Forward-looking statements are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expected. These risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to, those risks discussed in Item 1A of this report. These forward-looking statements made by us in this report speak only as of the date of this report. Except as required under the federal securities laws and rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”), we expressly disclaim any obligation or undertaking to release publicly any updates or revisions to any forward-looking statements contained herein to reflect any change in our expectations with regard thereto or any change in events, conditions or circumstances on which any such statement is based. You should, however, review additional disclosures we make in our definitive proxy statement for the 2022 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, Quarterly Reports on Form and Current Reports on Form filed with the SEC.

The Legacy Holders are entitled to receive Earnout Shares after the closing of the Business Combination if the daily volume-weighted average price of our common stock equals or exceeds the following prices for any 20 trading days within or the Trading Period, following the closing of the Business Combination: (1) during any Trading Period prior of the closing of the Business Combination, upon achievement of a daily volume-weighted average price of at least $20.00 per share, such number of shares of our common stock as equals the quotient of $20.0 million divided by the Closing Price Per Share (as defined in the Merger Agreement); (2) during any Trading Period prior to the six year anniversary of the closing, upon achievement of a daily volume-weighted average price of at least $35.00 per share, such number of shares of our common stock as equals the quotient of $20.0 million divided by the Closing Price Per Share; and (3) during any Trading Period prior to the eight year anniversary of the closing, upon achievement of a daily volume-weighted average price of at least $45.00 per share, such number of shares of our common stock as equals the quotient of $20.0 million divided by the Closing Price Per Share. A total of 90.6% (rounded to the nearest whole share) of the Earnout Shares then earned and issuable shall be issued to the Legacy Holders on the percentage of the number of shares of Legacy Vincera Pharma Common Stock owned by them immediately prior to the closing of the Business Combination, and the remaining Earnout Shares that would otherwise have been issuable shall not be issuable to the Legacy Holders but in lieu thereof the number of authorized shares available for issuance under the Vincerx Pharma, Inc. 2020 Stock Incentive Plan shall be automatically increased by an equivalent number of shares of our common stock.

We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on leveraging our extensive development and oncology expertise to advance new therapies intended to address unmet medical needs for the treatment of cancer. Our current pipeline is entirely derived from the Bayer License Agreement, pursuant to which we have been granted an exclusive, royalty-bearing, worldwide license under certain Bayer patents and to develop, use, manufacture, commercialize, sublicense and distribute a clinical-stage and small molecule drug program and a preclinical stage bioconjugation platform, which includes next-generation antibody-drug conjugates and innovative small molecule drug conjugates. We intend to use these product candidates to treat various cancers in a patient-specific, targeted approach. We believe that these product candidates are differentiated from current programs targeting similar cancer biology, and, if approved, may improve clinical outcomes of patients with cancer. Certain of the references in this report to preclinical and

clinical studies regarding the Bayer assets refer to preclinical and clinical studies conducted by Bayer or other third parties before we these assets.

Despite several decades of advances in targeted therapies, cancer continues to be the second leading cause of death in the United States population per the National Center for Health Statistics. Cancer is not a single disease but rather a constellation of maladies with each requiring a unique approach to vanquish it. Our vision is to address the unmet medical needs of patients with cancer with a diverse pipeline of targeted medicines. The small molecule drug program includes VIP152 (formerly known as BAY 1251152), which is a highly selective, clinical-stage PTEFb/CDK9 inhibitor. VIP152 may deliver value-generating data in the 2022. Our ADC platform includes VIP943 (formerly known as and VIP924 (formerly known as which are next-generation ADC compounds addressing known and novel oncology targets that we believe could deliver a greater safety and efficacy profile than current ADC compounds. The bioconjugation program also includes VIP236, which is an SMDC for solid tumors. In addition to our lead products, we acquired the rights to additional product candidates that are still in the preclinical stage (e.g., VIP217, a PTEFb/CDK9 inhibitor).

PTEFb is an intracellular protein composed of two subunits, CDK9 and CDK9 is a transcriptional kinase that plays a central role in one of the processes that cancer cells use to survive and thrive: increased expression of cancer-promoting genes. Therapeutics directed at targeting CDK9 and the PTEFb complex have often been hindered by inhibition of alternative targets in the CDK family. These targets diminish the therapeutic window of this drug class. Our lead product candidate, VIP152, is a potent and highly selective CDK9 inhibitor optimized for intermittent intravenous treatment, which (by decreasing activity of this kinase) disrupts PTEFb function. VIP152 has shown target modulation and preliminary signs of clinical activity in Phase 1, notably in patient populations with high unmet medical needs, which could lead to breakthrough therapy designation and accelerated approval for marketing in multiple indications in the United States.

Our SMDC platform targets advanced solid tumors with an optimized camptothecin, a potent cytotoxin (i.e., warhead, payload or toxophore). The warhead is designed to be released in the tumor stroma. Our most advanced SMDC (VIP236) has shown preclinical across various in vivo human tumor models in mice.

Our goal is to develop multiple products through clinical and potentially through accelerated approval in the United States. Our near-term objectives are to:

and CDK9 control transcriptional initiation and elongation, respectively, suggesting that inhibition of these regulators of transcriptional activity may be very effective in controlling cancer. CDK9 also has recently been shown to phosphorylate BRG1 and inhibition of this kinase may have a role in tumor suppressor genes silenced by epigenetic mechanisms in cancer.

The first-generation CDK inhibitors developed were relatively nonspecific and are often referred to as inhibitors (e.g., flavopiridol and seliciclib) and also had targets. Although these inhibitors showed great promise in preclinical models, they have proven to have a narrow range of doses that produces therapeutic response without causing significant adverse effects (i.e., narrow therapeutic index) in patients in clinical trials. After the generally disappointing results seen in clinical trials with CDK inhibitors, the importance of selectivity of compounds for specific CDKs; absence of alternative targets; and patient selection is now widely accepted. For example, three different CDK4/6 inhibitors (abemaciclib, palbociclib and ribociclib) are now approved for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer. To date, no drugs specifically targeting CDK9 have been approved. However, there are several drugs in clinical trials targeting CDK9 such as dinaciclib, AZD5473, CYC065, alvocidib (formerly flavopiridol) and voruciclib. With regard to stage of clinical development, dinaciclib was evaluated in a Phase 3 trial of patients with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia and demonstrated clinical activity, but did not complete registration studies due to program prioritization decisions by Merck & Co, Inc. Alvocidib inhibitor) has been evaluated in Phase 2 trials in AML and has shown signs of clinical activity. VIP152 was designed to be a highly selective CDK9 inhibitor compared with other agents currently in clinical trials. We believe a highly selective CDK9 inhibitor will have a better therapeutic index than less selective inhibitors.

To date MCL1 and MYC proteins have not been successfully targeted directly. Both oncogenes have been found to be drivers of several malignancies across solid tumors (e.g., triple negative breast cancer and ovarian cancer) and blood cancers (e.g., DLBCL). Blocking the transcription of MCL1 and MYC is an indirect way of blocking the activity of MCL1 and MYC by essentially shutting down the production of the proteins at inception.

Our lead small molecule drug candidate, VIP152, is designed as a highly selective CDK9 inhibitor, as shown below, designed to be administered intravenously. VIP152 binds to and blocks the phosphorylation activity of CDK9, thereby preventing PTEFb-mediated activation of RNA polymerase II and leading to the inhibition of transcription of various oncogenes. We believe this will cause cell death, which may lead to a reduction in tumor cell proliferation. VIP152 is in Phase 1 trials in patients with advanced cancer. In addition to the intravenous VIP152 molecule, we licensed from Bayer a oral molecule (VIP217), which is in the discovery stage.

The pharmacodynamic activity of VIP152 was assessed as a single-drug therapy (i.e., monotherapy) in mice implanted with human multiple myeloma tumors. In this study, a single dose of VIP152 was administered intravenously. After administration, a rapid reduction of MCL1 and MYC mRNA levels and a durable reduction of MYC protein levels were observed, which ultimately induced tumor cell death as marked by increases in processed and down-stream target cleaved PARP (i.e., markers of cell death by apoptosis).

