbidity or mortality, that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity, or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. For drugs granted accelerated approval, post-marketing confirmatory trials have been required to describe the anticipated effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit. These confirmatory trials must be completed with due diligence.

The EMA has three programs, the accelerated assessment (2005), conditional marketing authorization (2006), and the Priority Medicines (PRIME) scheme (2016). These programs are intended to prioritize the most important medicines for faster access by patients. As part of its marketing authorization process, the EMA may grant conditional marketing authorizations for certain categories of medicinal products on the basis of less complete data than is normally required, when doing so may meet unmet medical needs of patients and may serve the interest of public health. In these cases, it is possible for the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use, the CHMP, to recommend the granting of a marketing authorization, subject to certain specific obligations to be reviewed annually, which is referred to as a conditional marketing authorization. This may apply to medicinal products for human use that fall under the jurisdiction of the EMA, including those that aim at the treatment, the prevention, or the medical diagnosis of seriously debilitating diseases or life-threatening diseases and those designated as orphan medicinal products. A conditional marketing authorization may be granted when the CHMP finds that, although comprehensive clinical data referring to the safety and efficacy of the medicinal product have not been supplied, the risk-benefit balance of the medicinal product is positive. The granting of a conditional marketing authorization is restricted to situations in which only the clinical part of the application is not yet fully complete. Incomplete preclinical or quality data may only be accepted if duly justified and only in the case of a product intended to be used in emergency situations in response to public-health threats. Conditional marketing authorizations are valid for one year, on a renewable basis. The holder will be required to complete ongoing trials or to conduct new trials with a view to confirming that the benefit-risk balance is positive. In addition, specific obligations may be imposed in relation to the collection of pharmacovigilance data. Granting a conditional marketing authorization allows medicines to reach patients with unmet medical needs earlier than might otherwise be the case and will ensure that additional data on a product are generated, submitted, assessed and acted upon. Although we may seek a conditional marketing authorization for our therapeutic candidates, the EMA or CHMP may ultimately not agree that the requirements for conditional marketing authorization have been satisfied and hence delay the commercialization of our therapeutic candidates.

In the European Union, accelerated assessment can reduce the timeframe for EMA’s CHMP to review a marketing-authorization application. Applications may be eligible for accelerated assessment if the CHMP decides the product is of major interest for public health and therapeutic innovation. The evaluation of a marketing-authorization application can take up to 210 days. However, the CHMP can reduce the timeframe to 150 days if the applicant can provide sufficient justification for an accelerated assessment. The Priority Medicines (PRIME) scheme was introduced by the EMA in 2016 to support the development of medicines addressing unmet medical needs which offer a therapeutic advantage over existing treatments. To be accepted in the PRIME scheme, the treatments must meet the eligibility criteria for accelerated assessment including a strongly substantiated mechanism of action, supportive preclinical data, and first-in-human tolerance data. PRIME has been compared to the U.S. Breakthrough Therapy Designation.

Withdrawal of expedited approval will delay trials and likely increase cost.

The FDA or EMA may withdraw expedited approval of our therapeutic candidate or indication approved under the accelerated approval pathway if, for example:

Obtaining and maintaining regulatory approval of our therapeutic candidates in one jurisdiction does not mean that we will be successful in obtaining regulatory approval of our therapeutic candidates in other jurisdictions.

We plan on submit marketing applications in multiple jurisdictions and countries, including the UK, the EU and the United States. Regulatory authorities in each jurisdiction have requirements for approval of therapeutic candidates with which we must comply prior to marketing in those jurisdictions. Obtaining regulatory approvals and compliance with regulatory requirements of multiple jurisdictions and countries could result in significant delays, difficulties and costs for us and could delay or prevent the introduction of our therapeutic candidates in certain countries. If we fail to comply with the regulatory requirements in international markets and/or receive applicable marketing approvals, our target market will be reduced and our ability to realize the full market potential of our therapeutic candidates will be harmed.

Obtaining and maintaining regulatory approval of our therapeutic candidates in one jurisdiction does not guarantee that we will be able to obtain or maintain regulatory approval in any other jurisdiction, while a failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one jurisdiction may have a negative effect on the regulatory approval process in others. For example, even if the FDA grants marketing approval of our key products in the United States, comparable regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions must also approve the manufacturing, marketing and promotion of our products in those countries. Approval procedures vary among jurisdictions and may require additional preclinical programs or clinical trials. In many jurisdictions a therapeutic candidate must be approved for reimbursement before it can be approved for sale in that jurisdiction. In some cases, the price that we intend to charge for our therapeutic candidates is also subject to approval.

We may face difficulty in enrolling patients in our clinical trials.

We may find it difficult to enroll patients in our clinical trials. For example, in our TCB-001 clinical trial we experienced a high screen failure rate. Identifying and qualifying patients, including testing of patients for their GD-T cells’ proliferation capacity, to participate in clinical trials of our therapeutic candidates, are critical to our success. The timing of our current and future clinical trials depends on the speed at which we can recruit patients to participate in testing our therapeutic candidates. If patients are unwilling to participate in our trial(s) because of negative publicity from adverse reactions or for other reasons, including competitive clinical trials for similar patient populations, the timeline for recruiting patients, conducting trials and obtaining regulatory approval of potential products may be delayed or prevented. These delays could result in increased costs, delays in advancing our product development, delays in testing the effectiveness of our technology or termination of the clinical trials altogether. We may not be able to identify, recruit and enroll a sufficient number of patients, or those with required or desired characteristics to achieve sufficient diversity in a given trial in order to complete our clinical trials in a timely manner. Patient enrolment is affected by factors including:

If we have difficulty enrolling a sufficient number of patients to conduct our clinical trials as planned, we may need to delay, limit or terminate ongoing or planned clinical trials, any of which would have an adverse effect on our business.

The outcome of clinical trials is uncertain and our clinical trials may fail to demonstrate adequately the safety and efficacy of any of our T cell therapeutic candidates, which would prevent or delay regulatory approval and commercialization.

There is a risk in any clinical trial that side effects from our therapeutic candidates will require a hold on, or termination of, our clinical program(s) or further adjustments to our clinical program(s) in order to progress our therapeutic candidates. Our T cell therapeutic candidates will require evidence that they are safe before permitting clinical trials to commence and evidence that the therapeutic candidates are safe and effective before granting any regulatory approval. In particular, because our therapeutic candidates are subject to regulation as biological products, we will need to demonstrate that they are safe, pure and potent for use in each target indication. The therapeutic candidate must demonstrate an acceptable risk versus benefit profile in its intended patient population and for its intended use. The risk/benefit profile required for product licensure will vary depending on these factors and may include not only the ability to show tumor shrinkage, but also adequate duration of response, a delay in the progression of the disease and/or an improvement in survival. For example, response rates from the use of our therapeutic candidates will not be sufficient to obtain regulatory approval unless we can also show an adequate duration of response.

We may not be able to submit INDs, or the foreign equivalent outside of the United States, to continue our CAR-T clinical trials.

We are currently conducting preclinical development of our CAR-T therapeutic candidates. Progression of our CAR-T therapeutic candidates from pre-clinical to clinical development (first-in-human, phase 1) is inherently risky and dependent on the results obtained in preclinical programs, the results of other clinical programs and results of third-party programs that utilize common components used for production and administration of our therapeutic candidates. If results are not available when expected or problems are identified during therapy development, we may experience significant delays in development of pipeline products and of existing clinical programs, which may impact our ability to receive regulatory approval. This may also impact our ability to achieve certain financial milestones and the expected timeframes to market any of our therapeutic candidates. Failure to submit further INDs or the foreign equivalent and commence additional clinical programs will significantly limit our opportunity to generate revenue.

Our research and development efforts may not result in the progression of our product candidates into clinical trials.

Our research and development efforts and our selection of the product candidates to pursue remain subject to all of the risks associated with the development of new treatment modalities. Development of the underlying technology and appropriate assay development may be affected by unanticipated technical or other problems, among other development and research issues, and the possible insufficiency of funds needed in order to complete development of these products. Safety, regulatory and efficacy issues, clinical hurdles or challenges also may result in delays and cause us to incur additional expenses that will increase our need for capital and result in additional losses. If we cannot complete, or if we experience significant delays in developing our medical products for use in potential commercial applications, particularly after incurring significant expenditures, our business may fail and investors may lose the entirety of their investment.

We will need to obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates, which is time consuming, costly and complicated. We may not obtain regulatory approval.

We cannot commercialize a product candidate until the appropriate regulatory authorities have reviewed and approved the product candidate. Approval by the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities is lengthy and unpredictable, and depends upon numerous factors. Approval policies, regulations, or the type and amount of clinical data necessary to gain approval may change during the course of a product candidate’s clinical development and may vary among jurisdictions, which may cause delays in the approval or the decision not to approve an application. We have not obtained regulatory approval for any product candidate, and it is possible that any of our product candidates will never obtain regulatory approval.

Applications for product candidates we may develop could fail to receive regulatory approval for many reasons. For example, under FDA regulation, approval may not be obtained for many reasons such as:

The lengthy approval process, as well as the unpredictability of the results of clinical trials, may result in our failing to obtain regulatory approval to market a product candidate in the United States or elsewhere, which would significantly harm our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

We are heavily dependent on the success of our lead product candidate, OmnImmune®, and our subsequent product development program, If we are unable to successfully complete clinical development, obtain regulatory approval for, or commercialize these products, or experience delays in doing so, our business will be materially harmed.

Our future success is dependent on our ability to successfully develop, obtain regulatory approval for, and commercialize our aforementioned lead product candidate which is in its clinical development phase. Before we can generate any revenues from sales of products, we will be required to conduct additional clinical development and conduct longer-term clinical trials and, if our clinical trial of these products is successful, we will be required to seek and obtain regulatory approval, secure adequate manufacturing supply to support larger clinical trials and commercial sales and build a commercial organization, or to work with commercialization partners. Further, the success of these products will depend on patent and trade secret protection, acceptance of these products by patients, the medical community and third-party payers, its ability to compete with other therapies, healthcare coverage and reimbursement, and maintenance of an acceptable safety profile following approval, among other factors. If we do not achieve any of these factors in a timely manner or at all, we could experience significant delays or an inability to successfully commercialize our products which would materially harm our business.

Laboratory conditions differ from clinical conditions and commercial conditions, which could affect the effectiveness of our potential products. Failures to effectively move from laboratory to the field would harm our business.

Observations and developments that may be achievable under laboratory circumstances may not be replicated in commercial settings or in the use of any of the proposed products in the field. The failure of our product candidates under development or other future product candidates to be able to be tested, approved and manufactured in available manufacturing facilities or to be able to meet the demands of users in the field would harm our business.

Results of earlier studies may not be predictive of future clinical trial results, and initial studies may not establish an adequate safety or efficacy profile for our drugs and other product candidates that we may pursue to justify proceeding to advanced clinical trials or an application for regulatory approval.

The results of preclinical studies and clinical trials of our product candidates may not be predictive of the results of later-stage clinical trials, and interim results of a clinical trial do not necessarily predict final results. Additionally, any positive results generated in our Phase 1b/2a clinical trials in adults would not ensure that we will achieve similar results in larger, pivotal clinical trials or in clinical trials in general populations. In addition, preclinical and clinical data are often susceptible to various interpretations and analyses, and many companies that have believed their product candidates performed satisfactorily in preclinical studies and clinical trials have nonetheless failed to obtain marketing approval. Product candidates in later stages of clinical trials may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy despite having progressed through nonclinical studies and initial clinical trials. A number of companies in the biopharmaceutical industry have suffered significant setbacks in advanced clinical trials due to lack of efficacy or adverse safety profiles, notwithstanding promising results in earlier studies, and we cannot be certain that we will not face similar setbacks. Even if early-stage clinical trials are successful, we may need to conduct additional clinical trials for product candidates in additional patient populations or under different treatment conditions before we are able to seek approvals from the FDA and regulatory authorities outside the United States to market and sell these product candidates. Our failure to demonstrate the required characteristics to support marketing approval for our product candidates in any ongoing or future clinical trials would substantially harm our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

We manufacture and test all our therapeutic candidates in-house, and may experience logistic issues.

