ADC Therapeutics SA (ADCT) Business

Item 1. Business

Overview

ADC Therapeutics is a commercial-stage global pioneer in the field of antibody drug conjugates (“ADCs”), transforming treatment for patients through our focused portfolio with ZYNLONTA (loncastuximab tesirine-lpyl), a CD19-directed ADC. ZYNLONTA received accelerated approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) and conditional approval from the European Commission, China National Medical Products Administration (“NMPA”) and Health Canada for the treatment of relapsed or refractory DLBCL after two or more lines of systemic therapy. We are pursuing expansion of ZYNLONTA internationally, and into earlier lines of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (“DLBCL”) through our LOTIS-5 confirmatory Phase 3 clinical trial (rituximab combination) and LOTIS-7 Phase 1b clinical trial (bispecific combination) as well as into indolent lymphomas, including marginal zone lymphoma (“MZL”) and follicular lymphoma (”FL”), through investigator-initiated trials (“IITs”) at leading institutions.

Headquartered in Lausanne (Biopôle), Switzerland, with operations in New Jersey, ADC Therapeutics is focused on driving innovation in ADC development with specialized capabilities from clinical development to manufacturing and commercialization.

Our Product and Pipeline

The following table provides an overview of our current approved product and pipeline:

In addition to the current approved product and pipeline above, IND-enabling activities for ADCT-241 (the Company’s exatecan-based, prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-targeting ADC) were completed at the end of 2025. The Company continues to explore partnership opportunities.

Our Strategy and Competitive Capabilities

Our goal is to be a leading ADC company bringing meaningful therapies to patients in need by leveraging our decade-long experience in the ADC field, with multiple INDs, and a proven track record of success. We are focused on maximizing the ZYNLONTA opportunity. By leveraging our clinical development expertise and established commercial infrastructure, we are uniquely capable of expanding ZYNLONTA into earlier lines of DLBCL and indolent lymphomas as a single agent and in combination with other therapies. Further, our robust in-house chemistry, manufacturing and controls (“CMC”) capabilities utilize a highly experienced workforce to manage a top-tier external manufacturing network through third-party contract manufacturing organizations (“CMOs”) capable of manufacturing highly potent molecules and complex biologics.

1

Table of Contents

Currently approved as a monotherapy, ZYNLONTA has a differentiated profile with rapid, deep and durable efficacy as well as manageable safety with simple and convenient administration. Based on data from our LOTIS-2 trial, ZYNLONTA provides rapid responses with the median time to response of 1.5 months. Responses were durable for patients with a complete response and the median duration of complete response had not yet been reached at the 2-year follow-up. ZYNLONTA has a manageable safety profile with no cytokine release syndrome (“CRS”) or Immune Effector Cell-Associated Neurotoxicity Syndrome (“ICANS”) and no cumulative irreversible toxicities reported in the LOTIS-2 trial. ZYNLONTA offers accessibility for patients with a simple Q3W dosing with no Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (“REMS”) or in-patient stay requirements. As a monotherapy, we believe ZYNLONTA’s profile is well-positioned for patients who do not have access to more complex therapies like CAR-T and bispecific antibodies and for patients who have progressed post CAR-T and/or bispecific antibodies.

ZYNLONTA

Our strategy is to maximize and expand the ZYNLONTA opportunity in several ways:

•Maximize ZYNLONTA in third-line plus (“3L+”) DLBCL. We are driving utilization of ZYNLONTA in the 3L+ DLBCL setting through increased awareness of ZYNLONTA’s efficacy and manageable safety profile and its suitability for use across treatment settings.

•Seek to expand ZYNLONTA into earlier lines of DLBCL and indolent lymphomas. We are studying the potential to move ZYNLONTA into earlier lines of therapy in combination with rituximab (LOTIS-5) and glofitamab (LOTIS-7) through our clinical trials and supporting IIT studies that are exploring the potential of ZYNLONTA alone or in combination with rituximab in indolent lymphomas. We believe these development efforts, if successful, will enable ZYNLONTA to move into earlier lines of treatment and potentially establish ZYNLONTA as the combination agent of choice in the 2L+ across treatment settings, raising the bar for efficacy in 2L+ DLBCL, and increasing ZYNLONTA’s overall market opportunity.

•Continue to advance the development and commercialization of ZYNLONTA outside of the United States through strategic partnerships. We are committed to providing global access to ZYNLONTA for patients who may benefit from this treatment. ZYNLONTA has received conditional approval from the European Commission, China NMPA and Health Canada for the treatment of relapsed or refractory DLBCL after two or more lines of systemic therapy. We have entered into strategic agreements to maximize the commercial potential of ZYNLONTA, including an exclusive license agreement with Tanabe Pharma Corporation (“TPC”) in Japan, and a joint venture with Overland Pharmaceuticals in China (including Hong Kong and Macau), Singapore, and Taiwan, and an exclusive license agreement with Swedish Orphan Biovitrum AB (publ) (“Sobi”) for all other regions, excluding the U.S. In China, together with the joint venture, we are exploring commercialization options for ZYNLONTA. In Japan, TPC successfully completed a Phase 1/2 bridging study and joined the LOTIS-5 confirmatory Phase 3 clinical trial. The Phase 1/2 bridging study achieved the primary endpoint of overall response rate (“ORR”) in the Phase 2 part of the Japanese Phase 1/2 study. SOBI continues to pursue regulatory approval for ZYNLONTA in certain countries within its licensed territory outside the European Union.

PSMA-targeting ADC

We have completed IND-enabling activities for ADCT-241, our next-generation PSMA-targeting ADC, which utilizes a differentiated exatecan-based payload with a novel hydrophilic linker. We continue to explore partnering opportunities for this asset.

Antibody Drug Conjugates

An ADC consists of three components: (i) an antibody that selectively targets a distinct antigen preferentially expressed on tumor cells; (ii) a cytotoxic molecule, often referred to as the toxin or the warhead, that kills the target cell; and (iii) a chemical linker that joins together the antibody and the warhead. The warhead and the linker are together referred to as the payload. The figure below shows the three components of an ADC.

2

Table of Contents

_______________

Schematic representation of an ADC, showing its three components.

Our Technology Platform and Key Strengths of ADCs

ADCs are an established therapeutic approach in oncology. ADCs selectively deliver potent cytotoxins directly to tumor cells, with the goal of maximizing activity in tumor cells while minimizing toxicity to healthy cells.

ADCs are an important part of the cancer treatment paradigm for the following reasons:

•Selective Targeting. Traditional chemotherapies are unable to distinguish between healthy cells and tumor cells and therefore have a narrow therapeutic window (i.e., the dose range that can treat disease effectively without causing unacceptable toxic side effects). In contrast, ADCs, through their use of tumor-specific antibodies, target tumor cells with greater selectivity than chemotherapies. This selective targeting allows ADCs to use potent cytotoxins at dose levels that otherwise would not be tolerated and ADCs therefore represent a highly effective treatment approach while maintaining manageable side effects.

•Widely Addressable Patient Population. ADCs represent a treatment approach that expands the treatment options available to cancer patients. Many therapies are not appropriate for certain patient populations. For example, chemotherapy may not be appropriate when the patient is too sick to tolerate or does not respond to available chemotherapeutics, stem cell transplant may not be appropriate when the patient is frail, and some novel targeted therapies such as CAR-T (i.e., a type of treatment in which a patient’s T cells are modified in the laboratory so they will attack cancer cells) may not be appropriate when there is significant comorbidity. As a result of these limitations, there remains a significant unmet medical need for patients for whom other treatment options are inappropriate or ineffective.

•Potential in Relapsed or Refractory Patients. Traditional therapies typically have limited effectiveness for patients who exhibit relapsed (i.e., the cancer returns after an initial positive response to treatment) or refractory (i.e., the cancer is resistant to treatment) disease. In contrast, some ADCs have proven efficacious in such patient populations while maintaining a manageable safety profile. Therefore, ADCs represent an important part of the cancer treatment paradigm, expanding the treatment options available to patients suffering from relapsed or refractory disease.

Within ADC Therapeutics, we have a strong focus on driving innovation in ADC development and advancing ZYNLONTA with the goal of bringing meaningful therapies to patients in need.

3

Table of Contents

Our current ZYNLONTA pipeline utilizes our highly potent pyrrolobenzodiazepine (“PBD”) dimer technology (under license from AstraZeneca).

PBD dimers are highly potent and bind irreversibly to two guanines from opposite DNA strands in minor groove of DNA without distorting the double helix, potentially evading DNA repair mechanisms. The interstrand cross-links block DNA strand separation, disrupting essential DNA metabolic processes such as replication, and ultimately result in cell death. These interstrand cross-links persist in target cells and can lie dormant, potentially for weeks, which may contribute to the frequency and durability of responses in heavily pre-treated and primary refractory patients that we have observed in our clinical trials with PBD-based ADCs.

PBD dimers cause a bystander effect, which occurs when a released warhead (from a target positive cells which has internalized and processed the ADC) is able to diffuse into and kill neighboring cells in the tumor microenvironment, irrespective of those cells’ antigen expression. Since PBD dimers are cell-permeable, they may be able to diffuse into adjacent cells and kill them in an antigen-independent manner. PBD dimers also cause immunogenic cell death (ICD), whereby a cancer cell’s death expresses certain stress signals that induce the body’s anti-tumor immune response through the activation of T cells and antigen-presenting cells. This opens up the potential for combining our ADC with other therapies.

Structure and Mechanism of Action of ZYNLONTA

ZYNLONTA is composed of a humanized monoclonal antibody (RB4v1.2) directed against human CD19 and conjugated through a cathepsin-cleavable linker to SG3199, a PBD dimer cytotoxin. Once bound to a CD19-expressing cell, it is internalized by the cell, following which the warhead is released. The warhead is designed to bind irreversibly to DNA to create highly potent interstrand cross-links that block DNA strand separation, thus disrupting essential DNA metabolic processes such as replication and ultimately resulting in cell death.

The human CD19 antigen is involved in the recognition, binding and adhesion processes of cells, mediating direct interactions between surfaces of different cell types and pathogen recognition. CD19 is expressed only on B cells (i.e., a type of white blood cell that plays a significant role in protecting the body from infection by producing antibodies) throughout all stages of B cell development and differentiation. Its expression is maintained at high levels in hematologic B cell malignancies, including Non-Hodgkin lymphoma (“NHL”) and certain types of leukemia.

Our Market Opportunity

The Lymphoma Disease Setting

ZYNLONTA continues to be developed through our clinical trials and IITs for the treatment of B-cell lymphomas, including:

•DLBCL, the most common type of lymphoma. It is an aggressive form of NHL and accounts for 30% of all NHL cases. Approximately 32,000 people in the United States are diagnosed with DLBCL each year. The DLBCL market includes complex therapies with unique patient management and infrastructure requirements, such as CAR-T, bispecifics and stem cell transplant (“SCT”), as well as broadly accessible outpatient therapies such as ADCs, mAbs or chemotherapy.

◦2L DLBCL - An estimated 12,000 2L DLBCL patients are drug-treated in the United States annually.

◦3L+ DLBCL - An estimated 6,000 3L+ DLBCL patients are drug-treated in the United States annually.

•Marginal zone lymphoma (“MZL”) is a rare, indolent form of NHL. MZL is the third most common NHL subtype. In the United States, the five-year prevalence for MZL is an estimated 40,000 patients. An estimated 3,000 2L+ MZL patients are drug-treated in the United States annually. Despite patients achieving durable responses, high unmet medical need remains with 30% CR for non-CAR-T r/r NCCN preferred treatments.

•Follicular lymphoma (“FL”), is an indolent type of NHL. In the United States, the five-year prevalence for FL is an estimated 63,000 patients. An estimated 6,000 2L+ FL patients are drug-treated in the United States annually, of which 20% relapse within the first 24 months of frontline therapy (“POD24”) and are characterized by an unfavorable prognosis.

4

Table of Contents

Currently, ZYNLONTA is approved for the treatment of DLBCL after two or more lines of systemic therapy. We believe the emerging clinical profile of ZYNLONTA plus glofitamab in the LOTIS-7 trial positions us well among complex therapies and at the same time, the clinical profile of ZYNLONTA plus rituximab in the LOTIS-5 trial has the potential to differentiate to position us well among broadly accessible therapies. As such, we see the potential for ZYNLONTA to become backbone for powerful combination therapies in earlier lines of DLBCL as well as indolent lymphomas.

The Prostate Cancer Disease Setting

We have completed IND enabling activities for ADCT-241, our next-generation PSMA-targeting ADC, which utilizes a differentiated exatecan-based payload and is in pre-clinical development for the treatment of metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer. Prostate cancer is the most common cancer and the second leading cause of cancer death among men in the United States. There are an estimated 282,000 new cases of prostate cancer in the United States each year. Prognosis is heavily dependent on the cancer's stage at diagnosis.

Regulatory Approvals and Marketing Exclusivity

On April 23, 2021, ZYNLONTA received accelerated approval from the FDA for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma after two or more lines of systemic therapy, including DLBCL not otherwise specified, DLBCL arising from low-grade lymphoma and high-grade B-cell lymphoma. Continued approval for this indication is contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in a confirmatory trial, which we intend to satisfy through our LOTIS-5 confirmatory Phase 3 clinical trial. The FDA granted Orphan Drug Exclusivity for ZYNLONTA on May 20, 2021, which means that the FDA may not approve any other applications to market the same product for the same indication for seven years from the date of approval except in limited circumstances. Under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (the “BPCIA”), we believe ZYNLONTA is the first loncastuximab tesirine product to have been licensed by the FDA and should be entitled to a period of 12 years of Reference Product Exclusivity (“RPE”). However, the FDA has not yet awarded ZYNLONTA such RPE, and the FDA may not do so for unknown reasons.

On December 20, 2022, the European Commission granted conditional marketing authorization for the use of ZYNLONTA for the treatment of relapsed or refractory DLBCL after two or more lines of systemic therapy. The decision is valid in all European Union Member States, Iceland, Norway, and Liechtenstein. Continued approval for this indication is contingent upon verification of clinical benefit in a confirmatory trial, which we intend to satisfy through our LOTIS-5 confirmatory Phase 3 clinical trial. The Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products did not grant orphan drug designation for ZYNLONTA in the EU.

On December 6, 2024, ZYNLONTA received conditional approval in China from the NMPA for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma after two or more lines of systemic therapy. This conditional approval is based on ORR and duration of response results from a single-arm clinical trial. The full approval for this indication will be contingent upon the results of the subsequent confirmatory randomized controlled trial, which we intend to satisfy through our LOTIS-5 confirmatory Phase 3 clinical trial.

On March 7, 2025, ZYNLONTA received a notice of Compliance with Conditions (“NOC/c”) approval from Health Canada for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma after two or more lines of systemic therapy. This NOC/c approval is based on ORR and duration of response results from a single-arm clinical trial. The full approval for this indication will be contingent upon the results of the subsequent confirmatory randomized controlled trial, which we intend to satisfy through our LOTIS-5 Phase 3 clinical trial.