Inhibition of CDK9 results in inhibition of RNA Polymerase II phosphorylation at the Ser2 residue (phospho-Ser2). The figure shows VIP152 inhibits phosphor-Ser2 for 24 to 48 hours compared with <24 hours of inhibition for two other CDK9 inhibitors, atuveciclib and

In these cell lines, VIP152 at 1 µM also delivered sustained MYC and MCL1 protein depletion for 48 hours which translated into higher cell kill than observed with the same concentrations of atuveciclib or

advanced hematologic malignancies. Such study was completed early with only 21 patients with relapsed/refractory AML treated (dose levels 5 to 30 mg; cycles; infusions) due to inadequate monotherapy activity in an unselected AML patient population. A similar safety profile was observed across each of the four dose levels, with no dose-limiting toxicities reported—the most common adverse events included gastrointestinal side effects and cytopenia. No patients with other hematologic malignancies were included (e.g., CLL or MDS). Future studies for the treatment of leukemia will focus on select patient populations and mechanistic-directed combination strategies relevant for accelerated approval.

VIP152 is also being evaluated in an ongoing open-label Phase 1 dose-escalation study, which we refer to as designed to evaluate VIP152 as a monotherapy in patients with advanced cancer (i.e., solid tumors), including lymphoma, after failure of prior standard therapies to determine the safety, preliminary anti-tumor activity, tolerability, pharmacokinetics and MTD. As the trial is ongoing, none of the results summarized below are considered statistically significant.

Initial results from Study suggest that single agent VIP152 has a manageable safety profile, apparent dose-proportional pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamic activity. VIP152 has demonstrated tolerable side effects and a rapid reduction in MCL1 and MYC mRNA in peripheral blood cells. The initial signs of clinical benefit include:

Study enrolled 31 patients in the dose escalation portion of the study, then an expansion cohort for DLBCL was opened (n=6). We have taken over the IND for VIP152 and have amended the Study protocol to add new cohorts, and are enrolling patients.

DLBCL is a rare, aggressive (fast-growing) type of lymphoma caused by changes in the DNA that affect the MYC gene and either the BCL2 or BCL6 gene. DLBCL is hard to treat and has a poor prognosis with a median progression-free survival of 11 months and median overall survival from diagnosis of 22 months. No standard treatments are currently approved for DLBCL, representing a population with an unmet medical need. Expansions in other tumor types driven by MYC and/or MCL1 are in planning.

The pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic effects of VIP152 were evaluated in Study After a IV infusion of VIP152, maximum concentrations were typically observed near the end of

infusion. VIP152 exposures were approximately dose proportional, though an overlap in concentrations occurred between the and doses, likely due to patient variability (Panel A below). At 30 mg, which was declared as the MTD, day 1 AUC was 2780 µg·h/L, which is in the lower range of the predicted minimum therapeutic exposure based on xenograft studies in rats (Panel C). VIP152 pharmacokinetics was comparable after single dose (C1D1) and multiple doses (C1D15), with no evidence of significant accumulation or alteration in general pharmacokinetic properties (Panel B).

For all doses, down regulation of MYC (Panel D), and PCNA mRNA levels compared with baseline were detected in peripheral blood cells. Down regulation was dose- and time-dependent with maximal pathway inhibition achieved at the two highest dose levels (22.5 and 30 mg).

Of 30 patients with solid tumors treated in the dose escalation, disease control (stable disease) was observed in 7 patients (23%), 5 of whom received either 22.5 or 30 mg. Change in aggregate tumor size for evaluable patients is shown in below. Durable disease control was observed in individual patients with pancreatic cancer and salivary gland cancer (9.5 and 16.8 months of treatment, respectively). Of 7 patients with DLBCL treated with VIP152 30 mg once weekly, 2 patients had complete metabolic remissions (CMR); both achieved CMR after 10 cycles. When treatment ended due to the COVID pandemic (i.e., patients had been in long remission and did not want to risk COVID infection at the hospital), both were still in CMR. One had been receiving treatment for 3.7 years and the other for 2.3 years.

We have obtained from Bayer an exclusive license for a proprietary and innovative bioconjugation platform that we believe will leverage years of Bayer discovery into innovative treatment modalities. The licensed platform includes a next generation ADC platform comprised of two preclinical-stage assets for hematology-oncology (IL3RA (also known as CD123) ADC and CXCR5 ADC) and an SMDC for solid tumors.

To improve the tumor selectivity of cytotoxic agents, our small molecule drug conjugates (SMDCs) use two methods of targeted delivery: binding to αvß3 and drug release mediated by enzymatic cleavage. VIP236, our lead candidate, consists of an αvß3 integrin binder and a linker that is cleavable by neutrophil elastase. The payload is an optimized camptothecin derivative designed for extracellular release. The payload displays high cellular permeability, and in contrast to SN38, the active metabolite of irinotecan, it is not a substrate of efflux transporters. The conjugate is highly efficacious effecting tumor regressions in SW480 (colon cancer), MX1 (breast cancer) and (lung cancer) xenograft models with T/C ratios of 0.1, 0.03 and 0.06 (p<0.05 each, compared to vehicle control), respectively, and it shows very good tolerability. Initial pharmacokinetic studies in tumor bearing mice demonstrate a more than improved tumor/plasma ratio of free toxophore when administered as a conjugate as compared with direct administration of unconjugated toxophore (see figure below).

Despite the promise of ADCs, the challenge of optimizing the balance between efficacy and tolerability (i.e., therapeutic index or therapeutic window) has limited their broad potential as treatments for cancer. Our proprietary and innovative bioconjugation platform was engineered to specifically address toxicity issues plaguing current ADCs. The payload classes currently used are confined to microtubule binders (e.g., auristatin, dolastatin, maytansinoid and tubulysine), DNA interacting agents (e.g., calicheamicin, duocarmycin, PBD and IGN) and topoisomerase inhibitors (e.g., SN38, camptothecin derivatives). Many of these permeable payloads and/or highly potent payloads have safety issues, particularly with respect to premature release, and therefore result in an insufficient therapeutic index.

VIP943 and VIP924 have shown preclinical in vivo in human leukemia and lymphoma tumor models in mice as shown below:

IL3RA is the α-subunit of the receptor. is a protein, mainly produced by activated T cells, which regulates the function and production of immune cells by binding to the receptor. IL3RA is expressed at high levels in AML, classical Hodgkin lymphoma, blastic plasmacytoid dendritic cell neoplasms and myelodysplastic syndromes. Importantly, IL3RA overexpression on AML blasts has been associated with an increased number of leukemic blast cells at diagnosis and with a negative prognosis.

Several studies have indicated that and its receptor play important roles in the progression of AML, and indeed, experiments with a monoclonal antibody that blocks the binding of to IL3RA have shown increased survival in AML mouse models. Characterization of hematologic malignancies has demonstrated increased IL3RA expression in AML blasts as compared with normal cells. Furthermore, these IL3RA-overexpressing cells have been shown to be able to initiate and maintain the leukemic process in immuno-deficient mice and thus act as leukemic stem cells. Consequently, IL3RA has been shown to be a useful biomarker for the detection of minimal residual disease, thereby predicting relapse in patients with AML. Taken together, these results suggest that IL3RA is a viable target for an ADC approach for the treatment of AML and other IL3RA-positive hematologic malignancies (e.g., MDS, chronic myelogenous leukemia, and blastic plasmacytoid dendritic cell neoplasm).

These preclinical findings underscore the differentiation of the platform compared with currently approved ADCs for hematologic malignancies, as the observed clinical toxicities were predicted in the preclinical models as outlined below:

Many global pharmaceutical companies, as well as medium and small biotechnology companies, are pursuing new cancer treatments whether small molecules, biologics, ADCs, and cell or gene therapies. Any of these treatments could prove to be superior clinically to our products or product candidates and render them obsolete or

Our PTEFb inhibitors work by targeting the CDK9 of the PTEFb heteroduplex made up of CDK9 and To our knowledge, there are at least six other CDK9 programs in development demonstrating clinical efficacy and several are more advanced than our programs. The companies with clinical-stage programs include Merck & Co., Inc., Astra-Zeneca PLC, Cyclacel Pharmaceuticals Inc., Kronos Bio, Inc., Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma Co., Ltd., Tolero Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and MEI Pharma, Inc. These companies and their current or future partners may develop CDK9 inhibitor programs with attributes to compete in the same indications as our current and future PTEFb product candidates.