The manufacture, testing and release of TCB’s cell therapies for clinical trials may not meet with the regulatory requirements and result in the delay of clinical trials. Logistical issues which may prevent timely completion of manufacture and testing include:

We conduct and manage clinical studies using internal staff trained to perform such studies and loss of these staff may delay our clinical program.

We are highly dependent upon the principal members of our management team and the members of our scientific team. These people have significant experience and knowledge within our operational sector, and the loss of any team member could impair our ability to design, identify, and develop clinical trials, new intellectual property and new scientific or product ideas.

We expect to operate in a highly competitive, ever-evolving, market.

The broader market for our products is becoming more focused and potentially more competitive. Over time, we believe this field will become subject to more rapid change and new drugs, therapies and other products will emerge. We may not be able to compete effectively against these companies or their products. We may find ourselves in competition with companies that have competitive advantages over us, such as:

Many of our competitors, either alone or with their strategic collaborators, have substantially greater financial, technical and human resources than we do. Accordingly, our competitors may be more successful than we are in obtaining approval for treatments and achieving widespread market acceptance and may render our treatments obsolete or non-competitive. Mergers and acquisitions in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors. These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel and establishing clinical study sites and patient registration for clinical studies, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies.

Rapidly changing medical technology within the life sciences could make the product candidates that we are developing obsolete.

The medical industry is characterized by rapid and significant medical technological and therapy changes, frequent new product candidates and product introductions and enhancements and evolving industry standards. Our future success will depend on our ability to continually develop and then improve the product candidates that we design and to develop and introduce new product candidates that address the evolving needs of the physicians and patients on a timely and cost-effective basis. Any new product candidates and products developed by us may not be accepted in the intended markets. Our inability to gain market acceptance of new products could harm our future operating results.

The market opportunities for certain of our product candidates may be small, due to the fact that the products may be limited to those patients who are ineligible for or have failed prior treatments, and our projections regarding the size of the addressable market may be incorrect.

Cancer therapies are sometimes characterized as first line, second line or third line, and the FDA often approves new therapies initially only for third line use. When blood cancers are detected, they are treated with first line of therapy with the intention of curing the cancer. This generally consists of chemotherapy, radiation, antibody drugs, tumor targeted small molecules, or a combination of these. In addition, sometimes a bone marrow transplantation can be added to the first line therapy after the combination chemotherapy is given. If the patient’s cancer relapses, then they are given a second line or third line therapy, which can consist of more chemotherapy, radiation, antibody drugs, tumor targeted small molecules, or a combination of these, or bone marrow transplant. Generally, the higher the line of therapy, the lower the chance of a cure. With third or higher line, the goal of the therapy in the treatment of lymphoma and myeloma is to control the growth of the tumor and extend the life of the patient, as a cure is unlikely to happen. Patients are generally referred to clinical trials in these situations.

Our projections of both the number of people who have the cancers we are targeting, as well as the size of the patient population subset of people with these cancers in a position to receive first, second, third and fourth line therapy and who have the potential to benefit from treatment with our product candidates, are based on our beliefs and estimates. These estimates have been derived from a variety of sources, including scientific literature, surveys of clinics, patient foundations, or market research and may prove to be incorrect. Further, new studies may change the estimated incidence or prevalence of these cancers. The number of patients may turn out to be fewer than expected. Additionally, the potentially addressable patient population for our product candidates may be limited or may not be amenable to treatment with our product candidates. Even if we obtain significant market share for our product candidates, because the potential target populations are small, we may never achieve significant revenues without obtaining regulatory approval for additional indications or as part of earlier lines of therapy.

We rely on third parties to support our clinical trials. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or meet expected deadlines, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval of or commercialize our product candidates.

We depend and will continue to depend upon independent investigators and collaborators, such as universities, medical institutions, CROs (“Contract Research Organizations”) and strategic partners to support our clinical trials under agreements with the Company.

We negotiate budgets and contracts with CROs and study sites, which may result in delays to our development timelines and increased costs. We will rely heavily on third parties over the course of our clinical trials, and we control only certain aspects of their activities. Nevertheless, we are responsible for ensuring that each of our studies is conducted in accordance with applicable protocol, legal, regulatory and scientific standards, and its reliance on third parties does not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities. TCB and these third parties are required to comply with GCPs, which are regulations and guidelines enforced by regulatory authorities for product candidates in clinical development. Regulatory authorities enforce these GCPs through periodic inspections of trial sponsors, principal investigators and trial sites. If we or any of these third parties fail to comply with applicable GCP regulations, the clinical data generated in our clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require us to perform additional clinical trials before approving our marketing applications. We cannot assure that, upon inspection, such regulatory authorities will determine that any of our clinical trials comply with the GCP regulations. In addition, our clinical trials must be conducted with biologic product produced under cGMPs and will require a large number of test patients. Our failure or any failure by these third parties to comply with these regulations or to recruit a sufficient number of patients may require us to repeat clinical trials, which would delay the regulatory approval process. Moreover, our business may be implicated if any of these third parties violates federal or state fraud and abuse or false claims laws and regulations or healthcare privacy and security laws.

Any third parties supporting our clinical trials are and will not be our employees and, except for remedies available to us under our agreements with such third parties, we cannot control whether or not they devote sufficient time and resources to our ongoing preclinical, clinical and nonclinical programs. These third parties may also have relationships with other commercial entities, including our competitors, for whom they may also be conducting clinical studies or other drug development activities, which could affect their performance on our behalf. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or obligations or meet expected deadlines, if they need to be replaced or if the quality or accuracy of the clinical data they obtain is compromised due to the failure to adhere to our clinical protocols or regulatory requirements or for other reasons, our clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated and we may not be able to complete development of, obtain regulatory approval of or successfully commercialize our product candidates. As a result, our financial results and the commercial prospects for our product candidates would be harmed, our costs could increase and our ability to generate revenue could be delayed.

If any of our relationships with trial sites, or any CRO that we may use in the future, terminates, we may not be able to enter into arrangements with alternative trial sites or CROs or do so on commercially reasonable terms. Switching or adding third parties to conduct our clinical trials will involve substantial cost and require extensive management time and focus. In addition, there is a natural transition period when a new third party commences work. As a result, delays occur, which can materially impact our ability to meet its desired clinical development timelines.

We do not have any current sales, marketing, commercial manufacturing and distribution capabilities or arrangements, and will need to create these as we move towards commercialization of our products.

We do not yet have commercial sales, marketing, manufacturing and distribution capabilities or arrangements. We will need to develop all of the foregoing or partner with organizations who have expertise in all the foregoing. We do not have any corporate experience in establishing these commercial sized capabilities. We believe that setting up the commercialization aspects of a company such as ours, in our field, will take a substantial amount of capital and time. Therefore, we may seek development and marketing partners and license our drug technologies or product candidates to others in order to avoid our having to provide the marketing, manufacturing and distribution capabilities within our organization. There can be no assurance that we will find any development and marketing partners or companies that are interested in licensing our drug technology or any of our product candidates or products. If we are unable to establish and maintain adequate sales, marketing, manufacturing and distribution capabilities, independently or with others, we will not be able to generate product revenue, and may not become profitable.

We may rely on third parties to manufacture our clinical product supplies, and we may have to rely on third parties to produce and process our product candidates, if approved.

Although to date, we have used our internal capabilities to manufacture clinical trial supplies, we do not yet have sufficient information to reliably estimate the cost of commercially manufacturing and processing of our product candidates. The actual cost to manufacture and process our product candidates could materially and adversely affect the commercial viability of our product candidates. As a result, we may never be able to develop a commercially viable product.

Our manufacturing plant is located in Scotland and as we develop clinical trials outside the UK and in particular into the USA we anticipate that we will rely on a limited number of third-party manufacturers for commercial production, but this will expose us to the following risks.

Contract manufacturers would also be subject to the same risks we face in developing our own manufacturing capabilities, as described above. Each of these risks could delay our clinical trials, the regulatory approval, if any, of our product candidates or the commercialization of our product candidates or result in higher costs or deprive us of potential product revenue. In addition, we will rely on third parties to perform release tests on our product candidates prior to delivery to patients. If these tests are not appropriately done and test data are not reliable, patients could be put at risk of serious harm.

Cell-based therapies rely on the availability of specialty materials, which may not be available to us on acceptable terms or at all.

Our product candidates require specialized materials, including viral vectors that deliver the targeting moiety (CAR) and other genes to the product candidate. We currently manufacture some of our requirements through contract manufacturers, some of which are manufactured by companies with limited resources and experience to support a commercial product, and the suppliers may not be able to deliver materials to our specifications. In addition, those suppliers normally support blood-based hospital businesses and generally do not have the capacity to support commercial products manufactured under cGMP by biopharmaceutical firms. The suppliers may be ill-equipped to support our needs, especially in non-routine circumstances like an FDA inspection or medical crisis, such as widespread contamination. We also do not have contracts with many of these suppliers, and we may not be able to contract with them on acceptable terms or at all. Accordingly, we may experience delays in receiving key materials to support clinical or commercial manufacturing.

In addition, some materials utilized in the manufacture of our candidates are currently available from a single supplier, or a small number of suppliers. For example, principal suppliers for the purchase of equipment and reagents critical for the manufacture of our product candidates include Cytiva (Global Life Sciences Solutions Operations UK Ltd), Wilson Wolf Manufacturing Corporation, Octapharma AG, Sexton Biotechnologies, Miltenyi Biotech, Thermo Fisher Scientific and other suppliers. We cannot be sure that these suppliers will remain in business or that they will not be purchased by one of our competitors or another company that is not interested in continuing to produce these materials for our intended purpose. In addition, the lead time needed to establish a relationship with a new supplier can be lengthy, and we may experience delays in meeting demand in the event that we must switch to a new supplier. The time and effort to qualify a new supplier could result in additional costs, diversion of resources or reduced manufacturing yields, any of which would negatively impact our operating results. Further, we may be unable to enter into agreements with a new supplier on commercially reasonable terms, which could have a material adverse impact on our business.

Product liability lawsuits against us could cause us to incur substantial liabilities and to limit commercialization of any products that we may develop.

We face an inherent risk of product liability exposure related to the testing of our product candidates in human clinical trials and will face an even greater risk if we commercially sell any products that we may develop. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against claims that our product candidates or products caused injuries, we will incur substantial liabilities. Regardless of merit or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in, for example:

We currently hold £5.0 million in clinical study liability annual insurance cover for each clinical study, with a per patient limit of £5.0 million, which may not be adequate to cover all liabilities that we may incur. We may need to increase our insurance coverage as we expand our clinical trials or if we commence commercialization of our product candidates. Insurance coverage is increasingly expensive. We may not be able to maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost or in an amount adequate to satisfy any liability that may arise.

Risks Related to Governmental Regulations

Changes and uncertainties in the tax system in the countries in which we have operations could materially adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations, and reduce net returns to our shareholders.

We conduct business and file income tax returns in multiple jurisdictions. Our consolidated effective income tax rate could be materially adversely affected by several factors, including: changing tax laws, regulations and treaties, or the interpretation thereof; tax policy initiatives and reforms under consideration (such as those related to the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development’s, or OECD, Base Erosion and Profit Shifting, or BEPS, Project, the European Commission’s state aid investigations and other initiatives); the practices of tax authorities in jurisdictions in which we operate; the resolution of issues arising from tax audits or examinations and any related interest or penalties. Such changes may include (but are not limited to) the taxation of operating income, investment income, dividends received or (in the specific context of withholding tax) dividends paid.

We are unable to predict what tax reform may be proposed or enacted in the future or what effect such changes would have on our business, but such changes, to the extent they are brought into tax legislation, regulations, policies or practices in jurisdictions in which we operate, could increase the estimated tax liability that we have expensed to date and paid or accrued on our balance sheets, and otherwise affect our financial position, future results of operations, cash flows in a particular period and overall or effective tax rates in the future in countries where we have operations, reduce post-tax returns to our shareholders and increase the complexity, burden and cost of tax compliance.