Commercialization

We continue to directly commercialize ZYNLONTA in the 3L+ DLBCL setting in the United States through a commercial organization comprised of cross-functional employees, including marketing, sales, market access, insights and analytics, and commercial operations functions. Our field sales team calls on healthcare providers across both the academic and community settings and has the potential to cover more than 90% of the DLBCL opportunity. We have entered into agreements with vendors for certain commercialization services such as third-party logistics, distribution, data analytics and claims processing. ZYNLONTA is distributed in the U.S. through a number of wholesale distributors that resell to

5

Table of Contents

healthcare providers and hospitals, the end users of our product. We also contract with group purchasing organizations affiliated with community oncology practices.

Outside of the United States, we have entered into strategic agreements to maximize the commercial potential of ZYNLONTA, including an exclusive license agreement with Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation, now TPC in Japan, and a joint venture with Overland Pharmaceuticals in China (including Hong Kong and Macau), Singapore, and Taiwan, and an exclusive license agreement with Sobi for all other regions, excluding the U.S. and Japan. ZYNLONTA has received conditional approval from the European Commission, China NMPA and Health Canada for the treatment of relapsed or refractory DLBCL after two or more lines of systemic therapy. In China, we and the joint venture are exploring commercialization options for ZYNLONTA. In Japan, TPC successfully completed a Phase 1/2 bridging study and joined the LOTIS-5 confirmatory Phase 3 clinical trial. The Phase 1/2 bridging study achieved the primary endpoint of ORR in the Phase 2 part of the Japanese Phase 1/2 study. SOBI continues to pursue regulatory approval for ZYNLONTA in certain countries within its licensed territory outside the European Union.

Competition

The biotechnology industry, and the oncology subsector, are characterized by rapid evolution of technologies, fierce competition and strong defense of intellectual property. While we believe that our technology, intellectual property, know-how, scientific expertise and team provide us with certain competitive advantages, we face potential competition from many sources, including major pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, academic institutions and public and private research organizations. Many competitors and potential competitors have substantially greater scientific, research and product development capabilities, as well as greater financial, marketing and human resources than we do.

Many companies are active in the oncology market and are developing or marketing products for the specific therapeutic markets that we target, including both antibody drug conjugate (“ADC”) and non-ADC therapies. Similarly, we also face competition from other companies and institutions that continue to invest in innovation in the ADC field including new payload classes, new conjugation approaches and new targeting moieties. Specifically, we are aware of multiple companies with ADC technologies that may be competitive with our product and product candidates, including, but not limited to, AbbVie, Inc., Daiichi Sankyo Company, Genmab, GlaxoSmithKline plc, Gilead Sciences, Inc., Johnson & Johnson, Mersana Therapeutics Inc., Sanofi S.A., Roche Holding AG, Pfizer Inc. and Zymeworks, Inc. There are hundreds of ADCs in development, the vast majority of which were being developed for the treatment of cancer.

Any products and product candidates that we successfully develop and commercialize may compete directly with approved therapies and any new therapies that may be approved in the future. Competition will be based on their safety and effectiveness, the timing and scope of marketing approvals, the availability and cost of supply, marketing and sales capabilities, reimbursement coverage, price levels and discounts offered, patent position and other factors. Our competitors may succeed in developing competing products before we do, obtaining marketing approval for products and gaining acceptance for such products in the same markets that we are targeting.

In the relapsed or refractory DLBCL setting, for which we have developed ZYNLONTA, current 3L treatment options include CAR-T, allogeneic stem cell transplant, polatuzumab in combination with bendamustine and a rituximab product, selinexor, tafasitamab in combination with lenalidomide, brentuximab in combination with bendamustine and a rituximab product, chemotherapy using small molecules and bispecifics antibodies. If ZYNLONTA is approved for use as a 2L+ treatment for DLBCL patients, we will continue to compete with CAR-T, autologous stem cell transplant, rituximab in combination with chemotherapies, polatuzumab in combination with bendamustine and a rituximab product, tafasitamab in combination with lenalidomide and brentuximab in combination with bendamustine and a rituximab product. In addition, we expect potential future competition from bispecific antibodies such as glofitamab, mosunetuzumab and epcoritamab alone or in combinations with chemotherapies or polatuzumab to gain approval in the 2L treatment of DLBCL.

Clinical Development

Confirmatory Phase 3 Clinical Trial (LOTIS-5)

LOTIS-5 is a Phase 3, randomized, open-label, two-part, two-arm, multi-center clinical trial of ZYNLONTA combined with rituximab compared to immunochemotherapy in patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL. We believe that this

6

Table of Contents

clinical trial, if successful, will support a supplemental biologics license application (“sBLA”) for ZYNLONTA to be used to confirm our existing accelerated approval in 3L+ setting and expand into a 2L/2L+ therapy for the treatment of relapsed or refractory DLBCL in transplant-ineligible patients.

We expect to provide topline data in the first half of 2026 from the LOTIS-5 Phase 3 confirmatory trial of ZYNLONTA in combination with rituximab in patients with 2L+ DLBCL once the pre-specified number of approximately 262 progression-free survival events is reached and data are available. Publication of the full results is anticipated by the end of 2026. Assuming positive results, a supplemental Biologics License Application (sBLA) submission to the FDA will follow, with potential compendia inclusion in the first half of 2027 and confirmatory approval in 2L+ DLBCL in mid-2027.

Clinical Trial Design

The primary objective of the clinical trial is to evaluate the efficacy of ZYNLONTA combined with rituximab compared to standard immunochemotherapy, as measured by progression-free survival (“PFS”). The secondary endpoints of the clinical trial are overall survival (“OS”), ORR, complete response (“CR”) rate and duration of response (“DoR”) as well as frequency and severity of adverse events as well as: (i) characterize the safety profile of ZYNLONTA combined with rituximab, (ii) characterize the pharmacokinetic profile of ZYNLONTA combined with rituximab, (iii) evaluate the immunogenicity of ZYNLONTA combined with rituximab and (iv) evaluate the impact of ZYNLONTA combined with rituximab treatment on treatment-related and disease-related symptoms, patient-reported functions and overall health status.

The clinical trial enrolled patients with pathologically confirmed relapsed or refractory DLBCL who are not considered by the investigator to be a candidate for stem cell transplantation (“SCT”) and who had failed at least one multi-agent systemic treatment regimen. As previously disclosed, we submitted a protocol amendment to FDA in 2024 to increase enrollment in LOTIS-5 to address unexpectedly high rates of early censoring which FDA noted could impact the interpretability and reliability of the data. We subsequently implemented several actions to mitigate such early censoring in the newly enrolled patients. Enrollment was completed in 2024. It is unknown if the high rate of early censoring seen in the trial will impact the study results.

The clinical trial is being conducted in two parts: In the safety run-in, the first 20 patients were non-randomly assigned to receive ZYNLONTA in combination with rituximab to compare the combination’s toxicity against historical safety data from monotherapy clinical trials of ZYNLONTA. The randomized part of the clinical trial was initiated after the last patient in the safety run-in completed the first treatment cycle and it was observed that there were no significant increases in toxicity of the combination as compared to historical safety data of ZYNLONTA used as a monotherapy. Patients are randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either ZYNLONTA in combination with rituximab or rituximab in combination with gemcitabine and oxaliplatin.

LOTIS-5 Updated Data

In July 2025, we announced updated safety run-in results from the clinical trial. The 20 patients in the safety run-in were a median age of 74.5 years and had a median of 1 prior therapy (range of 1-7). Patients received a median of five cycles of ZYNLONTA in combination with rituximab and one previous therapy. As of the October 24, 2024, data cutoff with a median follow-up of 37.2 months:

•The ORR by central review was 16/20 (80%). A total of 10/20 (50%) patients achieved a CR.

•The median DoR was 8.0 months and the median PFS was 8.3 months.

•Median duration of complete response (“DOCR”) was not reached with 4 patients with CR 28.5 months beyond end of therapy.

•Of 7 patients with ctDNA available, all 7 had a decrease in ctDNA by cycle 3 with all 3 CR patients minimal residual disease (“MRD”) negative at C3.

7

Table of Contents

•A total of 11 (55%) patients had Grade ≥3 treatment emergent adverse events (“TEAEs”). The most common Grade ≥3 TEAEs were increased gamma-glutamyltransferase (five patients (25%) and neutropenia (three patients (15%)).

Pivotal Phase 2 Clinical Trial in Relapsed or Refractory Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma (LOTIS-2)

We conducted a 145-patient Phase 2, multi-center, open-label, single-arm clinical trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ZYNLONTA in patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL after two or more lines of systemic therapy. This trial was used as the basis to obtain accelerated approval in the U.S. and conditional approvals in Europe, China and Canada.

Clinical Trial Design

The primary objective of the clinical trial was to evaluate the efficacy of ZYNLONTA in patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL, measured by ORR based on the 2014 Lugano Classification Criteria. The secondary objectives were to (i) further evaluate the efficacy of ZYNLONTA measured by DoR, CR rate, PFS, relapse-free survival (“RFS”) and OS, (ii) characterize the safety profile of ZYNLONTA, (iii) characterize the pharmacokinetic profile of ZYNLONTA, (iv) evaluate the immunogenicity of ZYNLONTA and (v) evaluate the impact of ZYNLONTA treatment on health-related quality of life (“HRQoL”).

The clinical trial enrolled patients with pathologically confirmed relapsed or refractory DLBCL who have previously received two or more multi-agent systemic treatment regimens.

Clinical Trial Results

The median number of treatment cycles received was 3 and the maximum number of treatment cycles received was 26.

As of September 15, 2022 cutoff date, the main observed safety and tolerability findings were as follows:

•Grade ≥3 TEAEs were reported in 107 patients, or 73.8% of patients. The most common Grade ≥3 TEAEs that were reported in more than 10% of patients included neutropenia (reported in 26.2% of patients), thrombocytopenia (reported in 17.9% of patients), gamma-glutamyltransferase increased (reported in 17.2% of patients) and anemia (reported in 10.3% of patients).

•Treatment-related adverse events in 27 patients, or 18.6% of patients, led to treatment discontinuation. The most common of such adverse events that led to treatment discontinuation in more than 2% of patients included gamma-glutamyltransferase increased (led to treatment discontinuation in 11.7% of patients), peripheral edema (led to treatment discontinuation in 2.8% of patients) and localized edema (led to treatment discontinuation in 2.1% of patients).

•No increase in adverse events was observed in patients aged ≥65 years compared to younger patients.

The main observed efficacy findings were as follows:

•Thirty-six patients, or 24.8% of patients, achieved a CR and another 34 patients, or 23.4% of patients, achieved a partial response (“PR”), resulting in a 48.3% ORR. The median time to first response was 41.0 days.

•ZYNLONTA’s favorable clinical activity was observed across a broad patient population in this clinical trial, including transplant eligible and ineligible patients, patients who have not responded to first-line therapy or any prior therapy, double-hit and triple-hit disease and transformed disease and patients who had received prior CD19 therapies or SCT.

•The median DoR was 13.37 months for patients who achieved a response. The median DoR was not reached for patients who achieved a complete response and was 5.68 months for patients who achieved a PR. The median DoR observed in subgroups at high risk of poor prognosis was comparable to that observed in the overall study population.

8

Table of Contents

•Sixteen (16) patients received CD-19 directed CAR-T as a subsequent therapy after receiving treatment with ZYNLONTA. The investigator assessed ORR of CAR-T post ZYNLONTA was 56.3% (9/16) with a CR rate (CRR) of 50% (8/16). Eleven patients (11) received SCT as consolidation after responding to treatment with ZYNLONTA.

•The median PFS was 4.93 months.

•The median OS was 9.53 months.

LOTIS-7

Clinical Trial Design

LOTIS-7 is a Phase 1b global multicenter, multi-arm open-label study in patients with relapsed or refractory B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (B-NHL), including Part 1 (dose escalation) and Part 2 (dose expansion). The three dosing arms in Part 1 included ZYNLONTA plus polatuzumab vedotin, ZYNLONTA plus glofitamab (COLUMVI®), and ZYNLONTA plus mosunetuzumab. Part 1 of the study used a 3+3 dose escalation in third-line (“3L”)/3L+ heavily pre-treated patients with ZYNLONTA doses starting at 90 µg/kg and then proceeding to 120 µg/kg and 150 µg/kg. Part 2 currently includes dose expansion in second-line (“2L”)/second-line plus (“2L+”) large B-cell lymphoma in the ZYNLONTA plus glofitamab arm at dose levels determined from Part 1 (120 µg/kg and 150 µg/kg of ZYNLONTA plus the approved dosing of glofitamab). Primary endpoints of the study include safety and tolerability. Secondary efficacy endpoints include ORR, DOR, CR rate, PFS, RFS, and OS as well as pharmacokinetics (“PK”) and immunogenicity.

The primary objective of the clinical trial is to characterize the safety and tolerability of loncastuximab tesirine in combination, and to identify the maximum tolerated dose (“MTD”) and/or recommended dose for expansion (“RDE”). The secondary objectives of the clinical trial are to evaluate the anti-cancer effect of loncastuximab tesirine as a combination therapy, to characterize the PK profile and to evaluate immunogenicity.

In Part 1, dose escalation was conducted across non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients at 3 dose levels of ZYNLONTA with glofitamab or mosuntusumab in the 3L+ setting. In Part 2, dose expansion moved forward in 2L+ DLBCL with ZYNLONTA at two dose levels – 120 micrograms per kg and the currently approved monotherapy dose of 150 micrograms per kg - combined with the approved monotherapy dose of glofitamab. Based on the scientific evidence available and in alignment with the Data Safety Monitoring Committee, we selected the 150 µg/kg dose and are currently enrolling approximately 100 patients at this dose.

The clinical trial is enrolling patients with relapsed or refractory B-cell NHL who have previously received two or more multi-agent systemic treatment regimens (in the dose escalation part) or who have previously received one or more multi-agent systemic treatment regimens (in the dose expansion part). Enrollment in the LOTIS-7 clinical trial is ongoing, with complete enrollment of approximately 100 patients at the selected 150 µg/kg dose of ZYNLONTA plus the approved dose of glofitamab expected during the first half of 2026. We plan to share full data at a medical meeting and submit for publication by the end of 2026. In addition, the Company plans to assess regulatory and compendia strategies in the first half of 2027.