We expect to compete on efficacy, safety and tolerability, and if our products are not demonstrably superior in these respects compared with other approved therapies, we may not be able to compete effectively, rendering our technologies, or our drug candidates, obsolete or

It is possible that the development of a cure or more effective treatment options for any of our indications by a competitor could render our product candidates or obsolete, or materially reduce the demand for our product candidates before recovering our development and commercialization expenses. Our competitors may also obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their product candidates faster than us, potentially resulting in a stronger market position for their products before we can get to market.

Prior to beginning the first clinical trial with a product candidate in the United States, we must submit an IND to the FDA. An IND is effectively a request for authorization from the FDA to administer an investigational new drug product to humans. The central focus of an IND submission is on the general investigational plan and the protocol(s) for clinical studies. The IND also includes results of animal and in vitro studies assessing the toxicology, pharmacokinetics, pharmacology and pharmacodynamic characteristics of the product candidate; chemistry, manufacturing and controls information; and any available human data or literature to support the use of the investigational product. An IND must become effective before human clinical trials may begin. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA, within the time period, raises safety concerns or questions about the proposed clinical trial. In such a case, the IND may be placed on clinical hold until the IND sponsor and the FDA resolve the outstanding concerns or questions. Submission of an IND therefore may or may not result in FDA authorization to begin a clinical trial. At any point, if the FDA has questions or concerns regarding an ongoing clinical trial, they may impose a clinical hold, for example, until such time as adjustments can be made to trial conduct which resolve the concerns.

Assuming successful completion of all required testing in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements, the results of product development, nonclinical studies and clinical trials are submitted to the FDA as part of an NDA/BLA requesting approval to market the product for one or more indications. The NDA/BLA must include all relevant data available from pertinent preclinical and clinical studies, including negative or ambiguous results as well as positive findings, together with detailed information relating to the product’s chemistry, manufacturing, controls, and proposed labeling, among other things. The submission of an NDA/BLA requires payment of a substantial application user fee to FDA, unless a waiver or exemption applies. Additionally, no user fees are assessed on NDAs for products designated as orphan drugs, unless the product also includes a indication.

Once an NDA/BLA has been submitted, the FDA’s goal is to review standard applications within ten months after it accepts the application for filing (a process), or, if the application qualifies for priority review, six months after the FDA accepts the application for filing. In both standard and priority reviews, the review process can be significantly extended by FDA requests for additional information or clarification. The FDA reviews an NDA/BLA to determine, among other things, whether a product is safe, pure and potent and the

If regulatory approval of a product is granted, such approval will be granted for particular indications and may entail limitations on the indicated uses for which such product may be marketed. For example, the FDA may approve the NDA/BLA with a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy to ensure the benefits of the product outweigh its risks. A Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy is a safety strategy to manage a known or potential serious risk associated with a product and to enable patients to have continued access to such medicines by managing their safe use, and could include medication guides, physician communication plans or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. The FDA also may condition approval on, among other things, changes to proposed labeling or the development of adequate controls and specifications. Once approved, the FDA may withdraw the product approval if compliance with and post-marketing requirements is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the marketplace. The FDA may require one or more Phase 4 post-market studies and surveillance to further assess and monitor the product’s safety and effectiveness after commercialization, and may limit further marketing of the product based on the results of these post-marketing studies. In addition, new government requirements, including those resulting from new legislation, may be established, or the FDA’s policies may change, which could impact the timeline for regulatory approval or otherwise impact ongoing development programs.

including a finding that the drug is ready for approval for use in adults before pediatric clinical trials are complete or that additional safety or effectiveness data needs to be collected before the pediatric clinical trials begin. The FDA must send a letter to any sponsor that fails to submit the required assessment, keep a deferral current or fails to submit a request for approval of a pediatric formulation.

Priority review designation may be granted for a drug that treats a serious condition and, if approved, would provide a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness. For products containing new molecular entities, priority review designation means the FDA’s goal is to take action on the marketing application within six months of the filing date (compared with ten months under standard review).

Additionally, products studied for their safety and effectiveness in treating serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions may receive accelerated approval upon a determination that the product has an effect on 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. As a condition of accelerated approval, the FDA will generally require the sponsor to perform adequate and well-controlled post-marketing clinical studies to verify and describe the anticipated effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit. In addition, the FDA currently requires as a condition for accelerated approval, of promotional materials, which could adversely impact the timing of the commercial launch of the product.

The FDA closely regulates the marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of drug products. A company can make only those claims relating to safety and efficacy, purity and potency that are approved by the FDA and in accordance with the provisions of the approved label. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of uses. Failure to comply with these requirements can result in, among other things, adverse publicity, warning letters, corrective advertising and potential civil and criminal penalties. Physicians may prescribe legally available products for uses that are not described in the product’s labeling and that differ from those tested by us and approved by the FDA. Such uses are common across medical specialties. Physicians may believe that such uses are the best treatment for many patients in varied circumstances. The FDA does not regulate the behavior of physicians in their choice of treatments. The FDA does, however, restrict manufacturer’s communications on the subject of use of their products.

Market exclusivity provisions authorized under the FDCA can delay the submission or the approval of certain marketing applications. The FDCA provides a five-year period of marketing exclusivity within the United States to the first applicant to obtain approval of an NDA for a new chemical entity. A drug is a new chemical entity if the FDA has not previously approved any other new drug containing the same active moiety, which is the molecule or ion responsible for the action of the drug substance. During the exclusivity period, the FDA may not approve or even accept for review an ANDA or an NDA submitted under Section 505(b)(2), or 505(b)(2) NDA, submitted by another company for another drug based on the same active moiety, regardless of whether the drug is intended for the same indication as the original innovative drug or for another indication, where the applicant does not own or have a legal right of reference to all the data required for approval. However, an application may be submitted after four years if it contains a certification of patent invalidity or to one of the patents listed with the FDA by the innovator NDA holder.

Under the BPCIA, an application for a biosimilar product may not be submitted to the FDA until four years following the date that the reference product was first licensed by the FDA. In addition, the approval of a biosimilar product may not be made effective by the FDA until 12 years from the date on which the reference product was first licensed. During this period of exclusivity, another company may still market a competing version of the reference product if the FDA approves a full BLA for the competing product containing that applicant’s own preclinical data and data from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to demonstrate the safety, purity and potency of its product. The BPCIA also created certain exclusivity periods for biosimilars approved as interchangeable products. At this juncture, it is unclear whether products deemed “interchangeable” by the FDA will, in fact, be readily substituted by pharmacies, which are governed by state pharmacy law.

The BPCIA is complex and continues to be interpreted and implemented by the FDA. In addition, government proposals have sought to reduce the reference product exclusivity period. Other aspects of the BPCIA, some of which may impact the BPCIA exclusivity provisions, have also been the subject of recent litigation. As a result, the ultimate impact, implementation and impact of the BPCIA is subject to significant uncertainty.

authorities in the states and foreign jurisdictions in which our conducts its business. Such laws include, without limitation, state and federal anti-kickback, fraud and abuse, false claims, privacy and security, price reporting and physician sunshine laws. Some of our activities are subject to some of these laws.

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 basis based on a cumulative review of all of its facts and circumstances. Our practices may not in all cases meet all of the criteria for protection under a statutory exception or regulatory safe harbor.

The federal false claims and civil monetary penalty laws, including the federal False Claims Act, which imposes significant penalties and can be enforced by private citizens through civil qui tam actions, prohibit any person or entity from, among other things, knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment to, or approval by, the federal government, including federal healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, 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, or knowingly making a false statement to improperly avoid, decrease or conceal an obligation to pay money to the federal government. A claim includes “any request or demand” for money or property presented to the U.S. government. For instance, historically, pharmaceutical and other healthcare companies have been prosecuted under these laws for 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 uses. Penalties for federal civil False Claims Act violations may include up to three times the actual damages sustained by the government, plus significant mandatory civil penalties, and exclusion from participation in federal healthcare programs.

We may be subject to data privacy and security regulations by both the federal government and the states in which we conduct our business. HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, and its implementing regulations, imposes requirements relating to the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information. Among other things, the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act makes HIPAA’s privacy and security standards directly applicable to business associates, which are 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. The Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act 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 HIPAA and seek attorneys’ fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions. In addition, many state laws govern the privacy and security of health information in specified circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways, are often not by HIPAA, and may have a more prohibitive effect than HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts. Similarly, with respect to foreign operations, we are subject to national privacy regulations such as the national implementations of the General Data Protection Regulation, which impose substantive compliance obligations for data collected in Europe. Furthermore, after the July 16, 2020 judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Schrems II case, the legal framework for clinical trial related data export from Europe and the U.K. to the United States remains subject to the interpretation of each national Data Protection Authority, pending an E.U.-wide finding of adequacy of U.S. privacy protections.