Tax authorities may disagree with our positions and conclusions regarding certain tax positions, or may apply existing rules in an unforeseen manner, resulting in unanticipated costs, taxes or non-realization of expected benefits.

A tax authority may disagree with tax positions that we have taken, which could result in increased tax liabilities or reduction in available tax losses. For example, Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs, or HMRC, the United States Internal Revenue Service, the IRS, or another tax authority could challenge our allocation of income by tax jurisdiction and the amounts paid between our affiliated companies pursuant to our intercompany arrangements and transfer pricing policies, including amounts paid with respect to our intellectual property development. Similarly, a tax authority could assert that we are subject to tax in a jurisdiction where we believe we have not established a taxable connection, often referred to as a “permanent establishment” under international tax treaties, and such an assertion, if successful, could increase our expected tax liability in one or more jurisdictions.

A tax authority may take the position that material income tax liabilities, interest and penalties are payable by us, for example where there has been a technical violation of contradictory laws and regulations that are relatively new and have not been subject to extensive review or interpretation, in which case we expect that we might contest such assessment. High-profile companies can be particularly vulnerable to aggressive application of unclear requirements. Many companies must negotiate their tax bills with tax inspectors who may demand higher taxes than applicable law appears to provide. Contesting such an assessment may be lengthy and costly and if we were unsuccessful in disputing the assessment, the implications could increase our anticipated effective tax rate, where applicable.

We may be unable to use net operating loss and tax credit carryforwards and certain built-in losses to reduce future tax payments or benefit from favorable UK tax legislation.

As a UK incorporated and tax resident entity, we are subject to UK corporation tax. Due to the nature of our business, we have generated losses since inception and therefore have not paid any UK corporation tax. As of December 31, 2024, we had cumulative carryforward tax trading losses of £22.3 million. Subject to any relevant utilization criteria and restrictions (including those that limit the percentage of profits that can be reduced by carried forward losses and those that can restrict the use of carried forward losses where there is a change of ownership of more than half of our ordinary shares (including those represented by the ADSs) and a major change in the nature, conduct or scale of the trade), we expect these to be eligible for carry forward and utilization against future operating profits arising in the United Kingdom. The use of loss carryforwards in relation to UK profits incurred on or after April 1, 2017 are limited each year to £5.0 million per group plus, broadly, an incremental 50% of UK taxable profits.

As a company that carries out extensive research and development activities, we seek to benefit from the UK research and development tax relief programs, being the Small and Medium-sized Enterprises R&D tax relief program, or SME Program, and, to the extent that our projects are grant funded or relate to work subcontracted to us by third parties, the Research and Development Expenditure Credit program, or RDEC Program. Under the SME Program, we can currently surrender the trading losses that arise from our qualifying research and development activities for a cash rebate of up to 10% of such qualifying research and development expenditures. The majority of our research, clinical trials management and manufacturing development activities are eligible for inclusion within these tax credit cash rebate claims. We may not be able to continue to claim payable research and development tax credits in the future if we cease to qualify as a SME, based on size criteria concerning employee headcount, turnover and gross assets.

We may benefit in the future from the UK’s “patent box” regime, which allows certain profits attributable to revenue from patented products (and other qualifying income) to be taxed, broadly, at an effective rate of 10% by giving an additional tax deduction. We own several patents which cover our investigational therapies, and accordingly, future upfront fees, milestone fees, product revenue and royalties could be eligible for this deduction. When taken in combination with the enhanced relief available on our research and development expenditures, we expect a long-term rate of corporation tax lower than the statutory to apply to us. If, however, there are unexpected adverse changes to the UK research and development tax credit regime or the “patent box” regime, or for any reason we are unable to qualify for such advantageous tax legislation, or we are unable to use net operating loss and tax credit carryforwards and certain built-in losses to reduce future tax payments then our business, results of operations and financial condition may be adversely affected. This may impact our ongoing requirement for investment and the timeframes within which additional investment is required.

Failure to comply with United States health and data protection laws and regulations could lead to enforcement actions, including civil or criminal penalties, private litigation, and adverse publicity and could negatively affect our operating results and business.

We and any potential collaborators are subject to data protection laws and regulations, such as laws and regulations that address privacy and data security. In the United States, numerous federal and state laws and regulations, including state data breach notification laws, state health information privacy laws, and federal and state consumer protection laws, govern the collection, use, disclosure, and protection of health-related and other personal information. In addition, we may obtain health information from third parties, including research institutions from which we obtain clinical trial data, which are subject to privacy and security requirements under HIPAA, as amended by HITECH. To the extent that we act as a business associate to a healthcare provider engaging in electronic transactions, we may also be subject to the privacy and security provisions of HIPAA, as amended by HITECH, which restricts the use and disclosure of patient-identifiable health information, mandates the adoption of standards relating to the privacy and security of patient-identifiable health information, and requires the reporting of certain security breaches to healthcare provider customers with respect to such information. Additionally, many states have enacted similar laws that may impose more stringent requirements on entities like ours. Depending on the facts and circumstances, we could be subject to significant civil, criminal, and administrative penalties if we obtain, use, or disclose individually identifiable health information maintained by a HIPAA-covered entity in a manner that is not authorized or permitted by HIPAA.

Additionally, in June 2018, the State of California enacted the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, or CCPA, which came into effect on January 1, 2020 and provides new data privacy rights for consumers (as that term is broadly defined) and new operational requirements for companies, which may increase our compliance costs and potential liability. The CCPA gives California residents expanded rights to access and delete their personal information, opt out of certain personal information sharing, and receive detailed information about how their personal information is used. The CCPA provides for civil penalties for violations, as well as a private right of action for data breaches that is expected to increase data breach litigation. While there is currently an exception for protected health information that is subject to HIPAA and clinical trial regulations, as currently written, the CCPA may impact certain of our business activities. The CCPA could mark the beginning of a trend toward more stringent state privacy legislation in the United States, which could increase our potential liability and adversely affect our business.

Compliance with U.S. and foreign privacy and data protection laws and regulations could require us to take on more onerous obligations in our contracts, restrict our ability to collect, use and disclose data, or in some cases, impact our ability to operate in certain jurisdictions. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations could result in government enforcement actions (which could include civil, criminal and administrative penalties), private litigation, and/or adverse publicity and could negatively affect our operating results and business. Moreover, clinical trial subjects, employees and other individuals about whom we or our potential collaborators obtain personal information, as well as the providers who share this information with us, may limit our ability to collect, use and disclose the information. Claims that we have violated individuals’ privacy rights, failed to comply with data protection laws, or breached our contractual obligations, even if we are not found liable, could be expensive and time-consuming to defend and could result in adverse publicity that could harm our business.

We face regulation and potential liability related to the privacy of personal data, including health information we obtain from clinical trials sponsored by us or our collaborators.

The regulatory environment surrounding information security and privacy is increasingly demanding, and these laws and regulations are increasing in complexity and number, and may change frequently and sometimes conflict. We are subject to numerous regulations governing the protection of personal and confidential information of our clinical trial subjects, clinical investigators, and employees, including in relation to medical records, credit card data and financial information, which encompass state privacy and confidentiality laws (including state laws requiring disclosure of breaches), federal and state consumer protection and employment laws, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA, and European and other foreign data protection laws. For example, the European Union General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR, is applicable in all E.U. member states and member states of the European Economic Area, or E.E.A. In the United Kingdom the data protection obligations of the GDPR continue to apply to U.K.-related processing of personal data in substantially unvaried form and fashion (retained in U.K. law as the “U.K. GDPR”).

We are subject to the GDPR and/or U.K. GDPR when conducting clinical trials involving U.K.- or E.E.A.-based data subjects (whether the trials are conducted directly by us or through a clinical vendor or collaborator) or offering approved products (or any other products or services) to U.K.- or E.E.A.-based data subjects (regardless of whether involving a U.K. or E.E.A. based subsidiary or operation), when monitoring of their behavior of data subjects in the United Kingdom or E.E.A. and/or when acting through a U.K.- or E.E.A.-based subsidiary, operation or other establishment.

The GDPR (and U.K. GDPR) sets out a number of requirements that must be complied with when handling personal data (i.e., data relating to an identified or identifiable living individual) in these circumstances, including: having an appropriate lawful basis for processing, and a relevant condition if processing ‘special category’ personal data (which includes personal data related to health, biometric data used for unique identification purposes and genetic information); the obligation to appoint data protection officers in certain circumstances; accountability and record-keeping obligations; transparency obligations for data controllers; the obligation to carry out ‘data protection impact assessments’ in certain circumstances; rights for data subjects (such as rights for individuals to be “forgotten”, rights to data portability, rights to object etc.); a stringent standard of data subject consent; and the obligation to notify certain significant personal data breaches to the relevant Supervisory Authority(ies) and affected individuals. In addition, the GDPR provides a very broad definition of what constitutes personal data (for example, the GDPR expressly clarifies that it applies to ‘pseudonymized’ (i.e., key-coded) data). A number of opinions from Supervisory Authorities has further supported a very wide interpretation of the concept of personal data and, thus, the application of the GDPR. Recent decisions by E.U. supervisory authorities and the Court of Justice of the E.U. have confirmed that the rights granted to individuals under the GDPR must be applied broadly, and the law itself must be interpreted strictly, to guarantee the protection of the rights of individuals.

The GDPR and U.K. GDPR also impose strict rules on the transfer of personal data out of the E.E.A. and United Kingdom to U.S. and other Third Countries. Legal developments in the past five years have created further complexity and uncertainty regarding transfers of personal data from the E.E.A. and United Kingdom to the United States. The E.U.-U.S. Data Privacy Framework, the U.K. Extension to the E.U.-U.S. Data Privacy Framework and the Swiss-E.U. Data Privacy Framework, have made it easier to transfer personal data from the E.E.A., the United Kingdom and Switzerland to the United States (respectively). However, a decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union in January 2025 to award compensation to an individual whose personal data was transferred to the United States demonstrates that this remains a sensitive legal topic. The new U.S. administration may, potentially, offer additional scope to challenge the validity of the Data Privacy Framework under E.U. law.

As the Data Privacy Framework is limited to transfers to certified participants in the U.S., many transfers continue to rely on the standard contractual clauses. Use of the standard contractual clauses must be assessed on a case-by-case basis taking into account the legal regime applicable in the destination country, in particular applicable surveillance laws and rights of individuals and additional measures and/or contractual provisions may need to be put in place, however, the nature of these additional measures is currently uncertain. In May 2023, the Irish Data Protection Commission issued a €1.2 billion fine against Meta for transferring personal data to the United States in reliance on standard contractual clauses, on the basis that the personal data was not sufficiently protected in the United States. In light of all of these developments, it is expected that the uncertainty surrounding data transfers will continue into 2025 and beyond.

As the legal challenges continue and/or supervisory authorities increase their enforcement activities, we could suffer additional costs, complaints, and/or regulatory scrutiny, investigations or fines, and/or if we are otherwise unable to transfer personal data between and among countries and regions in which we operate, it could affect the manner in which we provide our services, the geographical location or segregation of our relevant systems and operations, and could adversely affect our financial results and generally increase compliance risk.

The GDPR also provides that E.E.A. member states may make their own further laws and regulations to introduce specific requirements related to the processing of: “special categories of personal data”, including personal data related to health, biometric data used for unique identification purposes and genetic information; as well as personal data related to criminal offences or convictions. This fact may lead to greater divergence on the law that applies to the processing of such data types across the E.E.A. and U.K., compliance with which as and where applicable may increase our costs and could increase our overall risk.

In the past 12 months, the European data protection authorities have been particularly active in seeking to regulate Artificial Intelligence, in the absence of comprehensive A.I. regulation. At least until the A.I. Act becomes applicable in the European Union (there is a staged implementation through to 2027), we expect to see this focus continue and so any use of A.I. within the healthcare sector will be subject to a heightened risk under European privacy laws.