LOTIS-7 Updated Data

As of November 17, 2025 cutoff date, a total of 49 patients were efficacy evaluable with a minimum of 6 months of follow-up from treatment initiation. Key highlights of the data are as follows:

•Best ORR was 89.8% (44/49 patients) as assessed by Lugano criteria

•ORR was 95.2% at the 120 µg/kg dose and was 85.7% at the selected 150 µg/kg dose

•CR rate was 77.6% (38/49 patients)

•Of these, 33/38 patients achieving CR remain in CR as of the data cutoff; the 5 patients who did not remain in CR included 2 patients with progressive disease, 2 patients with Grade 5 AEs which occurred during CR, and one censored patient

•CR rate was 81.0% at the 120 µg/kg dose and was 75.0% at the selected 150 µg/kg dose

9

Table of Contents

•Strong efficacy in both the relapsed and primary refractory populations across both dose levels

•In the 24 relapsed patients, ORR was 100% and CR rate was 91.7%

•In the 25 primary refractory patients, ORR was 80% and CR rate was 64%

•14 patients converted from stable disease (SD) or PR to CR over time (1 and 13 patients, respectively)

•Of the 8 patients previously treated with CAR-T, 6 achieved a CR

•The combination was generally well tolerated with a manageable safety profile

•Grade 3 or higher TEAEs observed in 5% of patients included neutropenia (32.7%), GGT increased (16.3%), anemia (10.2%), WBC decreased (8.2%), generalized oedema (8.2%), ALT increased (8.2%), AST increased (6.1%), and thrombocytopenia (6.1%)

•Grade 5 AEs occurred in 2 (4.1%) patients, one at each dose level; the one at the 120 µg/kg dose was treatment-related per the investigator

•Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) of all grades across dose levels was 36.7%

•CRS all grades was 25.0% at the selected 150 µg/kg dose and 52.4% at the 120 µg/kg dose, with all but one low Grade

•ICANS was 4.1% across dose levels, with only Grade 1/2

Phase 2 Investigator Initiated Trials

Marginal Zone Lymphoma

Updated data from the Phase 2 multicenter IIT of ZYNLONTA to treat relapsed/refractory marginal zone lymphoma (r/r MZL) was presented during a poster session at the 18th International Conference on Malignant Lymphoma (ICML) in Lugano, Switzerland in June 2025. As of February 10, 2025, a total of 27 adult patients with r/r MZL and previously treated with ≥1 line of systemic therapy were enrolled with 26 patients evaluable for response. Patient had a median of 2 prior line of treatment. Highlights of the data include:

•ORR of 84.6% (22/26); CR rate of 69.2% (18/26)

•Among POD24 patients assessed for response, a CR rate of 61.5% (8/13) was observed

•CR was maintained in 17 of 18 CR patients who achieved CR, with longest duration of CR of 27 months from the start of treatment

•PFS was 92.9% at 12 months

•27 enrolled patients experienced adverse events (“AE”), consistent with the known safety profile of ZYNLONTA and most commonly grade 1 or 2. Grade 3 and 4 AEs were observed in 16 and 2 patients, respectively and included neutropenia, RSV lung infection and hyponatremia (with 2 AEs occurring in the same patient). Three patients needed dose reduction and one patient discontinued treatment after cycle 4 due to cholestatic hepatitis that fully recovered.

The trial has been expanded to enroll 50 r/r MZL patients. We anticipate publication of data as early as the end of 2026, and assuming positive data, we plan to assess regulatory and compendia strategies.

Follicular Lymphoma

Data from the Phase 2 investigator-initiated trial evaluating ZYNLONTA in combination with rituximab in r/r FL with ≥1 line of systemic therapy presenting high-disease burden as defined by GELF criteria or POD24 at enrollment was shared as an oral presentation at ASH in December 2024 and simultaneously published in Lancet Haematology. Patients were a median age of 68 years (range 47 to 89) and the majority received one previous line of therapy (n=26; 67%).

Highlights from the results published in The Lancet Haematology included:

•Best overall response rate (ORR) of 97.4% (n=38) and CR rate of 76.9% (n=30)

•After a median follow-up of 15.6 months, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was not reached, and the 12-month PFS was 94.6%

10

Table of Contents

•The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were hyperglycemia (n=17; 43.6%) followed by increased alkaline phosphatase (n=16; 41%) and neutropenia, fatigue and increased aspartate aminotransferase and alanine aminotransferase (n=15; 38.5%)

•The most common grade ≥3 TEAE were lymphopenia (n=8; 20.5%) followed by neutropenia (n=5; 12.9%)

•No Grade 5 TEAEs occurred.

Updated data presented at the International Workshop on Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (iwNHL) in September 2025 from 55 evaluable patients in this trial continue to demonstrate encouraging results with an ORR of 98.2%, a CR rate of 83.6%. Safety was consistent with the known profile of ZYNLONTA. This IIT is currently being expanded with an increased target enrollment of 100 high-risk r/r FL patients and the study opening at additional U.S. cancer research centers. We anticipate publication of data as early as the end of 2026, and assuming positive data, we plan to assess regulatory and compendia strategies.

LOTIS-10

LOTIS-10 is a Phase 1b open-label, multi-center study to evaluate the safety, pharmacokinetics and anti-cancer activity of ZYNLONTA in patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL or high-grade B-cell lymphoma (“HGBCL”) with hepatic impairment. The primary objective of the clinical trial is to determine the recommended dosing regimen of ZYNLONTA in DLBCL or HGBCL patients with moderate and severe hepatic impairment. The secondary objectives of the clinical trial are to characterize the PK profile, safety and tolerability of ZYNLONTA in patients with hepatic impairment, and to evaluate the antitumor activity and the immunogenicity of ZYNLONTA in patients with hepatic impairment.

The clinical trial is enrolling patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL or HGBCL with hepatic impairment. The clinical trial is expected to enroll approximately 56 patients.

Pediatric Trial

‘Glo-BNHL’ is an international multi-center, adaptive, platform trial of novel agents in pediatric and adolescent relapsed or refractory B-cell NHL. The primary objective of the clinical trial is to estimate the clinical efficacy of the specific treatment in patients with r/r B-NHL in either first relapse or subsequent relapse. The secondary objectives of the clinical trial are to assess the safety profile of the novel agent in children, adolescents, and young adults and to confirm the pharmacokinetics of the novel agent at the recommended trial dose in children, adolescents, and young adults, where relevant. The clinical trial is enrolling children, adolescents and young adults with relapsed or refractory B-cell NHL. The initial target sample size is 15 evaluable patients in each treatment arm or relevant sub-group, with additional patients to be added pending results from the no/no go decision from the initial 15 patients results.

The clinical trial consists of three arms: bispecific antibody (Arm A); ADC with standard chemotherapy (Arm B); and CAR-T (Arm C). Novel agents are selected for inclusion in the platform according to an overarching prioritization list and a robust systematic scientific assessment of each proposed asset. ZYNLONTA was selected for study in Arm B in combination with modified R-ICE (rituximab, ifosfamide, carboplatin and etoposide) chemotherapy to estimate the clinical efficacy of the combination in patients with relapsed or refractory B-cell NHL in first (only one prior line of therapy) or subsequent relapse (more than one prior line of therapy).

Chemistry, Manufacturing and Controls

We believe that the manufacture of ADCs requires considerable expertise, know-how and resources. We are a pioneer in the ADC field with specialized end-to-end capabilities for developing optimized manufacturing processes for ADCs. Our robust in-house CMC capabilities utilize a highly experienced workforce to manage a top-tier external manufacturing network through third-party CMOs. Our third-party CMO network is capable of manufacturing highly potent molecules and complex biologics.

We do not own or operate, and do not plan to own or operate, manufacturing infrastructure for the manufacture of clinical supply of our product candidates or commercial product. Instead, we contract with third-party current Good Manufacturing Process-compliant CMOs that have the facilities and capabilities to manufacture on our behalf the intermediate components

11

Table of Contents

and the final product candidates for use in clinical trials and commercial supply. We believe we have sufficient commercial-grade drug product, ZYNLONTA, in stock and we believe we and our CMOs will be able to conduct additional manufacturing at the scheduled times. Our in-house team oversees all aspects of the CMO manufacturing process, including defining the scope of work and monitoring all aspects of the manufacturing process, including conducting routine site visits and audits. We also contract with external specialist quality control and stability-testing organizations to monitor the quality of the materials manufactured by the CMOs.

Intellectual Property

Our success depends in part on our ability to obtain and maintain proprietary protection for our technology, programs and know-how related to our business, defend and enforce our intellectual property rights, in particular, our patent rights, preserve the confidentiality of our trade secrets, and operate without infringing valid and enforceable intellectual property rights of others. We seek to protect our proprietary position by, among other things, exclusively licensing and filing U.S. and foreign patent applications related to our technology, existing and planned programs and improvements that are important to the development of our business, where patent protection is available.

We also rely on trade secrets, know-how, continuing technological innovation and confidential information to develop and maintain our proprietary position and protect aspects of our business that are not amenable to, or that we do not consider appropriate for, patent protection. We seek to protect our proprietary technology and processes, in part, by confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants, scientific advisors, and contractors. We also seek to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of our data and trade secrets by maintaining physical security of our premises and physical and electronic security of our information technology systems.

Notwithstanding these efforts, we cannot be sure that patents will be granted with respect to any patent applications we have licensed or filed or may license or file in the future, and we cannot be sure that any patents we have licensed or patents that may be licensed or granted to us in the future will not be challenged, invalidated, or circumvented or that such patents will be commercially useful in protecting our technology. Moreover, trade secrets can be difficult to protect. While we have confidence in the measures we take to protect and preserve our trade secrets, such measures can be breached, and we may not have adequate remedies for any such breach. In addition, our trade secrets may otherwise become known or be independently discovered by competitors.

In addition, we or our licensors may be subject to claims that former employees, collaborators, or other third parties have an interest in our owned or in-licensed patents or other intellectual property as an inventor or co-inventor. If we are unable to obtain an exclusive license to any such third-party co-owners’ interest in such patent applications, such co-owners may be able to license their rights to other third parties, including our competitors. In addition, we may need the cooperation of any such co-owners to enforce any patents that issue from such patent applications against third parties, and such cooperation may not be provided to us. For more information regarding the risks related to intellectual property, please see “Item 1A. Risk Factors—Risks Related to Intellectual Property.”

Patent Portfolio

The term of individual utility patents depends upon the countries in which they are granted. In most countries, including the United States, the utility patent term is generally 20 years from the earliest claimed filing date of a non-provisional utility patent application in the applicable country. United States provisional utility patent applications are not eligible to become issued patents until, among other things, non-provisional patent applications are filed within 12 months of the filing date of the applicable provisional patent applications and the failure to file such non-provisional patent applications within such timeline could cause us to lose the ability to obtain patent protection for the inventions disclosed in the associated provisional patent applications. In the United States, a patent’s term may, in certain cases, be lengthened by patent term adjustment, which compensates a patentee for administrative delays by the USPTO in examining and granting a patent, or may be shortened if a patent is terminally disclaimed over a commonly owned patent having an earlier expiration date. In certain circumstances, U.S. patents can also be eligible for patent term extension; for more information, see “—Government Regulation—Regulatory Approval in the United States—U.S. Patent Term Restoration and Marketing Exclusivity.” The expiration dates referred to below are without regard to potential patent term adjustment or extension that may be available to us.

12

Table of Contents

In general, our licensed, owned or co-owned patents relate to our ADC products, the underlying antibodies, the warheads, such as PBD-based or Exatecan-based warheads, the linker used to connect such warheads to the antibodies to form an ADC, modifications of the antibodies to enhance efficacy, and the methods to use and administer or co-administer such ADCs. We typically file patent applications in the U.S. and other key foreign countries. We have over 230 patents issued in the U.S. and other countries, inclusive of foreign counterparts, with expirations ranging from 2031 to 2040 as well as numerous pending patent applications in the U.S. and other countries.

“PBD Warhead,” “PBD Warhead with Linker” Platform Patent Protection

With respect to the PBD-based warhead and ADC technology we use to develop our product candidates, we have exclusively licensed from MedImmune for particular target molecules, various patent families directed to different aspects of the chemistry of the PBD molecules and methods of using the molecules in the treatment of proliferative diseases. These families include approximately 7 issued U.S. utility patents. The issued utility patents, and any utility patents granted from the pending applications in these families, are expected to expire between 2023 and 2038.

Product-Specific Patent Protection

We co-own with MedImmune, and have exclusive rights to, approximately 6 patent families directed to ADCs with PBD warheads and targeting moieties that bind to specific target molecules, combinations of these ADCs with other therapeutic molecules and therapeutic uses of these ADCs. These families include approximately 6 issued U.S. utility patents. The issued utility patents, and any utility patents granted from the pending applications in these families, are expected to expire between 2033 and 2042. Further details in relation to particular marketed products are provided below. We also solely own eight patent families directed to antibodies, ADCs with Exatecan or other warheads, linker technology and therapeutic uses of these antibodies and ADCs. Any utility patents granted from the pending applications in these families are expected to expire between 2041 and 2046.

ZYNLONTA

The antibody for ZYNLONTA is in the public domain.

Patents more specifically directed to the ZYNLONTA ADC are co-owned by us and MedImmune, with us having the exclusive right to exploit the relevant patents during the term of our license and collaboration agreement with MedImmune.

There are six such patent families directed to the ADC product, methods of using the ADC as a single agent or in combination with other named molecules in the treatment of proliferative diseases, and dosing regimens. The issued utility patents, and any utility patents granted from the pending applications in these families, are expected to expire between 2033 and 2042.

For more information on the license and collaboration agreement with MedImmune, see “—Material Contracts—MedImmune License and Collaboration Agreement.”

Material Contracts

The following descriptions of our material agreements are not complete and are qualified in their entirety by reference to the full text of such agreements, which are filed as exhibits to this Annual Report.

MedImmune License and Collaboration Agreement

In 2011, we (then operating under the name ADCT Sàrl) entered into a license and collaboration agreement with Spirogen (since renamed ADC Products UK Ltd.), pursuant to which Spirogen granted us access to its next-generation PBD-based warhead and linker technology. In connection with AstraZeneca plc’s acquisition of Spirogen Sàrl (which was at the time the direct parent company of Spirogen) and the transfer of certain of Spirogen’s intellectual property to Spirogen Sàrl, including its PBD-based warhead and linker technology, the agreement was subsequently amended and restated in October 2013 (with retroactive effect to September 2011), with Spirogen Sàrl also becoming a party to such agreement. Spirogen Sàrl subsequently transferred the PBD technology to MedImmune Limited, which, together with MedImmune LLC, is the

13

Table of Contents

global biologics research and development arm of AstraZeneca plc. Thereafter, Spirogen Sàrl transferred its rights and obligations under the agreement to MedImmune and the agreement was subsequently amended and restated again in May 2016 (with retroactive effect to September 2011), with MedImmune replacing Spirogen Sàrl as the licensor thereunder.

Under the terms of the agreement, MedImmune has granted us an exclusive, worldwide license under certain patent rights and related know-how to make, have made, use, sell, offer for sale and import product candidates in the field of human therapeutics and diagnostics that consist of (i) PBD-based molecules directly conjugated to an antibody (i.e., ADCs with a PBD-based warhead) that specifically bind to up to 11 approved targets (“ADC Targets”), and (ii) PBD-based molecules conjugated to a non-antibody (i.e., targeting-moiety conjugates with a PBD-based warhead) that specifically bind to up to ten approved targets (“XDC Targets”). As of the date hereof, there are 11 approved ADC Targets subject to the license, including CD19 (the target of ZYNLONTA), and ten approved XDC Targets subject to the license.

Under the terms of the agreement, we have the right to grant sublicenses to affiliates and, subject to MedImmune’s approval (not to be unreasonably withheld), third parties. In addition, with respect to each licensed target, we agreed to use commercially reasonable efforts to develop and commercialize at least one product and submit an IND application with the FDA (or its equivalent in another jurisdiction) for one product within 48 months after formal designation of the target as an approved target, which we have done with respect to CD19 and CD25 upon submitting the IND applications for ZYNLONTA and Cami, respectively.