Additionally, the federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act within the Affordable Care Act, and its implementing regulations, require that certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biological 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 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services information related to certain payments or other transfers of value made or distributed to physicians and teaching hospitals, or to entities or individuals at the request of, or designated on behalf of, the physicians and teaching hospitals and to report annually certain ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members. Failure to report accurately could result in penalties. In addition, many states also govern the reporting of payments or other transfers of value, many of which differ from each other in significant ways, are often not and may have a more prohibitive effect than the federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act, thus further complicating compliance efforts. Many states have similar statutes or regulations to the above federal laws that may be broader in scope and may apply regardless of payor. We may also be subject to state laws that require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government, and/or state laws that require drug manufacturers to report information related to payments and other transfers of value to physicians and other healthcare providers, drug pricing or marketing expenditures. These laws may differ from each other in significant ways and may not have the same effect, further complicating compliance efforts. Additionally, to the extent that we have business operations in foreign countries or sells any of our products in foreign countries and jurisdictions, including Canada or the E.U., we may be subject to additional regulation.

Ensuring business arrangements with third parties comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations is a costly endeavor. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of the federal and state healthcare laws described above or any other current or future governmental regulations that apply to us, we may be subject to penalties, including without limitation, civil, criminal and/or administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, imprisonment, exclusion from participation in government programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, injunctions, private qui tam actions brought by individual whistleblowers in the name of the government, or refusal to allow us to enter into government contracts, contractual damages, reputational harm, administrative burdens, diminished profits and future earnings, additional reporting obligations and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or other agreement to resolve allegations of with these laws, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect its ability to operate its business and results of operations.

Obtaining reimbursement for our products may be particularly difficult because of the higher prices often associated with branded drugs and drugs administered under the supervision of a physician. We may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of its products, in addition to the costs required to obtain FDA approvals. Our product candidates may not be considered medically necessary or cost-effective. Obtaining coverage and reimbursement approval of a product from a government or other third-party payor is a time-consuming and costly process that could require us to provide to each payor supporting scientific, clinical and cost-effectiveness data for the use of our product on a basis, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be obtained. A payor’s decision to provide coverage for a product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Further, one payor’s determination to provide coverage for a product does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage for the product. Adequate third-party reimbursement may not be available to enable us to maintain price levels sufficient to realize an appropriate return on its investment in product development. If reimbursement is not available or is available only at limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize any product candidate that it successfully develops.

Different pricing and reimbursement schemes exist in other countries. In the E.U., governments influence the price of biopharmaceutical products through their pricing and reimbursement rules and control of national health care systems that fund a large part of the cost of those products to consumers. Some jurisdictions operate positive and negative list systems under which products may only be marketed once a reimbursement price has been agreed upon. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval, some of these countries may require the completion of clinical trials that compare the cost effectiveness of a particular product candidate to currently available therapies. Other member states allow companies to establish their own prices for medicines, but monitor and control company profits. The downward pressure on health care costs has become intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products. In addition, in some countries, cross-border imports from markets exert a commercial pressure on pricing within a country. The marketability of any product candidates for which we receive regulatory approval for commercial sale may suffer if the government and third-party payors fail to provide adequate coverage and reimbursement. In addition, emphasis on managed care, the increasing influence of health maintenance organizations, and additional legislative changes in the United States has increased, and we expect will continue to increase, the pressure on

In the United States and certain foreign jurisdictions, there have been, and we expect there will continue to be, a number of legislative and regulatory changes to the healthcare system. In March 2010, the Affordable Care Act was signed into law, which substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers in the United States. By way of example, the Affordable Care Act increased the minimum level of Medicaid rebates payable by manufacturers of brand name drugs from 15.1% to 23.1%; required collection of rebates for drugs paid by Medicaid managed care organizations; imposed a annual fee on pharmaceutical manufacturers or importers who sell certain “branded prescription drugs” to specified federal government programs, implemented a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for drugs that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted or injected; expanded eligibility criteria for Medicaid programs; created a new Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to oversee, identify priorities in, and conduct comparative clinical effectiveness research, along with funding for such research; and established a Center for Medicare Innovation at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to test innovative payment and service delivery models to lower Medicare and Medicaid spending, potentially including prescription drug spending.

Since its enactment, there have been judicial and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act and Presidential executive orders and other directives designed to delay the implementation of certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act or otherwise circumvent some of its requirements, and there could be additional challenges, amendments, executive orders and directives and legislation relating to the Affordable Care Act in the future. For example, although Congress has not passed comprehensive repeal legislation, two bills affecting the implementation of certain taxes under the Affordable Care Act have passed. In 2017, Congress enacted the Tax Act, which eliminated the shared responsibility payment imposed by the Affordable Care Act on certain individuals who fail to maintain qualifying health coverage for all or part of a year that is commonly referred to as the “individual mandate.” In addition, the 2020 federal spending package permanently eliminated, effective January 1, 2020, the Affordable Care “Cadillac” tax on high-cost employer-sponsored health coverage and medical device tax and, effective January 1, 2021, also eliminated the health insurer tax. We are continuing to monitor any changes to the Affordable Care Act that, in turn, may potentially impact our business in the future.

Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the Affordable Care Act was enacted, including aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year and reduced payments to several types of Medicare providers, which will remain in effect through 2029 absent additional congressional action. Moreover, there has recently been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted legislation designed, among other things, to bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, reform government program reimbursement methodologies for pharmaceutical products, lower drug prices and reduce out of pocket costs of drugs, increase manufacturer competition, increase the negotiating power of certain federal healthcare programs, incentivize manufacturers to lower the list price of their products and reduce the out of pocket costs of drug products paid by consumers. Additionally, drug price control measures that could be enacted in future legislation include, for example, measures to permit Medicare Part D plans to negotiate the price of certain drugs under Medicare Part B, to allow some states to negotiate prices under Medicaid, and to eliminate cost sharing for generic drugs for patients. In addition, individual states in the United States have also become increasingly active in implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical product pricing, including

Our commercial success depends in part on our ability to obtain and maintain proprietary protection for our current and future product candidates, novel discoveries, product development technologies and to

operate without infringing on the proprietary rights of others; and to prevent others from infringing our proprietary rights. Our strategy is to seek to protect our proprietary position by, among other methods, filing or U.S. and foreign patents and patent applications related to our proprietary technology, inventions and improvements that are important to the development and implementation of our business. We also rely on trademarks, trade secrets, continuing technological innovation, and potential opportunities to develop and maintain our proprietary position.

We also rely upon trade secrets and and continuing technological innovation to develop and maintain our competitive position. We seek to protect our proprietary information, in part, by using confidentiality and invention assignment agreements with our commercial partners, collaborators, employees and consultants. These agreements are designed to protect our proprietary information and, in the case of the invention assignment agreements, to grant us ownership of technologies that are developed through a relationship with a third party. These agreements may be breached, and we may not have adequate remedies for any breach. In addition, our trade secrets may otherwise become known or be independently discovered by competitors. To the extent that our commercial partners, collaborators, employees and consultants use intellectual property owned by others in their work for us, disputes may arise as to the rights in related or resulting and inventions.

On October 7, 2020, we entered into the Bayer License Agreement, pursuant to which we have been granted an exclusive, worldwide, royalty-bearing, worldwide license under certain Bayer patents and to develop, use, manufacture, commercialize, sublicense and distribute, for all uses in the cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of diseases or disorders in humans or animals, (i) a clinical-stage small molecule drug platform, including VIP152 (formerly known as BAY 1251152), a PTEFb/CDK9 inhibitor compound, and (ii) a preclinical stage bioconjugation platform, including VIP924 (formerly and VIP943 (formerly known as next-generation ADC compounds, and VIP236, a SMDC compound. These platforms currently

Under the Bayer License Agreement, we are also obligated to pay Bayer tiered royalties on worldwide net commercial sales of license products at royalty rates ranging from single digit to low double digit percentages based on escalating levels of net commercial sales in a calendar year, subject to standard offsets and reductions. These royalty obligations apply on a and basis and end upon the latest of (i) the date on which the last valid claim of any licensed patents expire, and (ii) 10 years after the first commercial sale of the licensed product, in each case, with respect to a given licensed product in a given country.