Now that the United Kingdom is no longer a member of the European Union, there is increasing scope for divergence in application, interpretation and enforcement of the data protection law between the United Kingdom and European Union. On October 23, 2024, the U.K. Government presented the ‘Data (Use and Access) Bill’ to Parliament, which seeks to amend various aspects of the United Kingdom’s data protection regime. The Bill is proceeding through the legislative process, but is expected to become law in Spring or Summer 2025. As currently drafted, the Bill will result in only very minor changes to the substance of the U.K. GDPR, and so the United Kingdom will remain very closely aligned with the European Union in this regard. However, any changes relating to the U.K. and E.U. position regarding aspects of data protection law may lead to additional compliance costs and could increase our overall risk. The Bill also significantly increases the maximum fines for the U.K.’s direct marketing and ‘cookie compliance’ rules, from the current £500,000 to GDPR levels (see below).

Alongside the GDPR, the European Union has recently passed a number of new laws affecting data and security, including the Data Governance Act, the Network and Information Security (NIS) 2 Directive and the European Health Data Space, or EHDS, Regulation. The EHDS Regulation is likely to, for example, require us to make health data available to other organizations in this sector (in an anonymized form) and to the patients themselves. The EHDS was adopted by the Council of the European Union in January 2025, and will enter into force after being formally signed by the Council and European Parliament.

These laws and regulations are increasing in complexity and number, and new regulatory guidance and case law means the regulatory landscape changes frequently. Complying with these numerous, complex and often changing regulations is expensive and difficult. Failure by us, any partners, our service providers, or our employees or contractors to comply with the GDPR could result in regulatory investigations, enforcement notices and/or fines of up to the higher of €20 million or up to 4% of our total worldwide annual turnover. Further, following the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union, we now have to comply with the GDPR and U.K. GDPR separately, each regime separately having the ability to fine up to the higher of €20 million / £17.5 million or 4% of global turnover. In addition, the value of fines issued by supervisory authorities has increased substantially in recent years: numerous multi-million € / £ fines have been issued by supervisory authorities across the E.E.A. and by the U.K. Information Commissioner’s Office, and the first €1.2 billion fine was issued against Meta by the Irish supervisory authority in May 2023. Guidance from the European Data Protection Board has indicated that turnover will be taken into account when defining the starting amount of fines, resulting in higher fines for larger organizations. Therefore, we expect the amount of fines to continue to rise. In addition to administrative fines, a wide variety of other potential enforcement powers are available to competent authorities in respect of potential and suspected violations of the GDPR, including extensive audit and inspection rights, and powers to order temporary or permanent bans on all or some processing of personal data carried out by non-compliant actors.

In addition to the foregoing, a breach of privacy laws or data security laws, particularly those resulting in a significant cybersecurity incident or breach involving the misappropriation, corruption, modification, loss or other unauthorized use or disclosure of sensitive or confidential patient or consumer information, could have a material adverse effect on our business, reputation and financial condition. In addition, widely publicized security breaches are increasingly being followed in the European Union by attempts to bring large ‘class action’ style claims; this trend is likely to continue in light of recent decisions by the European Court of Justice confirming data subjects’ right to compensation even for minor non-material damage. Although such ‘class action’ style claims have yet to succeed in any significant compensation orders, defending these claims is costly and could still result in substantial liability for compensation and legal fees. As a data controller, we are accountable for any third-party service providers we engage to process personal data on our behalf, including our CROs. We attempt to mitigate the associated risks by performing security assessments and due diligence of our vendors and requiring all such third-party providers with data access to sign agreements, and obligating them to only process data according to our instructions and to take sufficient security measures to protect such data. There is no assurance that these contractual measures and our own privacy and security-related safeguards will protect us from the risks associated with the third-party processing, storage and transmission of such information. Any violation of data or security laws by our third-party processors could have a material adverse effect on our business and result in fines, penalties and/or other enforcement actions outlined above.

Risks Related to Our Business Operations, Managing Growth and Employee Matters

We may have difficulty managing growth in our business.

Because of our small size, growth in accordance with our business plan, if achieved, will place a significant strain on our financial, technical, operational and management resources. As we expand our activities, there will be additional demands on these resources. The failure to continue to upgrade our technical, administrative, operating and financial control systems or the occurrence of unexpected expansion difficulties, including issues relating to our research and development activities and retention of experienced scientists, managers and engineers, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to timely execute our business plan. If we are unable to implement these actions in a timely manner, our results may be adversely affected.

We depend upon our key personnel and our ability to attract and retain employees

We are heavily dependent on the ongoing employment and involvement of certain key employees in particular our principal executive officers (i) Bryan Kobel, our Chief Executive Officer and Martin Thorp, our Chief Financial Officer.

We anticipate, overtime, a requirement to expand our current personnel, who will be based in the UK, the EU and the USA, potentially very rapidly in order to achieve our planned business activities and aims to further engage in clinical trials. Such expansion is dependent on our ability to recruit experienced and suitably trained employees or consultants, and to retain such employees on a long-term basis. Our ability to take our existing pipeline of GD-T cell therapeutics and to meet the demands of our clinical programs may be compromised or delayed if we are unable to recruit sufficient personnel on a timely basis.

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

In addition, certain key academic and scientific personnel play a pivotal role in our collaborative partners’ research and development activities. If any of those key academic and scientific personnel who work on development of our research programs, our investigational GD-T cell therapy and any future therapeutic candidates leave our collaborative partners, the development of our research programs, our investigational GD-T cell therapy and any future therapeutic candidates may be delayed or otherwise adversely affected.

We face risks and uncertainties related to litigation, regulatory actions and government investigations and inquiries.

We are subject to, and may become a party to, litigation, claims, suits, regulatory actions and government investigations and inquiries.

The outcome of any litigation, regardless of its merits, is inherently uncertain. Any claims and lawsuits, and the disposition of such claims and lawsuits, could be time-consuming and expensive to resolve, divert management attention and resources, and lead to attempts on the part of other parties to pursue similar claims. Negative perceptions of our business may result in additional regulation, enforcement actions by the government and increased litigation, or harm to our ability to attract or retain customers or strategic partners, any of which may affect our business. Any damage to our reputation, including from publicity from legal proceedings against us or companies that work within our industry, governmental proceedings, unfavorable media coverage or class action could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

An unfavorable outcome or settlement or any other legal, administrative and regulatory proceeding may result in a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations, financial position and overall trends. In addition, regardless of the outcome, litigation can be costly, time-consuming, and disruptive to our operations. Any claims or litigation, even if fully indemnified or insured, could damage our reputation and make it more difficult to compete effectively or to obtain adequate insurance in the future.

In accordance with the terms of a Convertible Loan Note (the “Note”) on August 9, 2022 (the “Conversion Date”) the Company issued 183,820 Ordinary Shares and 367,640 listed warrants to the Note holder in full satisfaction of the Note in the aggregate amount of $781,233. The holder filed a claim in the English courts on June 19, 2023 asserting that notice was provided such that the Company should have paid it the value of the Note in cash, rather than by settling it through the issuance of Ordinary Shares and listed warrants. The holder is demanding payment of the face value of the Note, together with interest, (approximately $860,000). The litigation process is ongoing and, unless settled before, is not expected to conclude until 2025 or later. The Company has retained English solicitors and is contesting the claim in its entirety. The Company believes that it acted correctly under the terms of the Note and has accounted for the transaction on that basis, and that no further amounts are payable to the holder.

We will need to grow the size and capabilities of our organization, and we may experience difficulties in managing this growth.

As of May 7, 2025, we have 39 full-time equivalent employees. As our development and commercialization plans and strategies develop, we will have to add a significant number of additional managerial, operational, financial, and other personnel. Future growth will impose significant added responsibilities on members of management, including:

Our future financial performance and our ability to commercialize our GD-T therapeutic candidates will depend, in part, on our ability to effectively manage any future growth, and our management may also have to divert a disproportionate amount of its attention away from day-to-day activities in order to devote a substantial amount of time to managing these growth activities.

If we fail to maintain proper and effective internal controls, our ability to produce accurate financial statements on a timely basis could be impaired, which would adversely affect our business and our stock price.

Ensuring that we have adequate internal financial and accounting controls and procedures in place to produce accurate financial statements on a timely basis is a costly and time-consuming effort that needs to be re-evaluated frequently. We may discover material weaknesses in our internal financial and accounting controls and procedures that need improvement from time to time.

Management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of our financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes. Management does not expect that our internal control over financial reporting will prevent or detect all errors and all fraud. A control system, no matter how well designed and operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the control system’s objectives will be met. Because of the inherent limitations in all control systems, no evaluation of controls can provide absolute assurance that misstatements due to error or fraud will not occur or that all control issues and instances of fraud, if any, within our company will have been detected.

Pursuant to Section 404(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, or Section 404, we are required to furnish a report by our senior management on our internal control over financial reporting. However, while we remain an EGC we are not required to include an attestation report on internal control over financial reporting issued by our independent registered public accounting firm (Section 404(b)). To prepare for eventual compliance with Section 404(b), once we no longer qualify as an EGC, we are engaged in a process to document and evaluate our internal control over financial reporting, which is both costly and challenging. In this regard, we will need to continue to dedicate internal resources, potentially engage outside consultants, adopt a detailed work plan to assess and document the adequacy of internal control over financial reporting, continue steps to improve control processes as appropriate, validate through testing that controls are functioning as documented, and implement a continuous reporting and improvement process for internal control over financial reporting. Despite our efforts, there is a risk that we will not be able to conclude, within the prescribed timeframe or at all, that our internal control over financial reporting is effective as required by Section 404. If we identify one or more material weaknesses, it could result in an adverse reaction in the financial markets due to a loss of confidence in the reliability of our financial statements. In addition, if we are unable to produce accurate financial statements on a timely basis, investors could lose confidence in the reliability of our financial statements, which could cause the market price of either of our ADSs or Warrants, or both, to decline and make it more difficult for us to finance our operations and growth.

The Company notes that the auditors identified that the Company experienced difficulty in the accounting for complex financial instruments and leases, and the Company lacked adequate internal control over the account and assessment of complex financial instruments and leases following control deficiencies which they believed constituted a material weakness in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2024. The Company recognizes these errors as material weaknesses and has established controls to support assessment and review of accounting for complex financial instruments and leases.

Our current operations are headquartered in one location, and we or the third parties upon whom we depend may be adversely affected by unplanned natural disasters, as well as occurrences of civil unrest, and our business continuity and disaster recovery plans may not adequately protect us from a serious disaster, including earthquakes, outbreak of disease or other natural disasters.

Our current business operations are headquartered and principally located in our offices and laboratories in Glasgow, UK. Any unplanned event, such as flood, fire, explosion, earthquake, extreme weather condition, medical epidemics, power shortage, telecommunication failure or other natural or man-made accidents or incidents, including events of civil unrest that result in us being unable to fully utilize our facilities, or the manufacturing facilities of our third-party contract manufacturers, may have a material and adverse effect on our ability to operate our business, particularly on a daily basis, and have significant negative consequences on our financial and operating conditions. Loss of access to these facilities may result in increased costs, delays in the development of our investigational GD-T cell therapy or any future therapeutic candidates or interruption of our business operations.

The disaster recovery and business continuity plans we have in place may prove inadequate in the event of a serious disaster or similar event. We may incur substantial expenses as a result of the limited nature of our disaster recovery and business continuity plans, which, could have a material adverse effect on our business. As part of our risk management policy, we maintain insurance coverage at levels that we believe are appropriate for our business, but in the final result may not be sufficient to satisfy any damages and losses.

The increasing use of social media platforms presents new risks and challenges.