As consideration for the rights granted to us under the agreement, in 2011 we paid Spirogen an up-front licensing fee of $2.5 million. No further payments in consideration for the grant of such rights are required to be paid to Spirogen or MedImmune under the agreement.

With respect to patent rights conceived during the course of our exercise of our rights under the agreement, rights are allocated as follows under the agreement: (i) we own any such patent that claims an antibody that binds to one of the ADC Targets approved under the agreement, (ii) we and MedImmune jointly own any such patent claiming any PBD-based ADC, with us owning the exclusive right to exploit such patent during the term of the agreement and (iii) MedImmune owns any such patent that claims a PBD or any PBD attached to an antibody that does not bind to one of the ADC Targets approved under the agreement. In addition, we have the right to prosecute and maintain all patents described in clauses (i) and (ii) above and are responsible for the costs of prosecuting and maintaining such patents. The ownership of any patent rights conceived during our exercise of our rights under the agreement in connection with non-ADC Targets will be determined under U.S. patent law.

Unless earlier terminated, the agreement terminates on the date of expiration of the last to expire licensed patent right that covers a product being exploited under the license. The agreement (including the licenses granted thereunder) will terminate upon our material breach of any provision of the agreement that is not cured within an applicable cure period.

Overland License and Collaboration Agreement

In December 2020, we entered into a joint venture with Overland Pharmaceuticals (“Overland”) to develop and commercialize ZYNLONTA and certain now-discontinued product candidates (collectively, the “Licensed Products”) in greater China and Singapore. In connection with such joint venture, we entered into a license and collaboration agreement with the joint venture entity, Overland ADCT BioPharma (CY) Limited (“Overland ADCT BioPharma”) pursuant to which we granted Overland ADCT BioPharma an exclusive license or sublicense (as applicable) under all applicable patents and know-how now or in the future owned or controlled by us relating to the Licensed Products in order to use, sell, offer for sale, import and commercialize such product candidates in China, Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan and Singapore (the “Territory”). We also granted Overland ADCT BioPharma an exclusive right of first negotiation to obtain a license in the event we seek to grant to a third party a license in certain circumstances.

Overland ADCT BioPharma is responsible, at its sole cost, for the development, regulatory approval and commercialization of the Licensed Products in the Territory, and must use diligent efforts in order to obtain and maintain regulatory approval for and commercialize the products in each applicable jurisdiction. We maintain an exclusive option, on a product-by-product basis, to co-promote and participate in the detailing, promotion and marketing of the Licensed Products in the Territory. Upon any exercise by us of such option, we and Overland ADCT BioPharma will negotiate in good faith commercially reasonable terms for a co-promotion agreement. We maintain the right to control global clinical

14

Table of Contents

trials for the Licensed Products conducted both in and out of the Territory, and the license agreement sets forth the division of costs between us and Overland ADCT BioPharma with respect to clinical trials depending on the territories within which such trials are conducted or relate to. We are required to use diligent efforts to manufacture and supply to Overland ADCT BioPharma (at our manufacturing cost), and Overland ADCT BioPharma must purchase from us, all of Overland ADCT BioPharma’s requirements of the Licensed Products for its development and commercialization activities.

The collaboration is managed by a joint steering committee (and other applicable committees and subcommittees) comprised of equal numbers of representatives from us and Overland ADCT BioPharma. In the event of a dispute that cannot be resolved by discussions between our CEO and Overland ADCT BioPharma’s CEO, Overland ADCT BioPharma shall have final decision-making authority with respect to matters that relate specifically to the development and commercialization of the Licensed Products in the Territory, except where such matters could also affect the products outside of the Territory and with respect to other specified matters (in which cases we shall have such authority).

As partial consideration for the rights granted to Overland ADCT BioPharma pursuant to the agreement, Overland ADCT BioPharma issued to us 44,590,000 Series A shares. We are also entitled to receive tiered quarterly royalties on Overland ADCT BioPharma’s net sales of the Licensed Products ranging from the low to mid-single digit percentages. Such royalties are payable, on a product-by-product and jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis, from the first commercial sale of a product in a jurisdiction until the latest of (i) the expiration of the last to expire claim in the licensed patent that covers such product or any components thereof in such jurisdiction, (ii) the last to expire regulatory exclusivity period for such product in such jurisdiction and (iii) a specified period after the first commercial sale of such product in such jurisdiction. Overland ADCT BioPharma must also reimburse us for any payments we are obligated to make to any of our licensors including in connection with the grant of a sublicense to Overland ADCT BioPharma under applicable intellectual property pursuant to this agreement, including any fees or payments directly resulting from or reasonably allocable to Overland ADCT BioPharma’s development and commercialization of the Licensed Products.

The license agreement remains in effect, on a product-by-product basis, for as long as Overland ADCT BioPharma continues to develop or commercialize such product. Either party may terminate the license agreement for a material breach by the other party, subject to specified notice and cure periods, or upon immediate written notice for an insolvency-related event experienced by the other party. We may also terminate the license agreement, subject to a specified notice and cure period, if Overland ADCT BioPharma commences a legal action challenging the validity, enforceability or scope of any patent owned or controlled by us that covers the applicable products.

In China, we and the joint venture are exploring commercialization options for ZYNLONTA.

Financing Agreement with HealthCare Royalty Partners

In August 2021, we entered into a royalty purchase agreement with certain entities managed by HCR for up to $325.0 million. Under the terms of the agreement, we received gross proceeds of $225.0 million upon closing and $75.0 million upon the first commercial sale of ZYNLONTA in Europe (collectively, the “Investment Amount”). Under the agreement, we are obligated to pay to HCR (i) a 7% royalty on the worldwide (excluding China, Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan, Singapore and South Korea) net sales of ZYNLONTA and any product that contains ZYNLONTA and on any upfront or milestone payments we receive from licenses that we grant to commercialize ZYNLONTA or any product that contains ZYNLONTA in any region other than China, Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan, Singapore and South Korea, (ii) a 7% royalty on the worldwide net sales of Cami, a now-discontinued product candidate, and any product that contains Cami and on any upfront or milestone payments we receive from licenses that we grant to commercialize Cami or any product that contains Cami in the United States and Europe, and (iii) outside the United States and Europe, a 7% share of any upfront or milestone payments derived from licenses that we grant to commercialize Cami or any product that contains Cami and, in lieu of the royalty on net sales under such licenses, a mid-teen percentage share of the net royalty we receive from such licenses. The 7% royalty rates described above are subject to adjustment to a potential high-single-digit percentage royalty rate after September 30, 2026 and/or a 10% royalty rate after September 30, 2027, if the aggregate net sales and license revenue subject to royalty obligations in the preceding twelve months do not exceed certain mid-nine-digit milestones by such dates. Our aggregate royalty obligations are capped at 2.50 times the amount paid by HCR under the agreement, or at 2.25 times the amount paid by HCR under the agreement if HCR receives royalty payments exceeding a mid-nine-digit amount on or prior to March 31, 2029 (the “Royalty Cap”).

15

Table of Contents

On February 18, 2026, we entered into a first amendment of the royalty purchase agreement which removed our obligation to buy-out the royalty agreement upon a change of control event and replaced it with a change of control payment of $150 million (increased to $200 million on or after January 1, 2028). The royalty agreement would be permitted to remain outstanding without being bought out after the payment of such change of control payment. Following such change of control event, the royalty obligations under the royalty purchase agreement will continue until the Royalty Cap, unless we (or our successor in interest) buys out the remaining royalty obligations by paying HCR $525 million (increased to $750 million if the buyout occurs on or after January 1, 2029), less the amount of royalties previously paid to HCR and the change of control payment described above.

TPC License Agreement

In January 2022, we entered into a license agreement with TPC, to develop and commercialize ZYNLONTA in Japan, pursuant to which we granted TPC an exclusive license under all applicable patents and know-how relating to ZYNLONTA in order to use, sell, offer for sale, import and commercialize ZYNLONTA for all cancer indications in Japan. Under the agreement, we received an upfront payment of $30 million and are eligible to up to $205 million in regulatory and net sales-based milestones as well as royalties ranging from high teens to the low twenties based on net sales of ZYNLONTA in Japan. The royalties payable to us are subject to downward adjustment in certain circumstances, including the expiration of a patent covering ZYNLONTA, generic or biosimilar competition, and required royalty payments to third parties.

TPC will conduct clinical studies and be responsible for the development and commercialization of ZYNLONTA in Japan and bear the associated costs. At TPC’s option, it may also participate in any clinical studies of ZYNLONTA outside of Japan by bearing a portion of the costs of such studies. In addition, TPC agreed that it will not engage in certain activities with respect to products that are similar to ZYNLONTA.

Unless terminated earlier, the agreement terminates upon the occurrence of the earliest of (i) the expiration of the last-to-expire patent covering ZYNLONTA in Japan, (ii) the expiration of exclusivity with respect to ZYNLONTA granted to TPC by a regulatory authority, and (iii) ten years after the first commercial sale of ZYNLONTA in Japan. In addition, TPC may terminate the agreement at its discretion upon 180 days’ notice to us, each party may terminate the agreement for the other party’s material breach or insolvency and we may terminate the agreement if TPC engages in certain challenges of patents covering ZYNLONTA.

Sobi License Agreement

In July 2022, we entered into a license agreement with Sobi to develop and commercialize ZYNLONTA in all territories other than the United States, greater China, Singapore and Japan (the territories subject to the agreement, collectively, the “Covered Territory”). Pursuant to the agreement, we granted Sobi (i) an exclusive license under applicable patents and know-how relating to ZYNLONTA in order to use, develop, sell, offer for sale, distribute, import and commercialize ZYNLONTA for all human therapeutic and diagnostic uses in the Covered Territory, (ii) a non-exclusive license under applicable patents and know-how relating to ZYNLONTA in order to package and label ZYNLONTA for all human therapeutic and diagnostic uses in the Covered Territory and (iii) a non-exclusive license under applicable patents and know-how relating to ZYNLONTA in order to manufacture and have manufactured ZYNLONTA in any territory solely for the use and sale of ZYNLONTA for human therapeutic and diagnostic uses in the Covered Territory exercisable upon Sobi assuming responsibility to manufacture or have manufactured ZYNLONTA, in each case, with the right to sublicense to affiliates and, with our written consent, other third parties and the right to subcontract to third parties. The licenses are subject to certain retained rights as specified in the agreement.

Under the agreement, we received an upfront payment of $55 million in July 2022 and $50 million in February 2023 for the approval of a Marketing Authorization Application (“MAA”) by the European Commission for ZYNLONTA in 3L DLBCL, and are eligible for up to $332.5 million in other regulatory and net sales-based milestones, as well as tiered royalties ranging from the mid-teens to the mid-twenties based on net sales of ZYNLONTA in the Covered Territory. The royalties payable to us are subject to downward adjustment in certain circumstances, including the expiration of patents covering ZYNLONTA, generic or biosimilar competition and required payments to third parties. The royalty term with respect to a product in a given country begins upon the first commercial sale of the product in the country and terminates upon the latest of (x) 10 years after the first commercial sale of the product in the country, (y) the expiration of the last-to-

16

Table of Contents

expire valid patent claim covering the product in the country and (z) the expiration of regulatory exclusivity for the product in the country.

Sobi will conduct development and commercialization activities with respect to ZYNLONTA in the Covered Territory and bear the associated costs, other than the costs of global clinical studies that are intended to support regulatory approval in both the United States and the Covered Territory. In addition, Sobi will co-fund 25% of the costs of certain specified global clinical studies of ZYNLONTA and have the option to co-fund additional global clinical studies in exchange for use of the data generated from such additional studies, subject to an aggregate annual co-funding cap of $10 million.

Both we and Sobi agreed that neither party would (i) during the term of the agreement until the fifth anniversary of the first MAA approval of ZYNLONTA for the first indication in the first of Germany, France, United Kingdom, Spain or Italy, engage in the development (other than non-clinical and preclinical research activities) of any competitive product directed to CD19 for the treatment of DLBCL in the Covered Territory, or (ii) during the term of the agreement, commercialize any competitive product directed to CD19 for the treatment of DLBCL in the Covered Territory. If either party acquires or is acquired by a third party that has a competitive program, then such party may continue such competitive program as long as such party establishes firewalls to operate such competitive program separately from the ZYNLONTA program.

Loan Agreement

In August 2022, we, ADC Therapeutics (UK) Limited and ADC Therapeutics America, Inc. entered into a loan agreement and guaranty (as amended, the “Loan Agreement”) with certain affiliates and/or funds managed by each of Oaktree Capital Management, L.P. and Owl Rock Capital Advisors LLC, as lenders, and Owl Rock Opportunistic Master Fund I, L.P., as administrative agent and collateral agent, pursuant to which we borrowed $120.0 million principal amount of term loans. The secured term loans are scheduled to mature on August 15, 2029 and accrue interest at an annual rate of SOFR plus 7.50% per annum or a base rate plus 6.50% per annum for the first five years of the term loans, and thereafter, at an annual rate of SOFR plus 9.25% or a base rate plus 8.25%, in each case subject to a 1.00% per annum SOFR floor. At our election, for the first three years, we may choose to pay an amount of interest on the outstanding principal amount of term loans corresponding to up to 2.50% of the applicable interest rate in kind (in lieu of payment in cash). We are obligated to pay certain exit fees upon certain prepayments and repayments of the principal amount of the term loans. In addition, we have the right to prepay the term loans at any time subject to certain prepayment premiums applicable during the period commencing from the closing date until the fourth anniversary of the closing date. The Loan Agreement also contains certain prepayment provisions, including mandatory prepayments from the proceeds from certain asset sales, casualty events and from issuances or incurrences of debt, which may also be subject to prepayment premiums if made on or prior to the fourth anniversary of the closing date. The obligations under the Loan Agreement are secured by substantially all of our assets and those of certain of our subsidiaries and are guaranteed initially by our subsidiaries in the United States and the United Kingdom. The Loan Agreement contains customary covenants, including a covenant to maintain qualified cash of at least $60.0 million plus an amount equal to any accounts payable that remain unpaid more than ninety days after the date of the original invoice therefor, and negative covenants including limitations on indebtedness, liens, fundamental changes, asset sales, investments, dividends and other restricted payments and other matters customarily restricted in such agreements. In addition, the Loan Agreement contains a revenue covenant that, so long as the Company’s 30-day average market capitalization is less than $650 million, requires the Company achieve minimum levels of ZYNLONTA net sales in the United States, tested on a quarterly basis, which is subject to a customary cure right in favor of the Company that may be exercised by making certain prepayments and that, subject to certain limitations, may be exercised up to three times during the term of the Loan Agreement. The Loan Agreement also contains customary events of default, after which the term loan may become due and payable immediately, including payment defaults, material inaccuracy of representations and warranties, covenant defaults (including creation of any liens other than those that are expressly permitted), bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings, cross-defaults to certain other agreements, judgments against us and our subsidiaries and change in control.

Government Regulation

Government authorities in the United States at the federal, state and local level and in other countries and jurisdictions, including the European Union, extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, quality control, approval, labeling, packaging, storage, record-keeping, promotion, advertising, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting, marketing and export and import of drug and biological products, such as our investigational

17

Table of Contents

medicines and any future investigational medicines. Generally, before a new drug or biologic can be marketed, considerable data demonstrating its quality, safety and efficacy must be obtained, organized into a format specific for each regulatory authority, submitted for review and approved by the regulatory authority.