The Bayer License Agreement will expire on a and licensed product basis on the expiration of the last royalty term with respect to a given licensed product in a given country, unless earlier terminated. We may terminate the agreement for convenience upon 90 days’ written notice. Either party may terminate the agreement, either in its entirety or on a licensed technology or licensed product basis depending on the nature of the breach, if the other party materially breaches its material obligations under the agreement and fails to cure such material breach within 180 days of written notice of such material breach, with termination tolled during any period during which a good faith dispute resolution process is being pursued with respect to material breaches other than In addition, either party may terminate the agreement immediately upon written notice if the other party files a voluntary bankruptcy petition, is subject to an involuntary bankruptcy petition or for certain other insolvency events. Bayer may terminate the agreement if we challenge the validity or enforceability of any of the licensed patents.

We are an early stage company with limited operating history. We exclusively licensed our current pipeline from Bayer under the Bayer License Agreement and intend to bring one or more product candidates through clinical trials and marketing authorization. We have assembled a management team of biopharmaceutical

We are led by Drs. Ahmed M. Hamdy and Raquel E. Izumi, two and biotechnology entrepreneurs who previously leveraged the discovery of an established pharmaceutical company into a break-through blood cancer treatment. Drs. Hamdy and Izumi were instrumental in the clinical development of IMBRUVICA and CALQUENCE for the treatment of blood cancers. Drs. Hamdy and Izumi were principal of Acerta Pharma, the company that developed CALQUENCE from an early-stage preclinical molecule through clinical trials and full marketing approval. Acerta Pharma was formedto license the preclinical stage molecule and technology that would become CALQUENCE. Three years after inception, Acerta Pharma was acquired by AstraZeneca plc for $7.0 billion.

Our principal executive offices are located at 260 Sheridan Avenue, Suite 400, Palo Alto, CA 94306, and our telephone number is (650) Our website address is www.vincerx.com. The information contained on, or that can be accessed through, our website is not part of this Annual Report on Form

We make available free of charge on our website our annual reports on Form quarterly reports on Form current reports on Form and amendments to those reports, as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file or furnish such materials to the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC. You may obtain a free copy of these reports in the Investor Relations section of our website, www.vincerx.com. All reports that we file with the SEC may be read and copied at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, N.E., Washington, DC, 20549. Information about the operation of the Public Reference Room can be obtained by calling the SEC at All reports that we file are also available at www.sec.gov.

We have licensed our current core patents and other intellectual property relating to VIP152, VIP943, VIP924, VIP236 and our other current product candidates from Bayer on an exclusive, worldwide basis under the Bayer License Agreement. See “Business—Bayer License Agreement.” The Bayer License Agreement continues in effect on a and licensed product basis until there are no remaining royalty payment obligations in the relevant country and can be terminated earlier by Bayer in the event that we materially breach our material obligations, that bankruptcy or other insolvency proceedings are instituted against us or that we seek to revoke or challenge the validity of any licensed patents. If, for any reason, the Bayer License Agreement is terminated or we otherwise lose important rights, it would have a significant and adverse effect on our business and our ability to develop and commercialize our current product candidates, raise capital or continue our operations.

preclinical and clinical trials conducted by Bayer or other third parties over whom we had no control and before we the product candidates. We are relying on the results of these preclinical studies and from unaudited clinical trial data from investigator reports that are subject to change. As is typical for Phase 1 studies, such as VIP152, no independent review committee has reviewed the data. Furthermore, if we are unable to replicate the results from Bayer’s preclinical or clinical trials in our preclinical or clinical trials, we may be unable to successfully develop, obtain regulatory approval for and commercialize our product candidates. Although we are not currently aware of any such problems, any problems that emerge with preclinical or clinical development conducted prior to our in-licensing may affect future results or our ability to document prior development and to conduct clinical trials, which could delay, limit, increase the cost of or prevent regulatory approval for our product candidates.

Our business has been, and could continue to be, adversely affected by health epidemics, including the ongoing pandemic, wherever we have clinical trial sites or other business operations. In addition, health epidemics could cause significant disruption in the operations of third-party manufacturers, contract research organizations, clinical trial sites and other third parties upon whom we rely. For example, the pandemic has presented a substantial public health and economic challenge around the world and has affected, and may continue to affect, employees, patients, communities and business operations, as well as the U.S. economy and financial markets. Many geographic regions imposed, and in the future may impose, quarantine or similar orders or restrictions to control the spread of Our headquarters is located in Palo Alto, California, and until recently, we had implemented work-from-home policies for all employees. These measures have negatively impacted our productivity, disrupted our business, delayed our clinical programs and timelines and limited our ability to conduct our business in the ordinary course. These and similar, and perhaps more severe, disruptions in our operations, now or in the future, could negatively impact our business, operating results and financial condition.

We are dependent on a worldwide supply chain for products to be used in our clinical trials and, if approved by the regulatory authorities, for commercialization. similar government orders and restrictions, staffing shortages and other disruptions in operations, whether related other health epidemics, have impacted, and could continue to impact, personnel at third-party manufacturing facilities in the United States and other countries, or the availability or cost of materials, which has impacted, and could continue to impact, our supply chain. For example, any manufacturing supply interruption of any product candidate could adversely affect our ability to conduct ongoing and future clinical trials of such product candidate. In addition, delays and closures or other disruptions of transportation carriers and modal hubs could materially impact our clinical development and any future commercialization timelines.

If our relationships with our suppliers or other vendors are delayed, scaled back or terminated as a result of the pandemic or other health epidemics, we may not be able to enter into arrangements with alternative suppliers or vendors or do so on commercially reasonable terms or in a timely manner. Switching or adding additional suppliers or vendors involves substantial cost and requires management time and focus. In addition, there is a natural transition period when a new supplier or vendor commences work. As a result, delays could generally occur, which could adversely impact our ability to meet our desired clinical development and any future commercialization timelines. See “Risks Related to Our Dependence on Third Parties.”

In addition, our clinical trials have been and may continue to be affected by the pandemic. Clinical site initiation and patient enrollment have been, and may continue to be, delayed due to staffing shortages, prioritization of hospital resources toward the pandemic or concerns among patients about

participating in clinical trials during a pandemic or public health measures imposed by governmental authorities in the countries and regions in which the clinical sites are located. Some patients may have difficulty following certain aspects of clinical trial protocols if quarantines or other restrictive measures impede patient movement or interrupt healthcare services. Similarly, our inability to successfully recruit and retain patients and principal investigators and site staff who, as healthcare providers, may have heightened exposure to or experience additional restrictions by their institutions, city or state governments could adversely impact our clinical trial operations.

The global pandemic of continues to evolve rapidly. The ultimate impact of the pandemic or a similar health epidemic is highly uncertain and subject to change. We do not yet know the full extent of potential delays or impacts on our business, our clinical trials, healthcare systems or the global economy as a whole. However, these effects have impacted, and could continue to impact, our operations, and we will continue to monitor the situation closely.

Our future success is dependent on our ability to timely complete clinical trials, obtain marketing approval for and successfully commercialize VIP152, our lead product candidate. We believe our highly selective CDK9 inhibitor, VIP152, is differentiated from other CDK9 inhibitor technologies being developed by our competitors. We are investing significant efforts and financial resources in the research and development of VIP152. We are conducting a Phase 1 trial of VIP152 as a monotherapy, and in combination with other anticancer agents, in patients with advanced cancers, including lymphoma and chronic lymphocytic leukemia. VIP152 will require additional clinical development, evaluation of clinical, preclinical and manufacturing activities, marketing approval from government regulators, substantial investment and significant marketing efforts before we can generate any revenues from product sales. We are not permitted to market or promote VIP152, or any other product candidate, before we receive marketing approval from the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities, and we may never receive such marketing approvals.