Social media is increasingly being used to communicate about our clinical development programs and the diseases our investigational GD-T cell therapy or any future therapeutic candidates are being developed to treat, and we may use appropriate social media in connection with our commercialization efforts of our investigational GD-T cell therapy following approval of our GD-T cell therapy or any future therapeutic candidates, if any. Social media practices in the biopharmaceutical industry continue to evolve, and regulations and regulatory guidance relating to such use are evolving and not always clear. This evolution creates uncertainty and risk of noncompliance with regulations applicable to our business, resulting in potential regulatory actions against us, along with the potential for litigation related to certain prohibited activities. For example, patients may use social media channels to comment on their experience in an ongoing clinical trial or to report an alleged adverse event. When such disclosures occur, there is a risk that trial enrolment may be adversely impacted, we fail to monitor and comply with applicable adverse event reporting obligations, or that we may not be able to defend our business or the public’s legitimate interests in the face of the political and market pressures generated by social media due to restrictions on what we may say about our investigational GD-T cell therapy or any future therapeutic candidates. There is also a risk of inappropriate disclosure of sensitive information or negative or inaccurate posts or comments about us on any social networking website. If any of these events were to occur or we otherwise fail to comply with applicable regulations, we could incur liability, face regulatory actions or incur other harm to our business.

Risks Related to Intellectual Property

If we or our licensors are unable to protect our/their intellectual property, then our financial condition, results of operations and the value of our drug technology and product candidates could be adversely affected.

Patents and other proprietary rights are essential to our business, and our ability to compete effectively with other companies is dependent upon the proprietary nature of our drug technologies and product candidates. We also rely upon trade secrets, know-how, continuing innovations and licensing opportunities to develop, maintain and strengthen our competitive position. We seek to protect these, in part, through confidentiality agreements with employees, consultants and other parties. Our success will depend in part on the ability of TCB and our licensors to obtain, to maintain (including making periodic filings and payments) and to enforce patent protection for the licensed intellectual property, in particular, those patents to which we have secured rights. We, and our licensors, may not successfully prosecute or continue to prosecute the patent applications which we have licensed. Even if patents are issued in respect of these patent applications, TCB or our licensors may fail to maintain these patents, may determine not to pursue litigation against entities that are infringing upon these patents, or may pursue such enforcement less aggressively than we ordinarily would for our own patents. Without adequate protection for the intellectual property that we own or license, other companies might be able to offer substantially identical products for sale, which could unfavorably affect our competitive business position and harm our business prospects. Even if issued, patents may be challenged, invalidated, or circumvented, which could limit our ability to stop competitors from marketing similar products or limit the length of term of patent protection that we may have for our products.

Litigation or third-party claims of intellectual property infringement or challenges to the validity of our patents would require us to use resources to protect our rights and may prevent or delay our development, regulatory approval or commercialization of our product candidates.

If we are the target of claims by third parties asserting that our product candidates and products or intellectual property infringe upon the rights of others we may be forced to incur substantial expenses or divert substantial employee resources from our current business endeavors. If successful, those claims could result in our having to pay substantial damages or could prevent us from developing one or more product candidates or commercializing a product. Further, if a patent infringement suit were brought against us or our collaborators, we or they could be forced to stop or delay research, development, manufacturing or sales of the product candidate or product that is the subject of the suit.

If we or our collaborators experience patent infringement claims, or if we elect to avoid potential claims others may be able to assert, we or our collaborators may choose to seek, or be required to seek, a license from the third-party and would most likely be required to pay license fees or royalties or both. These licenses may not be available on acceptable terms, or at all. Even if we or our collaborators were able to obtain a license, the rights may be nonexclusive, which would give our competitors access to the same intellectual property. Ultimately, we could be prevented from commercializing a product, or be forced to cease some aspect of our business operations if, as a result of actual or threatened patent infringement claims, we or our collaborators are unable to enter into licenses on acceptable terms. This could harm our business significantly. The cost to us of any litigation or other proceeding, regardless of its merit, even if resolved in our favor, could be substantial. Some of our competitors may be able to bear the costs of such litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their having greater financial resources. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings could have a material adverse effect on our ability to compete in the marketplace. Intellectual property litigation and other proceedings may, regardless of their merit, also absorb significant management time and employee resources.

If we are unable to obtain and maintain patent protection for our GD-T cell technologies and product candidates, or if the scope of the patent protection obtained is not sufficiently broad, our competitors could develop and commercialize technology and biologics similar or identical to ours, and our ability to successfully commercialize our technology and product candidates may be impaired.

Our success depends on our ability to obtain and maintain patent protection in the United States, the European Union, Japan and other countries with respect to our product candidates. We seek to protect our proprietary position by filing patent applications related to our technology and product candidates in the major pharmaceutical markets, including the United States, major countries in Europe and Japan. If we do not adequately protect our intellectual property, competitors may be able to use our technologies and erode or negate any competitive advantage that we may have, which could harm our business and ability to achieve profitability.

To protect our proprietary positions, we file patent applications related to our novel technologies and product candidates that are important to our business. The patent application and prosecution process is expensive and time-consuming. We may not be able to file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner. We may also fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development before it is too late to obtain patent protection. It is possible that defects of form in the preparation or filing of our patents or patent applications may exist, or may arise in the future, such as with respect to proper priority claims, inventorship, claim scope or patent term adjustments. If any current or future licensors or licensees are not fully cooperative or disagree with us as to the prosecution, maintenance or enforcement of any patent rights, such patent rights could be compromised and we might not be able to prevent third parties from making, using and selling competing products. If there are material defects in the form or preparation of our patents or patent applications, such patents or applications may be invalid and unenforceable. Moreover, our competitors may independently develop equivalent knowledge, methods and know-how. Any of these outcomes could impair our ability to prevent competition from third parties.

Patent applications are generally in the form of composition of matter or method patents. A composition of matter (COM) patent protects an actual drug molecule or engineered cell or other therapeutic agent and will be infringed by a third party making any use of the protected composition. COM patents provide de-facto protection for any and all uses of the protected composition and are generally held to be the strongest and most valuable form of patent protection. Method patents protect, for example, a method of manufacturing a product or a method of using it. They can be valuable but typically are more limited in scope than COM patents, particularly method of use patents which only protect a particular application of a product. Where our patent applications are limited in their scope, such as a patent protecting the method of use, such patent rights could be compromised and we might not be able to prevent third parties from making, using and selling competing products.

Prosecution of our owned and in-licensed patent portfolio is at a relatively early stage in some instances. This status of these patent rights is discussed above. Neither priority applications nor PCT applications can themselves give rise to issued patents. Rather, protection for the inventions disclosed in these applications must be further pursued by applicable deadlines via applications that are subject to examination. As applicable deadlines for the priority and PCT applications become due, we will need to decide whether to and in which countries or jurisdictions to pursue patent protection for the various inventions claimed in these applications, and we will only have the opportunity to pursue and obtain patents in those jurisdictions where we pursue protection.

It is also possible that we will fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development output before it is too late to obtain patent protection. The patent applications that we own or in-license may fail to result in issued patents with claims that cover our current and future product candidates in the countries in which we pursue patent protection. Our patent applications cannot be enforced against third parties practicing the technology claimed in such applications unless, and until, a patent issues from such applications, and then only to the extent the issued claims cover the technology.

If the patent applications we hold or have in-licensed with respect to our development programs and product candidates fail to issue, if their breadth or strength of protection is threatened, or if they fail to provide meaningful exclusivity for our current and future product candidates, it could threaten our ability to commercialize our product candidates. Any such outcome could have a negative effect on our business.

Patent and other intellectual property rights may not be upheld, in which case we will suffer a loss of our intellectual property position and the value of our assets.

The patent position of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies generally is highly uncertain. Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of the patent laws of the various jurisdictions in which we pursue patents may diminish the value of our patents or narrow the scope of our patent protection. In addition, the protections offered by laws of different countries vary. No consistent policy regarding the breadth of claims allowed in biotechnology and pharmaceutical patents has emerged to date in many jurisdictions. In addition, the determination of patent rights with respect to pharmaceutical technologies, such as our cell technologies, commonly involves complex legal and factual questions, which has in recent years been the subject of much litigation. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our patent rights, whether owned or in-licensed, are highly uncertain. Furthermore, the scope, strength and enforceability of our patent rights or the nature of proceedings that may be brought by or against us related to our patent rights may change as the related patent and intellectual property laws change over time. Additionally, in the United States, one of the jurisdictions in which we purse patent protection, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on several patent cases in recent years either narrowing the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances or weakening the rights of patent owners in certain situations. In addition to increasing uncertainty with regard to our ability to obtain patents in the future, this combination of events has created uncertainty with respect to the value of patents, once obtained. Depending on decisions by the U.S. Congress, the U.S. federal courts, and the USPTO, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that could weaken our ability to obtain patents or to enforce any patents that we might obtain in the future.

We may be unaware of the rights of others which may ultimately be used to limit our intellectual property rights.

We may not be aware of all third-party intellectual property rights potentially relating to our current and future product candidates. Publications of discoveries in the scientific literature often lag behind the actual discoveries, and patent applications in many jurisdictions typically are not published until 18 months or more after filing, or in some cases not at all. Therefore, we cannot be certain that we or our licensors were the first to make the inventions claimed in our patents or pending patent applications, or that we or our licensors were the first to file for patent protection of such inventions. Similarly, should we own or in-license any patents or patent applications in the future, we may not be certain that we or the applicable licensor were the first to file for patent protection for the inventions claimed in such patents or patent applications. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity and commercial value of our patent rights cannot be predicted with any certainty. Moreover, in the United States, we may be subject to a third-party pre-issuance submission of prior art to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, or become involved in opposition, derivation, re-examination, inter partes review or interference proceedings, in the United States or elsewhere, challenging our patent rights or the patent rights of others. An adverse determination in any such submission, proceeding or litigation could reduce the scope of, or invalidate, our patent rights, allow third parties to commercialize our technology or product candidates and compete directly with us, without payment to us, or result in our inability to manufacture or commercialize products without infringing third-party patent rights, which could significantly harm our business and results of operations.

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

Many of our employees were previously employed at universities or other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies. Although we try to ensure that our employees do not use the proprietary information or know-how of third parties in their work for us, we may be subject to claims that these employees or we have inadvertently or otherwise used intellectual property, including trade secrets or other proprietary information, of any such employee’s former employer. We may also in the future be subject to claims that we have caused an employee to breach the terms of his or her non-competition or non-solicitation agreement. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these potential claims.

In addition, while it is our policy to require our employees and contractors who may be involved in the development of intellectual property to execute agreements assigning such intellectual property to us, such employees and contractors may breach the agreement and claim the developed intellectual property as their own.

If we fail in defending any the claims we have made, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel. A court could prohibit us from using technologies or features that are essential to our products if such technologies or features are found to incorporate or be derived from the trade secrets or other proprietary information of the former employers. Even if we are successful in prosecuting or defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and could be a distraction to management. In addition, any litigation or threat thereof may adversely affect our ability to hire employees or contract with independent service providers. Moreover, a loss of key personnel or their work product could hamper or prevent our ability to commercialize our products.

Technologies and other proprietary rights for which we seek patent protection may not be obtained, which would potentially limit the value of our intellectual property.

Our pending and future patent applications, whether owned or in-licensed, may not result in patents being issued that protect our technology or product candidates, in whole or in part, or which effectively prevent others from commercializing competitive technologies and products. Even if our patent applications issue as patents, they may not issue in a form that will provide us with any meaningful protection against competing products or processes sufficient to achieve our business objectives, prevent competitors from competing with us or otherwise provide us with any competitive advantage. Our competitors may be able to circumvent our owned or licensed patents, should they issue, by developing similar or alternative technologies or products in a non-infringing manner. Our competitors may seek approval to market their own products similar to or otherwise competitive with our products. In these circumstances, we may need to defend and/or assert our patents, including by filing lawsuits alleging patent infringement. In any of these types of proceedings, a court or other agency with jurisdiction may find our patents invalid and/or unenforceable.

The issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity or enforceability, and our owned and licensed patents may be challenged in the courts or patent offices in the jurisdictions in which we have filed for patent protection. Such challenges may result in loss of exclusivity or freedom to operate or in patent claims being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable, in whole or in part, which could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical technology and products, or limit the duration of the patent protection of our technology and products. In addition, given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting such candidates might expire before or shortly after such candidates are commercialized.

