SLS SELLAS Life Sciences Group Inc

RISK FACTORS

Our business is subject to numerous risks. We caution you that the following important factors, among others, could cause our actual results to differ materially from those expressed in statements made by us or on our behalf in filings with the SEC, press releases or communications with investors and others. Any or all of our statements in this prospectus and in any other public statements we make may turn out to be wrong. They can be affected by inaccurate assumptions or by known or unknown risks and uncertainties. The factors mentioned in the discussion below will be important in determining future results. Consequently, actual future results may vary materially from those anticipated in this prospectus or our other public statements.

Risks Related to Our Commercial Program

We only recently initiated our product launch of Abstral ^® , our only approved product. We have a history of net losses and negative cash flow from operations, and have not sold any other products, and cannot predict if or when we will become profitable.

In October 2013, we initiated the product launch of Abstral ^® (“Abstral”) sublingual tablets in the United States. Abstral is a sublingual (under the tongue) formulation of fentanyl indicated for the treatment of breakthrough pain in patients with cancer, 18 years of age and older, who are receiving, and are tolerant to, opioid therapy for their persistent baseline cancer pain. Prior to the acquisition of Abstral, we had no commercialization history and had never sold or distributed any other products. As a result, there is no historical basis upon which to assess how we will respond to regulatory, competitive or other challenges to our ability to sell Abstral on a profitable basis. We are unable to predict when, if ever, that we will generate profits from the sale of Abstral.

We have generated substantial operating losses and negative cash flow from operations since our inception. For example, for 2013 and 2012, we incurred net operating losses of $33.8 million and $21.2 million, respectively, and our net cash used in operating activities was $28.9 million and $21.0 million, respectively, and, at December 31, 2013, our accumulated deficit was $178.9 million. Despite our launch of Abstral in the United States, we expect to continue to incur losses and negative cash flow for the foreseeable future.

Our ability to generate sufficient revenues from Abstral and to transition to profitability and generate positive cash flow will depend on numerous factors described in the risk factors that follow, and we may never achieve profitability or positive cash flow. If we are unable to transition to profitability and generate positive cash flow over time, our business, results of operations and financial condition would be materially and adversely affected, which could result in our inability to continue operations.

We are dependent on the commercial success of Abstral to generate revenues.

Although we are in the process of testing and developing other drug candidates and may seek to acquire rights in other approved drugs, we anticipate that our ability to generate revenues and to become profitable in the foreseeable future will depend upon the commercial success of our one approved product, Abstral. In addition to the other risks discussed elsewhere in this section, our ability to generate future revenues from the sale of Abstral will depend on a number of factors, including, but not limited to:

7

Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with our commercialization efforts, even if we do achieve significant revenues from Abstral or become profitable, we may not be able to sustain or increase our revenues or maintain profitability on an ongoing basis.

If Abstral does not achieve market acceptance or coverage by third-party payors, the revenues that we generate from that product will be limited.

The commercial success of Abstral will depend upon the acceptance of that product by physicians, patients, healthcare payors and the medical community. Coverage and reimbursement for that product by third-party payors is also necessary for commercial success. The degree of market acceptance of Abstral will depend on a number of factors, including:

For example, while we believe that our sublingual delivery method for Abstral will appeal to patients, some patients may believe that an under the tongue delivery method is ineffective or may otherwise react unfavorably to sublingual delivery. In accordance with the risk evaluation mitigation strategy (“REMS”) protocol for all transmucosal immediate-release fentanyl (“TIRF”) products, physicians are advised to begin patients at the lowest dose available for the applicable TIRF product, which for Abstral is 100 mcg. If patients do not experience pain relief at initial low-dose prescriptions of Abstral, they or their physicians may conclude that Abstral is ineffective in general and may discontinue use of Abstral before titrating to an effective dose. In addition, many third-party payors require usage and failure on cheaper generic versions of fentanyl prior to providing reimbursement for Abstral, which would limit Abstral’s use as a first-line treatment option.

Products used to treat and manage pain, especially in the case of controlled substances, are from time to time subject to negative publicity, including negative publicity relating to illegal use, overdoses, abuse, diversion, serious injury and death. These events have led to heightened regulatory scrutiny. Controlled substances are classified by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (the “DEA”) as Schedule I through V substances, with Schedule I substances being prohibited for sale in the United States, Schedule II substances considered to present the highest risk of abuse and Schedule V substances being

8

considered to present the lowest relative risk of abuse. Abstral contains fentanyl, an opioid, and is regulated as a Schedule II controlled substance. Despite the strict regulations on the marketing, distributing, prescribing and dispensing of such substances, illicit use and abuse of controlled substances is well-documented. Thus, the marketing of Abstral may generate public controversy that may adversely affect market acceptance of Abstral.

Our efforts to educate the medical community and third-party payors on the benefits of Abstral and gain broad market acceptance may require significant resources and may never be successful. If Abstral does not achieve an adequate level of acceptance by physicians, third-party payors and patients, we may not generate sufficient revenue from that product to become or remain profitable.

In addition, fentanyl treatments can be costly to third-party payors and patients. Accordingly, hospitals and physicians may resist prescribing Abstral and third-party payors, and patients may not purchase Abstral due to cost.

We are subject, directly or indirectly, to U.S. federal and state health care fraud and abuse and false claims laws and regulations. Prosecutions under such laws have increased in recent years and we may become subject to such litigation. If we are unable to, or have not fully complied with such laws, we could face substantial penalties.

Our Abstral operations are directly, or indirectly through our customers and health care professionals, subject to various U.S. federal and state fraud and abuse laws, including, without limitation, the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, federal False Claims Act, federal Sunshine Act, and federal Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. These laws may impact, among other things, our Abstral sales, and marketing and education programs.

The federal Anti-Kickback Statue prohibits persons from knowingly and willfully soliciting, offering, receiving, or providing renumeration, directly or indirectly, in exchange for or to induce either the referral of an individual, or the furnishing or arranging for a good or service, for which payment may be made under a federal health care program such as the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Several courts have interpreted the statute’s intent requirement to mean that if any one purpose of an arrangement involving renumeration is to induce referrals of federal health care covered business, the statute has been violated. The Anti-Kickback Statue is broad, and despite a series of narrow safe harbors, prohibits many arrangements and practices that are lawful in businesses outside of the health care industry. Penalties for violations of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute include criminal penalties and civil and administrative sanctions such as fines, imprisonment and possible exclusion from Medicare, Medicaid and other federal health care programs. An alleged violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute may be used as a predicate offense to establish liability pursuant to other federal laws and regulations such as a the federal False Claims Act. Many states have also adopted laws similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, some of which apply to the referral of patients for health care items or services reimbursed by any source, not only Medicare and Medicaid programs.

The federal False Claims Act prohibits persons from knowingly filing, or causing to be filed, a false claim to, or the knowing use of false statements to obtain payment from, the federal government. Suits filed under the False Claims Act, known as “qui tam” actions, can be brought by any individual on behalf of the government and such individuals, commonly known as “relators” or “whistleblowers,” may share in any amounts paid by the entity to the government in fines or settlement. The frequency of filing qui tam actions has increased significantly in recent years, causing greater numbers of health care companies to have to defend a False Claim Act action. The federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act includes provisions expanding the ability of certain relators to bring actions that would have been dismissed under prior law. When an entity is determined to have violated the federal False Claims Act, it may be required to pay up to three times the actual damages sustained by the government, plus civil penalties for each separate false claim. The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 encouraged states to enact or modify their state false claims act to be at least as effective as the federal False Claims Act by granting states a portion of any federal Medicaid funds recovered through Medicaid-related actions. Most states have enacted state false claims laws, and many of those states included laws including qui tam provisions.

The federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act include provisions known as the Physician Payments Sunshine Act, which requires manufacturers of drugs, biologics, devices and medical supplies covered under Medicare and Medicaid to record any transfers of value to physicians and teaching hospitals and to report this data beginning in 2013 to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for subsequent public disclosures. Manufacturers must also disclose investment interest held by physicians and their family members. Failure to submit the required information may result in civil monetary penalties of up to $1 million per year for knowing violations and may result in liability under other federal laws or regulations. Similar reporting requirements have also been enacted on the state level in the U.S., and an increasing number of countries worldwide either have adopted or are considering similar laws requiring transparency of interactions with health care professionals. In

9

addition, some states such as Massachusetts and Vermont imposed an outright ban on certain gifts to physicians. These laws could affect our Abstral promotional activities by limiting the kinds of interactions we could have with hospitals, physicians or other potential purchasers or users of our system. Both the disclosure laws and gift bans also will impose administrative, cost and compliance burdens on us.

We are unable to predict whether we could become subject to actions under any of these laws, or the impact of such actions. If we are found to be in violation of any of the laws described above and other applicable state and federal fraud and abuse laws, we may be subject to penalties, including civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, or an administrative action of suspension or exclusion from government health care reimbursement programs and the curtailment or restructuring of our commercial operations.

In addition, to the extent we commence commercial operations overseas, we will be subject to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and other countries’ anti-corruption/anti-bribery regimes, such as the U.K. Bribery Act. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act prohibits improper payments or offers of payments to foreign governments and their officials for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business. Safeguards we implement to discourage improper payments or offers of payments by our employees, consultants, sales agents or distributors may be ineffective, and violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and similar laws may result in severe criminal or civil sanctions, or other liabilities or proceedings against us, any of which would likely harm our reputation, business, financial conditions and results of operations.

We have no internal manufacturing capabilities; we rely instead on third parties in our supply chain for the commercial supply of Abstral, and if we fail to maintain our supply and manufacturing relationships with these third parties or develop new relationships with other third parties, we may be unable to continue to commercialize Abstral.

We rely on third parties for the commercial supply of Abstral. Our ability to commercially supply Abstral will depend, in part, on our ability to successfully obtain fentanyl, the active pharmaceutical ingredient (“API”) for Abstral, and outsource most, if not all, of the aspects of its manufacture at competitive costs, in accordance with regulatory requirements and in sufficient quantities for commercialization. If we fail to maintain supply relationships with these third parties, we may be unable to continue to commercialize Abstral.