VIP943, VIP924 and VIP236 are part of a novel bioconjugation platform, and their potential therapeutic benefits are unproven. These product candidates are still in the preclinical phase and we do not anticipate beginning clinical trials any sooner than late 2022 or early 2023, at the earliest. Furthermore, we may never develop any of the product candidates in our bioconjugation platform. While several bioconjugation and ADC candidates are under development by other companies, there is currently no approved bioconjugation therapy using our proprietary cytotoxin (an optimized CPT payload derived from SN38, a well-known cytotoxic drug and active metabolite of irinotecan) or an ADC using KSPi and CellTrapper. We may uncover a previously unknown risk associated with KSPi or our optimized CPT payload, our CellTrapper technology may not be as impermeable as initial testing suggest, our linker technology may not be as effective as initial testing suggests, or other issues that may be more problematic than we currently believe, which may prolong the period of observation required for obtaining, or result in the failure to obtain, regulatory approval or may necessitate additional preclinical and clinical testing. While results from preclinical trials of VIP943, VIP924 and VIP236 in mouse xenograft models have shown for each, VIP943, VIP924 and VIP236 may not demonstrate in patients any or all of the pharmacological benefits we believe they may possess. If the KSPi warhead or optimized CPT payload that we use is not safe in certain product candidates, we would be required to abandon or redesign all of our current lead ADC or SMDC product candidates. We have not yet succeeded and may never succeed in demonstrating efficacy and safety of VIP943, VIP924 and VIP236 in pivotal clinical trials or in obtaining marketing approval thereafter. For example, although Bayer has evaluated VIP943, VIP924 and VIP236 in preclinical studies, VIP943, VIP924 and VIP236 have not yet advanced into clinical-stage trials for any indication. Positive results from preclinical trials are not necessarily predictive of the results of planned clinical trials of VIP943, VIP924 and VIP236.

From time to time, we may publish preliminary interim or data from clinical trials. Positive preliminary data may not be predictive of such trial’s subsequent or overall results. Preliminary data are subject to the risk that one or more of the outcomes may materially change as more data become available. Additionally, preliminary data are subject to the risk that one or more of the clinical outcomes may materially change as patient enrollment continues and more patient data become available. Therefore, positive preliminary results in any ongoing clinical trial may not be predictive of such results in the completed trial. We also make assumptions, estimations, calculations and conclusions as part of our analyses of data, and we may not have received or had the opportunity to fully evaluate all data. As a result, preliminary data that we report may differ from future results from the same clinical trials, or different conclusions or considerations may qualify such results, once additional data have been received and fully evaluated. Preliminary data also remains subject to audit and verification procedures that may result in the final data being materially different from the preliminary data we previously published. As a result, preliminary data should be viewed with caution until the final data are available. Material adverse changes in the final data compared to preliminary data could significantly harm our business prospects.

Our competitors are developing a large number of drug candidates for the treatment of solid tumors, leukemia, malignancies, lymphomas and myelodysplastic syndrome. Any product candidates that we successfully develop and commercialize will compete with these drug candidates, existing therapies and new therapies that may become available in the future. We believe that a significant number of products are currently under development, and may become commercially available in the future, for the treatment of conditions for which we may attempt to develop product candidates. Several pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies have CDK9 inhibitors, ADCs, SMDCs or other products on the market or in clinical trials which may compete with our drugs in hematological and oncology indications.

In addition, we had no involvement with or control over the preclinical or clinical development of our product candidates prior to their from Bayer. We are dependent on Bayer having conducted such development in accordance with the applicable protocols and legal, regulatory and scientific standards, having accurately reported the results of all preclinical studies and clinical trials and other research they conducted prior to our acquisition of the rights to our product candidates, having correctly collected and interpreted the data from these studies, trials and other research, and having supplied us with complete information, data sets and reports required to adequately demonstrate the results reported through the date of our acquisition of these product candidates. Problems in any of these areas could result in increased costs and delays in the development of our product candidates, which could adversely affect our ability to generate any future revenue from sales of our product candidates, if approved.

Drs. Ahmed M. Hamdy and Raquel E. Izumi were the principal of Acerta Pharma BV, the company that developed CALQUENCE and was eventually acquired by AstraZeneca plc. Drs. Hamdy and Izumi’s prior success in licensing a preclinical stage molecule and developing that molecule through clinical trials and to full marketing approval does not guarantee that we will successfully develop or commercialize any of our current or future product candidates. As such, we make no assurance that Drs. Hamdy and Izumi’s past success with Acerta Pharma is indicative of our success or ability to develop and commercialize any of our current or future product candidates.

Any unplanned event, such as a flood, fire, explosion, earthquake, extreme weather condition, health epidemic, such as the ongoing pandemic, power shortage, telecommunication failure or other natural or accidents or incidents, including the impact of climate change, that result in us being unable to fully use our facilities, or those of our third party contract manufacturers, or conduct our preclinical studies or clinical trials, may have a material and adverse effect on our ability to operate our business, particularly on a daily basis, and have significant negative consequences on our financial and operating conditions. Loss of access to these facilities may result in increased costs, delays in the development of our product candidates or the interruption of our business operations for a substantial period of time.

Despite the implementation of security measures, our computer systems, as well as those of our partners, contract research organizations, IT service providers, contractors, consultants, law and accounting firms and other third parties we work with, may sustain damage from computer viruses, unauthorized access, data breaches, phishing attacks, ransomware attacks, attacks, cybercriminals, natural disasters, terrorism, war and telecommunication and electrical failures. We rely on our partners and third-party providers to implement effective security measures and identify and correct for any such failures, deficiencies or breaches. The risks of a security breach or disruption, particularly through cyber-attacks or cyber intrusion, including by computer hackers, foreign governments and cyber-terrorists, have increased significantly and are becoming increasingly difficult to detect. If a failure, accident or security breach were to occur and cause interruptions in our operations, or the operations of our partners or third-party providers, it could result in a misappropriation of confidential information, including our intellectual property or financial information or clinical trial participant personal data, a material disruption or delay in our drug development programs, and/or significant monetary losses. For example, the loss of preclinical or clinical trial data from completed, ongoing or planned trials, or chemistry, manufacturing and controls data for our product candidates, could result in delays in regulatory approval efforts and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data.

We have incurred net losses in each reporting period since our inception, have not generated any revenue from product sales to date and, prior to the Business Combination, have financed our operations principally through loans and other debt. Our losses have resulted principally from expenses incurred in connection with licensing our product candidates from Bayer, raising capital, building our management team and business infrastructure and conducting preclinical studies and early clinical trials. Our lead product candidate, VIP152, is in Phase 1 clinical trials, and we intend to continue its clinical development in patients with hematologic and solid tumors to obtain clinical in indications with unmet medical needs by the middle of 2022. Our lead ADC product candidates, VIP943 and VIP924, are in preclinical development, and we do not expect the first to begin clinical trials until late 2023 or early 2024. Our SMDC product candidate, VIP236, is in preclinical development, and we do not expect it to begin clinical trials until late 2022 or early 2023. Our other product candidates are in the preclinical stage. As a result, we expect that it will be several years, if ever, before we have a commercialized product and are able to generate revenue from product sales. Even if we succeed in receiving marketing approval for and commercializing one or more of our product candidates, we expect that we will continue to incur substantial research and development and other expenses as we discover, develop and market additional potential products. We expect to continue to incur significant expenses and increasing operating losses for the foreseeable future as we continue our research and development efforts and seek to obtain regulatory approval and commercialization of our product candidates. The net losses we incur may fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter such that a comparison of our results of operations may not be a good indication of our future performance. The size of our future net losses will depend, in part, on the rate of future growth of our expenses and our ability to generate revenue. Our prior losses and expected future losses have had and will continue to have an adverse effect on our working capital, need to raise additional capital and ability to achieve and maintain profitability.

We will be required to obtain further funding through public or private equity offerings, debt financings, collaborations and licensing arrangements or other sources, which may dilute our stockholders or restrict our operating activities. Raising additional funds by issuing equity or convertible debt securities may cause our stockholders to experience substantial dilution. Raising additional funds through debt financing may involve covenants that restrict our business activities and options. To the extent that we raise additional funds through collaborations and licensing arrangements, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our drug discovery and other technologies, development programs or product candidates, or grant licenses on terms that may not be favorable to us. Additional funding may not be available to us on favorable terms, or at all, particularly in light of the current economic or market conditions. We do not have any committed external source of funds. Market volatility resulting from the pandemic or other factors could also adversely impact our ability to access capital as and when needed. Our failure to raise capital as and when needed or on acceptable terms would have a negative impact on our financial condition and our ability to pursue our business strategy, and we may have to delay, reduce the scope of, suspend or eliminate one or more of our research-stage programs, clinical trials or future commercialization efforts.

Any delay or failure in seeking or obtaining required approvals for a product candidate would have a material and adverse effect on our ability to generate revenue from such product candidate. Furthermore, any regulatory approval to market a product candidate may be subject to significant limitations on the approved uses or indications for which we may market the product candidate or the labeling or other restrictions. In addition, the FDA has the authority to require a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy as part of approving an NDA or BLA, or after approval, which may impose further requirements or restrictions on the distribution or use of an approved product candidate. These requirements or restrictions might include limiting prescribing to certain physicians or medical centers that have undergone specialized training, limiting treatment to patients who meet certain criteria and requiring treated patients to enroll in a registry. These limitations and restrictions may significantly limit the size of the market for a product candidate and affect reimbursement by third-party payors.

Any regulatory approvals that we may receive for our product candidates will require the submission of reports to regulatory authorities and surveillance to monitor the safety and efficacy of the product candidate, may contain significant limitations related to use restrictions for specified age groups, warnings, precautions or contraindications, and may include burdensome post-approval study or risk management requirements. For example, the FDA may require a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy in order to approve our product candidates, which could entail requirements for a medication guide, physician training and communication plans or additional elements to ensure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. In addition, if the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities approve our product candidates, the manufacturing processes, labeling, packaging, distribution, adverse event reporting, storage, advertising, promotion, import, export and recordkeeping for our product candidates will be subject to extensive and ongoing regulatory requirements. These requirements include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, registration, as well as compliance with cGMP requirements and good clinical practices for any clinical trials that we conduct post-approval. In addition, manufacturers of drug products and their facilities are subject to continual review and periodic, unannounced inspections by the FDA and other regulatory authorities for compliance with cGMP regulations and standards. If we or a regulatory agency discover previously unknown problems with a product, such as adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or problems with the facilities where the product is manufactured, a regulatory agency may impose restrictions on that product, the manufacturing facility or us, including requiring recall or withdrawal of the product from the market or suspension of manufacturing. In addition, failure to comply with FDA and other comparable foreign regulatory requirements may subject our company to administrative or judicially imposed sanctions, including:

We plan to also conduct international clinical trials. The acceptance of study data by the FDA, European Medicines Agency or other comparable foreign regulatory authority from clinical trials conducted outside of their respective jurisdictions may be subject to certain conditions. In cases where data from foreign clinical trials are intended to serve as the basis for marketing approval in the United States, the FDA will generally not approve the application on the basis of foreign-generated data alone unless (1) the data are applicable to the United States population and United States medical practice; (2) the clinical trials are performed by clinical investigators of recognized competence and pursuant to current good clinical practice requirements; and (3) the FDA is able to validate the data through an inspection or other appropriate mean. Additionally, the FDA’s clinical trial requirements, including the adequacy of the patient population studied and statistical powering, must be met. In addition, such foreign clinical trials would be subject to the applicable local laws of the foreign jurisdictions where the clinical trials are conducted. There can be no assurance that the FDA, European Medicines Agency or any applicable foreign regulatory authority will accept data from clinical trials conducted outside of its applicable jurisdiction. If the FDA, European Medicines Agency or any applicable foreign regulatory authority does not accept such data, it would result in the need for additional clinical trials, which would be costly and time-consuming and delay aspects of our business plan, and which may result in our product candidates not receiving approval for commercialization in the applicable jurisdiction.

In addition, we are subject to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and similar anti-bribery or anti-corruption laws, regulations or rules of other countries in which we operate. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act generally prohibits offering, promising, giving, or authorizing others to give anything of value, either directly or indirectly, to a government official in order to influence official action, or otherwise obtain or retain business. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act also requires public companies to make and keep books and records that accurately and fairly reflect the transactions of the corporation and to devise and maintain an adequate system of internal accounting controls. Our business is heavily regulated and therefore involves significant interaction with public officials, including officials of governments. Additionally, in many other countries, the healthcare providers who prescribe pharmaceuticals are employed by their government, and the purchasers of pharmaceuticals are government entities; therefore, our dealings with these prescribers and purchasers are subject to regulation under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Recently, the SEC and Department of Justice have increased their Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement activities with respect to pharmaceutical companies. There is no certainty that our employees, agents, contractors, or collaborators, or those of our affiliates, will comply with all applicable laws and regulations, particularly given the high level of complexity of these laws. While we intend to implement codes of conduct and other policies and controls to mitigate the risk of with anti-corruption and anti-bribery laws, it is not always possible to identify and deter employee misconduct, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from government investigations or other actions stemming from a failure to comply with these laws or regulations. Violations of these laws and regulations could result in, among other things, administrative, civil and criminal fines and sanctions against us, our officers, or our employees, the closing down of our facilities, requirements to obtain export licenses, exclusion from participation in federal healthcare programs including Medicare and Medicaid, implementation of compliance programs, integrity oversight and reporting obligations, and prohibitions on the conduct of our business. Any such violations could include prohibitions on our ability to offer our products in one or more countries and could materially damage our reputation, our brand, our international expansion efforts, our ability to attract and retain employees, and our business, prospects, operating results and financial condition.

We currently license all of our product candidates from Bayer pursuant to the Bayer License Agreement. Our present development involving these product candidates relies to a significant extent upon previous development conducted by Bayer or other third parties over whom we had no control and before we the product candidates. To receive regulatory approval of a product candidate, we must present all relevant data and information obtained during its development, including research conducted prior to our licensure of the product candidate. Although we are not currently aware of any such problems, any problems that emerge with preclinical or clinical development conducted prior to our may affect future results or our ability to document prior development and to conduct clinical trials, which could delay, limit or prevent regulatory approval for our product candidates.

Our commercial success depends in part on our ability to obtain and maintain patent protection and trade secret protection for VIP152, VIP943, VIP924, VIP236 and our other product candidates, proprietary technologies and their uses as well as our ability to operate without infringing upon the proprietary rights of others. We generally seek to protect our proprietary position by filing patent applications in the United States and abroad related to our product candidates, proprietary technologies and their uses that are important to our business. We also seek to protect our proprietary position by acquiring or relevant issued patents or pending applications from third parties.

In addition, although we enter into and confidentiality agreements with parties who have access to patentable aspects of our research and development output, such as our employees, outside scientific collaborators, contract research organizations, third-party manufacturers, consultants, advisors and other third parties, any of these parties may breach such agreements and disclose such output before a patent application is filed, thereby jeopardizing our ability to seek and obtain patent protection.

Moreover, the coverage claimed in a patent application can be significantly reduced before the patent is issued, and its scope can be reinterpreted after issuance. Even if patent applications we own or currently or in the future issue as patents, they may not issue in a form that will provide us with any meaningful protection, prevent competitors or other third parties from competing with us, or otherwise provide us with any competitive advantage. Any patents that we own or may be challenged or circumvented by third parties or may be narrowed or invalidated as a result of challenges by third parties. Consequently, we do not know whether our product candidates will be protectable or remain protected by valid and enforceable patents. Our competitors or other third parties may be able to circumvent our patents or the patents of our licensors by developing similar or alternative technologies or products in a manner which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

The issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity or enforceability, and our patents or the patents of our licensors may be challenged in the courts or patent offices in the United States and abroad. We may be subject to a third-party submission of prior art to the USPTO, or become involved in opposition, derivation, revocation, reexamination, post-grant review and inter partes review, or other similar proceedings challenging our owned patent rights. An adverse determination in any such submission, proceeding or litigation could reduce the scope of, or invalidate or render unenforceable, our patent rights, allow third parties to commercialize our product candidates and compete directly with us, without payment to us, or result in our inability to manufacture or commercialize products without infringing third-party patent rights. Moreover, our patents or the patents of our licensors may become subject to post-grant challenge proceedings, such as oppositions in a foreign patent office, that challenge our or priority of invention or other features of patentability with respect to our patents and patent applications and those of our licensors. Such challenges may result in loss of patent rights, loss of exclusivity or in patent claims being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable, which could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical technology and products, or limit the duration of the patent protection of our product candidates. Such proceedings also may result in substantial cost and require significant time from our scientists and management, even if the eventual outcome is favorable to us. In addition, if the breadth or strength of protection provided by our patents and patent applications or the patents and patent applications of our licensors is threatened, regardless of the outcome, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to license, develop or commercialize current or future product candidates.

For biologics subject to approval by the FDA via a BLA, such as VIP943 and VIP924, the BPCIA provides a mechanism for one or more third parties to seek FDA approval to manufacture or sell biosimilar or interchangeable versions of brand name biological products. If a biosimilar applicant successfully challenges our asserted patent claims, it could result in the invalidation of, or render unenforceable, some or all our relevant patent claims or result in a finding litigation or other proceedings to enforce or defend our intellectual property rights are complex in nature, may be very expensive and time-consuming, may divert our management’s attention from our core business, and may result in unfavorable results that could limit our ability to prevent third parties from competing with VIP943 and VIP924 or any future biological product candidates.

Competitors may infringe our intellectual property rights. To prevent infringement or unauthorized use, we may be required to file infringement claims, which can be expensive and time-consuming. In addition, in a patent infringement proceeding, a court may decide that a patent we own or is not valid, is unenforceable and/or is not infringed. If we or any of our potential future collaborators were to initiate legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent directed at one of our product candidates, the defendant could counterclaim that our patents or the patents of our licensors is invalid and/or unenforceable in whole or in part. In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity and/or unenforceability are commonplace. Grounds for a validity challenge include an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, including lack of novelty, obviousness, written description, or obviousness-type double patenting. Grounds for an unenforceability assertion could include an allegation that someone connected with prosecution of the patent withheld relevant information from the USPTO or made a misleading statement during prosecution.

Third parties may also raise similar invalidity claims before the USPTO or patent offices abroad, even outside the context of litigation. Such mechanisms include post-grant review, inter partes review, derivation proceedings, and equivalent proceedings in foreign jurisdictions (e.g., opposition proceedings). Such proceedings could result in the revocation of, cancellation of or amendment to our patents or our licensors’ patents in such a way that they no longer cover our technology or platform, or any product candidates that we may develop. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. With respect to the validity question, for example, we cannot be certain that there is no invalidating prior art, of which we and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution. If a third party were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity or unenforceability, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection on our technology or platform, or any product candidates that we may develop. Such a loss of patent protection would have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Patents have a limited lifespan. In the United States, if all maintenance fees are timely paid, the natural expiration of a patent is generally 20 years from its earliest U.S. filing date. Various extensions may be available, but the life of a patent, and the protection it affords, is limited. Even if patents covering our product candidates are obtained, once the patent life has expired, we may be open to competition from competitive products. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting such candidates might expire before or shortly after such candidates are commercialized. As a result, our patent portfolio may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing products similar or identical to ours.

Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of FDA marketing approval of our product candidates, one or more of our patents or patents may be eligible for limited patent term restoration under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984. The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 permit a patent restoration term of up to five years as compensation for patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review process. A maximum of one patent may be extended per FDA approved product as compensation for the patent term lost during the FDA regulatory review process. A patent term extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval and only those claims covering such approved drug product, a method for using it or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. Patent term extension may also be available in certain foreign countries upon regulatory approval of our product candidates. However, we may not be granted an extension because of, for example, failing to apply within applicable deadlines, failing to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents or otherwise failing to satisfy applicable requirements. Moreover, the applicable time period or the scope of patent protection afforded could be less than we request. If we are unable to obtain patent term extension or restoration or the term of any such extension is less than we request, our competitors may obtain approval of competing products following our patent expiration, and our revenue could be reduced, possibly materially. Further, if this occurs, our competitors may take advantage of our investment in development and trials by referencing our clinical and preclinical data and launch their product earlier than might otherwise be the case.

In addition, we rely on the protection of our trade secrets, including unpatented technology and other proprietary information to maintain our competitive position. Although we have taken steps to protect our trade secrets and unpatented including entering into confidentiality agreements with third parties, and confidential information and inventions agreements with employees, consultants and advisors, we cannot provide any assurances that all such agreements have been duly executed, and any of these parties may breach the agreements and disclose our proprietary information, including our trade secrets, and we may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for such breaches. Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret is difficult, expensive and time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, some courts inside and outside the United States are less willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets.

We have entered and may enter in the future into and confidentiality agreements to protect the proprietary positions of third parties, such as outside scientific collaborators, contract research organizations, third-party manufacturers, consultants, advisors, potential partners and other third parties. We may become subject to litigation where a third- party asserts that we or our employees inadvertently or otherwise breached the agreements and used or disclosed trade secrets or other information proprietary to the third parties. Defense of such matters, regardless of their merit, could involve substantial litigation expense and be a substantial diversion of employee resources from our business. We cannot predict whether we would prevail in any such actions. Moreover, intellectual property litigation, regardless of its outcome, may cause negative publicity and could prohibit us from marketing or otherwise commercializing our product candidates and technology. Failure to defend against any such claim could subject us to significant liability for monetary damages or prevent or delay our developmental and commercialization efforts, which could adversely affect our business. Even if we are successful in defending against these claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to our management team and other employees.

A third party may hold intellectual property, including patent rights that are important or necessary to the development of our product candidates. It may be necessary for us to use the patented or proprietary technology of third parties to commercialize any current or future product candidates, in which case we would be required to obtain a license from these third parties on commercially reasonable terms. Such a license may not be available, or it may not be available on commercially reasonable terms. Our business would be harmed if we are not able to obtain such a license on commercially reasonable terms or at all, or if is offered and our competitors gain access to the same technology.

The risks described elsewhere pertaining to our intellectual property rights also apply to the intellectual property rights that including such rights acquired under the Bayer License Agreement, and any failure by us or our licensors to obtain, maintain, defend and enforce these rights could have an adverse effect on our business. In some cases we may not have control over the prosecution, maintenance or enforcement of the patents that we license, and may not have sufficient ability to provide input into the patent prosecution, maintenance and defense process with respect to such patents, and our licensors may fail to take the steps that we believe are necessary or desirable in order to obtain, maintain, defend and enforce the licensed patents.

Because our development programs may in the future require the use of proprietary rights held by third parties, the growth of our business may depend in part on our ability to acquire, or use these third-party proprietary rights. We may be unable to acquire or any compositions, methods of use, processes or other third party intellectual property rights from third parties that we identify as necessary for our product candidates. The licensing and acquisition of third-party intellectual property rights is a competitive area, and more established companies may pursue strategies to license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights that we may consider attractive or necessary. These established companies may have a competitive advantage over us due to their size, capital resources and greater clinical development and commercialization capabilities. In addition, companies that perceive us to be a competitor may be unwilling to assign or license rights to us. We also may be unable to license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights on terms that would allow us to make an appropriate return on our investment or at all. If we are unable to successfully obtain rights to required third-party intellectual property rights or maintain the existing intellectual property rights we have, we may have to abandon development of the relevant program or product candidate, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

Pursuant to the Voting and Support Agreement, entered into among the Legacy Holders and certain other stockholders in connection with the Business Combination (the “Voting Agreement”), the Legacy Holders, including Dr. Ahmed M. Hamdy, our Chief Executive Officer, and Dr. Raquel E. Izumi, our President and Chief Operations Officer, have the right to designate seven of the nine members to our board of directors, and the stockholders who are parties to the Voting Agreement, who beneficially own approximately 35.2% of our outstanding common stock, have agreed to vote for such designees. As a result, the Legacy Holders have the ability to exercise significant influence over the election of our board of directors, which in turn may create issues if and to the extent our interests and those of these stockholders diverge. We have not established at this time any procedural mechanisms to address actual or perceived conflicts of interest of such directors and officers and expect that our board of directors, in the exercise of its fiduciary duties, will determine how to address any actual or perceived conflicts of interest on a basis.

As of December 31, 2021, private warrants to purchase 3,295,000 shares of common stock were outstanding. Additionally, up to 6,000,000 Earnout Shares may be issued in connection with the Merger Agreement, provided that certain conditions are met. To the extent such private warrants are exercised or conditions to receive Earnout Shares are met, additional shares of our common stock will be issued, which will result in dilution to the holders of our common stock and increase the number of shares eligible for resale in the public market. Such shares are eligible for sale in the public market, subject to volume limitations under Rule 144 under the Securities Act with respect to shares held by directors, executive officers and other affiliates, and certain of such shares are eligible for sale in the public market under currently effective Registration Statement on Form In addition, in September 2021, we sold 3,500,000 shares of our common stock to certain investors in a private placement, and such shares are available for resale under our Registration Statement on Form Sales, or potential sales, of substantial numbers of shares in the public market could increase the volatility of the market price of our common stock or adversely affect the market price of our common stock.