Regulatory Approval in the United States

In the United States, pharmaceutical products are subject to extensive regulation by the FDA. The FDCA and other federal and state statutes and regulations govern, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, storage, recordkeeping, approval, labeling, promotion and marketing, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting, sampling, and import and export of pharmaceutical products. Biological products used for the prevention, treatment or cure of a disease or condition of a human being are subject to regulation under the FDCA, except that the section of the FDCA that governs the approval of new drug applications (“NDAs”) does not apply to the approval of biological products. Biological products, such as our ADC product candidates, are approved for marketing under provisions of the Public Health Service Act (the “PHSA”), via a biologics license application (“BLA”). However, the application process and requirements for approval of BLAs are very similar to those for NDAs, and biologics are associated with similar approval risks and costs as drugs. Failure to comply with applicable U.S. requirements may subject a company to a variety of administrative or judicial sanctions, such as clinical hold, FDA refusal to approve pending NDAs or BLAs, warning or untitled letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, civil penalties, and criminal prosecution.

Our investigational medicines and any future investigational medicines must be approved by the FDA pursuant to a BLA before they may be legally marketed in the United States. The process generally involves the following:

•completion of extensive preclinical laboratory and animal studies in accordance with applicable regulations, including studies conducted in accordance with good laboratory practice (“GLP”) requirements;

•submission to the FDA of an investigational new drug (“IND”) application, which must become effective before human clinical trials may begin;

•approval by an institutional review board (“IRB”) or independent ethics committee at each clinical trial site before each clinical trial may commence;

•performance of adequate and well-controlled human clinical trials in accordance with applicable IND regulations, good clinical practice (“GCP”) requirements and other clinical trial-related regulations to establish the safety and efficacy of the investigational product for each proposed indication;

•submission to the FDA of a BLA;

•a determination by the FDA within 60 days of its receipt of a BLA to file the submission for review;

•satisfactory completion of one or more FDA pre-approval inspections of the manufacturing facility or facilities where the biologic, or components thereof, will be produced to assess compliance with current good manufacturing practice (“cGMP”) requirements to assure that the facilities, methods and controls are adequate to preserve the biologic’s identity, strength, quality and purity;

•satisfactory completion of any potential FDA audits of the clinical trial sites that generated the data in support of the BLA to assure compliance with GCPs and integrity of the clinical data;

•payment of any user fees for FDA review of the BLA;

•FDA review and approval of the BLA, including consideration of the views of any FDA advisory committee; and

•compliance with any post-approval requirements, including REMS, where applicable, and post-approval studies required by the FDA as a condition of approval.

18

Table of Contents

The preclinical and clinical testing and approval process requires substantial time, effort and financial resources, and we cannot be certain that any approvals for our product candidates will be granted on a timely basis, or at all.

Preclinical Studies

Before testing any biological product candidates in humans, the product candidate must undergo rigorous preclinical testing. Preclinical studies include laboratory evaluation of product chemistry and formulation, as well as in vitro and animal studies to assess the potential for adverse events and in some cases to establish a rationale for therapeutic use. The conduct of preclinical studies is subject to federal regulations and requirements, including GLP regulations for safety/toxicology studies. An IND sponsor must submit the results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature and plans for clinical studies, among other things, to the FDA as part of an IND. An IND is a request for authorization from the FDA to administer an investigational product to humans and must become effective before human clinical trials may begin. Some preclinical testing may continue after the IND is submitted. An IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless before that time the FDA raises concerns or questions related to one or more proposed clinical trials and places the trial on clinical hold. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. As a result, submission of an IND may not result in the FDA allowing clinical trials to commence.

Clinical Trials

The clinical stage of development involves the administration of the investigational product to healthy volunteers or patients under the supervision of qualified investigators, generally physicians not employed by or under the trial sponsor’s control. Clinical trials must be conducted: (i) in compliance with federal regulations; (ii) in compliance with GCPs, an international standard meant to protect the rights and health of patients and to define the roles of clinical trial sponsors, administrators, and monitors; as well as (iii) under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the trial, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety, and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated in the trial. Each protocol involving testing on U.S. patients and subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. Furthermore, each clinical trial must be reviewed and approved by an IRB for each institution at which the clinical trial will be conducted to ensure that the risks to individuals participating in the clinical trials are minimized and are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits. The IRB also approves the informed consent form that must be provided to each clinical trial subject or his or her legal representative and must monitor the clinical trial until completed.

There also are requirements governing the reporting of ongoing clinical trials and completed clinical trial results to public registries. Information about certain clinical trials, including clinical trial results, must be submitted within specific time frames for publication on the www.clinicaltrials.gov website. Information related to the product, patient population, phase of investigation, clinical trial sites and investigators, and other aspects of the clinical trial is then made public as part of the registration. Sponsors are also obligated to discuss the results of their clinical trials after completion. Disclosure of the results of these clinical trials can be delayed in certain circumstances for up to two years after the date of completion of the trial. Competitors may use this publicly available information to gain knowledge regarding the progress of development programs.

A sponsor who wishes to conduct a clinical trial outside of the United States may, but need not, obtain FDA authorization to conduct the clinical trial under an IND. If a foreign clinical trial is not conducted under an IND, the sponsor may submit data from the clinical trial to the FDA in support of a BLA. The FDA will accept a well-designed and well-conducted foreign clinical trial not conducted under an IND if the clinical trial was conducted in accordance with GCP requirements and the FDA is able to validate the data through an onsite inspection if deemed necessary.

Clinical trials are generally conducted in three sequential phases, known as Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3:

•Phase 1 clinical trials generally involve a small number of healthy volunteers or disease-affected patients who are initially exposed to a single dose and then multiple doses of the product candidate. The primary purpose of these clinical trials is to assess the metabolism, pharmacokinetics, pharmacologic action, side effect tolerability, safety of the product candidate, and, if possible, early evidence of effectiveness. Phase 1 clinical trials may be designated as Phase 1a, which may involve dose escalation to determine the maximum tolerated dose, or Phase 1b, which

19

Table of Contents

may involve dose expansion at one or more dose levels to determine the recommended dose level for Phase 2 clinical trials.

•Phase 2 clinical trials generally involve studies in disease-affected patients to evaluate proof of concept and/or determine the dosing regimen(s) for subsequent investigations. At the same time, safety and further pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic information is collected, possible adverse effects and safety risks are identified, and a preliminary evaluation of efficacy is conducted.

•Phase 3 clinical trials generally involve a large number of patients at multiple sites and are designed to provide the data necessary to demonstrate the effectiveness of the product for its intended use, its safety in use and to establish the overall benefit/risk relationship of the product, and provide an adequate basis for product labeling. In most cases, the FDA requires two adequate and well-controlled Phase 3 clinical trials to demonstrate the efficacy of the biologic.

These Phases may overlap or be combined. For example, a Phase 1/2 clinical trial may contain both a dose-escalation stage and a dose-expansion stage, the latter of which may confirm tolerability at the recommended dose for expansion in future clinical trials (as in traditional Phase 1 clinical trials) and provide insight into the anti-tumor effects of the investigational therapy in selected subpopulation(s).

Typically, during the development of oncology therapies, all subjects enrolled in Phase 1 clinical trials are disease-affected patients and, as a result, considerably more information on clinical activity may be collected during such trials than during Phase 1 clinical trials for non-oncology therapies. A single adequate and well-controlled Phase 3 or Phase 2 trial may be sufficient in rare instances, including (1) where the trial is a large, multicenter trial demonstrating internal consistency and a statistically very persuasive finding of a clinically meaningful effect on mortality, irreversible morbidity or prevention of a disease with a potentially serious outcome and confirmation of the result in a second trial would be practically or ethically impossible or (2) when in conjunction with confirmatory evidence. Approval on the basis of a single adequate and well-controlled trial may be subject to the requirement of additional post-approval studies.

The manufacturer of an investigational drug in a Phase 2 or Phase 3 clinical trial for a serious or life-threatening disease is required to make available, such as by posting on its website, its policy on evaluating and responding to requests for expanded access to such investigational drug.

Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3 and other types of clinical trials may not be completed successfully within any specified period, if at all. The FDA, the IRB, or the sponsor may suspend or terminate a clinical trial in whole or in part at any time on various grounds, including non-compliance with regulatory requirements or a finding that the patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate a clinical trial at its institution if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the drug or biologic has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients. Additionally, some clinical trials are overseen by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the clinical trial sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board or committee. This group provides recommendations for whether a trial may move forward at designated checkpoints based on access to certain data from the trial.

Concurrent with clinical trials, companies usually complete additional animal studies and also must develop additional information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the drug or biologic as well as finalize a process for manufacturing the product in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the product and, among other things, companies must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality, potency, and purity of the final product. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested, and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the investigational medicines do not undergo unacceptable deterioration over their shelf life.

FDA Review Process

Following completion of the clinical trials, the results of preclinical studies and clinical trials are submitted to the FDA as part of a BLA, along with proposed labeling, chemistry and manufacturing information to ensure product quality and other relevant data. To support marketing approval, the data submitted must be sufficient in quality and quantity to establish the

20

Table of Contents

safety and efficacy of the investigational product to the satisfaction of the FDA. FDA approval of a BLA must be obtained before a biologic or drug may be marketed in the United States.

The cost of preparing and submitting a BLA is substantial. Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (“PDUFA”), each BLA must be accompanied by a substantial user fee. The FDA adjusts the PDUFA user fees on an annual basis. Fee waivers or reductions are available in certain circumstances, including a waiver of the application fee for the first application submitted by a small business. Additionally, no user fees are assessed on BLAs for products designated as orphan drugs, unless the product also includes a non-orphan indication. The applicant under an approved BLA is also subject to an annual program fee.

The FDA reviews all submitted BLAs before it files them and may request additional information. The FDA must make a decision on filing a BLA within 60 days of receipt, and such decision could include a refusal to file by the FDA. Once the submission is filed, the FDA begins an in-depth review of the BLA. Under the goals and policies agreed to by the FDA under PDUFA, the FDA has 10 months, from the filing date, in which to complete its initial review of an original BLA for a new molecular entity and respond to the applicant, and six months from the filing date of an original BLA designated for priority review. The review process for both standard and priority review may be extended by the FDA for three additional months to consider certain late-submitted information or information intended to clarify information already provided in the submission. The FDA does not always meet its PDUFA goal dates for standard and priority BLAs, and the review process can be extended by FDA requests for additional information or clarification.

Before approving a BLA, the FDA will conduct a pre-approval inspection of the manufacturing facilities for the new product to determine whether they comply with cGMP requirements. The FDA will not approve the product unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications.

The FDA also may audit data from clinical trials to ensure compliance with GCP requirements and the integrity of the data supporting safety and efficacy. Additionally, the FDA may refer applications for novel products or products that present difficult questions of safety or efficacy to an advisory committee, typically a panel that includes clinicians and other experts, for review, evaluation and a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions, if any. The FDA is not bound by recommendations of an advisory committee, but it generally follows such recommendations when making decisions on approval. The FDA likely will reanalyze the clinical trial data, which could result in extensive discussions between the FDA and the applicant during the review process.

After the FDA evaluates a BLA, it will issue either an approval letter or a Complete Response Letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the biologic with specific prescribing information for specific indications. A Complete Response Letter indicates that the review cycle of the application is complete, and the application will not be approved in its present form. A Complete Response Letter generally outlines the deficiencies in the BLA and may require additional clinical data, additional pivotal clinical trial(s), and/or other significant and time-consuming requirements related to clinical trials, preclinical studies or manufacturing in order for the FDA to reconsider the application. If a Complete Response Letter is issued, the applicant may either resubmit the BLA, addressing all of the deficiencies identified in the letter, or withdraw the application or request an opportunity for a hearing. The FDA has committed to reviewing such resubmissions in two or six months, depending on the type of information included. Even if such data and information are submitted, the FDA may decide that the BLA does not satisfy the criteria for approval.

As a condition of BLA approval, the FDA may require a REMS to help ensure that the benefits of the biologic outweigh the potential risks to patients. A REMS can include medication guides, communication plans for healthcare professionals, and elements to assure a product’s safe use (“ETASU”). An ETASU can include, but is not limited to, special training or certification for prescribing or dispensing the product, dispensing the product only under certain circumstances, special monitoring, and the use of patient-specific registries. The requirement for a REMS can materially affect the potential market and profitability of the product. Moreover, the FDA may require substantial post-approval testing and surveillance to monitor the product’s safety or efficacy.

21

Table of Contents

Orphan Drug Designation

Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan designation to a drug or biological product intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally a disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or more than 200,000 individuals in the United States but for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making the product for this type of disease or condition will be recovered from sales of the product in the United States.

Orphan drug designation must be requested before submitting a BLA. After the FDA grants orphan drug designation, the identity of the therapeutic agent and its potential orphan use are disclosed publicly by the FDA. Orphan drug designation on its own does not convey any advantage in or shorten the duration of the regulatory review and approval process.

If a product that has orphan designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for the disease or condition for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan drug exclusivity, which means that the FDA may not approve any other applications to market the same product for the same indication for seven years from the date of such approval, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan exclusivity by means of greater effectiveness, greater safety, or providing a major contribution to patient care, or in instances of drug supply issues. Competitors, however, may receive approval of either a different product for the same indication or the same product for a different indication. In the latter case, because healthcare professionals are free to prescribe products for off-label uses, the competitor’s product could be used for the orphan indication despite another product’s orphan exclusivity.

FDA’s determination of whether two ADCs are the same product for purposes of orphan drug exclusivity is based on a determination of sameness of the monoclonal antibody element and the functional element of the conjugated molecule. Two ADCs are deemed to be the same product if the complementarity determining region sequences of the antibody and the functional element of the conjugated molecule are the same. A difference in either of those two elements can result in a determination that the molecules are different.

Expedited Development and Review Programs

The FDA is authorized to designate certain products for expedited review if they are intended to address an unmet medical need in the treatment of a serious or life-threatening disease or condition.

Fast track designation may be granted for products that are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition for which there is no effective treatment, and preclinical or clinical data demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the condition. Fast track designation applies to both the product and the specific indication for which it is being studied. The sponsor of a new biologic candidate can request the FDA to designate the candidate for a specific indication for fast track status concurrent with, or after, the submission of the IND for the candidate. The FDA must determine if the biologic candidate qualifies for fast track designation within 60 days of receipt of the sponsor’s request. For fast track products, sponsors may have greater interactions with the FDA and the FDA may initiate review of sections of a fast track product’s BLA before the application is complete. This “rolling review” is available if the FDA determines, after preliminary evaluation of clinical data submitted by the sponsor, that a fast track product may be effective. The sponsor must also provide, and the FDA must approve, a schedule for the submission of the remaining information and the sponsor must pay applicable user fees. Any product submitted to the FDA for marketing, including under a fast track program, may be eligible for other types of FDA programs intended to expedite development and review, such as priority review and accelerated approval.