We may be subject to claims challenging the inventorship or ownership of our owned or in-licensed patent rights and other intellectual property.

We generally enter into confidentiality and intellectual property assignment agreements with our employees, consultants, outside scientific collaborators, sponsored researchers and other advisors. However, these agreements may not be honored and may not effectively assign intellectual property rights to us. For example, disputes may arise from conflicting obligations of consultants or others who are involved in developing our technology and product candidates. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these and other claims challenging inventorship or ownership. The owners of intellectual property in-licensed to us could also face such claims. If we or our licensors fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights, such as exclusive ownership of, or right to use, valuable intellectual property. Such an outcome could have a material adverse effect on our business. Even if we or our licensors are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management and other employees.

Third parties may initiate legal proceedings alleging that we are infringing their intellectual property rights, the outcome of which would be uncertain and could significantly harm our business.

We believe that we have proprietary and modular T cell programming technology that does not infringe the intellectual property and other proprietary rights of third parties. Numerous third-party U.S. and non-U.S. issued patents exist in the area of biotechnology, including in the area of programmed T cell therapies. Some are patents held by our competitors. If any third-party patents cover our product candidates or technologies, we may not be free to manufacture or commercialize our product candidates as planned.

There is a substantial amount of intellectual property litigation in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, and we may become party to, or threatened with, litigation or other adversarial proceedings regarding intellectual property rights with respect to our technology or product candidates, including interference proceedings before the relevant patent office. Intellectual property disputes arise in a number of areas including with respect to patents, use of other proprietary rights and the contractual terms of license arrangements. Third parties may assert claims against us based on existing or future intellectual property rights and claims may also come from competitors against whom our own patent portfolio may have no deterrent effect. The outcome of intellectual property litigation is subject to uncertainties that cannot be adequately quantified in advance. Other parties may allege that our product candidates or the use of our technologies infringes patent claims or other intellectual property rights held by them or that we are employing their proprietary technology without authorization. As we continue to develop and, if approved, commercialize our current and future product candidates, competitors may claim that our technology infringes their intellectual property rights as part of business strategies designed to impede our successful commercialization. There are and may in the future be additional third-party patents or patent applications with claims to, for example, materials, compositions, formulations, methods of manufacture or methods for treatment related to the use or manufacture of any one or more of our product candidates.

If we are found to infringe a third party’s intellectual property rights, we could be forced, including by court order, to cease developing, manufacturing or commercializing the infringing product candidate or product. Alternatively, we may be required or may choose to obtain a license from such third party in order to use the infringing technology and continue developing, manufacturing or marketing the infringing product candidate. However, we may not be able to obtain any required license on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Even if we were able to obtain a license, it could be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors access to the same technologies licensed to us. In addition, we could be found liable for monetary damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees if we are found to have willfully infringed a patent. A finding of infringement could prevent us from commercializing our product candidates or force us to cease some of our business operations. Claims that we have misappropriated the confidential information or trade secrets of third parties could have a similar negative effect on our business. Even if successful, the defense of any claim of infringement or misappropriation is time-consuming, expensive and diverts the attention of our management from our ongoing business operations.

We may need to license intellectual property from third parties, and such licenses may not be available or may not be available on commercially reasonable terms.

A third party may hold intellectual property rights, including patent rights, which are important or necessary to the development or manufacture of our product candidates. It may be necessary for us to use the patented or proprietary technology of third parties to commercialize our product candidates, in which case we would be required to obtain a license from these third parties. Such a license may not be available on commercially reasonable terms, or at all, and we could be forced to accept unfavorable contractual terms. If we are unable to obtain such licenses on commercially reasonable terms, our business could be harmed.

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

Competitors may infringe our patents, if issued, trademarks, copyrights or other intellectual property. To counter infringement or unauthorized use, we may be required to file infringement claims, which can be expensive and time-consuming and divert the time and attention of our management and scientific personnel. Any claims we assert against perceived infringers could provoke these parties to assert counterclaims against us alleging that we infringe their patents, trademarks, copyrights or other intellectual property. In addition, in a patent infringement proceeding, there is a risk that a court will decide that a patent of ours is invalid or unenforceable, in whole or in part, and that we do not have the right to stop the other party from using the invention at issue. There is also a risk that, even if the validity of such patents is upheld, the court will construe the patent’s claims narrowly or decide that we do not have the right to stop the other party from using the invention at issue on the grounds that our patents do not cover the invention. An adverse outcome in a litigation or proceeding involving our patents could limit our ability to assert our patents against those parties or other competitors, and may curtail or preclude our ability to exclude third parties from making and selling similar or competitive products. Similarly, if we assert trademark infringement claims, a court may determine that the marks we have asserted are invalid or unenforceable, or that the party against whom we have asserted trademark infringement has superior rights to the marks in question. In this case, we could ultimately be forced to cease use of such trademarks.

In any infringement litigation, any award of monetary damages we receive may not be commercially valuable. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during litigation. Moreover, there can be no assurance that we will have sufficient financial or other resources to file and pursue such infringement claims, which typically last for years before they are concluded. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of such litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their greater financial resources and more mature and developed intellectual property portfolios. Even if we ultimately prevail in such claims, the monetary cost of such litigation and the diversion of the attention of our management and scientific personnel could outweigh any benefit we receive as a result of the proceedings. Accordingly, despite our efforts, we may not be able to prevent third parties from infringing, misappropriating or successfully challenging our intellectual property rights. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings could have a negative impact on our ability to compete in the marketplace.

Any trademarks we may obtain may be infringed or successfully challenged, resulting in harm to our business.

We expect to rely on trademarks as one means to distinguish any of our product candidates that are approved for marketing from the products of our competitors. While we have a corporate trademark, we have not yet selected trademarks for our product candidates and have not yet begun the process of applying to register trademarks for our product candidates. Once we select trademarks and apply to register them, our trademark applications may not be approved. Third parties may oppose our trademark applications, or otherwise challenge our use of the trademarks. In the event that our trademarks are successfully challenged, we could be forced to rebrand our products, which could result in loss of brand recognition and could require us to devote resources to advertising and marketing new brands. Our competitors may infringe our trademarks and we may not have adequate resources to enforce our trademarks.

In addition, any proprietary name we propose to use with our clinical-stage product candidates or any other product candidate in the United States must be approved by the FDA, regardless of whether we have registered it, or applied to register it, as a trademark. The FDA typically conducts a review of proposed product names, including an evaluation of the potential for confusion with other product names. If the FDA objects to any of our proposed proprietary product names, we may be required to expend significant additional resources in an effort to identify a suitable proprietary product name that would qualify under applicable trademark laws, not infringe the existing rights of third parties and be acceptable to the FDA.

If we are unable to protect the confidentiality of our trade secrets, our business and competitive position would be harmed.

In addition to seeking patent and trademark protection for our product candidates, we also rely on trade secrets, including unpatented know-how, technology and other proprietary information, to maintain our competitive position. We seek to protect our trade secrets, in part, by entering into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with parties who have access to them, such as our employees, consultants, advisors and other third parties. We also enter into confidentiality and invention or patent assignment agreements with our employees and consultants. Despite these efforts, any of these parties may breach the agreements and disclose our proprietary information, including our trade secrets. Monitoring unauthorized uses and disclosures of our intellectual property is difficult, and we do not know whether the steps we have taken to protect our intellectual property will be effective. In addition, we may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for any such breaches. Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret is difficult, expensive and time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, some courts in the jurisdiction in which we operate or intend to operate are less willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets.

Moreover, our competitors may independently develop knowledge, methods and know-how equivalent to our trade secrets. Competitors could purchase our products and replicate some or all of the competitive advantages we derive from our development efforts for technologies on which we do not have patent protection. If any of our trade secrets were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor, we would have no right to prevent them, or those to whom they communicate it, from using that technology or information to compete with us. If any of our trade secrets were to be disclosed to or independently developed by a competitor, our competitive position would be harmed.

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

Periodic maintenance and annuity fees on any issued patent are due to be paid to the patent offices and patent agencies over the lifetime of the patent to maintain the patents that have been issued. Additionally, these offices and agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar provisions during the patent application process. While an inadvertent lapse can in many cases be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules, there are situations in which noncompliance can result in abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. Non-compliance events that could result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application include failure to respond to official actions within prescribed time limits, non-payment of fees and failure to properly legalize and submit formal documents. If we or our licensors fail to maintain the patents and patent applications covering our products or product candidates, our competitors might be able to enter the market, which would harm our business. In addition, to the extent that we have responsibility for taking any action related to the prosecution or maintenance of patents or patent application in-licensed from a third party, any failure on our part to maintain the in-licensed rights could jeopardize our rights under the relevant license and may expose us to liability.

If we fail to comply with our obligations in the agreements under which we license our development or commercialization rights to products or drug technologies from third parties, we could lose license rights that are important to our business.

We hold a license from UCL Business plc (“UCLB”) for its technology related to co-stimulatory CAR-T in GD-T cells. This is in addition to the intellectual property that we own. Our license with UCLB is for a single CAR-T binder, where we pay an annual license fee, certain performance-based milestone payments and a single-digit royalty on sales arising from use of that binder together with certain cumulative sales-based milestone payments. Through December 31, 2024 we have paid UCLB approximately $0.7 million (taking into consideration fluctuation in exchange rates) in license fee payments. Furthermore, the Company has a duty not to breach terms of the license agreement. If we fail to meet specific obligations, the licensor will have the right to terminate the applicable license or modify certain terms of the license agreement. Royalty provisions cease upon termination or upon expiry of the license which occurs, on a country-by-country basis, upon the later of the tenth (10^th) anniversary of the first commercial sale of a licensed product or the lapse, expiry, or revocation of all patents.

Risks Related to Ownership of Our ADSs and Warrants

Control by a limited number of shareholders may limit the ability of investors to influence the outcome of director elections and other transactions requiring shareholder approval.

As of May 7, 2025, we had outstanding warrants to acquire 384,586 ADSs, and share options to purchase 6,013 ADSs. A significant number of such warrants have exercise prices above our ADSs’ recent trading prices, but the holders have the right, in certain circumstances, to effect a cashless exercise of such warrants. If a significant number of such warrants and share options are exercised by the holders, such persons together, along with several other long term significant shareholders, may have influence over corporate actions requiring shareholder approval, including the following actions:

These persons’ share ownership or warrant ownership may discourage a potential acquirer from making a tender offer or otherwise attempting to obtain control of our company, which in turn could reduce the market price of our ADSs and Warrants or prevent our shareholders from realizing a premium over the market price of our ADSs and Warrants.

If we fail to meet the requirements for continued listing on the OTC Markets or OTC, our ADSs could be delisted from trading, which would decrease the liquidity of our ADSs and our ability to raise additional capital.

As previously reported in a Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) on May 20, 2024 (the “May 20 8-K’), on May 15, 2024, the Company filed its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 (the “Form 10-Q”). As noted in the Form 10-Q, the Company was not in compliance with the minimum stockholders’ equity requirement under Nasdaq Listing Rule 5550(b)(1) for continued listing on The Nasdaq Capital Market because its stockholders’ equity was below the required minimum of $2.5 million (the “Minimum Stockholders’ Equity Requirement”) at March 31, 2024. As previously reported in a Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on May 8, 2024, on May 6, 2024, the Company entered into a letter agreement (the “Inducement Letter”) with certain holders (the “Holders”) of existing Series E warrants (the “Existing Warrants”) to purchase ordinary shares represented by ADSs of the Company. Pursuant to the Inducement Letter, the Holders agreed to exercise for cash their Existing Warrants to purchase an aggregate of 175,000 ADSs of the Company for cash and the payment of £0.99625 (US$1.25) per new warrant in consideration for the Company’s agreement to issue new Series F warrants to purchase ordinary shares represented by ADSs (the “New Warrants”) to purchase up to 70,000,000 of the Company’s ordinary shares represented by 350,000 ADSs (the “New Warrant ADSs”). On May 8, 2024, the Company received aggregate gross proceeds of approximately £3.1 million (circa $3.9 million) from the exercise of the Existing Warrants by the Holders, prior to deducting commissions and estimated offering expenses.