We will purchase the fentanyl API utilized in connection with Abstral from third parties. Our ability to obtain fentanyl API in sufficient quantities and quality, and on a timely basis, is critical to our commercialization of Abstral. There is no assurance that these suppliers will produce the materials in the quantities and quality and at the times they are needed, if at all.

The manufacture of pharmaceutical products generally requires significant expertise and capital investment, often including the development of advanced manufacturing techniques and process controls. Manufacturers of pharmaceutical products often encounter difficulties in production, particularly in scaling up and validating initial production. These problems can include difficulties with production costs and yields, quality control, including stability of the product, quality assurance testing, shortages of qualified personnel, as well as compliance with strictly enforced federal, state and foreign regulations. Additionally, our manufacturers may experience difficulties due to resource constraints, labor disputes, unstable political environments or natural disasters. If our manufacturers were to encounter any of these difficulties, or otherwise fail to comply with their contractual obligations for any reason, our ability to commercially supply Abstral could be jeopardized. Any delay or interruption in our ability to commercially supply Abstral will result in the loss of potential revenues and could adversely affect the market’s acceptance of that product.

Manufacturers and suppliers are subject to regulatory requirements including current Good Manufacturing Practices (“cGMPs”), which cover, among other things, manufacturing, testing, quality control and recordkeeping relating to Abstral, and are subject to ongoing inspections by the FDA, the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) and other regulatory agencies. If any of our third-party manufacturers cannot successfully manufacture product that conforms to our specifications and the applicable regulatory authorities’ strict regulatory requirements, they will not be able to secure or maintain regulatory approval for the manufacturing facilities. In addition, we have no control over the ability of third-party manufacturers to maintain adequate quality control, quality assurance and qualified personnel. If the FDA or any other applicable regulatory authorities do not approve these facilities for the manufacture of Abstral or if they withdraw any such approval in the future, we may need to find alternative manufacturing facilities, which would significantly impact our ability to commercially supply Abstral.

10

We face intense competition, including from generic products, and if our competitors market or develop alternative treatments that are demonstrated to be safer or more effective than Abstral, our commercial opportunities will be reduced or eliminated.

The pharmaceutical industry is characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition and a strong emphasis on developing proprietary therapeutics. We face competition from a number of sources, some of which may target the same indications as Abstral, such as pharmaceutical companies, including generic drug companies, biotechnology companies, drug delivery companies and academic and research institutions, many of which have greater financial resources, marketing capabilities, including well-established sales forces, manufacturing capabilities, research and development capabilities, experience in obtaining regulatory approvals for product candidates and other resources than we have.

Abstral competes against numerous branded and generic products already being marketed and potentially those which are or will be in development. Many of these competitive products are offered in the United States by large, well-capitalized companies. In the breakthrough cancer pain (“BTcP”) market, physicians often treat BTcP with a variety of short-acting opioid medications, including morphine, morphine and codeine derivatives and fentanyl. Some currently marketed products against which we directly compete include Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.’s Fentora and Actiq, Insys’s Subsys, Archimedes Pharma Ltd.’s Lazanda and BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc.’s Onsolis. Some generic fentanyl products against which Abstral competes are marketed by Mallinckrodt, Inc., Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. and Actavis, Inc. In addition, we are aware of numerous companies developing other treatments and technologies for rapid delivery of opioids to treat BTcP, including transmucosal, transdermal, nasal spray, and inhaled sublingual delivery systems. If these treatments and technologies are successfully developed and approved, they could represent significant additional competition to Abstral. We will also face competition from third parties in obtaining allotments of fentanyl under applicable DEA annual quotas and recruiting and retaining qualified personnel.

If we are unable to achieve and maintain adequate levels of coverage and reimbursement for Abstral, on reasonable pricing terms, its commercial success may be severely hindered.

Successful sales of Abstral depend on the availability of adequate coverage and reimbursement from third-party payors. Patients who are prescribed medicine for the treatment of their conditions generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the costs associated with their prescription drugs. Adequate coverage and reimbursement from governmental healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and commercial payors is critical to new product acceptance. Coverage decisions may depend upon clinical and economic standards that disfavor new drug products when more established or lower cost therapeutic alternatives are already available or subsequently become available. The reimbursement payment rates for Abstral might not be adequate or may require co-payments that patients find unacceptably high. Patients are unlikely to use Abstral unless coverage is provided and reimbursement is adequate to cover a significant portion of the cost of Abstral.

In addition, the market for Abstral depends significantly on access to third-party payors’ drug formularies, or lists of medications for which third-party payors provide coverage and reimbursement. The industry competition to be included in such formularies often leads to downward pricing pressures on pharmaceutical companies. Also, third-party payors may refuse to include a particular branded drug in their formularies or otherwise restrict patient access to a branded drug when a less costly generic equivalent or other alternative is available. For example, many third-party payors require usage and failure on cheaper generic versions of rapid acting fentanyl prior to providing reimbursement for Abstral and other branded TIRF products, which limits Abstral’s use as a first-line treatment option.

Third-party payors, whether governmental or commercial, are developing increasingly sophisticated methods of controlling healthcare costs. In addition, in the United States, no uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for drug products exists among third-party payors. Therefore, coverage and reimbursement for drug products can differ significantly from payor to payor. As a result, the coverage determination process is often a time-consuming and costly process that will require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of Abstral to each payor separately, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be obtained.

Further, we believe that future coverage and reimbursement will likely be subject to increased restrictions in the United States. Third-party coverage and reimbursement for Abstral may cease to be available or adequate in the United States, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects.

11

We anticipate that the majority of our sales of Abstral will be to wholesale pharmaceutical distributors who, in turn, will sell the products to pharmacies, hospitals and other customers. The loss by us of any of these wholesale pharmaceutical distributors’ accounts or a material reduction in their purchases could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects.

In addition, these wholesale customers comprise a significant part of the distribution network for pharmaceutical products in the United States. This distribution network has undergone, and may continue to undergo, significant consolidation marked by mergers and acquisitions. As a result, a small number of large wholesale distributors control a significant share of the market. Consolidation of drug wholesalers has increased, and may continue to increase, competitive and pricing pressures on pharmaceutical products. We cannot assure you that we can manage these pricing pressures or that wholesaler purchases will not fluctuate unexpectedly from period to period.

Our sales of Abstral can be greatly affected by the inventory levels our wholesalers carry. We will monitor wholesaler inventory of Abstral using a combination of methods. However, our estimates of wholesaler inventories may differ significantly from actual inventory levels. Significant differences between actual and estimated inventory levels may result in excessive production (requiring us to hold substantial quantities of unsold inventory), inadequate supplies of products in distribution channels, insufficient product available at the retail level, and unexpected increases or decreases in orders from our wholesalers. These changes may cause our revenues to fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter, and in some cases may cause our operating results for a particular quarter to be below our expectations or the expectations of securities analysts or investors. In addition, at times, wholesaler purchases may exceed customer demand, resulting in reduced wholesaler purchases in later quarters, which may result in substantial fluctuations in our results of operations from period to period. If our financial results are below expectations for a particular period, the market price of our common stock may drop significantly.

We rely on third parties to perform many necessary services for Abstral, including services related to distribution, invoicing, storage and transportation.

We have retained third-party service providers to perform a variety of functions related to the sale and distribution of Abstral, key aspects of which will be out of our direct control. For example, we rely on third parties to provide logistics, warehousing and inventory management, distribution, contract administration and chargeback processing, accounts receivable management, patient assistance program management, and call center management and, as a result, most of our Abstral inventory may be stored at warehouses maintained by the service providers. If these third-party service providers fail to comply with applicable laws and regulations, fail to meet expected deadlines, or otherwise do not carry out their contractual duties to us, or encounter physical damage or natural disaster at their facilities, our ability to deliver Abstral to meet commercial demand would be significantly impaired. In addition, we expect to utilize third parties to perform various other services for us relating to sample accountability and regulatory monitoring, including adverse event reporting, safety database management and other product maintenance services. If the quality or accuracy of the data maintained by these service providers is insufficient, our ability to continue to market Abstral could be jeopardized or we could be subject to regulatory sanctions. We do not currently have the internal capacity to perform these important commercial functions, and we may not be able to maintain commercial arrangements for these services on reasonable terms.

We may need to increase the size and complexity of our organization in the future, and we may experience difficulties in managing our growth and executing our growth strategy.

Our management and personnel, systems and facilities currently in place may not be adequate to support our business plan and future growth. The effective management of our commercial program requires that we:

12

In addition, historically, we have utilized and continue to utilize the services of part-time outside consultants to perform a number of tasks for us, including tasks related to accounting and finance, compliance programs, clinical trial management, regulatory affairs, formulation development and other drug development functions. Our growth strategy related to Abstral may also entail expanding our use of consultants to implement these and other tasks going forward. Because we rely on consultants for certain functions of our business, we will need to be able to effectively manage these consultants to ensure that they successfully carry out their contractual obligations and meet expected deadlines. There can be no assurance that we will be able to manage our existing consultants or find other competent outside consultants, as needed, on economically reasonable terms, or at all. If we are not able to effectively expand our organization by either hiring new employees and expanding our use of consultants, or both, we may be unable to successfully implement the tasks necessary to effectively execute on our Abstral-related development and commercialization activities and, accordingly, may not achieve our goals.

We face potential product liability exposure relating to Abstral and, if successful claims are brought against us, we may incur substantial liability if our insurance coverage for those claims is inadequate.