Breakthrough therapy designation may be granted for products that are intended, alone or in combination with one or more other products, to treat a serious or life-threatening condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product may demonstrate substantial improvement over currently approved therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints. Under the breakthrough therapy program, the sponsor of a new biologic candidate may request that the FDA designate the candidate for a specific indication as a breakthrough therapy concurrent with, or after, the submission of the IND for the biologic candidate. The FDA must determine if the biological product qualifies for breakthrough therapy designation within 60 days of receipt of the sponsor’s request. The FDA may take certain actions with respect to breakthrough therapies, including holding meetings with the sponsor throughout the development process, providing timely advice to the product sponsor regarding development and approval, involving more senior staff in the review process,

22

Table of Contents

assigning a cross-disciplinary project lead for the review team and taking other steps to design the clinical studies in an efficient manner.

Priority review may be granted for products that are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening condition and, if approved, would provide a significant improvement in safety and effectiveness compared to available therapies. The FDA will attempt to direct additional resources to the evaluation of an application designated for priority review in an effort to facilitate the review.

Accelerated approval may be granted for products that are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening condition and that generally provide a meaningful therapeutic advantage to patients over existing treatments. A product eligible for accelerated approval may be approved on the basis of either 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. In clinical trials, a surrogate endpoint is a measurement of laboratory or clinical signs of a disease or condition that substitutes for a direct measurement of how a patient feels, functions, or survives. The accelerated approval pathway is most often used in settings in which the course of a disease is long and an extended period of time is required to measure the intended clinical benefit of a product, even if the effect on the surrogate or intermediate clinical endpoint occurs rapidly. Thus, accelerated approval has been used extensively in the development and approval of products for treatment of a variety of cancers in which the goal of therapy is generally to improve survival or decrease morbidity and the duration of the typical disease course requires lengthy and sometimes large studies to demonstrate a clinical or survival benefit. The accelerated approval pathway is contingent on a sponsor’s agreement to conduct additional post-approval confirmatory studies to verify and describe the product’s clinical benefit. These confirmatory trials must be completed with due diligence, and, in some cases, the FDA may require that the trial be designed, initiated, and/or fully enrolled prior to approval. Failure to conduct required post-approval studies, or to confirm a clinical benefit during post-marketing studies, would allow the FDA to withdraw the product from the market on an expedited basis. All promotional materials for product candidates approved under accelerated approval are subject to prior review by the FDA. Pursuant to the Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act (“FDORA”), the FDA is authorized to require a post-approval study to be underway prior to approval or within a specified time period following approval. FDORA also requires the FDA to specify conditions of any required post-approval study, which may include milestones such as a target date of study completion and requires sponsors to submit progress reports for required post-approval studies and any conditions required by FDA not later than 180 days following approval and not less frequently than every 180 days thereafter until completion or termination of the study. FDORA enables the FDA to initiate enforcement action for the failure to conduct with due diligence a required post-approval study, including a failure to meet any required conditions specified by the FDA or to submit timely reports.

Even if a product qualifies for one or more of these programs, the FDA may later decide that the product no longer meets the conditions for qualification or the time period for FDA review or approval may not be shortened. Furthermore, fast track designation, breakthrough therapy designation, priority review and accelerated approval do not change the standards for approval but may expedite the development or approval process.

Additional Controls for Biologics

To help reduce the increased risk of the introduction of adventitious agents, the PHSA emphasizes the importance of manufacturing controls for products whose attributes cannot be precisely defined. The PHSA also provides authority to the FDA to immediately suspend licenses in situations where there exists a danger to public health, to prepare or procure products in the event of shortages and critical public health needs, and to authorize the creation and enforcement of regulations to prevent the introduction or spread of communicable diseases in the United States and between states.

After a BLA is approved, the product may also be subject to official lot release as a condition of approval. As part of the manufacturing process, the manufacturer is required to perform certain tests on each lot of the product before it is released for distribution. If the product is subject to official release by the FDA, the manufacturer submits samples of each lot of product to the FDA together with a release protocol showing a summary of the history of manufacture of the lot and the results of all of the manufacturer’s tests performed on the lot. The FDA may also perform certain confirmatory tests on lots of some products, such as viral vaccines, before releasing the lots for distribution by the manufacturer. In addition, the FDA conducts laboratory research related to the regulatory standards on the safety, purity, potency, and effectiveness of

23

Table of Contents

biological products. As with drugs, after approval of biologics, manufacturers must address any safety issues that arise, are subject to recalls or a halt in manufacturing, and are subject to periodic inspection after approval.

Pediatric Information

Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act (“PREA”), BLAs or supplements to BLAs must contain data to assess the safety and effectiveness of the biological product for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the biological product is safe and effective. The FDA may grant full or partial waivers, or deferrals, for submission of data. Unless otherwise required by regulation, PREA generally does not apply to any biological product for an indication for which orphan designation has been granted. However, PREA applies to BLAs for orphan-designated biologics if the biologic is a molecularly targeted cancer product intended for the treatment of an adult cancer and is directed at a molecular target that FDA has determined is substantially relevant to the growth or progression of a pediatric cancer.

The Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act (“BPCA”) provides a six-month extension of non-patent exclusivity for a biologic if certain conditions are met. Conditions for exclusivity include the FDA’s determination that information relating to the use of a new biologic in the pediatric population may produce health benefits in that population, the FDA making a written request for pediatric studies, and the applicant agreeing to perform, and reporting on, the requested studies within the statutory time frame. Applications to change labeling after performance of studies under the BPCA are treated as priority applications, with all of the benefits that designation confers.

Post-Approval Requirements

Once a BLA is approved, a product will be subject to certain post-approval requirements. For instance, the FDA closely regulates the post-approval marketing and promotion of biologics, including standards and regulations for direct-to-consumer advertising, off-label promotion, industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities and promotional activities involving the internet. Biologics may be marketed only for the approved indications and in a manner consistent with the provisions of the approved labeling. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label uses may be subject to significant liability, including investigation by federal and state authorities.

Adverse event reporting and submission of periodic safety summary reports is required following FDA approval of a BLA. The FDA also may require post-marketing testing, known as Phase 4 testing, REMS, and surveillance to monitor the effects of an approved product, or the FDA may place conditions on an approval that could restrict the distribution or use of the product. In addition, quality control, biological product manufacture, packaging, and labeling procedures must continue to conform to cGMPs after approval. Biologic manufacturers and certain of their subcontractors are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies. Registration with the FDA subjects entities to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA, during which the agency inspects a biologic product’s manufacturing facilities to assess compliance with cGMPs. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money, and effort in the areas of production and quality-control to maintain compliance with cGMPs.

Once an approval is granted, the FDA may withdraw the approval or request product recalls if compliance with regulatory requirements and standards is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the market. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with manufacturing processes or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in revisions to the approved labeling to add new safety information, imposition of post-market studies or clinical studies to assess new safety risks or imposition of distribution or other restrictions under a REMS program. Other potential consequences include, among other things:

•restrictions on the marketing or manufacturing of the product, suspension of the approval, complete withdrawal of the product from the market or product recalls;

•fines, warning or other enforcement-related letters or holds on post-approval clinical studies;

•refusal of the FDA to approve pending BLAs or supplements to approved BLAs, or suspension or revocation of product license approvals;

24

Table of Contents

•product seizure or detention, or refusal to permit the import or export of products; or

•injunctions or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties.

Certain changes to an approved BLA or the conditions under which it was approved, including changes in its indications, safety information, labeling, or manufacturing processes or facilities, require submission and FDA approval of a new BLA or BLA supplement before the product can be marketed or distributed with those changes. A BLA supplement for a new indication typically requires clinical data similar to that in the original application. The FDA uses the same procedures and actions in reviewing BLA supplements as it does in reviewing original BLAs.

U.S. Patent Term Restoration, Marketing Exclusivity and Biosimilars

Depending upon the timing, duration, and specifics of FDA approval of our product candidates, some of our U.S. patents may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (the “Hatch-Waxman Amendments”). The Hatch Waxman Amendments provide for a patent term extension of up to five years as compensation for patent term lost during the FDA regulatory review process. Patent term extension, however, cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the product’s approval date. The patent term extension period is generally one half the time between the effective date of an IND and the submission date of a BLA, plus the time between the submission date of a BLA and the approval of that application, up to five years. If the patent selected for extension was issued during the development or review period, the calculation begins from the date of patent issuance. The review period is reduced by any time during which the applicant failed to exercise due diligence. Only one patent applicable to an approved drug is eligible for such an extension, only those claims covering the approved drug, a method for using it, or a method for manufacturing it may be extended, and the application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent. Such application must be submitted within 60 days of approval. The USPTO, in consultation with the FDA, reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension or restoration. In the future, we or our licensors may apply for patent term extension for our owned or licensed patents to add patent life beyond their current expiration date, depending on the expected length of the clinical trials and other factors applicable to the relevant BLA. However, an extension might not be granted because of, for example, failing to exercise due diligence during the testing phase or regulatory review process, failing to apply within applicable deadlines, failing to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents or otherwise failing to satisfy applicable eligibility or other requirements. Moreover, the extension awarded could be less than requested.

The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (“BPCIA”) created an abbreviated approval pathway for biological products shown to be biosimilar to an FDA-licensed reference biological product. Biosimilarity, which requires that the biological product be highly similar to the reference product notwithstanding minor differences in clinically inactive components and that there be no clinically meaningful differences between the biological product and the reference product in terms of safety, purity and potency, can be shown through analytical studies, toxicity studies, and a clinical trial or trials. A biosimilar may be approved as interchangeable with its reference biological product. Interchangeability requires that a biological product both be biosimilar to the reference product and that the product can be expected to produce the same clinical results as the reference product in any given patient and, for products administered multiple times to an individual, that the product and the reference product may be alternated or switched after one has been previously administered without increasing safety risks or risks of diminished efficacy relative to exclusive use of the reference biological product without such alternation or switch. Under most state laws, interchangeable products may be used in place of the reference biological product.

A reference biological product is granted 12 years of data exclusivity from the time of first licensure of the product during which the FDA will not approve a biosimilar referencing the reference biological product, and the FDA will not accept an application for a biosimilar or interchangeable product based on the reference biological product until four years after the date of first licensure of the reference product. “First licensure” typically means the initial date the particular product at issue was licensed in the United States. Date of first licensure does not include the date of licensure of (and a new period of exclusivity is not available for) a biological product if the licensure is for a supplement for the biological product or for a subsequent application by the same sponsor or manufacturer of the biological product (or licensor, predecessor in interest, or other related entity) for a change that results in a new indication, route of administration, dosing schedule, dosage form, delivery system, delivery device or strength, or for a modification to the structure of the biological product that does not result in a change in safety, purity or potency.

25

Table of Contents

Regulatory Approval in the European Union

The European Medicines Agency (the “EMA”) is a scientific agency of the European Union. It coordinates the evaluation and monitoring of centrally authorized medicinal products. It is responsible for the scientific evaluation of applications for EU marketing authorizations, as well as the development of technical guidance and the provision of scientific advice to sponsors. The granting of EU marketing authorizations following a positive EMA opinion is carried out by the European Commission.The EMA decentralizes its scientific assessment of medicines by working through a network of about 4,500 experts throughout the European Union, nominated by the Member States. The EMA draws on resources of over 40 National Competent Authorities of European Union Member States.

The process regarding approval of medicinal products in the European Union follows roughly the same lines as in the United States and likewise generally involves satisfactorily completing each of the following:

•preclinical laboratory tests, animal studies and formulation studies all performed in accordance with the applicable EU GLP regulations;

•submission to the relevant national authorities of a clinical trial application (“CTA”) through the EU central single entry point: the Clinical Trials Information System (“CTIS”) for each trial in humans, which must be approved before the trial may begin in each country where patient enrollment is planned;

•performance of adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to establish the safety and efficacy of the product for each proposed indication;

•submission to the relevant competent authorities of an MAA, which includes the data supporting safety and efficacy as well as detailed information on the manufacture and composition of the product in clinical development and proposed labelling;

•satisfactory completion of an inspection by the relevant national authorities of the manufacturing facility or facilities, including those of third parties, at which the product is produced to assess compliance with strictly enforced EU GMP;

•potential audits of the non-clinical and clinical trial sites that generated the data in support of the MAA; and

•review and approval by the relevant competent authority of the MAA before any commercial marketing, sale or shipment of the product.

Preclinical Studies

Preclinical tests include laboratory evaluations of product chemistry, formulation and stability, as well as studies to evaluate toxicity in animal studies, in order to assess the quality and potential safety and efficacy of the product. The conduct of the preclinical tests and formulation of the compounds for testing must comply with the relevant international, EU and national legislation, regulations and guidelines. The results of the preclinical tests, together with relevant manufacturing information and analytical data, are submitted as part of the CTA.

Clinical Trials

Prior to January 31 2022, clinical trials in the European Union were governed by the Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC, as amended (the “Clinical Trials Directive”).

Directive 2001/20/EC has been replaced by Regulation (EU) No. 536/2014 (the “Clinical Trials Regulation” or “CTR”), which became applicable on January 31, 2022. From this date, a three-year transition period started, to ensure that ongoing clinical trials could align with the rules as laid down in the CTR. From January 31, 2025 onwards, all clinical trials in the EU/EEA must be conducted in accordance with the CTR. This means that the Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC (and any national legislation implementing the Directive) is now fully replaced by the CTR. The CTR is directly applicable in

26

Table of Contents

all the EU Member States. The CTR introduces an authorization procedure based on a single submission via a single EU portal (the CTIS). The applicant shall submit its application dossier to the intended Member States concerned through CTIS and shall propose one of the Member States concerned as the Reporting Member State (“RMS”). The RMS validates the application and reviews whether the application dossier is complete. After this, the RMS will draw up an assessment report (Part I of the approval process). For Part II of the approval process, all Concerned Member States (“CMS”) shall assess, for their own territory, the application dossier of the applicant. Each CMS shall notify the applicant through the EU CTIS portal as to whether the clinical trial is authorised, whether it is authorised subject to conditions, or whether authorisation is refused. This is part of the transparency requirements (the proactive publication of clinical trial data in the EU database) of the CTR. Since October 2016, based on its Policy 0070, the EMA has been publishing clinical data submitted by pharmaceutical companies to support their MAA for human medicines under this centralized procedure. Under the CTR, all clinical trial-related information generated during the life cycle of a clinical trial (e.g. protocol, assessment and decision on trial conduct, summary of trial results including a lay summary, study reports for those trials in the system subsequently included in a marketing authorisation submission in the EU, inspections, etc.) is published through the CTIS portal.

Manufacturing and import into the EU of investigational medicinal products is subject to the holding of appropriate authorizations and must be carried out in accordance with EU GMP.

Review and Approval

Authorization to market a product in the European Union Member Sates proceeds under one of four procedures: a centralized authorization procedure, a mutual recognition procedure, a decentralized procedure or a national procedure.

Certain medicinal products, including medicinal products developed by means of biotechnological processes, must be approved via the centralized authorization procedure for marketing authorization. This derives from Annex I of Regulation (EC) No. 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004. Since our products by their virtue of being antibody-based biologics fall under the centralized procedure, only this procedure will be described here.

A successful application under the centralized authorization procedure results in a marketing authorization from the European Commission, which is automatically valid in all European Union Member States. The other European Economic Area Member States (namely Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein) are also obligated to recognize the European Commission decision. The EMA and the European Commission administer the centralized authorization procedure.

Under the centralized authorization procedure, the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (the “CHMP”) – EMA’s committee responsible for human medicines – serves as the scientific committee that renders opinions about the safety, efficacy and quality of human products. The CHMP consists of one member appointed by each of the EU Member States, with one of them appointed to act as Rapporteur for the co-ordination of the evaluation with the assistance of a further member of the CHMP acting as a Co-Rapporteur. The CHMP is required to issue an opinion within 210 days of receipt of a valid application, though the clock is stopped if it is necessary to ask the applicant for clarification or further supporting data. The process is complex and involves extensive consultation with the regulatory authorities of Member States and a number of experts. Once the procedure is completed, a European Public Assessment Report is produced. If the CHMP concludes that the quality, safety and efficacy of the medicinal product is sufficiently proven, it adopts a positive opinion. The CHMP’s opinion is sent to the European Commission, which uses the opinion as the basis for its decision whether or not to grant a marketing authorization. If the opinion is negative, information is given as to the grounds on which this conclusion was reached.

After a medicinal product has been authorized and launched, it is a condition of maintaining the marketing authorization that all aspects relating to its quality, safety and efficacy must be kept under review. Sanctions may be imposed for failure to adhere to the conditions of the marketing authorization. In extreme cases, the authorization may be revoked, resulting in withdrawal of the product from sale.

Conditional Approval and Accelerated Assessment

As per Article 14-a of Regulation (EC) No. 726/2004, a medicine that would fulfill an unmet medical need may, if its immediate availability is in the interest of public health, be granted a conditional marketing authorization on the basis of less complete clinical data than are normally required, subject to specific obligations being imposed on the authorization

27

Table of Contents

holder. Such conditional marketing authorizations may be granted for product candidates if: (i) the risk-benefit balance of the product candidate is positive, (ii) it is likely that the applicant will be in a position to provide the required comprehensive clinical trial data, (iii) the product fulfills an unmet medical need and (iv) the benefit to public health of the immediate availability on the market of the medicinal product concerned outweighs the risk inherent in the fact that additional data are still required. In emergency situations, a marketing authorisation for such medicinal products may be granted also where comprehensive pre-clinical or pharmaceutical data have not been supplied. The aforementioned obligations are to be reviewed annually by the EMA. Such an authorization shall be valid for one year, on a renewable basis.

When an application is submitted for a marketing authorization in respect of a medicinal product for human use which is of major interest from the point of view of public health and in particular from the viewpoint of therapeutic innovation, the applicant may request an accelerated assessment procedure pursuant to Article 14(9) of Regulation (EC) No. 726/2004. Under the accelerated assessment procedure, the CHMP is required to issue an opinion within 150 days of receipt of a valid application, subject to clock stops. The request for the accelerated assessment procedure must be duly substantiated by the applicant. We believe that some of the disease indications in which our product candidates are currently being or may be developed in the future could qualify for this provision, and we will take advantage of this provision as appropriate.

Period of Authorization and Renewals

A full marketing authorization is initially valid for five years and may then be renewed on the basis of a re-evaluation of the risk-benefit balance by the EMA or by the competent authority of the authorizing Member State. To this end, the marketing authorization holder shall provide the EMA or the competent authority with a consolidated version of the file in respect of quality, safety and efficacy, including all variants introduced since the marketing authorization was granted, at least nine months before the expiry date of the marketing authorization. Once renewed, the marketing authorization shall be valid for an unlimited period, unless the European Commission or the competent authority decides, on justified grounds relating to pharmacovigilance, to proceed with one additional five-year renewal. Any authorization which is not followed by the actual placing of the medicinal product on the EU market (in case of centralized procedure) or on the market of the authorizing Member State within three years after authorization shall cease to be valid (the so-called “sunset clause”).

Without prejudice to the law on the protection of industrial and commercial property, marketing authorizations for new medicinal products benefit from an 8+2+1 year period of regulatory protection. This regime consists of a regulatory data protection period of eight years plus an additional market exclusivity period of 2 years. The overall ten-year period will be extended to a maximum of 11 years if, during the first eight years of those ten years, the marketing authorization holder obtains an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications which, during the scientific evaluation prior to their authorization, are held to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with existing therapies.

In April 2023, the European Commission published a proposal to reform the current pharmaceutical framework, including revision of the regulatory data protection system. The European Commission, European Parliament and Council have negotiated and reached an agreement on 11 December 2025. Under the agreed revision, the regulatory data protection will consist of 8 years of data exclusivity, same as under the current legal framework, and one additional year of market exclusivity. This means a total of 8+1 years of protection, instead of the current 8+2 years. Under the reformed legislation, there will be a possibility to obtain one additional year of exclusivity (8+1+1) under certain circumstances and another year (8+1+1 or 8+1+1+1) for a new indication of significant clinical benefit, with a capped overall regulatory protection of 11 years.

The final text of the reform proposal is expected to be endorsed and published in Q1 or Q2 of 2026 and, after a transition period, the new legislation is expected to start to apply from mid-2028.

Orphan Drug Designation and Exclusivity

Regulation (EC) No. 141/2000 and Commission Regulation (EC) No. 847/2000 provide that a medicinal product shall be designated as an orphan medicinal product by the European Commission, if its sponsor can establish (i) that the medicinal drug is intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition affecting not more than five in 10,000 persons in the European Union when the application is made, or that it is intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a life-threatening, seriously debilitating or serious and chronic condition in the

28

Table of Contents

European Union and that without incentives it is unlikely that the marketing of the medicinal product in the European Union would generate sufficient return to justify the necessary investment; and (ii) that there exists no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment of the condition in question that has been authorized in the European Union or, if such method exists, the medicinal product will be of significant benefit to those affected by that condition.

Commission Regulation (EC) No. 847/2000 lays down the provisions for implementation of the criteria for designation of a medicinal product as an orphan medicinal product. An application for designation as an orphan product can be made any time prior to the filing of an application for approval of the marketing authorization. Marketing authorization for a medicinal product designated as an orphan medicinal product leads to a 10-year period of market exclusivity, which means that no similar medicinal product can be authorized in the same indication. This period may, however, be reduced to six years if, at the end of the fifth year, it is established that the product no longer meets the criteria for orphan medicinal product designation, for example because the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify continued market exclusivity. In addition, derogation from market exclusivity may be granted on an individual basis in very select cases, such as consent from the marketing authorization holder, inability to supply sufficient quantities of the product or demonstration of “clinically relevant superiority” by a similar medicinal product. This means that a marketing authorization may be granted to a similar medicinal product with the same orphan indication if this product is shown to be safer, more effective or otherwise clinically superior to the original orphan medicinal product. Medicinal products designated as orphan medicinal products pursuant to Regulation (EC) No. 141/2000 are eligible for incentives made available by the European Union and by the Member States to support research into, and the development and availability of, orphan drugs.

If the MAA of a medicinal product designated as an orphan medicinal product pursuant to Regulation (EC) No. 141/2000 includes the results of all studies conducted in compliance with an agreed Pediatric Investigation Plan (“PIP”), and a corresponding statement is subsequently included in the marketing authorization granted, the 10-year period of market exclusivity will be extended to 12 years, based on Regulation (EC) No. 1901/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

European Data Collection and Processing

The collection, transfer, processing and other use of personal information, including health data, in the European Union is governed by the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”). This Regulation imposes strict obligations and restrictions on the processing of personal data, including health data from clinical trials and adverse event reporting, for instance relating to having a legal basis for processing personal data (which may result in obtaining, in some situations, the consent of the individuals to whom the personal data relates), providing detailed information to the individuals about how and why their personal information is processed and used, ensuring the accuracy, adequacy, relevancy, and necessity of the personal data collected and used, having appropriate technical and organisational security measures, and IT security and incident response policies and procedures in place, ensuring appropriate data retention policies and procedures are implemented, notifying regulatory authorities and affected individuals of personal data breaches, having contractual arrangements and transfer mechanisms in place where required (e.g. vendors and clinical trial sites), having internal privacy and data governance framework, conducting data protection impact assessments, and responding to privacy rights requests (for example, the right to access, correct and delete their data) and keeping records of data processing activities.

In addition, the GDPR restricts the transfer of personal data to countries outside the European Economic Area (“EEA”), such as the United States, which are not considered by the European Commission to provide an adequate level of data protection. Switzerland has adopted similar restrictions. The GDPR therefore requires us to conduct transfer impact assessments and implement appropriate transfer mechanisms and safeguards to lawfully transfer personal data from the EU to countries outside the EEA. Examples of appropriate transfer mechanisms are the Standard Contractual Clauses as approved by the European Commission in 2021 and the EU-US Data Privacy Framework of 10 July 2023, allowing transfers of European personal data to organisations that participate in the EU-US Data Privacy Framework. Other European countries, such as the United Kingdom and Switzerland, have local data protection laws that provide for similar requirements, which add to the complexity of processing and transferring personal data outside the European region.

Failure to comply with the requirements of the GDPR and the related national data protection laws of the European Union Member States may result in fines and other administrative penalties. The GDPR and related data protection laws may impose additional responsibility and liability in relation to personal data that we collect and process, and we may be required to put in place additional mechanisms ensuring compliance with such rules. This may be onerous and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects. For example, under the GDPR, companies may face warnings, compliance orders and fines of up to 20 million Euros or 4% of annual global revenue for the

29

Table of Contents

preceding financial year, whichever is greater; or private litigation related to processing of personal data brought by classes of data subjects or consumer protection organizations authorized at law to represent their interests.

Some countries outside the EU have reacted to the GDPR by promulgating and enacting new privacy legislation that reflects similar principles and obligations on companies that operate and process their citizens' personal data. Any failure or perceived failure to comply with privacy-related legal obligations, or any compromise of security or confidentiality of personal data, may result in governmental enforcement actions, litigation, contractual indemnity claims, or restraining orders that would impact our ability to process and share data globally.

These privacy and data protection laws and regulations increase our responsibility and liability in relation to personal data that we process, and compliance has been and is expected to continue to be difficult, constantly evolving, costly and time-consuming. We may be required to expend significant capital and other resources to ensure ongoing compliance with applicable privacy and data protection laws, to protect against security incidents, or to alleviate issues caused by such incidents. As we expand our presence into new countries, we must continue to assess our data governance and privacy controls to enable the lawful processing of personal data.

Artificial intelligence

As a result of the broad-scale release and availability of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies, such as generative AI, there is a global trend towards more regulation (e.g., the EU AI Act and AI laws passed in U.S. states) to ensure the ethical use, privacy, and security of AI and the data that it processes. Compliance with such laws will likely be an increasing and substantial cost in the future.

Marketing

Much like the Anti-Kickback Statute prohibition in the United States, the provision of benefits or advantages to physicians to induce or encourage the prescription, recommendation, endorsement, purchase, supply, order or use of medicinal products is also prohibited in the EU. The provision of benefits or advantages to physicians is governed by the national pharmaceutical and anti-bribery laws of European Union Member States, and in respect of the UK (which is no longer a member of the EU), the UK Bribery Act 2010. Infringement of these laws could result in substantial fines and imprisonment.

Payments made to physicians in certain European Union Member States must be publicly disclosed. Moreover, agreements with physicians often must be the subject of prior notification and approval by the physician’s employer, his or her competent professional organization, and/or the regulatory authorities of the individual European Union Member States. These requirements are provided in the national laws, industry codes or professional codes of conduct, applicable in the European Union Member States. Failure to comply with these requirements could result in reputational risk, public reprimands, administrative penalties, fines or imprisonment.

International Regulation

In addition to regulations in the United States and Europe, a variety of foreign regulations govern clinical trials, commercial sales and distribution of product candidates. The approval process varies from country to country, and the time to approval may be longer or shorter than that required for FDA or European Commission approval.

Other Healthcare Laws and Compliance Requirements

In the U.S., pharmaceutical and biotechnology company activities are potentially subject to regulation by various federal, state and local authorities in addition to the FDA, including but not limited to, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) other divisions of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) (e.g., the Office of Inspector General and the Office for Civil Rights), the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and individual U.S. Attorney offices within the DOJ, and state and local governments. For example, sales, marketing and scientific/educational grant programs, may have to comply with the anti-fraud and abuse provisions of the Social Security Act, the federal false claims laws, the privacy and security provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) and similar state laws, each as amended, as applicable.

30

Table of Contents

The federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits, among other things, any person or entity, from knowingly and willfully offering, paying, soliciting or receiving any remuneration, directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, in cash or in kind, to induce or in return for purchasing, leasing, ordering, recommending or arranging for the purchase, lease or order of any item or service reimbursable under Medicare, Medicaid or other federally funded healthcare programs. The term remuneration has been interpreted broadly to include anything of value. The Anti-Kickback Statute has been interpreted to apply to arrangements between pharmaceutical manufacturers on one hand and prescribers, purchasers, and/or formulary managers on the other. There are a number of statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting some common activities from prosecution. The exceptions and safe harbors are drawn narrowly and practices that involve remuneration that may be alleged to be intended to induce prescribing, purchasing or recommending may be subject to scrutiny if they do not qualify for an exception or safe harbor. Failure to meet all of the requirements of a particular applicable statutory exception or regulatory safe harbor does not make the conduct per se illegal under the Anti-Kickback Statute. Instead, the legality of the arrangement will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis based on a cumulative review of all of its facts and circumstances. Practices may not in all cases meet all of the criteria for protection under a statutory exception or regulatory safe harbor. In addition, the statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors are subject to change.

Additionally, the intent standard under the Anti-Kickback Statute was amended by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (collectively the “ACA”) to a stricter standard such that a person or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation. In addition, the ACA codified case law that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the federal False Claims Act (discussed below).

The civil monetary penalties statute imposes penalties against any person or entity who, among other things, is determined to have presented or caused to be presented a claim to a federal health program that the person knows or should know is for an item or service that was not provided as claimed or is false or fraudulent.

Federal civil and criminal false claims laws, including the federal civil False Claims Act, prohibit, among other things, any person or entity from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a false claim for payment to, or approval by, the federal government or knowingly making, using, or causing to be made or used a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim to the federal government. As a result of a modification made by the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009, a claim includes “any request or demand” for money or property presented to the U.S. government. In addition, manufacturers can be held liable under the civil False Claims Act even when they do not submit claims directly to government payors if they are deemed to “cause” the submission of false or fraudulent claims. Pharmaceutical and other healthcare companies have been prosecuted under these laws for, among other things, allegedly providing free product to customers with the expectation that the customers would bill federal programs for the product. Other companies have been prosecuted for causing false claims to be submitted because of the companies' marketing of the product for unapproved, and thus generally non-reimbursable, uses and purportedly concealing price concessions in the pricing information submitted to the government for government price reporting purposes.

HIPAA created additional federal criminal statutes that prohibit knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud or to obtain, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations or promises, any money or property owned by, or under the control or custody of, any healthcare benefit program, including private third-party payors and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up by trick, scheme or device, a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services. Similar to the Anti-Kickback Statute, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation.

Also, many states have similar fraud and abuse statutes or regulations that apply to items and services reimbursed under Medicaid and other state programs, or, in several states, apply regardless of the payor.

Data privacy and security regulations by both the federal government and the states in which business is conducted may also be applicable. HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act

31

Table of Contents

(“HITECH”), and its implementing regulations, imposes requirements relating to the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information. HIPAA requires covered entities to limit the use and disclosure of protected health information to specifically authorized situations, and requires covered entities to implement security measures to protect health information that they maintain in electronic form. Among other things, HITECH made HIPAA's security standards directly applicable to business associates, independent contractors or agents of covered entities that receive or obtain protected health information in connection with providing a service on behalf of a covered entity. HITECH also created four new tiers of civil monetary penalties, amended HIPAA to make civil and criminal penalties directly applicable to business associates, and gave state attorneys general new authority to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce the federal HIPAA laws and seek attorneys’ fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions. In addition, state laws govern the privacy and security of health information in specified circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and may not have the same effect, thus complicating compliance efforts.

Additionally, the federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act within the ACA, and its implementing regulations, require that certain manufacturers of covered drugs, devices, biologics and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid or the Children's Health Insurance Program (with certain exceptions) report annually to the CMS information related to certain payments or other transfers of value made or distributed to physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors), physician assistants, certain advance practices nurses and teaching hospitals and to report annually certain ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members. The reported data is made available in searchable form on a public website on an annual basis. Failure to submit required information may result in civil monetary penalties.

Commercial distribution of products requires compliance with state laws that require the registration of manufacturers and wholesale distributors of drugs in a state, including, in certain states, manufacturers and distributors who ship products into the state even if such manufacturers or distributors have no place of business within the state. Some states also impose requirements on manufacturers and distributors to establish the pedigree of product in the chain of distribution, including some states that require manufacturers and others to adopt new technology capable of tracking and tracing product as it moves through the distribution chain. In addition, several states have enacted legislation requiring pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies to establish marketing compliance programs, file periodic reports with the state, make periodic public disclosures on sales, marketing, pricing, clinical trials and other activities, and/or register their sales representatives, as well as to prohibit pharmacies and other healthcare entities from providing certain physician prescribing data to pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies for use in sales and marketing, and to prohibit certain other sales and marketing practices. Certain local jurisdictions also require drug manufacturers to report information related to payments and other transfers of value to physicians and other healthcare providers or marketing expenditures. Sales and marketing activities are also potentially subject to federal and state consumer protection and unfair competition laws.

Violation of any of the federal and state healthcare laws described above or any other governmental regulations may result in penalties, including without limitation, significant civil, criminal and/or administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, exclusion from participation in government programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, imprisonment, injunctions, private “qui tam” actions brought by individual whistleblowers in the name of the government, refusal to enter into government contracts, oversight monitoring, contractual damages, reputational harm, administrative burdens, diminished profits and future earnings.

For more information regarding the risks related to healthcare laws and regulations that affect our business, see “Item 1A. Risk Factors—Risks Related to Regulatory Approval and Government Regulation.”

Environmental, Health and Safety Laws and Regulations

We and our third-party contractors are subject to numerous environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, including those governing laboratory procedures and the use, generation, manufacture, distribution, storage, handling, treatment, remediation and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes. Hazardous chemicals, including flammable and biological materials, are involved in certain aspects of our business, and we cannot eliminate the risk of injury or contamination from the use, generation, manufacture, distribution, storage, handling, treatment or disposal of hazardous materials and wastes. In particular, our product candidates use PBDs, which are highly potent cytotoxins that require special handling by our and our contractors’ staff. In the event of contamination or injury, or failure to comply with

32

Table of Contents

environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, we could be held liable for any resulting damages, fines and penalties associated with such liability, which could exceed our assets and resources. Environmental, health and safety laws and regulations are becoming increasingly more stringent. We may incur substantial costs in order to comply with current or future environmental, health and safety laws and regulations.

In the aforementioned proposal to reform the current European pharmaceutical legislative framework, stricter rules regarding the ‘Environmental Risk Assessment’ that pharmaceutical manufacturers are obliged to perform are included. In earlier versions of the proposal for the new legislation, noncompliance with the (extensive) Environmental Risk Assessment requirements can result in the withdrawal or refusal of a marketing authorization.

Government Pricing and Reimbursement Programs for Marketed Drugs in the United States

Medicaid, the 340B Drug Pricing Program, and Medicare

Federal law requires that a pharmaceutical manufacturer, as a condition of having its products receive federal reimbursement under Medicaid and Medicare Part B, must pay quarterly rebates to state Medicaid programs for all units of its covered outpatient drugs dispensed to Medicaid beneficiaries and paid for by a state Medicaid program under either a fee-for-service arrangement or through a managed care organization. This federal requirement is effectuated through a Medicaid drug rebate agreement between the manufacturer and the Secretary of U.S. HHS. CMS administers the Medicaid drug rebate agreements with manufacturers which provide, among other things, that the drug manufacturer will pay rebates to each state Medicaid agency on a quarterly basis and report certain price information on a monthly and quarterly basis. The rebates are based on the average manufacturer price (“AMP”) reported to CMS by manufacturers for their covered outpatient drugs and how those drugs are classified. For non-innovator products, generally generic drugs marketed under abbreviated new drug applications (“ANDAs”), the rebate amount is 13% of the AMP for the quarter. The AMP is the weighted average of prices paid to the manufacturer as defined by the applicable regulations. For innovator products (i.e., drugs that are marketed under NDAs or BLAs), the rebate amount is the greater of 23.1% of the AMP for the quarter or the difference between such AMP and the best price for that same quarter. The best price is essentially the lowest price available to non-governmental entities after accounting for discounts and rebates. Innovator products may also be subject to an additional rebate that is based on the amount, if any, by which the product’s AMP for a given quarter exceeds the inflation-adjusted baseline AMP, which for most drugs is the AMP for the first full quarter after launch. Since 2017, non-innovator products are also subject to an additional rebate for price increases that exceed inflation. Prior to January 1, 2024, the rebate amount for a drug was capped at 100% of the AMP; however, effective January 1, 2024, this cap was eliminated, which means that a manufacturer could pay a total rebate amount on a unit of the drug that is greater than the average price the manufacturer receives for the drug.

The terms of participation in the Medicaid drug rebate program impose an obligation to correct the prices reported in previous quarters, as may be necessary. Any such corrections could result in additional or lesser rebate liability, depending on the direction of the correction. A manufacturer may correct prices reported more than three years prior only in certain circumstances specified in regulations. In September 2024, CMS published a final rule that expanded its authority under one such circumstance, namely when a correction request addresses a manufacturer’s internal investigation. Under the final rule, CMS considers all change requests pursuant to an internal investigation to be possible violations of law and requires manufacturers to provide its investigation findings. Finally, the rule establishes a three-year limit for manufacturers to dispute, audit, or request a hearing on state utilization data.

If a manufacturer were found to have knowingly submitted false information to the government, or knowingly misclassified a drug, federal law provides for the collection of any outstanding rebates, as well as for civil monetary penalties for failing to provide required information, late submission of required information, and false information. The 2024 final rule expanded the definition of a “misclassification” to include any drug product information that is not supported by the statute or application regulations and allows CMS to suspend a Medicaid rebate agreement for a manufacturer’s failure to correct a misclassification, or a failure to submit the required pricing reports, within 90 calendar days receiving notice.

A manufacturer must also participate in a federal program known as the 340B drug pricing program for federal funds to be available to pay for the manufacturer’s drugs and biological products under Medicaid and Medicare Part B. Under this

33

Table of Contents

program, the participating manufacturer agrees to charge certain safety net healthcare providers no more than an established discounted price for its covered outpatient drugs. The formula for determining the discounted price is defined by statute and is based on the AMP and the unit rebate amount as calculated under the Medicaid drug rebate program, discussed above. Manufacturers are required to report pricing information to the Health Resources and Services Administration (“HRSA”) on a quarterly basis. HRSA has also issued regulations relating to the calculation of the ceiling price as well as imposition of civil monetary penalties for each instance of knowingly and intentionally overcharging a 340B covered entity. In November 2023, a federal district court decision broadened the types of patients that can purchase 340B discounted drugs from covered entities, which, if affirmed on appeal, will further grow this program. In addition, there is ongoing litigation that may restrict the number of third-party contract pharmacies that can dispense drugs that manufacturers sell to 340B covered entities and who qualify as patients of these 340B covered entities. The outcome of this litigation may change the scope of the 340B program in coming years.

Federal law also requires that manufacturers report data on a quarterly basis to CMS regarding the pricing of drugs that are separately reimbursable under Medicare Part B. These are generally drugs, such as injectable products, that are administered “incident to” a physician service and are not generally self-administered. The average selling price (“ASP”) reported by CMS manufacturers is the basis for reimbursement to providers for drugs covered under Medicare Part B. Under the Inflation Reduction Act (“IRA”), as of January 1, 2023, manufacturers are also required to provide quarterly rebates for certain single-source drugs and biologics (including biosimilars) covered under Medicare Part B with ASPs that increase faster than the rate of inflation. This requirement started on January 1, 2023, for drugs approved on or before December 1, 2020, and begins six quarters after a drug is first marketed for all other drugs. In November 2024, CMS finalized regulations for the Medicare Part B inflation rebates. As with the Medicaid drug rebate program, Federal law provides for civil monetary penalties for failing to provide required information, late submission of required information, and false information.

Manufacturers of certain single-source drugs (including biologics and biosimilars) separately paid for under Medicare Part B for at least 18 months and marketed in single-dose containers or packages (known as refundable single-dose container or single-use package drugs) are required to provide annual refunds for any portions of the dispensed drug that are unused and discarded if those unused or discarded portions exceed an applicable percentage defined by statute or regulation. Manufacturers will be subject to periodic audits and those that fail to pay refunds for their refundable single-dose container or single-use package drugs shall be subject to civil monetary penalties.

Medicare Part D provides prescription drug benefits for seniors and people with disabilities. Federal law requires that manufacturers with covered drugs under Medicare Part D pay a portion of the enrollee’s copay via a rebate to CMS. Beginning in 2025, the IRA eliminated the coverage gap under Medicare Part D by significantly lowering the enrollee maximum out-of-pocket cost and requiring manufacturers to enter into a new manufacturer discount program agreement and pay 10% of Part D enrollees’ prescription costs for brand drugs above a deductible and below the out-of-pocket maximum, and 20% once the out-of-pocket maximum has been reached. Although these discounts represent a lower percentage of enrollees’ costs than the current discounts required below the out-of-pocket maximum (that is, in the coverage gap phase of Part D coverage), the new manufacturer contribution required above the out-of-pocket maximum could be considerable for very high-cost patients and the total contributions by manufacturers to a Part D enrollee’s drug expenses may exceed those currently provided. Pursuant to the IRA, manufacturers are also required to provide annual Medicare Part D rebates for single-source drugs and biological products with prices that increase faster than the rate of inflation. As with the inflation rebates for Medicare Part B drugs, in November 2024, CMS finalized regulations for the Medicare Part B inflation rebates.

The IRA also allows HHS to directly negotiate the selling price of a statutorily specified number of drugs and biologics each year that CMS reimburses under Medicare Part B and Part D. Only high-expenditure single-source biologics that have been approved for at least 11 years (7 years for single-source drugs) can qualify for negotiation, with the negotiated price taking effect two years after the selection year. CMS selected 10 Medicare Part D products for negotiation in 2023, negotiations began in 2024, and the negotiated maximum fair price for each product has been announced. The price cap for each of these products, which cannot exceed a statutory ceiling price, will take effect in 2026. CMS has selected 15 additional Medicare Part D drugs for negotiated maximum fair pricing in 2027. For 2028, an additional 15 drugs, which may be covered under either Medicare Part B or Part D, will be selected, and for 2029 and subsequent years, 20 Part B or Part D drugs will be selected. Currently, a drug or biological product that has an orphan drug designation for only one rare

34

Table of Contents

disease or condition is excluded from the IRA’s price negotiation requirements, as long as the drug is approved only for an indication within that disease or condition. However, as a result of a statutory amendment enacted in July 2025, beginning with the 2028 negotiated price applicability year, a drug may be designated for more than one rare disease or condition and still be excluded from price negotiation, as long as the only approved indications are for such rare diseases or conditions.

U.S. Federal Contracting and Pricing Requirements

Manufacturers are also required to make their covered drugs, which are generally drugs approved under NDAs or BLAs, available to authorized users of the Federal Supply Schedule (“FSS”) of the General Services Administration. The law also requires manufacturers to offer deeply discounted FSS contract pricing for purchases of their covered drugs by the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Defense, the Coast Guard, and the Public Health Service (including the Indian Health Service) in order for federal funding to be available for reimbursement or purchase of the manufacturer’s drugs under certain federal programs. FSS pricing to those four federal agencies for covered drugs must be no more than the Federal Ceiling Price (“FCP”), which is at least 24% below the Non-Federal Average Manufacturer Price (“Non-FAMP”) for the prior year. The Non-FAMP is the average price for covered drugs sold to wholesalers or other middlemen, net of any price reductions.

The accuracy of a manufacturer’s reported Non-FAMPs, FCPs, or FSS contract prices may be audited by the government. Among the remedies available to the government for inaccuracies is recoupment of any overcharges to the four specified federal agencies based on those inaccuracies. If a manufacturer were found to have knowingly reported false prices, in addition to other penalties available to the government, the law provides for significant civil monetary penalties per incorrect item. Finally, manufacturers are required to disclose in FSS contract proposals all commercial pricing that is equal to or less than the proposed FSS pricing, and subsequent to award of an FSS contract, manufacturers are required to monitor certain commercial price reductions and extend commensurate price reductions to the government, under the terms of the FSS contract Price Reductions Clause. Among the remedies available to the government for any failure to properly disclose commercial pricing and/or to extend FSS contract price reductions is recoupment of any FSS overcharges that may result from such omissions.

Human Capital Resources

As of December 31, 2025, we had 188 full-time employees and five part-time employees. We are not party to any collective bargaining arrangements. We seek to provide pay, benefits and services that are competitive to market practice and create incentives to attract and retain employees. To help support the development and advancement of our high performing employees, we offer training and development programs encouraging advancement from within and continue to fill our team with strong and experienced management talent.

Our compensation philosophy is to pay for performance, and designed to support the Company’s business strategies, and offer competitive compensation arrangements to attract and retain key individuals. Our Board of directors have established a Compensation Committee to oversee and monitor our compensation practices. Consistent with this philosophy, the Compensation Committee considers the impact of our corporate performance in determining compensation for named executive officers, as well as each named executive officer’s individual performance, macroeconomic conditions, and data from peer group companies.

Availability of Information

We are subject to the informational requirements of the Exchange Act. Accordingly, we are required to file reports and other information with the SEC, including annual, quarterly and current reports and proxy and information statements. The SEC maintains an internet site at sec.gov that contains reports, proxy and information statements and other information we have filed electronically with the SEC.

Our website address is adctherapeutics.com. We make available free of charge on our website our Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Sections 13(a) and 15(d) of the Exchange Act, as soon as reasonably practicable after we file or furnish such materials with the SEC. Information on, or accessible through, our website is not part of this Annual Report or incorporated by reference in any of our filings with the SEC, except where we expressly incorporate such information.