On May 24, 2024, the Company received written notification from the listing qualifications staff (the “Staff”) of the Nasdaq Stock Market, LLC (“Nasdaq”) indicating that the Company was not in compliance with the Minimum Stockholders’ Equity Requirement, as of March 31, 2024. This letter indicated that while Nasdaq estimates the Company is currently in compliance with the Minimum Stockholders’ Equity Requirement it notes that based on the historical burn rate, without a significant transaction, the Company will not be in compliance in future periods.

Since the Company was previously granted an exception to the Minimum Stockholders Equity Requirement by a Nasdaq Hearings Panel and subsequently regained compliance, it was subject to a Panel Monitor in accordance with Nasdaq Listing Rule 5815(d)(4)(A).

The Company requested and was granted a hearing before a hearing panel on July 16, 2024 at which it requested continued listing on The Nasdaq Capital Market since it has returned to compliance and expects to continue to do so. On August 1, 2024, the Company received written notification from Nasdaq that the hearing panel granted the Company’s request to continue its listing on Nasdaq subject to compliance with the Minimum Stockholders’ Equity Requirement on or before August 15, 2024.

On January 3, 2025, the Company received written notification from the Staff of the Nasdaq indicating that the minimum closing bid price per share for its ADSs was below $1.00 for a period of 30 consecutive business days and that the Company did not meet the minimum bid price requirement set forth in Nasdaq Listing Rule 5550(a)(2) (the “Bid Price Rule”). Based upon the Company’s non-compliance with the Bid Price Rule, the Staff had determined to delist the Company’s securities from Nasdaq, subject to the Company’s request for a hearing before a Nasdaq hearings panel (the “Panel”). Because, as previously disclosed, the Company is subject to a discretionary panel monitor through August 21, 2025 pursuant to Nasdaq Listing Rule 5815(d)(4)(A), the Staff did not grant additional time for the Company to regain compliance with the Bid Price Rule.

On February 5, 2025, the Company changed its ratio of its ADSs to ordinary shares from one (1) ADS representing two hundred (200) ordinary shares to one ADS representing four thousand (4,000) ordinary shares (the “ADS Ratio Change”). The ADS Ratio Change became effective on February 10, 2025.

The Company requested and was granted a hearing before a hearing panel on February 20, 2025 at which it requested continued listing on The Nasdaq Capital Market since it has returned to compliance and expected to continue to do so.

On March 20, 2025, the Company received notice that the Nasdaq Hearings Panel had determined to delist the Company’s securities from Nasdaq due to the Company’s failure to comply with Rule 5550(a)(2) of Nasdaq’s Listing Rules. The Rule requires listed securities to maintain a minimum bid price of $1.00 per share.

The Company’s securities were suspended for trading on Nasdaq effective at the opening of trading on Monday, March 24, 2025. The Company’s American Depositary Shares were eligible to trade on the OTC Markets effective with the opening of trading on Monday, March 24, 2025. This delisting and transition to the OTC Markets did not change the Company’s obligation to file annual reports and certain other reports with the SEC under the applicable federal securities laws.

Management has appealed its delisting with Nasdaq.

If we are deficient in maintaining any necessary listing requirements in the future, our ADSs may be removed from quotation and/or an active trading market for our ADSs may not be sustained and the market price of our ADSs could decline. Any delisting of our ADSs could adversely affect our ability to raise additional capital through the public or private sale of equity securities, would significantly affect the ability of investors to trade our securities and would negatively affect the value and liquidity of our ADSs. Delisting could also have other negative results, including the potential loss of confidence by employees, the loss of institutional investor interest and fewer business development opportunities. For these reasons and others, delisting would adversely affect the liquidity, trading volume and price of our ADSs, causing the value of an investment in us to decrease and having an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We do not intend to list any of our securities on any public securities exchange in the United Kingdom. This may limit the information available to our security holders.

Our ordinary shares and public warrants are not listed in the United Kingdom. As a result, we are not, and will not be, subject to the reporting and other requirements of companies listed on a securities exchange in the United Kingdom. Accordingly, there may be less publicly available information concerning our company than there would be if we were a public company listed in the United Kingdom, notwithstanding our reporting under the SEC rules.

An active and liquid market for the ADSs and/or public warrants may fail to continue, which could harm the market price of the ADSs and/or Warrants, and an investor may not be able to resell their ADSs and/ or warrants at or above the acquisition price.

An active public trading market for the ADSs and public warrants on the United States securities markets may not continue or be sustained. In the absence of an active trading market for the ADSs and/or warrants, investors may not be able to sell their ADSs and warrants at or above the price they paid for their securities or at the time when they would like to sell.

The market price of the ADSs and public warrants is volatile and investors could lose all or part of their investment.

The price of the securities of publicly traded emerging pharmaceutical and drug discovery and development companies has been highly volatile and is likely to remain highly volatile in the future. As a result of this volatility, investors may not be able to sell their ADSs and warrants at or above the purchase price or when they want to sell their securities. The market price of the ADSs and Warrants may fluctuate significantly due to a variety of factors, including the following:

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

The public warrants are speculative in nature.

The public warrants merely represent the right to acquire our ordinary shares at a fixed cash price, for a limited period of time. If the warrants are not exercised before they expire, in six years from date of issue, the warrants will never provide any value to the holder thereof. It is usual that the price of a warrant in the public market is more volatile than that of the corresponding shares for which it is exercisable. Therefore, investors should expect the price of a warrant to be fluctuate to a greater degree than our ADSs, and correspondingly be more speculative.

Holders of our public and private warrants will not have any rights of the holders of ordinary shares until such warrants are exercised.

The public and private warrants do not confer any of the rights afforded to the holders of our ordinary shares, even those ordinary shares held through ADSs, such as voting rights or the right to receive dividends, but rather represent the right to acquire ordinary shares at a fixed price.

The public warrants have a number of restrictions and reset provisions which may limit aspects of our operations and capital raising.

The public warrant terms have restrictions on our ability to issue ordinary shares in a number of situations. For example, for the period during which the lock up agreements are in place, we have limits on our ability to issue ordinary shares under our incentive plans. Another restriction, one on our capital raising, is an exercise price reset provision; if we issue any ordinary shares, including instruments convertible into ordinary shares, at a per share price or conversion price less than the exercise price, the then the exercise price of the warrants will be reduced to the lower issue price permanently. The warrants have anti-dilution provisions including those for recapitalization transactions such as a reverse stock split, stock dividend and forward stock split, and protective provisions in the event of a rights offering, cash or asset dividend, and fundamental transactions consummated by the company where it is not the survivor. The warrant has buy-in protection and cash penalties if we do not issue the securities underlying them on a timely basis. The six-year term and number of warrants in combination with the registration obligation will be an overhang on the market while the warrants are outstanding. This overhang may limit our ability to raise capital when needed at a price that represents the value of the company. The warrants do not have a redemption provision by which we can either encourage their exercise or terminate the warrants.

We have a significant number of private, Series G and H Warrants outstanding each warrant to purchase ADSs, which may be exercised at a current cash exercise price of £15.60 per ADS. There is no assurance that they will be exercised and that they will provide funding for the Company.

As of May 7, 2025, there were approximately 343,000 private Series G & H warrants with an exercise price of £15.60 per ADS, each of which currently is exercisable for 4,000 ordinary shares. For these private Warrants to be exercised on a cash basis, we must maintain an effective registration statement with the SEC at the time of their exercise. It is not expected that any of the derivative securities will be exercised for cash unless the price of an ADS in the market is substantially above the then exercise price. There can be no assurance that our ADS price will be sufficiently high on a sustained basis to encourage warrant holders to exercise their derivative securities, such as the private warrants.

The private warrants have a number of restrictions and reset provisions which may limit aspects of our operations and capital raising.

The private warrant terms have restrictions on our ability to issue ordinary shares in a number of situations. For example, for the period during which the lock up agreements are in place, we have limits on our ability to issue ordinary shares. The private warrants have anti-dilution provisions including those for recapitalization transactions such as a reverse stock split, stock dividend and forward stock split, and protective provisions in the event of a rights offering, cash or asset dividend, and fundamental transactions consummated by the company where it is not the survivor. The private warrants have buy-in protection and cash penalties if we do not issue the securities underlying them on a timely basis. The term and number of warrants in combination with the registration obligation will be an overhang on the market while the private warrants are outstanding. This overhang may limit our ability to raise capital when needed at a price that represents the value of the company. The private warrants do not have a redemption provision by which we can either encourage their exercise or terminate the private Warrants.

We incur increased costs as a result of operating as a Scottish public company listed in the U.S., and our board of directors is required to devote substantial time to compliance requirements and corporate governance practices.

As a Scottish public company listed in the U.S., we incur significant legal, accounting and other expenses that we did not incur as a private company. In addition, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the listing requirements of the Nasdaq or OTC Markets, and other applicable securities rules and regulations impose various requirements on foreign reporting public companies, including the establishment and maintenance of effective disclosure and financial controls and corporate governance practices. Our board of directors, management and other personnel devote a substantial amount of time to these compliance initiatives. Moreover, these rules and regulations increase our annual legal and financial compliance costs and make some activities more time-consuming and costly. For example, these rules and regulations typically make it more difficult and more expensive for us to obtain director and officer liability insurance, which in turn could make it more difficult for us to attract and retain qualified members of our board of directors.

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

Pursuant to Section 404(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, or Section 404, we are required to furnish a report by our board of directors on our internal control over financial reporting. However, while we remain an emerging growth company, we are not required to include an attestation report on internal control over financial reporting issued by our independent registered public accounting firm. To achieve compliance with Section 404(b) within the prescribed period, we will be engaged in a process to document and evaluate our internal controls over financial reporting, which is both costly and challenging. In this regard, we will need to continue to dedicate internal resources, potentially engage outside consultants and adopt a detailed work plan to assess and document the adequacy of internal control over financial reporting, continue steps to improve control processes as appropriate, validate through testing that controls are functioning as documented and implement a continuous reporting and improvement process for internal control over financial reporting. Despite our efforts, there is a risk that we will not be able to conclude that our internal controls over financial reporting are effective as required by Section 404. If we identify one or more material weaknesses, it could result in an adverse reaction in the financial markets due to a loss of confidence in the reliability of our financial statements.

We are implementing appropriate accounting policies, processes and controls to comply with our expected expansion in scale of operations and with Section 404. These activities include identifying and recruiting additional individuals with requisite expertise to assist in implementation activities designed to strengthen our internal control over financial reporting to avoid future control deficiencies and initiating the design and implementation of improvements to our financial control environment to address our future needs. However, we cannot give assurance that the measures we have taken to date, and actions we plan to take in the future, will be sufficient to prevent or avoid potential future additional material weaknesses in our controls.

The Company notes that the auditors identified that the Company experienced difficulty in the accounting for complex financial instruments and leases, and the Company lacked adequate internal control over the account and assessment of complex financial instruments following control deficiencies which they believed constituted a material weakness in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2023. The Company recognizes this error as a material weakness and has established controls to support assessment and review of accounting for complex financial instruments and leases.

If we are unsuccessful in building an appropriate accounting infrastructure, we may not be able to prepare and disclose, in a timely manner, our financial statements and other required disclosures, or comply with existing or new reporting requirements. Any failure to report our financial results on an accurate and timely basis could result in sanctions, lawsuits, delisting of our shares from the Nasdaq or OTC Markets or other adverse consequences that would materially harm our business. If we cannot provide reliable financial reports or prevent fraud, our business and results of operations could be harmed and investors could lose confidence in our reported financial information. Any of the foregoing occurrences, should they come to pass, could negatively impact the public perception of our company, which could have a negative impact on the price of our publicly traded securities or our ability to sell other securities.

We are an “emerging growth company” under the federal securities laws and we cannot be certain if the reduced disclosure requirements applicable to emerging growth companies will make our securities less attractive to investors.