The commercial sale of Abstral or other products we succeed in commercializing exposes us to possible product liability claims. This risk exists even if a product is approved for commercial sale by the FDA and manufactured in facilities licensed and regulated by the FDA, such as the case with Abstral. Abstral is designed to affect important bodily functions and processes. Any side effects, manufacturing defects, misuse or abuse associated with Abstral could result in injury to a patient or even death. For example, because Abstral is designed to be self-administered by patients, it is possible that a patient could fail to follow instructions and as a result apply a dose in a manner that results in injury. In addition, Abstral is an opioid pain reliever that contains fentanyl, which is regulated as a “controlled substance” under the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (the “CSA”) and could result in harm to patients relating to its potential for abuse. In addition, a liability claim may be brought against us even if Abstral merely appears to have caused an injury. Product liability claims may be brought against us by consumers, health care providers, pharmaceutical companies or others selling or otherwise coming into contact with Abstral. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against product liability claims we will incur substantial liabilities. In addition, regardless of merit or eventual outcome, product liability claims may result in:

We have obtained product liability insurance coverage for commercial product sales with a $5 million per occurrence and a $5 million annual aggregate coverage limit. We also carry excess product liability insurance coverage for commercial product sales with an additional $5 million per occurrence and an additional $5 million annual aggregate coverage limit. Our insurance coverage may not be sufficient to cover all of our product liability related expenses or losses and may not cover us for any expenses or losses we may suffer. Moreover, insurance coverage is becoming increasingly expensive and, in the future, we may not be able to maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost, in sufficient amounts or upon adequate terms to protect us against losses due to product liability. If we determine that it is prudent to increase our product liability coverage based on sales of Abstral, we may be unable to obtain this increased product liability insurance on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Large judgments have been awarded in class action or individual lawsuits based on drugs that had unanticipated side effects, including side effects that are less severe than those of Abstral. A successful product liability claim or series of claims brought against us could cause our stock price to decline and, if judgments exceed our insurance coverage, could decrease our cash and have a material adverse effect our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects.

13

Our business involves the use of hazardous materials and we and our third-party manufacturers and suppliers must comply with environmental laws and regulations, which can be expensive and restrict how we do business.

Our third-party manufacturers’ and suppliers’ activities involve the controlled storage, use and disposal of hazardous materials, including the components of Abstral. We and our manufacturers and suppliers are subject to laws and regulations governing the use, manufacture, storage, handling and disposal of these hazardous materials. In some cases, these hazardous materials and various wastes resulting from their use will be stored at our and our manufacturers’ facilities pending use and disposal. We cannot completely eliminate the risk of contamination, which could cause an interruption of our Abstral commercialization efforts, injury to our employees and others, environmental damage resulting in costly clean-up and liabilities under applicable laws and regulations governing the use, storage, handling and disposal of these materials and specified waste products. Although we expect that the safety procedures utilized by our third-party manufacturers for handling and disposing of these materials will generally comply with the standards prescribed by these laws and regulations, we cannot guarantee that this will be the case or eliminate the risk of accidental contamination or injury from these materials. In such an event, we may be held liable for any resulting damages and such liability could exceed our resources. We do not currently carry biological or hazardous waste insurance coverage and our property and casualty and general liability insurance policies specifically exclude coverage for damages and fines arising from biological or hazardous waste exposure or contamination.

Abstral is subject to ongoing and continued regulatory review, which may result in significant expense and adversely affect our commercialization of Abstral.

Even after U.S. regulatory approval for a product such as Abstral, the FDA may still impose significant restrictions on the approved indicated uses for which the product may be marketed or on the conditions of approval. For example, a product’s approval may contain requirements for potentially costly post-approval studies and surveillance, including Phase 4 clinical trials, to monitor the safety and efficacy of the product. We will also be subject to ongoing FDA obligations and continued regulatory review with respect to the manufacturing, processing, labeling, packaging, distribution, adverse event reporting, storage, advertising, promotion and recordkeeping for Abstral. These requirements include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, registration, as well as continued compliance with cGMPs, good clinical practices and good laboratory practices.

In the case of Abstral, we and our contract manufacturers are also subject to ongoing DEA regulatory obligations, including, among other things, annual registration renewal, security, recordkeeping, theft and loss reporting, periodic inspection and annual quota allotments for the raw material for commercial production of Abstral. In addition, manufacturers of drug products and their facilities are subject to continual review and periodic inspections by the FDA and other regulatory authorities for compliance with cGMP regulations. If we or a regulatory agency discovers previously unknown problems with a product, such as adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or problems with the facility where, or processes by which, the product is manufactured, a regulatory agency may impose restrictions on that product, the manufacturer or us, including requiring product recall, notice to physicians, withdrawal of the product from the market or suspension of manufacturing.

If we, Abstral or the manufacturing facilities for Abstral fail to comply with applicable regulatory requirements, a regulatory agency may:

14

In addition, our product labeling, advertising and promotion are subject to regulatory requirements and continuing regulatory review. The FDA strictly regulates the promotional claims that may be made about prescription drug products. In particular, a drug product may not be promoted for uses that are not approved by the FDA as reflected in the product’s approved labeling, although the FDA does not regulate the prescribing practices of physicians. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label uses may be subject to significant liability, including substantial monetary penalties and criminal prosecution.

The FDA’s regulations, policies or guidance may change and new or additional statutes or government regulations may be enacted that could further restrict or regulate post-approval activities relating to Abstral. We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of adverse government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action. If we are not able to achieve and maintain regulatory compliance, we may not be permitted to market Abstral, which would adversely affect our ability to generate revenue and achieve or maintain profitability.

Abstral may cause undesirable side effects or have other unexpected properties that could result in post-approval regulatory action.

If we or others identify undesirable side effects, or other previously unknown problems, caused by Abstral or other products with the same or related active ingredients, a number of potentially significant negative consequences could result, including:

Any of the above events resulting from undesirable side effects or other previously unknown problems could prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of Abstral and could substantially increase the costs of commercializing Abstral.

We are subject to numerous complex regulations and failure to comply with these regulations, or the cost of compliance with these regulations, may harm our business.

The research, testing, development, manufacturing, quality control, approval, labeling, packaging, storage, recordkeeping, promotion, advertising, marketing, distribution, possession and use of Abstral are subject to regulation by numerous governmental authorities in the United States. The FDA regulates drugs under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (the “FDCA”) and implementing regulations. Noncompliance with any applicable regulatory requirements can result in

15

refusal to approve products for marketing, warning letters, product recalls or seizure of products, total or partial suspension of production, prohibitions or limitations on the commercial sale of products or refusal to allow the entering into of federal and state supply contracts, fines, civil penalties and/or criminal prosecution. Additionally, the FDA and comparable governmental authorities have the authority to withdraw product approvals that have been previously granted. Moreover, the regulatory requirements relating to Abstral may change from time to time, and it is impossible to predict what the impact of any such changes may be.

Abstral is a controlled substance as defined in the CSA, which establishes, among other things, certain registration, production quotas, security, recordkeeping, reporting, import, export and other requirements administered by the DEA. The DEA regulates controlled substances as Schedule I, II, III, IV or V substances. Schedule I substances by definition have high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in the United States and lack accepted safety for use under medical supervision, and may not be marketed or sold in the United States. Except for research and industrial purposes, a pharmaceutical product may be listed as Schedule II, III, IV or V, with Schedule II substances considered to present the highest risk of abuse and Schedule V substances the lowest relative risk of abuse among such substances. Fentanyl is listed by the DEA as a Schedule II substance under the CSA.

The manufacture, shipment, storage, sale and use, among other things, of controlled substances that are pharmaceutical products are subject to a high degree of regulation. For example, generally all Schedule II substance prescriptions, such as prescriptions for fentanyl, must be written and signed by a physician, physically presented to a pharmacist and may not be refilled without a new prescription.

The DEA also conducts periodic inspections of certain registered establishments that handle controlled substances. Facilities that conduct research, manufacture, distribute, import or export controlled substances must be registered to perform these activities and have the security, control and inventory mechanisms required by the DEA to prevent drug loss and diversion. Failure to maintain compliance, particularly non-compliance resulting in loss or diversion, can result in regulatory action that could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects. The DEA may seek civil penalties, refuse to renew necessary registrations, or initiate proceedings to restrict, suspend or revoke those registrations. In certain circumstances, violations could lead to criminal proceedings.

Individual states also have controlled substances laws. Though state controlled substances laws often mirror federal law, because the states are separate jurisdictions, they may separately schedule Abstral. While some states automatically schedule a drug when the DEA does so, other states schedule drugs through rulemaking or a legislative action. State scheduling may delay the commercial sale of Abstral even though we have federal regulatory approval of Abstral, and adverse scheduling could have a material adverse effect on the commercial attractiveness of Abstral. We or our partners must also obtain separate state registrations, permits or licenses in order to be able to obtain, handle, and distribute Abstral for commercial sale, and failure to meet applicable regulatory requirements could lead to enforcement and sanctions by the states in addition to those from the DEA or otherwise arising under federal law.

Controlled substances are also regulated pursuant to several international drug control treaties. These treaties are enforced by the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs. The United States is a signatory to these treaties and thus must conform its laws and regulations to the international requirements, which generally include licensing, recordkeeping and reporting requirements. Fentanyl is currently classified under the international treaties, and current U.S. controls adequately address international requirements. Any change in the international treaties regarding classification of that product could affect regulation of the substance in the United States.

Annual DEA quotas on the amount of Abstral allowed to be produced in the United States and our specific allocation of fentanyl by the DEA could significantly limit the production or sale of Abstral.

The DEA limits the availability and production of all Schedule II substances through a quota system, which includes a national aggregate quota and individual quotas. Because fentanyl is subject to the DEA’s production and procurement quota scheme, the DEA establishes annually an aggregate quota for how much fentanyl may be produced in total in the United States based on the DEA’s estimate of the quantity needed to meet legitimate scientific and medicinal needs. This limited aggregate amount of fentanyl that the DEA allows to be produced in the United States each year is allocated among individual companies, which must submit applications annually to the DEA for individual production and procurement quotas. The DEA requires substantial evidence and documentation of expected legitimate medical and scientific needs before assigning quotas to manufacturers. The DEA may adjust aggregate production quotas and individual production and procurement quotas from time to time during the year, although the DEA has substantial discretion in whether or not to make such adjustments.

16

Moreover, we do not know what amounts of fentanyl other companies developing product candidates containing fentanyl may request for future years. The DEA, in assessing factors such as medical need, abuse and diversion potential and other policy considerations, may choose to set the aggregate fentanyl quota lower than the total amount requested by the companies. We are permitted to petition the DEA to increase the annual aggregate quota after it is initially established, but there is no guarantee that the DEA would act favorably upon such a petition. Our production and procurement quota of fentanyl may not be sufficient to meet our commercial demand or clinical development needs. Any delay or refusal by the DEA in establishing the production and/or procurement quota or a reduction in our quota for fentanyl or a failure to increase it over time as we anticipate could delay or stop the commercial sale of Abstral or cause us to fail to achieve our expected operating results, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects.

Health care reform measures and changes in policies, funding, staffing and leadership at the FDA and other agencies could hinder or prevent the commercial success of Abstral.

In the United States, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory changes to the healthcare system in ways that could affect our future results of operations and the future results of operations of our potential customers. For example, the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 established a new Part D prescription drug benefit, which became effective January 1, 2006. Under the prescription drug benefit, Medicare beneficiaries can obtain prescription drug coverage from private sector plans that are permitted to limit the number of prescription drugs that are covered in each therapeutic category and class on their formularies. If Abstral is not widely included on the formularies of these plans, our ability to market Abstral may be adversely affected.

Furthermore, there have been and continue to be a number of initiatives at the federal and state levels that seek to reduce healthcare costs. In March 2010, President Obama signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act of 2010, as amended by the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010 (jointly, the “PPACA”), which includes measures to significantly change the way health care is financed by both governmental and private insurers. Among the provisions of the PPACA of importance to the pharmaceutical industry are the following:

17

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the PPACA was enacted. On August 2, 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, created measures for spending reductions by Congress. A Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, tasked with recommending a targeted deficit reduction of at least $1.2 trillion for the years 2013 through 2021, was unable to reach required goals, thereby triggering the legislation’s automatic reduction to several government programs. This includes aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of up to 2% per fiscal year, starting in 2013. On January 2, 2013, President Obama signed into law the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (the “ATRA”), which, among other things, delayed for another two months the budget cuts mandated by these sequestration provisions of the Budget Control Act of 2011. The ATRA also reduced Medicare payments to several providers, including hospitals, imaging centers and cancer treatment centers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. These new laws may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other health care funding, which could have a material adverse effect on our customers and accordingly, our financial operations.

Additionally, individual states have become increasingly aggressive in passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access, and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. Legally-mandated price controls on payment amounts by third-party payors or other restrictions could harm our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects.

In addition, regional healthcare authorities and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and which suppliers will be included in their prescription drug and other healthcare programs. This can reduce demand for Abstral or put pressure on our product pricing, which could negatively affect our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects.

The commercial success of Abstral will depend, in part, upon the availability of coverage and reimbursement from third-party payors at the federal, state and private levels. Third-party payors include governmental programs such as Medicare or Medicaid, private insurance plans and managed care plans. These third-party payors may deny coverage or reimbursement for a product or therapy in whole or in part if they determine that the product or therapy was not medically appropriate or necessary. Also, third-party payors have attempted to control costs by limiting coverage through the use of formularies and other cost-containment mechanisms and the amount of reimbursement for particular procedures or drug treatments.

18

Additionally, given recent federal and state government initiatives directed at lowering the total cost of healthcare, Congress and state legislatures will likely continue to focus on healthcare reform, the cost of prescription drugs and the reform of the Medicare and Medicaid programs. While we cannot predict the full outcome of any such legislation, it may result in decreased reimbursement for prescription drugs, which may further exacerbate industry-wide pressure to reduce prescription drug prices. This could harm our ability to market Abstral and generate revenues. In addition, legislation has been introduced in Congress that, if enacted, would permit more widespread importation or re-importation of pharmaceutical products from foreign countries into the United States, including from countries where the products are sold at lower prices than in the United States. Such legislation, or similar regulatory changes, could lead to a decision to decrease our prices to better compete, which, in turn, could adversely affect our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects. It is also possible that other legislative proposals having similar effects will be adopted.

Furthermore, regulatory authorities’ assessment of the data and results required to demonstrate safety and efficacy can change over time and can be affected by many factors, such as the emergence of new information, including on other products, changing policies and agency funding, staffing and leadership. We cannot be sure whether future changes to the regulatory environment will be favorable or unfavorable to our business prospects.

If we fail to comply with federal and state healthcare laws, including fraud and abuse and health information privacy and security laws, we could face substantial penalties and our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects could be adversely affected.

As a biopharmaceutical company, even though we do not and will not control referrals of healthcare services or bill directly to Medicare, Medicaid or other third-party payors, certain federal and state healthcare laws and regulations pertaining to fraud and abuse and patients’ rights are and will be applicable to our business. We could be subject to healthcare fraud and abuse and patient privacy regulation by both the federal government and the states in which we conduct our business. The laws that may affect our ability to operate include:

Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of the statutory exceptions and safe harbors available under the U.S. federal Anti-Kickback Statute, it is possible that some of our business activities could be subject to challenge under one or more of such laws. If we or our operations are found to be in violation of any of the laws described above or any other governmental regulations that apply to us, we may be subject to penalties, including civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, exclusion from participation in U.S. federal or state health care programs, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations. Any penalties, damages, fines, curtailment or restructuring of our operations could materially adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our financial results.

19

The FDA provides guidelines with respect to appropriate promotion and continuing medical and health education activities. Although we endeavor to follow these guidelines, the FDA or the Office of the Inspector General: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services may disagree, and we may be subject to significant liability, including civil and administrative remedies as well as criminal sanctions. In addition, management’s attention could be diverted, and our reputation could be damaged.

Although compliance programs can mitigate the risk of investigation and prosecution for violations of these laws, the risks cannot be entirely eliminated. Any action against us for violation of these laws, even if we successfully defend against it, could cause us to incur significant legal expenses and divert our management’s attention from the operation of our business. Moreover, achieving and sustaining compliance with applicable federal and state privacy, security and fraud laws may prove costly.

Risks Relating to Our Development Programs

Our drug candidates may not receive regulatory approval or be successfully commercialized.

Before they can be marketed, our products in development must be approved by the FDA or similar foreign governmental agencies. The process for obtaining FDA approval is both time-consuming and costly, with no certainty of a successful outcome. Before obtaining regulatory approval for the sale of any drug candidate, we must conduct extensive preclinical tests and clinical trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy in humans of our product candidates. Although our drug candidates have exhibited no serious adverse events (“SAEs”) in the Phase 1 and 1/2 clinical trial, SAEs or other unexpected side effects may arising during further testing and development. A failure of any preclinical study or clinical trial can occur at any stage of testing. The results of preclinical and initial clinical testing of these products may not necessarily indicate the results that will be obtained from later or more extensive testing. It also is possible to suffer significant setbacks in advanced clinical trials, even after obtaining promising results in earlier trials.

Clinical trial designs that were discussed with the authorities prior to their commencement may subsequently be considered insufficient for approval. Thus, our special protocol assessment with the FDA for our PRESENT trial does not guarantee marketing approval or approval of NeuVax for the treatment of breast cancer.

We reached agreement with the FDA regarding the special protocol assessment, or SPA, for the design of our NeuVax Phase 3 PRESENT trial as an adjuvant in the treatment of patients with Node positive HER2 negative breast cancer. An SPA agreement with the FDA provides a trial sponsor with an agreement that the clinical trial protocol design and analyses are adequate to support an efficacy claim. The SPA is documented as part of the administrative record, and is binding on the FDA and may not be changed unless we fail to follow the agreed upon protocol, data supporting the test are found to be false or incomplete, or the FDA determines that a substantial scientific issue essential to determining the safety or effectiveness of the drug was identified after the testing began. In June 2013, the FDA agreed to an amendment to the SPA to account for the use of a companion diagnostic. Even if an SPA is agreed to, approval of an NDA or a biological license application is not guaranteed because a final determination that an agreed upon protocol satisfies a specific objective, such as the demonstration of efficacy, or supports an approval decision, will be based on a complete review of all the data submitted to the FDA. There is no assurance, therefore, that NeuVax will be approved by the FDA.

A number of different factors could prevent us from obtaining regulatory approval or commercializing our product candidates on a timely basis, or at all.

We, the FDA or other applicable regulatory authorities, an Independent Data Safety Monitoring Board or “IDSMB” governing our clinical trials, or an institutional review board, or “ IRB ,” which is an independent committee registered with and overseen by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or “ HHS ,” that functions to approve, monitor and review biomedical and behavioral research involving humans, may suspend clinical trials of a drug candidate at any time for various reasons, including if we or they believe the subjects or patients participating in such trials are being exposed to unacceptable health risks. Among other reasons, adverse side effects of a drug candidate on subjects or patients in a clinical trial could result in the FDA or other regulatory authorities suspending or terminating the trial and refusing to approve a particular drug candidate for any or all indications of use.

20

Clinical trials of a new drug candidate require the enrollment of a sufficient number of patients, including patients who are suffering from the disease the drug candidate is intended to treat and who meet other eligibility criteria. Rates of patient enrollment are affected by many factors, and delays in patient enrollment can result in increased costs and longer development times than we expect at present. For example, breast cancer patients can be enrolled in our Phase 3 PRESENT study of NeuVax as early as the time they are prescribed standard of care treatment, which typically lasts approximately eight to nine months, but under the SPA can be treated in the Phase 3 PRESENT study only after completing standard of care treatment and being screened for HER2 and haplotype (HLA) status. A significant percentage of patients who are potentially eligible for the study may fail screening and not be treated with NeuVax, because of differences between their local and central diagnoses on the basis of HER2 status, haplotype or imaging requirements under the SPA, which requires that patients be in remission at the time of initiating the NeuVax inoculation series. Other patients who are enrolled at the outset of their standard of care also may eventually choose for personal reasons not to participate in the study. We also compete for eligible patients with other breast cancer trials underway from time to time, and we may experience delays in patient enrollment due to the pendency of other large trials underway in the same patient population.

Clinical trials also require the review and oversight of IRBs, which approve and continually review clinical investigations to protect the rights and welfare of human subjects. An inability or delay in obtaining IRB approval could prevent or delay the initiation and completion of clinical trials, and the FDA may decide not to consider any data or information derived from a clinical investigation not subject to initial and continuing IRB review and approval.

In addition, cancer vaccines are a relatively new form of therapeutic and a very limited number of such products have received regulatory approval. Therefore, the FDA or other regulatory authority may apply standards for approval of a new cancer vaccine that is different from past experience.

Numerous factors could affect the timing, cost or outcome of our drug development efforts, including the following:

21

It is possible that none of the product candidates that we develop will obtain the appropriate regulatory approvals necessary for us to begin selling them or that any regulatory approval to market a product may be subject to limitations on the indicated uses for which we may market the product. The time required to obtain FDA and other approvals is unpredictable but often can take years following the commencement of clinical trials, depending upon the complexity of the drug candidate. Any analysis we perform of data from clinical activities is subject to confirmation and interpretation by regulatory authorities, which could delay, limit or prevent regulatory approval. Any delay or failure in obtaining required approvals could have a material adverse effect on our ability to generate revenue from the particular drug candidate.

We are also subject to numerous foreign regulatory requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, manufacturing and marketing authorization, pricing and third-party reimbursement. The foreign regulatory approval process includes all of the risks associated with the FDA approval described above as well as risks attributable to the satisfaction of local regulations in foreign jurisdictions. Approval by the FDA does not assure approval by regulatory authorities outside of the United States.

We are dependent upon contract manufacturers for clinical supplies of our product candidates, including our sole source of supply of a key component of our Phase 3 PRESENT study of NeuVax.

We do not have the facilities or expertise to manufacture supplies of any of our product candidates for clinical trials. Accordingly, we are dependent upon contract manufacturers for these supplies. There can be no assurance that we will be able to secure needed supply arrangements on attractive terms, or at all. Our failure to secure these arrangements as needed could have a materially adverse effect on our ability to complete the development of our product candidates or, if we obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates, to commercialize them.

Our current plans call for the manufacture of our compounds by contract manufacturers offering research grade, Good Laboratory grade and Good Manufacturing Practices grade materials for preclinical studies (e.g., toxicology studies) and for clinical use. Certain of our product candidates are complex molecules requiring many synthesis steps, which may lead to challenges with purification and scale-up. These challenges could result in increased costs and delays in manufacturing.

NeuVax is administered in combination with Leukine ^® , a “GM-CSF” available in both liquid and lyopholyzed forms exclusively from Genzyme Corporation, or “Genzyme,” a subsidiary of Sanofi-Aventis.

We will continue to be dependent on Genzyme by us for our supply of Leukine ^® in connection with the ongoing NeuVax trials and the eventual commercial manufacture of NeuVax. Any future interruptions in the availability of Leukine ^® , or any determination by us to change the GM-CSF used with NeuVax, may have a material adverse effect on our NeuVax trials and any commercialization of NeuVax.

22

We may not be able to establish or maintain the third-party relationships that are necessary to develop or potentially commercialize some or all of our product candidates.

We expect to depend on collaborators, partners, licensees, clinical research organizations and other third parties to support our discovery efforts, to formulate product candidates, to manufacture our product candidates, and to conduct clinical trials for some or all of our product candidates. We cannot guarantee that we will be able to successfully negotiate agreements for or maintain relationships with collaborators, partners, licensees, clinical investigators, vendors and other third parties on favorable terms, if at all. Our ability to successfully negotiate such agreements will depend on, among other things, potential partners’ evaluation of the superiority of our technology over competing technologies and the quality of the preclinical and clinical data that we have generated, and the perceived risks specific to developing our product candidates. If we are unable to obtain or maintain these agreements, we may not be able to clinically develop, formulate, manufacture, obtain regulatory approvals for or commercialize our product candidates. Under certain license agreements that we have already entered into, we have minimum dollar amounts per year that we are obligated to spend on the development of the technology we have licensed from our contract partners and other obligations to maintain certain licenses. If we fail to meet this requirement under any of our licenses that contain such requirements or any other obligations under these licenses, we may be in breach of our obligations under such agreement, which may result in the loss of the technology licensed. We cannot necessarily control the amount or timing of resources that our contract partners will devote to our research and development programs, product candidates or potential product candidates, and we cannot guarantee that these parties will fulfill their obligations to us under these arrangements in a timely fashion. We may not be able to readily terminate any such agreements with contract partners even if such contract partners do not fulfill their obligations to us.

In addition, we may receive notices from third parties from time to time alleging that our technology or product candidates infringe upon the intellectual property rights of those third parties. Any assertion by third parties that our activities or product candidates infringe upon their intellectual property rights may adversely affect our ability to secure strategic partners or licensees for our technology or product candidates or our ability to secure or maintain manufacturers for our compounds.

Even if we obtain regulatory approvals, our marketed drugs will be subject to ongoing regulatory review. If we fail to comply with ongoing regulatory requirements, we could lose our approvals to market drugs and our business would be materially adversely affected.

Following regulatory approval of any drugs we may develop, we will remain subject to continuing regulatory review, including the review of adverse drug experiences and clinical results that are reported after our drug products are made available to patients. This would include results from any post marketing tests or vigilance required as a condition of approval. The manufacturer and manufacturing facilities we use to make any of our drug products will also be subject to periodic review and inspection by the FDA.

The discovery of any new or previously unknown problems with the product, manufacturer or facility may result in restrictions on the drug or manufacturer or facility, including withdrawal of the drug from the market. We would continue to be subject to the FDA requirements governing the labeling, packaging, storage, advertising, promotion, recordkeeping, and submission of safety and other post-market information for all of our product candidates, even those that the FDA had approved. If we fail to comply with applicable continuing regulatory requirements, we may be subject to fines, suspension or withdrawal of regulatory approval, product recalls and seizures, operating restrictions and other adverse consequences.

Even if we receive regulatory approval to market our product candidates, our product candidates may not be accepted commercially, which may prevent us from becoming profitable.

NeuVax and our other product candidates may not achieve market acceptance. Factors that we believe will materially affect market acceptance of our product candidates include:

23

We will be subject to competition and may not be able to compete successfully.

The biotechnology industry, including the cancer therapy vaccines market, is intensely competitive and involves a high degree of risk. We compete with other companies that have far greater experience and financial, research and technical resources than us. Potential competitors in the United States and worldwide are numerous and include pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, educational institutions and research foundations, many of which have substantially greater capital resources, marketing experience, research and development staffs and facilities than us. Some of our competitors may develop and commercialize products that compete directly with those incorporating our technology, introduce products to market earlier than our products or on a more cost effective basis. We may be unable to effectively develop our technology or any other applications on a cost effective basis or otherwise. In addition, our technology may be subject to competition from other technology or methods developed using techniques other than those developed by traditional biotechnology methods. Our competitors compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to our technology. Our collaborators or we will face competition with respect to product efficacy and safety, ease of use and adaptability to various modes of administration, acceptance by physicians, the timing and scope of regulatory approvals, availability of resources, reimbursement coverage, price and patent position, including potentially dominant patent positions of others. An inability to successfully complete our product development could lead to us having limited prospects for establishing market share or generating revenues from our technology.

For patients with early stage breast cancer, adjuvant therapy is often given to prevent recurrence and increase the chance of long-term disease free survival. Adjuvant therapy for breast cancer can include chemotherapy, hormonal therapy, radiation therapy, or combinations thereof. In addition, the HER2 targeted drug trastuzumab (Herceptin ^® ) may be given to patients with tumors with high expression of HER2 (IHC 3+), as well as other novel targets such as MUCI which may be useful in treating breast cancer.

There are a number of cancer vaccines in development for breast cancer, including but not limited to Lapuleucel-T (Dendreon), AE-37 (Antigen Express) and Stimuvax (Merck KgA). While these development candidates are aimed at a number of different targets, and AE-37 has published data in the HER2 breast cancer patient population, there is no guarantee that any of the these compounds will not in the future be indicated for treatment of low to intermediate HER2 breast cancer patients and become directly competitive with NeuVax.

We are dependent on technologies we license, and if we lose the right to license such technologies or we fail to license new technologies in the future, our ability to develop new products would be harmed.

We currently are dependent on licenses from third parties for technologies relating to our product candidates. Our current licenses impose, and any future licenses we enter into are likely to impose, various development, funding, royalty, diligence, sublicensing, insurance and other obligations on us. If our license with respect to any of these technologies is terminated for any reason, the development of the products contemplated by the licenses would be delayed, or suspended altogether, while we seek to license similar technology or develop new non-infringing technology. The costs of obtaining new licenses are high.

24

Risks associated with operating in foreign countries could materially adversely affect our product development.

We conduct our Phase 3 PRESENT study of NeuVax in countries outside of the United States. Consequently, we are, and will continue to be, subject to risks related to operating in foreign countries. Risks associated with conducting operations in foreign countries include:

In addition, there may be political instability, including war, terrorism, riots, civil insurrection or social unrest, and natural or man-made disasters, including famine, flood, fire, earthquake, storm or disease, which could seriously harm the progress of our clinical trials at sites in particular foreign countries or regions. For example, approximately 10% of our Phase 3 PRESENT trial sites are in The Ukraine, and the recent occupation of Ukrainian territory by Russian military forces and political and civil unrest there could disrupt activities at these trial sites, which could adversely affect patient enrollment or other activities at these sites.

Any drugs we develop may become subject to unfavorable pricing regulations, third-party reimbursement practices or healthcare reform initiatives, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

We intend to sell our products primarily to hospitals, oncologists, clinics, and practices which receive reimbursement for the health care services they provide to their patients from third-party payors, such as Medicare, Medicaid and other domestic and international government programs, private insurance plans and managed care programs. Most third-party payors may deny reimbursement if they determine that a medical product was not used in accordance with cost-effective treatment methods, as determined by the third-party payor, was used for an unapproved indication or if they believe the cost of the product outweighs its benefits. Third-party payors also may refuse to reimburse for experimental procedures and devices. Furthermore, because our clinical programs are still in clinical development, we are unable at this time to determine their cost-effectiveness and the level or method of reimbursement for them. Increasingly, the third-party payors who reimburse patients are requiring that drug companies provide them with predetermined discounts from list prices, and are challenging the prices charged for medical products. If the price we are able to charge for any products we develop is inadequate in light of our development and other costs, our profitability could be adversely affected.

We currently expect that the drugs we are currently developing will need to be administered under the supervision of a physician. Under currently applicable law, drugs that are not usually self-administered may be eligible for coverage by the Medicare program if:

Insurers may refuse to provide insurance coverage for newly approved drugs, or insurance coverage may be delayed or be more limited than the purpose for which the drugs are approved by the FDA. Moreover, eligibility for insurance coverage does not imply that any drug will be reimbursed in all cases or at a rate that covers our costs, including research, development,

25

manufacture, sale and distribution. Interim payments for new drugs, if applicable, may also not be sufficient to cover our costs and may not be made permanent. Reimbursement may be based on payments for other services and may reflect budgetary constraints or imperfections in Medicare data. Net prices for drugs may be reduced by mandatory discounts or rebates required by government health care programs or private payors and by any future relaxation of laws that presently restrict imports of drugs from countries where they may be sold at lower prices than in the United States. Private third-party payors often rely upon Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own reimbursement rates. Our inability to promptly obtain coverage and profitable reimbursement rates from both government-funded and private payors for new drugs that we develop could have a material adverse effect on our operating results, our ability to raise capital needed to develop products, and our overall financial condition.

Additionally, third-party payors are increasingly attempting to contain health care costs by limiting both coverage and the level of reimbursement for medical products and services. Levels of reimbursement may decrease in the future, and future legislation, regulation or reimbursement policies of third-party payors may adversely affect the demand for and price levels of our products. If our customers are not reimbursed for our products, they may reduce or discontinue purchases of our products, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Comprehensive health care reform legislation, which was recently adopted by Congress and was subsequently signed into law, could adversely affect our business and financial condition. Among other provisions, the legislation provides that a “biosimilar” product may be approved by the FDA on the basis of analytical tests and certain clinical studies demonstrating that such product is highly similar to an existing, approved product and that switching between an existing product and the biosimilar product will not result in diminished safety or efficacy. This abbreviated regulatory approval process may result in increased competition if we are able to bring a product to market. The legislation also includes more stringent compliance programs for companies in various sectors of the life sciences industry with which we may need to comply and enhanced penalties for non-compliance with the new health care regulations. Complying with new regulations may divert management resources, and inadvertent failure to comply with new regulations may result in penalties being imposed on us.

Some states and localities have established drug importation programs for their citizens, and federal drug import legislation has been introduced in Congress. The Medicare Prescription Drug Plan legislation, which became law in December 2003, required the Secretary of Health and Human Services to promulgate regulations for drug reimportation from Canada into the United States under some circumstances, including when the drugs are sold at a lower price than in the United States. The Secretary, however, retained the discretion not to implement a drug reimportation plan if he finds that the benefits do not outweigh the costs, and has so far declined to approve a reimportation plan. Proponents of drug reimportation may attempt to pass legislation that would directly allow reimportation under certain circumstances. Legislation or regulations allowing the reimportation of drugs, if enacted, could decrease the price we receive for any products that we may develop and adversely affect our future revenues and prospects for profitability.

If our management team is not effective or if we fail to attract, hire and retain qualified personnel, we may not be able to design, develop, market or sell our products or successfully manage our business.

Our business prospects are dependent on our management team. The loss of Dr. Ahn, our President and Chief Executive Officer, or our other executive officers, or our inability to identify, attract, retain and integrate additional qualified key personnel, could make it difficult for us to manage our business successfully and achieve our business objectives.

Competition for skilled research, product development, regulatory and technical personnel also is intense, and we may not be able to recruit and retain the personnel we need. The loss of the services of any key research, product development, regulatory, and technical personnel, or our inability to hire new personnel with the requisite skills, could restrict our ability to develop our product candidates.

We use biological and hazardous materials, and we may be liable for any contamination or injury we cause.

Our research and development activities involves or may involve the controlled use of potentially harmful biological materials as well as hazardous materials, chemicals and various radioactive compounds. We cannot completely eliminate the risk of accidental contamination or injury; we may be liable for any damages that result, and any liability could exceed our resources.

26

We are also subject to numerous environmental, health and workplace safety laws and regulations, including those governing laboratory procedures, exposure to blood-borne pathogens and the handling of biohazardous materials. We maintain workers’ compensation insurance to cover us for costs and expenses we may incur due to injuries to our employees resulting from the use of these materials. State laws mandate the limits of our workers’ compensation insurance, and our workers’ compensation liability is capped at these state-mandated limits. We do not maintain insurance for environmental liability or toxic tort claims that may be asserted against us in connection with our storage or disposal of biological, hazardous or radioactive materials. Additional federal, state and local laws and regulations affecting our operations may be adopted in the future. We may incur substantial costs to comply with, and substantial fines or penalties if we violate any of these laws or regulations.

Risks Relating To Our Financial Position and Capital Requirements

We may not be able to obtain sufficient financing, and may not be able to develop our product candidates.

We believe that our existing cash and cash equivalents along with revenue from sale of Abstral, should be sufficient to fund our operations for the foreseeable future. This projection is based on our current planned operations and revenue expectations and is subject to changes in our plans and uncertainties inherent in our business, and we may need to seek to replenish our existing cash and cash equivalents sooner than we project. In the future, we may be dependent on obtaining further financing from third parties in order to maintain our operations and to meet our financial obligations. We cannot assure that additional funding to maintain our operations and to meet our obligations to our licensors will be available to us in the future on acceptable terms, or at all. If we fail to obtain additional funding when needed, we would be forced to scale back, or terminate, our operations, or to seek to merge with or to be acquired by another company.

We expect to continue to incur significant research and development expenses, which may make it difficult for us to attain profitability, and may lead to uncertainty about or as to our ability to continue as a going concern.

Substantial funds were expended to develop our technologies and product candidates, and additional substantial funds will be required for further preclinical testing and clinical trials of our product candidates, and to manufacture and market any products that are approved for commercial sale. Because the successful development of our products is uncertain, we are unable to precisely estimate the actual funds we will require to develop and potentially commercialize them. In addition, we may not be able to generate enough revenue, even if we are able to commercialize any of our product candidates, to become profitable.

In the event that we are unable to achieve or sustain profitability or to secure additional financing, we may not be able to meet our obligations as they come due, raising substantial doubts as to our ability to continue as a going concern. Any such inability to continue as a going concern may result in our common stock holders losing their entire investment. There is no guaranty that we will become profitable or secure additional financing. Our financial statements contemplate that we will continue as a going concern and do not contain any adjustments that might result if we were unable to continue as a going concern. Changes in our operating plans, our existing and anticipated working capital needs, the acceleration or modification of our expansion plans, increased expenses, potential acquisitions or other events will all affect our ability to continue as a going concern. Future financing may be obtained through, and future development efforts may be paid for by, the issuance of debt or equity, which may have an adverse effect on our security holders or may otherwise adversely affect our business.

If we raise funds through the issuance of debt or equity, any debt securities or preferred stock issued will have rights, preferences and privileges senior to those of holders of our common stock in the event of a liquidation. In such event, there is a possibility that once all senior claims are settled, there may be no assets remaining to pay out to the holders of common stock. In addition, if we raise funds through the issuance of additional equity, whether through private placements or additional public offerings, such an issuance would dilute your ownership in us.

The terms of debt securities may also impose restrictions on our operations, which may include limiting our ability to incur additional indebtedness, to pay dividends on or repurchase our capital stock, or to make certain acquisitions or investments. In addition, we may be subject to covenants requiring us to satisfy certain financial tests and ratios, and our ability to satisfy such covenants may be affected by events outside of our control.

You may have difficulty evaluating our business, because we only recently commenced commercial sales of our first product, Abstral, and our historical financial information may not be representative of our future results.

27

We may be unable to comply with our reporting and other requirements under federal securities laws.

As a publicly traded company, we are subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the “ Exchange Act ,” and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, or the “ Sarbanes-Oxley Act .” In addition, the Exchange Act requires that we file annual, quarterly and current reports. Our failure to prepare and disclose this information in a timely manner could subject us to penalties under federal securities laws, expose us to lawsuits and restrict our ability to access financing. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires that we, among other things, establish and maintain effective internal controls and procedures for financial reporting. From time to time we evaluate our existing internal controls in light of the standards adopted by the Public company Accounting Oversight Board. It is possible that we or our independent registered public accounting firm may identify significant deficiencies or material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting in the future. Any failure or difficulties in implementing and maintaining these controls could cause us to fail to meet the periodic reporting obligations or result in material misstatements in our financial statements.

Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires annual management assessments of the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting. Our failure to satisfy the requirements of Section 404 on a timely basis could result in the loss of investor confidence in the reliability of our financial statements, which in turn could have a material adverse effect on our business and our common stock.

Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property

We may not be able to obtain and enforce patent rights or other intellectual property rights that cover our commercial product or product candidates and that are of sufficient breadth to prevent third parties from competing against us.

Our success with respect to our commercial product and product candidates will depend in part on our ability to obtain and maintain patent protection in the United States and abroad, to preserve our trade secrets, and to prevent third parties from infringing upon our proprietary rights. Our patents and patent applications, however, may not be sufficient to provide protection for Abstral, NeuVax, or our other products and product candidates against commercial competition.

NeuVax. The active peptide found in NeuVax, the E75 peptide, has been known and studied for many years. We have one issued U.S. patent, US 6,514,942, covering the composition of matter of the E75 peptide, which is expected to expire in 2015, prior to any potential commercialization of NeuVax. We do not have and will not be able to obtain any composition of matter patent protection for E75, the active peptide in NeuVax outside the United States. We also have a license from The Henry M. Jackson Foundation to an issued U.S. and European method of use patents, which expire in 2028, that are directed to a method of inducing immunity against breast cancer recurrence by administering a composition comprising the E75 peptide to a patient, that patent covers administration to patients who have both an immunohistochemistry (IHC) rating of 1+ or 2+ for HER2/neu protein expression and a fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) rating of less than about 2.0 for HER2/neu gene expression. Thus, our method of use patent may not prevent competitors from seeking to develop and market NeuVax for use in breast cancer patients who do not meet these criteria or for any other indications. If any such alternative uses were approved, this could lead to off-label use and price erosion for our NeuVax product. We may seek FDA approval for use of NeuVax to treat cancer patients who fall outside the claimed IHC and FISH ranges and for other cancers as well. Although we are pursuing additional patent protection for NeuVax through pending patent applications, we may not be able to obtain additional patent protection that would provide us with a significant commercial advantage.

GALE- 401. Anagrelide hydrochloride, the sole active pharmaceutical ingredient, or “API,” in GALE-401, has been approved for many years and, thus, it is not possible to obtain composition of matter patents that cover anagrelide hydrochloride. As a result, competitors who obtain the requisite regulatory approval can offer products with the same API as GALE-401, so long as the competitors do no infringe any formulation patents that we may have or may obtain or license, if any. The only patent protection that we have or are likely to obtain covering GALE-401 are patents relating to very specific formulations, methods using these formulations, and methods of manufacturing and packaging. We have two granted patents in the United Kingdom that expire in 2019 and we are prosecuting pending patent applications in other territories including but not limited to the United States and Europe, which may not issue prior to any potential commercialization of GALE-401. We may seek FDA approval for use of GALE-401 to treat patients with essential thrombocythemia and for other hermatological disorders as well. Although we are pursuing additional patent protection for GALE-401 through pending patent applications, we may not be able to obtain additional patent protection that would provide us with a significant commercial advantage.

28

Orexo AB filed an action in the U.S. District Court of New Jersey on June 30, 2011 asserting infringement by Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., of one of our licensed U.S. patents, US 6,761,910, covering Abstral. This patent is directed to pharmaceutical compositions for the treatment of acute disorders by sublingual administration. The claims of the patent cover formulations for other products in addition to Abstral, including Ambien (and generic forms of Ambien, which is the subject of the infringement action). Validity of the patent is being challenged as part of the court proceeding, and the patent could be held invalid or unenforceable as a result. We do not believe the invalidity or unenforceability of this patent would affect our license under the other Abstral patents or our ability to market, sell, distribute or manufacture Abstral in the United States.

GALE-301. The active peptides found in GALE-301 are derived from Folate Binding Protein. One of the active peptides, E39, has been known and studied for many years. The other active peptide(s) in GALE-301 are derivatives of E39. We have a license from The Henry Jackson Foundation to issued and granted patents in the U.S., Canada, and Japan, as well as a recently allowed European patent application, covering composition of matter for the E39 derivative peptides alone and in combination with E39. The issued patents in Canada and Japan, and the allowed European patent application, further contain claims to the use of these compositions for the treatment of cancer. These patents are expected to expire in 2022, prior to any potential commercialization of GALE-301. We do not have and will not be able to obtain any composition of matter patent protection for the E39 peptide in any territory. Thus, although, the have a license from The Henry M. Jackson Foundation grants us the right to develop and market GALE-301 for any use, including methods of treating cancer, our patents may not prevent competitors from seeking to develop and market the E39 peptide alone. If any such alternative uses of compositions containing the E39 peptide were approved, this could lead to off-label use and price erosion for GALE-301. We may seek FDA approval for use of GALE-301 to treat cancer patients with ovarian and endometrial cancers and for other cancers as well. Although we are pursuing additional patent protection for GALE-301 through pending patent applications, we may not be able to obtain additional patent protection that would provide us with a significant commercial advantage.

Our ability to obtain, maintain and enforce patents is uncertain and involves complex legal and factual questions. Accordingly, rights under any patents we have or may obtain or license may not provide us with sufficient protection for our commercial product and product candidates to afford a commercial advantage against competitive products or processes, including those from branded and generic pharmaceutical companies. In addition, we cannot guarantee that any patents will issue from any pending or future patent applications owned by or licensed to us. Nor can we guarantee that the claims of these patents will be held valid or enforceable by the courts or will provide us with any significant protection against competitive products or otherwise be commercially valuable to us.

Changes in either the patent laws or in the interpretations of patent laws in the United States or abroad may diminish the value of our intellectual property. In addition, on September 16, 2011, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or the Leahy-Smith Act, was signed into law. The Leahy-Smith Act includes a number of significant changes to the United States patent law. These include provisions that affect the way patent applications will be prosecuted and may also affect patent litigation. The United States Patent Office is currently developing regulations and procedures to govern administration of the Leahy-Smith Act, and many substantive changes to patent law associated with the Leahy-Smith Act have not yet become effective. Accordingly, it is not clear what, if any, impact the Leahy-Smith Act will have on the operation of our business. However, the Leahy-Smith Act, in particular the first-to-file provision and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement of or defense of our issued patents, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition. Accordingly, we cannot predict the breadth of claims that may be allowed or enforced in our patents or in third-party patents.

While we intend to take actions reasonably necessary to enforce our patent rights, we may not be able to detect infringement of our own or in-licensed patents, which may be especially difficult for methods of manufacturing or formulation products, and we depend, in part, on our licensors and collaborators to protect a substantial portion of our proprietary rights. In addition, third parties may challenge our in-licensed patents and any of our own patents that we may obtain, which could result in the invalidation or unenforceability of some or all of the relevant patent claims. Litigation or other proceedings to enforce or defend intellectual property rights is very complex, expensive, and may divert our management’s attention from our core business and may result in unfavorable results that could adversely affect our ability to prevent third parties from competing with us.

If another party has reason to assert a substantial new question of patentability against any of our claims in our own and in-licensed patents, the third party can request that the patent claims be reexamined, which may result in a loss of scope of some claims or a loss of the entire patent. In addition to potential infringement suits and, interference and reexamination proceedings, we may become a party to patent opposition proceedings where either the patentability of the inventions subject of our patents are challenged, or we are challenging the patents of others. The costs of these proceedings could be substantial, and it is possible that such efforts would be unsuccessful.

29

As the medical device, biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries expand and more patents are issued, the risk increases that others may assert our commercial product and/or product candidates infringe their patent rights. If a third-party’s patents were found to cover our commercial product and product candidates, proprietary technologies or their uses, we or our collaborators could be enjoined by a court and required to pay damages and could be unable to continue to commercialize our products or use our proprietary technologies unless we or they obtained a license to the patent. A license may not be available to us or our collaborators on acceptable terms, if at all. In addition, during litigation, the patent holder could obtain a preliminary injunction or other equitable relief which could prohibit us from making, using or selling our commercial product and product candidates pending a trial on the merits, which could be years away.

Proprietary trade secrets and unpatented know-how are also very important to our business. Although we have taken steps to protect our trade secrets and unpatented know-how, by entering into confidentiality agreements with third parties, and proprietary information and invention agreements with certain employees, consultants and advisors, third parties may still obtain this information or we may be unable to protect our rights. We also have limited control over the protection of trade secrets used by our licensors, collaborators and suppliers. There can be no assurance that binding agreements will not be breached, that we would have adequate remedies for any breach, or that our trade secrets and unpatented know-how will not otherwise become known or be independently discovered by our competitors. If trade secrets are independently discovered, we would not be able to prevent their use. Enforcing a claim that a third party illegally obtained and is using our trade secrets or unpatented know-how is expensive and time consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable.

We may be subject to claims that our employees, consultants or independent contractors have wrongfully used or disclosed to us alleged trade secrets of their other clients or former employers. As is common in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry, certain of our employees were formerly employed by other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. Moreover, we engage the services of consultants to assist us in the development of our commercial product and product candidates, many of whom were previously employed at or may have previously been or are currently providing consulting services to, other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. We may be subject to claims that these employees and consultants or we have inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed trade secrets or other proprietary information of their former employers or their former or current customers. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these types of claims. Even if we are successful in defending against any such claims, any such litigation would likely be protracted, expensive, a distraction to our management team, not viewed favorably by investors and other third parties, and may potentially result in an unfavorable outcome.

Our NeuVax product candidate for which we intend to seek approval as a biological product may face competition sooner than expected after the expiration of our composition of matter patent protection for such product in 2015.

We intend to seek data exclusivity or market exclusivity provided under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, or FDCA, and similar laws in other countries. We believe that NeuVax will qualify for 12 years of data exclusivity under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, or BPCIA, which was enacted as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010 (collectively, the Affordable Care Act or ACA) enacted in March 2010. Under the BPCIA, an application for a biosimilar product cannot be submitted to the FDA until four years, or approved by the FDA until 12 years, after the original brand product identified as the reference product is approved under a BLA, The BPCIA provides an abbreviated pathway for the approval of biosimilar and interchangeable biological products. The new abbreviated regulatory pathway establishes legal authority for the FDA to review and approve biosimilar biologics, including the possible designation of a biosimilar as “interchangeable” based on its similarity to an existing brand product. The new law is complex and is only beginning to be interpreted and implemented by the FDA. While it is uncertain when any such processes may be fully adopted by the FDA, any such processes could have a material adverse effect on the future commercial prospects for our biological products. There is also a risk that the U.S. Congress could amend the BPCIA to shorten this exclusivity period as proposed by President Obama, potentially creating the opportunity for biosimilar competition sooner than anticipated after the expiration of our patent protection. Moreover, the extent to which a biosimilar, once approved, will be substituted for any reference product in a way that is similar to traditional generic substitution for non-biological products is not yet clear, and will depend on a number of marketplace and regulatory factors that are still developing.

30

If NeuVax is not considered a biologic that would qualify for exclusivity under the BPCIA, it may be eligible for market exclusivity as a drug under the FDCA, which could delay approval of certain applications. The FDCA provides a five-year period of non-patent marketing exclusivity within the U.S. to the first applicant to gain 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 accept for review an abbreviated new drug application, or ANDA, or a 505(b)(2) NDA, submitted by another company for another version of such drug 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 non-infringement. The FDCA also provides three years of marketing exclusivity for an NDA, 505(b)(2) NDA or supplement to an existing NDA if new clinical investigations, other than bioavailability studies, that were conducted or sponsored by the applicant are deemed by FDA to be essential to the approval of the application, for example, for new indications, dosages, or strengths of an existing drug. This three-year exclusivity covers only the conditions associated with the new clinical investigations and does not prohibit the FDA from approving ANDAs for drugs containing the original active agent.

Even if, as we expect, NeuVax is considered to be a reference product eligible for 12 years of exclusivity under the BPCIA or five years of exclusivity under the FDCA, another company could market a competing product if the FDA approves a full BLA or full NDA for such product containing the sponsor’s own preclinical data and data from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to demonstrate the safety, purity and potency of its product.

In some countries outside of the U.S., peptide vaccines, such as NeuVax are regulated as chemical drugs rather than as biologics and may or may not be eligible for non-patent exclusivity.

Risks Relating to Ownership of Our Common Stock

The market price and trading volume of our common stock may be volatile.

The market price of our common stock has exhibited substantial volatility recently. Between January 1, 2014 and April 11, 2014, the sale price of our common stock as reported on The NASDAQ Capital Market ranged from a low of $2.11 to a high of $7.77. The market price of our common stock could continue to fluctuate significantly for many reasons, including the following factors:

Factors beyond our control may also have an impact on the price of our stock. For example, to the extent that other companies within our industry experience declines in their stock price, our stock price may decline as well.

31

We are, and in the future may be, subject to legal or administrative actions that could adversely affect our results of operations and our business.

In February, March and April 2014, five purported shareholder derivative complaints—Fagin v. Ahn, No. 140202384 (Or. Cir. Ct.), Werbowsky v. Hillsberg, No. 3:14-cv-382 (D. Or.), Klein v. Ahn, No. 3:14-CV-00516 (D. Or.), Rathore v. Hillsberg, No. 3:14-CV-0054 (D. Or.), and Zhang v. Hillsberg, No. 140403987 (Or. Cir. Ct.) – were filed against our company, as nominal defendant, and certain of our officers and directors in the Circuit Court of Oregon for the County of Multnomah and in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. The complaints allege, among other things, breaches of fiduciary duties and abuse of control by the officers and directors in connection with various public statements purportedly issued by us or on our behalf and sales of our common stock by the officers and directors in January and February of this year.

In March and April 2014, five purported securities class action complaints- Deering v. Galena Biopharma, Inc., No. 3:14-cv-367 (D. Or.), Hau v. Galena Biopharma, Inc., No. 3:14-cv-389 (D. Or.), Clavijo v. Galena Biopharma, Inc., No. 3:14-cv-410 (D. Or.), Baya v. Galena Biopharma, Inc., No. 3:14-cv-55888 (D. Or.) and Jang v. Galena Biopharma, Inc., No. 3:14-cv-435 (D. Or.) – were filed against our company and certain of our officers in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. The complaints allege that the defendants violated the federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements in press releases and in filings with the SEC arising out of the same circumstances that are the subject of the derivative actions described above.

We intend to vigorously defend against the foregoing complaints. Based on the very early stage of the litigation, it is not possible to estimate the amount or range of possible loss that might result from an adverse judgment or a settlement of these matters.

In February 2014, we learned that the SEC is investigating certain matters relating to our company and an outside investor-relations firm that we retained in 2013. We have been in contact with the SEC staff through our counsel and are cooperating with the investigation.

Litigation is inherently uncertain, and there is no assurance as to the outcome of the complaints or the SEC investigation described above. We could incur substantial legal fees and other expenses in connection with these matters, which could adversely affect our results of operations. These matters also may distract the time and attention of our officers and directors or divert our other resources away from our ongoing commercial and development programs. An unfavorable outcome in any of these matters could damage our business and reputation or result in additional claims or proceedings against us.

Our outstanding contingent value rights may result in substantial future payments by us, and any payments made in shares of our common stock would result in dilution to our stockholders.

In conjunction with our acquisition of Apthera, Inc., or Apthera, in April 2011 we issued to the former Apthera shareholders contingent value rights entitling them to future payments of a total of up to $32 million of contingent consideration based on the achievement of specified development and commercial milestones relating to NeuVax™ of which a total of $2 million has been paid. We may pay the remaining $30 million of future contingent consideration, at our option, in either cash or in shares of our common stock valued for this purpose at the market price of our common stock when the contingent consideration becomes payable. We may determine to pay any contingent consideration that may become payable in the future in shares of our common stock rather than cash, depending upon our cash and cash requirements and the market price of our common stock at the time and other relevant factors. To the extent we pay any future contingent consideration in shares of our common stock, it would have a dilutive effect on our stockholders.

To the extent we pay any contingent consideration in shares of our common stock, we will be obliged to file a registration statement with the SEC covering the resale of such shares by the contingent value rights holders.

We cannot predict if future issuances or sales of our common stock issued to our contingent value rights holders, or the availability of our common stock for issuance or sale, will harm the market price of our common stock or our ability to raise capital.

32

Future sales of substantial amounts of our common stock, or the possibility that such sales could occur, could adversely affect the market price of our common stock.

Future sales in the public market of our common stock, including shares referred to in the foregoing risk factors or shares issued upon exercise of our outstanding stock options, or the perception by the market that these issuances or sales could occur, could lower the market price of our common stock or make it difficult for us to raise additional capital.

As of March 31, 2014, we had reserved for issuance 9,922,937 shares of our common stock issuable upon the exercise of outstanding stock options at a weighted-average exercise price of $3.24 per share. Subject to applicable vesting requirements, upon exercise of these options the underlying shares may be resold into the public market. In the case of outstanding options that have exercise prices that are below the market price of our common stock from time to time, our stockholders would experience dilution upon the exercise of these options.

We cannot predict if future issuances or sales of our common stock to our contingent value rights holders or the availability of our common stock for issuance or sale will harm the market price of our common stock or our ability to raise capital.

Some of our outstanding warrants may result in dilution to our stockholders.

Our outstanding March 2011 and April 2011 warrants to purchase a total of 891,398 shares of common stock as of March 31, 2014 at a current exercise price of $0.65 per share contain so-called full-ratchet anti-dilution provisions. Our outstanding March 2010 and December 2012 warrants to purchase a total of 3,060,111 shares of common stock as of March 31, 2014 at current exercise prices of $2.18 per share and $1.90 per share, respectively, contain so-called weighted-average anti-dilution provisions. These anti-dilution provisions also will be triggered upon any future issuance by us of shares of our common stock or common stock equivalents at a price per share below the then-exercise price of the warrants, subject to some exceptions.

To the extent that these anti-dilution provisions are triggered in the future, we would be required to reduce the exercise price of all of the warrants on either a full-ratchet or weighted-average basis, which would have a dilutive effect on our stockholders.

We may issue preferred stock in the future, and the terms of the preferred stock may reduce the value of our common stock.

We are authorized to issue up to 5,000,000 shares of preferred stock in one or more series. Our board of directors may determine the terms of future preferred stock offerings without further action by our stockholders. If we issue preferred stock, it could affect stockholder rights or reduce the market value of our outstanding common stock. In particular, specific rights granted to future holders of preferred stock may include voting rights, preferences as to dividends and liquidation, conversion and redemption rights, sinking fund provisions, and restrictions on our ability to merge with or sell our assets to a third party.

Anti-takeover provisions of our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws and provisions of Delaware law could delay or prevent a change of control that our stockholders may favor.

Anti-takeover provisions of our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws may discourage, delay or prevent a merger or other change of control that stockholders may consider favorable or may impede the ability of the holders of our common stock to change our management. These provisions of our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws, among other things:

33

In addition, Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law provides that, subject to limited exceptions, persons that acquire, or are affiliated with a person that acquires, more than 15% of the outstanding voting stock of a Delaware corporation such as our company shall not engage in any business combination with that corporation, including by merger, consolidation or acquisitions of additional shares for a three-year period following the date on which that person or its affiliate crosses the 15% stock ownership threshold. Section 203 could operate to delay or prevent a change of control of our company.

Our amended and restated by-laws designate the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware as the sole and exclusive forum for certain types of actions and proceedings that may be initiated by our stockholders, which could limit our stockholders’ ability to obtain a favorable judicial forum for disputes with us or our directors, officers or other employees.

Our amended and restated by-laws provide that, unless we consent in writing to an alternative forum, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware will be the sole and exclusive forum for (i) any derivative action or proceeding brought on our behalf, (ii) any action asserting a claim of breach of a fiduciary duty owed by any director, officer or other employee to us or our stockholders, (iii) any action asserting a claim arising pursuant to any provision of the Delaware General Corporation Law, or (iv) any action asserting a claim that is governed by the internal affairs doctrine. Any person purchasing or otherwise acquiring any interest in any shares of our capital stock shall be deemed to have notice of and to have consented to this provision of our amended and restated by-laws. This choice-of-forum provision may limit our stockholders’ ability to bring a claim in a judicial forum that it finds favorable for disputes with us or our directors, officers or other employees, which may discourage such lawsuits. Alternatively, if a court were to find this provision of our amended and restated by-laws inapplicable or unenforceable with respect to one or more of the specified types of actions or proceedings, we may incur additional costs associated with resolving such matters in other jurisdictions, which could adversely affect our business and financial condition. For example, in late February 2014, two purported stockholder derivative complaints were filed in Oregon against us, as nominal defendant, and certain of our directors.

We have never declared or paid cash dividends on our capital stock and we do not anticipate paying cash dividends in the foreseeable future.

Our business requires significant funding. We currently plan to invest all available funds and future earnings in the development and growth of our business and do not anticipate paying any cash dividends on our common stock in the foreseeable future, and are prohibited by the terms of our outstanding indebtedness from paying dividends on any common stock, except with the prior consent of our lenders. As a result, capital appreciation, if any, of our common stock will be our stockholders’ sole source of potential gain for the foreseeable future.

The terms of our outstanding indebtedness may inhibit potential acquirors.

We are prohibited by the terms of our outstanding indebtedness from disposing of any of our business or property, except with the consent of our lenders. Our outstanding indebtedness may inhibit potential acquirors or other interested parties from seeking to acquire all or a part of our business or assets, and there is no assurance that our lenders would consent to any proposed future transaction that might be beneficial to our stockholders.