We are an “emerging growth company,” as defined in Section 2(a) of the Securities Act, and we may take advantage of certain exemptions from various reporting requirements that are applicable to public companies that are not “emerging growth companies” including, but not limited to, not being required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation, and exemptions from the requirements of holding a nonbinding advisory vote on executive compensation and shareholder approval of any golden parachute payments not previously approved. We cannot predict if investors will find our securities less attractive because we may rely on these exemptions. Investors may be unable to compare our business with other companies in our industry if they believe that our reporting is not as transparent as other companies in our industry. If some investors, including persons considering an investment in the company, find our securities less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for our public securities, and the prices of these securities may be more volatile.

We will remain an “emerging growth company” until December 31, 2027, although we will lose that status sooner if our revenues exceed $1.07 billion (or equivalent), if we issue more than $1 billion (or equivalent) in non-convertible debt in a three-year period, or if the market value of our ordinary shares that is held by non-affiliates exceeds $700 million (or equivalent) as of any June 30.

Holders of our ordinary shares will have their rights as a shareholder governed by Scottish law, and those rights differ from the rights of shareholders under U.S. law.

We are a public limited company under the laws of Scotland and United Kingdom. Therefore, the rights of holders of our ordinary shares, including those represented by ADSs, are governed by the corporate law of Scotland and the United Kingdom and by our memorandum of association and articles. The statutory framework that governs the Company is the Companies Act 2006 which is a UK-wide act and references to the “UK Law” are to UK-wide legislation. These rights differ from the typical rights of shareholders in U.S. corporations. In certain cases, facts that, under U.S. law, would entitle a shareholder in a U.S. corporation to claim damages may not give rise to a cause of action or claim for damages under Scottish law. For example, the rights of shareholders to bring proceedings against the Company or against our directors or officers in relation to public statements are more limited under Scottish law and UK Law than under the civil liability provisions of the U.S. securities laws.

Investors may face difficulties in protecting their interests, and their ability to protect their rights through the U.S. federal courts may be limited, because we are incorporated outside the United States, conduct most of our operations outside the United States, and most of our directors and senior management reside outside the United States.

We are incorporated and have our registered office in, and are currently existing under the laws of, Scotland. In addition, most of our tangible assets are located, and most of our senior management and certain of our directors reside, outside of the United States. As a result, it may not be possible to serve process within the United States on certain directors or us or to enforce judgments obtained in U.S. courts against such directors or us based on civil liability provisions of the securities laws of the United States.

The United States and the UK do not currently have a treaty providing for recognition and enforcement of judgments (other than arbitration awards) in civil and commercial matters. Consequently, a final judgment for payment of money given by a court in the United States, whether or not predicated solely upon U.S. securities laws, would not automatically be recognized or enforceable in the UK. In addition, uncertainty exists as to whether courts of Scotland would entertain original actions brought in Scotland against us or our directors or senior management predicated upon the securities laws of the U.S. or any state in the U.S. Any final and conclusive monetary judgment for a definite sum obtained against us in U.S. courts would be treated by the courts of Scotland as a cause of action in itself and sued upon as a debt at common law so that no retrial of the issues would be necessary, provided that certain requirements are met.

Whether these requirements are met in respect of a judgment based upon the civil liability provisions of the U.S. securities laws, including whether the award of monetary damages under such laws would constitute a penalty, is subject to determination by the court making such decision. If the courts of Scotland give a judgment for the sum payable under a U.S. judgment, the Scottish judgment will be enforceable by methods generally available for this purpose. These methods generally permit the courts of Scotland discretion to prescribe the manner of enforcement.

As a result, U.S. investors may not be able to enforce against us or certain of our directors any judgments obtained in U.S. courts in civil and commercial matters, including judgments under the U.S. federal securities laws.

As a Scottish public limited company, certain capital structure decisions will require shareholder approval, which may limit our flexibility to manage our capital structure.

Scottish law provides that a board of directors may only allot shares (or grant rights to subscribe for or to convert any security into shares) with the prior authorization of shareholders, such authorization stating the aggregate nominal amount of shares that it covers and being valid for a maximum period of five years, each as specified in the articles of association or relevant ordinary resolution passed by shareholders at a general meeting. Once allotted, the board of directors are free to issue the shares without further shareholder approval. The authority from our shareholders to allot additional shares for a period of five years from January 14, 2022 was included in the ordinary resolution passed by our shareholders on January 14, 2022, which authorization will need to be renewed upon expiration (i.e., at least every five years) but may be sought more frequently for additional five-year terms (or any shorter period).

Scottish law also generally provides shareholders with pre-emptive rights when new shares are issued for cash. However, it is possible for the articles of association, or for shareholders to pass a special resolution at a general meeting, being a resolution passed by the members (or of a class of members) of a company by a majority of not less than 75%, to disapply pre-emptive rights. Such a disapplication of pre-emptive rights may be for a maximum period of up to five years from the date of adoption of the articles of association, if the disapplication is contained in the articles of association, but not longer than the duration of the authority to allot shares to which this disapplication relates or from the date of the shareholder special resolution, if the disapplication is by shareholder special resolution. In either case, this disapplication would need to be renewed by our shareholders upon its expiration (i.e., at least every five years). Such authority from our shareholders to disapply pre-emptive rights for a period of five years was included in the special resolution passed by our shareholders on, January 14, 2022, which disapplication will need to be renewed upon expiration (i.e., at least every five years) to remain effective, but may be sought more frequently for additional five-year terms (or any shorter period).

Scottish law also generally prohibits a public company from repurchasing its own shares without the prior approval of shareholders by ordinary resolution, being a resolution passed by a simple majority of votes cast, and other formalities. Such approval may be for a maximum period of up to five years.

Scottish law also prohibits a public company from issuing shares at below nominal value (£0.0001 per ordinary shares)

Our business and results of operations may be negatively impacted by the UK’s withdrawal from the EU.

The UK withdrew from the EU effective on January 31, 2020, and the transition period ended on December 31, 2020, which we refer to as Brexit. The future regulations that will apply in the UK following the transition period (including financial laws and regulations, tax and free trade agreements, intellectual property rights, data protection laws, supply chain logistics, environmental, health and safety laws and regulations medicine licensing and regulations, immigration laws and employment laws), have yet to be fully addressed and continue to be in transition, subject to change. The overall lack of clarity on future UK laws and regulations and their interaction with the EU laws and regulations may negatively impact foreign direct investment in the UK, increase costs, depress economic activity and restrict access to capital. As we are headquartered in the UK and have operations and clinical trials in the United Kingdom and EU, it is possible that Brexit may impact some or all of our current operations and otherwise how we conduct business. For example, Brexit may impact our ability to freely move employees from our headquarters in the UK to other locations in Europe, and it may impact the ability of European therapists to move freely to the UK in order to complete part of their training or work on our clinical trials there.

The long-term effects of Brexit will depend in part on the agreements the UK made during the Brexit transition period and thereafter to retain access to markets in the EU. The Brexit withdrawal from the EU is unprecedented, and it is unclear how the UK’s access to the European single market for goods, capital, services and labor within the EU, or single market, and the wider commercial, legal and regulatory environment, will impact our current and future operations (including business activities conducted by third parties and contract manufacturers on our behalf) and clinical activities in the UK In addition to the foregoing, our UK operations support our current and future operations and clinical activities in the EU and European Economic Area, or EEA, and these operations and clinical activities could be disrupted by Brexit.

We may also face new regulatory costs and challenges that could have an adverse effect on our operations as a result of Brexit. The UK could lose the benefits of global trade agreements negotiated by the EU on behalf of its member states, which may result in increased trade barriers that could make our doing business in the EU and the EEA more difficult. Since the regulatory framework in the UK covering quality, safety and efficacy of therapeutic substances, clinical trials, marketing authorization, commercial sales and distribution of therapeutic substances is derived from EU directives and regulations, Brexit could materially impact the future regulatory regime with respect to the approval of our GD-T cell therapy or any future therapeutic candidates in the UK. For instance, in November 2017, EU member states voted to move the EMA, the EU’s regulatory body, from London to Amsterdam. Operations in Amsterdam commenced in March 2019, and the move itself may cause significant disruption to the regulatory approval process in Europe. It remains to be seen how, if at all, Brexit will impact regulatory requirements for therapeutic candidates and therapies in the UK. Any delay in obtaining, or an inability to obtain, any regulatory approvals, as a result of Brexit or otherwise, would delay or prevent us from commercializing our investigational GD-T cell therapy or future therapeutic candidates in the UK and/or the EU and restrict our ability to generate revenue and achieve and sustain profitability. We may be forced to restrict or delay efforts to seek regulatory approval in the UK and/or EU for GD-T cell therapy or any future therapeutic candidates, which could significantly and materially harm our business.

We expect that Brexit, in the near and middle term will lead to certain legal uncertainties and potentially divergent national laws and regulations as the UK determines which EU laws to replicate or replace, including those related to data privacy and the regulation of medicinal products, as described above. Any of these effects of Brexit, and others we cannot anticipate, could negatively impact our business and results of operations.

Our business may be subject to risks related to possible Scottish independence from the UK

The possibility of Scottish independence from the UK creates a range of uncertainties for Scotland based business in general, which would require careful assessment by the board of directors and management as political events develop. There could be changes in currency, taxation, general legislation, regulations and trading arrangements and agreements, together with economic prospects more generally. It is not possible to predict the effect of Scottish independence if it were to occur and the changes introduced could have only limited effect on the business, be beneficial to the business or could have a material adverse effect on the business’ revenue, financial condition, profitability, prospects and results of operations.

A transfer of ordinary shares, other than one effected by means of the transfer of book-entry interests, such as through our ADS program, may be subject to United Kingdom stamp duty.

The transfer of our ordinary shares effected by means of the transfer of book entry interests through our ADS program will generally not be subject to United Kingdom stamp duty. However, if an investor holds its ordinary shares directly rather than beneficially through the ADS program, any transfer of ordinary shares (including into the ADS program with a view to trading) would be likely to be subject to United Kingdom stamp duty currently at the rate of 1.5% of the higher of the price paid or the market value of the shares acquired.

General Risk Factors

Exchange rate fluctuations may materially affect our results of operations and financial condition.

Due to the international scope of our operations, the financial reporting of our assets, earnings and cash flows are influenced by movements in exchange rates of several currencies, when comparing our results among different currencies such as the U.S. dollar, the pound sterling and the euro. Our reporting currency and our functional currency is the pound sterling and the majority of our operating expenses are paid in pound sterling. We regularly acquire services, consumables and materials in U.S. dollars, pound sterling and the euro. Further potential future revenue may be derived from non-United Kingdom jurisdictions, particularly from the United States. As a result, our business and the value of our ordinary shares, including those represented by the ADSs and underlying the Warrants, may be affected by fluctuations in foreign exchange rates between the pound sterling and these other currencies, which may have a significant impact on our results of operations and cash flows from period to period. Currently, we do not have any exchange rate hedging arrangements in place.

Collaborations, whether through joint ventures, licensing, development arrangements, and other forms of agreements, will be important to our overall business development.

In common with many development stage biotechnology companies an element of our business plan is consider entering into collaborative arrangements with larger pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. We expect that future collaborations will provide us with important expertise, aid in product development, conducting drug trials, facilitate market entry and may provide some level of funding or future revenue. Notwithstanding our belief that collaborations will be beneficial to us, any collaboration arrangement may by their nature pose a number of risks, including the following:

In the past, we have entered into collaborative arrangements with two partners, bluebird bio, Inc. (USA) and Nipro Corporation (Japan), which involved funded or partly funded preclinical collaboration. Neither collaboration involve us in any current clinical or development activity or are generating any current cash receipts for us. It is uncertain if these collaborations will generate any future cash receipts or obligations for TCB.

As a company based outside of the United States, our business is subject to economic, political, regulatory and other risks associated with international operations.

Our business is based in the United Kingdom and is subject to risks associated with conducting business outside of the United States. Many of our suppliers and clinical trial relationships are located outside the United States, primarily in the United Kingdom and in the EU. Accordingly, our future results could be harmed by a variety of factors, including: