CLXT Calyxt Inc

This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains forward-looking information based on our current expectations. Because our business is subject to many risks and our actual results may differ materially from any forward-looking statements made by or on behalf of us, this section includes a discussion of important factors that could affect our business, operating results, financial condition and the trading price of our common stock. You should carefully consider these risk factors, together with all of the other information included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K as well as our other publicly available filings with the SEC.

Risks Related to Our Business and Industry

We have a limited operating history, which makes it difficult to evaluate our current business and future prospects and may increase the risk of investment.

We are an early-stage gene-editing company with a limited operating history that to date has been focused primarily on research and development, conducting field trials and building our management team. Investment in agricultural biotechnology product development is a highly speculative endeavor. It entails substantial upfront research and development investment and there is significant risk that we will not be able to edit the genes in a particular plant to express a desired trait, or, once edited, we will not be able to replicate that trait across entire crops in order to commercialize the product candidate. Moreover, the regulatory pathway for some of our product candidates can be uncertain and could add significant additional cost and time to development. We have not yet generated any revenue from sales of these products.

Our limited operating history may make it difficult to evaluate our current business and our future prospects. We have encountered, and will continue to encounter, risks and difficulties frequently experienced by growing companies in rapidly developing and changing industries, such as the agricultural biotechnology industry, including challenges in forecasting accuracy, determining appropriate investments of our limited resources, gaining market acceptance of the products created using our gene-editing platform, managing a complex regulatory landscape and developing new product candidates. We may also face challenges in scaling our supply chain in a cost-effective manner, as we will rely on contracting with seed production companies, farmers, crushers, refiners, logistics and transportation providers and/or millers, in order to get our various products to market. Our current operating model may require changes in order for us to scale our operations efficiently. We may not be able to fully implement or execute on our business strategy or realize, in whole or in part within our expected time frames, the anticipated benefits of our growth strategies. You should consider our business and prospects in light of the risks and difficulties we face as an early-stage company focused on developing products in the field of agricultural biotechnology.

We have incurred significant losses since our inception, have no commercial products and anticipate that we will continue to incur significant losses for the foreseeable future.

Our net loss for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015 was $26.0 million, $12.1 million and $5.9 million, respectively. As of December 31, 2017, we had an accumulated deficit of $54.5 million. The amount of our future net losses will depend, in part, on the pace and amount of our future expenditures and our ability to obtain funding through equity or debt financings, agreements with commercial partners, and on additional grants or tax credits. We currently have no commercial products and do not expect to have sales until the end of the 2018 at the earliest for our high oleic soybean product candidate, and we do not expect potential commercial launch of our high fiber wheat product candidate until the early 2020’s. Even then, our sales will be limited to a single product. As a result, we expect to continue to incur significant expenses and operating losses for the foreseeable future. We anticipate that such expenses will increase substantially if and as we:

28

The net losses we incur may fluctuate significantly from year-to-year and quarter-to-quarter, such that a period-to-period comparison of our results of operations may not be a good indication of our future performance. In any particular period or periods, our operating results could be below the expectations of securities analysts or investors, which could cause the price of our common stock to decline.

We have never commercialized a product candidate and we may lack the necessary expertise, personnel and resources to successfully commercialize any of our product candidates.

We have never commercialized a product candidate. Our products are still in development, and there is no established market for them. Completion of product development could be protracted, and, although we expect to commercialize our first plant product candidate by the end of 2018, there can be no assurance that we will be able to successfully commercialize this product candidate. Any products may not be ready for commercial launch for several years, if ever. If we are not able to commercialize our existing or future product candidates on a significant scale, then we may not be successful in building a sustainable or profitable business. Moreover, we expect to price our products based on our assessment of the value that we believe they will provide to food manufacturers or farmers, rather than on the cost of production. If food manufacturers or farmers attribute a lower value to our products than we do, they may not be willing to pay the premium prices that we expect to charge. Pricing levels may also be negatively affected if our products are unsuccessful in producing the yields or traits we expect. Food manufacturers or farmers may also be cautious in their adoption of new products and technologies, with conservative initial purchases and proof of product required prior to widespread deployment. It may take several growing seasons for food manufacturers or farmers to adopt our products on a large scale.

To achieve commercial success of our product candidates, we will have to develop our own sales, marketing and supply capabilities by outsourcing these activities to third parties. Factors that may affect our ability to commercialize our product candidates on our own include recruiting and retaining adequate numbers of effective sales and marketing personnel, obtaining access to or persuading adequate numbers of food manufacturers or farmers to purchase and use our product candidates and other unforeseen costs associated with creating an independent sales and marketing organization. Developing and maintaining a sales and marketing organization requires significant investment, is time-consuming and could delay the launch of our product candidates. We may not be able to build or maintain an effective sales and marketing organization in North America or other key global markets. If we are unable to find suitable partners for the commercialization of our product candidates, we may have difficulties generating revenue from them.

We will rely on contractual counterparties and they may fail to perform adequately.

Our commercial strategy depends on our ability to contract with counterparties that provide, and in the future may provide, a variety of seed production companies, farmers, crushers, refiners, millers, transportation and logistics companies and lab equipment service providers. We plan to rely on these third parties to provide

29

services along our supply chain and in our research and development functions. The failure of these counterparties to fulfill the terms of our agreements could cause disruptions in our supply chains, research efforts, commercialization efforts, and otherwise inhibit our ability to bring our products to market at the times and in the quantities as planned. For example, if our crushers and refiners fail to process our crops at the times and at the quantities as agreed, we may be unable to meet the demands of food manufacturers who we have contracted with to purchase our products, leading to lower sales and potential reputational damage and contractual liabilities. While we may have certain indemnification rights in our contracts with such counterparties, there is no assurance that such indemnification rights will be sufficient to cover any damage to us that would result from a failure of such a counterparty in their contractual arrangements with us.

We face significant competition and many of our competitors have substantially greater financial, technical and other resources than we do.

The market for agricultural biotechnology products is highly competitive, and we face significant direct and indirect competition in several aspects of our business. Competition for improving plant genetics comes from conventional and advanced plant breeding techniques, as well as from the development of advanced biotechnology traits. Other potentially competitive sources of improvement in crop yields include improvements in crop protection chemicals, fertilizer formulations, farm mechanization, other biotechnology, and information management. Programs to improve genetics and crop protection chemicals are generally concentrated within a relatively small number of large companies, while non-genetic approaches are underway with broader set of companies. Mergers and acquisitions in the plant science, specialty food ingredient and agricultural biotechnology, seed and chemical industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors. Additionally, competition for providing more nutritious ingredients for food companies come from chemical-based ingredients, additives and substitutes, which are developed by various companies. The majority of these competitors have substantially greater financial, technical, marketing, sales, distribution and other resources than we do, such as larger research and development staff, more experienced marketing and manufacturing organizations and more well-established sales forces. As a result, we may be unable to compete successfully against our current or future competitors, which may result in price reductions, reduced margins and the inability to achieve market acceptance for our products. We expect to continue to face significant competition in the markets in which we intend to commercialize our products.

Many of our competitors engage in ongoing research and development, and technological developments by our competitors could render our products less competitive, resulting in reduced sales compared to our expectations. Our ability to compete effectively and to achieve commercial success depends, in part, on our ability to: control manufacturing and marketing costs; effectively price and market our products; successfully develop an effective marketing program and an efficient supply chain; develop new products with properties attractive to food manufacturers or farmers; and commercialize our products quickly without incurring major regulatory costs. We may not be successful in achieving these factors and any such failure may adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

From time to time, certain seed and chemical companies that are potential competitors of ours may seek new traits or trait development technologies and may seek to license our technology. We have, in the past, entered into such licensing arrangements and may continue to enter into such arrangements in the future. Some of these companies may have significantly greater financial resources and may even compete with our business. In determining whether to license traits and/or trait development technologies to a potential competitor, we evaluate the potential financial benefits to us in addition to the focus of such companies’ trait pipelines and the likelihood that their product candidate programs could compete with our own product candidate pipeline. Although we do not believe that any of our existing licenses poses a competitive threat to our business model or existing product candidate pipeline, in such circumstances, competitors could use our technologies to develop their own products that would compete with our product candidates.

We also anticipate increased competition in the future as new companies enter the market and new technologies become available, particularly in the area of gene editing. Our technology may be rendered obsolete or uneconomical by technological advances or entirely different approaches developed by one or more of our

30

competitors, which will prevent or limit our ability to generate revenue from the commercialization of our products. At the same time, the expiration of patents covering existing products reduces the barriers to entry for competitors.

The successful commercialization of our products may face challenges from public perceptions of genetically engineered products and ethical, legal, environmental, health and social concerns.

The successful commercialization of our product candidates depends, in part, on public acceptance of genetically engineered agricultural products. Any increase in negative perceptions of gene editing or more restrictive government regulations in response thereto, would have a negative effect on our business and may delay or impair the development and commercialization of our products.

The commercial success of our products may be adversely affected by claims that biotechnology plant products are unsafe for consumption or use, pose risks of damage to the environment, or create legal, social and ethical dilemmas.

If we are not able to overcome these concerns, our products may not achieve market acceptance. Any of the risks discussed below could result in expenses, delays or other impediments to our development programs or the market acceptance and commercialization of our products:

Any future labeling requirements could heighten these concerns and make consumers less likely to purchase food products containing gene-edited ingredients.

The regulatory environment in the United States for genetically engineered products is uncertain and evolving. Changes in the current application of these laws and regulations would have a significant adverse impact on our ability to develop and commercialize our products.

Changes in applicable regulatory requirements could result in a substantial increase in the time and costs associated with developing our products and negatively impact our operating results. In the United States, the United States Department of Agriculture, or USDA, regulates, among other things, the introduction (including the importation, interstate movement, or release into the environment such as field testing) of organisms and products altered or produced through genetic engineering that are plant pests or that there is reason to believe are plant pests. Such organisms and products are considered “regulated articles.” However, a petitioner may submit a request for a determination by the USDA of “nonregulated status” for a particular article. A petition for determination of nonregulated status must include detailed information, including relevant experimental data and publications, and a description of the genotypic differences between the regulated article and the nonmodified recipient organism, among other things. We previously submitted a request for a determination of “nonregulated status” to the USDA for our potato product candidates, our high oleic and low linolenic soybean product candidates, our improved quality alfalfa product candidate and our powdery mildew resistant wheat product candidate. The USDA confirmed in writing that each of these product candidates is not deemed to be a “regulated article” under the Plant Protection Act because it does not contain genetic material from plant pests. In the event any of our product candidates are found to contain inserted genetic material or otherwise differ from the descriptions we have provided to the USDA, the USDA could determine that such product candidates are regulated articles, which would require us to comply with the permit and notification requirements of the Plant Protection Act. While we believe that the USDA’s reasoning will continue to extend to our other product

31

candidates, we have not obtained a determination from the USDA that any of our other product candidates are not “regulated articles” under these regulations. USDA’s regulations also require that companies obtain a permit or file a notification before engaging in the introduction (including the importation, interstate movement, or release into the environment such as field testing) of “regulated articles.” We cannot predict whether advocacy groups will challenge existing regulations and USDA determinations or whether the USDA will alter the manner in which it interprets its own regulations or institutes new regulations, or otherwise modifies regulations in a way that will subject our products to more burdensome standards, thereby substantially increasing the time and costs associated with developing our product candidates. Moreover, we cannot assure you that the USDA will apply this same analysis to any of our other product candidates in development. Complying with USDA’s plant pest regulations, including permitting requirements, is a costly, time-consuming process and could substantially delay or prevent the commercialization of our products.

Our products may also be subject to extensive FDA food product regulations. Under sections 201(s) and 409 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or FDCA, any substance that is reasonably expected to become a component of food added to food is a food additive, and is therefore subject to FDA premarket review and approval, unless the substance is generally recognized, among qualified experts, as having been adequately shown to be safe under the conditions of its intended use (generally recognized as safe, or GRAS), or unless the use of the substance is otherwise excluded from the definition of a food additive, and any food that contains an unsafe food additive is considered adulterated under section 402(a)(2)(C) of the FDCA. The FDA may classify some or all of our product candidates as containing a food additive that is not GRAS or otherwise determine that our products contain significant compositional differences from existing plant products that require further review. Such classification would cause these product candidates to require pre-market approval, which could delay the commercialization of these products. In addition, the FDA is currently evaluating its approach to the regulation of gene-edited plants. For example, on January 18, 2017, the FDA announced a Request for Comments, or RFC, seeking public input to help inform its regulatory approach to human and animal foods derived from plants produced using gene editing. Among other things, the RFC asks for data and information in response to questions about the safety of foods from gene-edited plants, such as whether categories of gene-edited plants present food safety risks different from other plants produced through traditional plant breeding. If the FDA enacts new regulations or policies with respect to gene-edited plants, such policies could result in additional compliance costs and/or delay the commercialization of our product candidates, which could negatively affect our profitability. Any delay in the regulatory consultation process, or a determination that our products do not meet regulatory requirements, by the FDA could cause a delay in the commercialization of our products, which may lead to reduced acceptance by food manufacturers, farmers or the public and an increase in competitor products that may directly compete with ours.

The regulatory environment outside the United States varies greatly from region to region and is less developed than in the United States.

The regulatory environment around gene editing in plants for food ingredients is greatly uncertain outside of the United States and varies greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Each jurisdiction may have its own regulatory framework regarding genetically modified foods, which may include restrictions and regulations on planting and growing genetically modified plants and in the consumption and labeling of genetically modified foods, and which may encapsulate our products. The two leading jurisdictions, the United States and the European Union, or the EU, do, and may continue to in the future, have distinctly different regulatory regimes with different rules and requirements. We cannot predict how the global regulatory landscape regarding gene editing in plants for food ingredients will evolve and may incur increased regulatory costs as regulations in the jurisdictions in which we operate change.

In the EU, genetically modified foods can only be allowed on the market once they have been authorized subject to rigorous safety assessments. The procedures for evaluation and authorization of genetically modified foods are governed by Regulation (EC) 1829/2003 on genetically modified food and feed and Directive 2001/18/EC on the release of genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, into the environment. If the GMO is not to be used in food or feed, then an application must be made under Directive 2001/18/EC. If the GMO is to be used in food or feed (but it is not grown in the EU) then a single application for both food and feed purposes

32

under Regulation 1829/2003 should be made. If the GMO is used in feed or food and it is also grown in the EU, an application for both cultivation and food/feed purposes needs to be carried out under Regulation (EC) 1829/2003. A different EU regulation, Regulation (EC) 1830/2003, regulates the labeling of products that contain GMOs that are placed on the EU market. There are currently legislative proposals in the EU that would allow EU Member States to restrict or prohibit growing GMOs in their territory, on a range of environmental grounds, even if such crops were previously authorized at EU level. Should these proposals become law, growing GMOs may become more difficult in individual EU Member States.

We cannot predict whether or when any jurisdiction will change its regulations with respect to our products. Advocacy groups have engaged in publicity campaigns and filed lawsuits in various countries against companies and regulatory authorities, seeking to halt regulatory approval activities or influence public opinion against genetically engineered and/or gene-edited products. In addition, governmental reaction to negative publicity concerning our products could result in greater regulation of genetic research and derivative products or regulatory costs that render our products cost prohibitive.

The scale of the commodity food industry may make it difficult to monitor and control the distribution of our products. As a result, our products may be sold inadvertently within jurisdictions where they are not approved for distribution. Such sales may lead to regulatory challenges or lawsuits against us, which could result in significant expenses and management attention.

Government policies and regulations, particularly those affecting the agricultural sector and related industries, could adversely affect our operations and profitability.

Agricultural production and trade flows are subject to government policies and regulations. Governmental policies and approvals of technologies affecting the agricultural industry, such as taxes, tariffs, duties, subsidies, incentives and import and export restrictions on agricultural commodities and commodity products can influence the planting of certain crops, the location and size of crop production, and the volume and types of imports and exports. Future government policies in the United States or in other countries may discourage food manufacturers or farmers from using our products or encourage the use of products more advantageous to our competitors, which would put us at a commercial disadvantage and could negatively impact our future revenues and results of operations.

The overall agricultural industry is susceptible to commodity price changes and we, along with our food manufacturing customers and farmer customers, are exposed to market risks from changes in commodity prices.

Changes in the prices of certain commodity products could result in higher overall cost along the agricultural supply chain, which may negatively affect our ability to commercialize our products. We will be susceptible to changes in costs in the agricultural industry as a result of factors beyond our control, such as general economic conditions, seasonal fluctuations, weather conditions, demand, food safety concerns, product recalls and government regulations. As a result, we may not be able to anticipate or react to changing costs by adjusting our practices, which could cause our operating results to deteriorate. We do not engage in hedging or speculative financial transactions nor do we hold or issue financial instruments for trading purposes.

Our product development efforts use complex integrated technology platforms and require substantial time and resources; these efforts may not be successful, or the rate of product improvement may be slower than expected.

Development of successful agricultural products using complex technology platforms such as gene-editing technologies requires significant levels of investment in research and development, including laboratory, greenhouse and field testing, to demonstrate their effectiveness and can take several years or more. For the three years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, we incurred $11.6 million, $5.6 million and $2.8 million, respectively, on research and development expenses. We intend to continue to invest in research and development, including additional and expanded field testing, to validate our product candidates in real world conditions. Our investment in research and development may not result in significant product revenue over the next several years, if ever. Moreover, the successful application of gene-editing technologies can be

33

unpredictable, and may prove to be unsuccessful when attempting to achieve desired traits in different crops and plants. For example, our gene-editing techniques may prove to be unsuccessful very early on during the discovery phase of new crop development based on technology limitations. Alternatively, even though we successfully implemented gene edits during the discovery phase, that trait may not ultimately appear in crops during field testing or crops may also exhibit other undesirable traits that adversely affect their commercial value.

Development of new or improved agricultural products involves risks of failure inherent in the development of products based on innovative and complex technologies. These risks include the possibility that:

Lastly, the field of gene editing, particularly in the area of plants, is still in its infancy, and no products using this technology have reached the market. Negative developments in the field of gene editing, including with respect to adverse side effects, could harm the reputation of the industry and negatively impact our business.

We rely on certain gene-editing technologies that may become obsolete in the future.

We currently rely on our proprietary TALEN technology in the development of our product candidates. There are several other gene-editing technologies currently available, including CRISPR/Cas9, meganucleases and zinc finger nucleases. If our competitors are able to refine existing gene-editing technologies—or develop new ones—that allow them to develop products faster, with lower research costs or with more desirable traits than we can, we may face a decline in the demand for our products. Our technologies may be rendered obsolete or uneconomical by technological advances or entirely different approaches developed by one or more of our competitors, which will prevent or limit our ability to generate revenues from the commercialization of our products.

We may need to raise additional funding, which may not be available on acceptable terms or at all. Failure to obtain this necessary capital when needed may force us to delay, limit or terminate our product development efforts or other operations.

The process of developing and commercializing product candidates is lengthy, risky and expensive. We expect our research and development expenses to increase substantially as we continue to develop our existing

34

product candidates and identify new product candidates for development. We are beginning to prepare for the commercialization of our first product candidate, high-oleic soybean oil, which we expect to occur by the end of 2018. As a result, our selling, general and administrative expense will also increase significantly.

As of December 31, 2017, we had cash and cash equivalents of approximately $56.7 million. We believe our cash and cash equivalents will be sufficient to fund our operations through at least mid-2019. However, in order to complete the development process, obtain regulatory approval for, if necessary, and commercialize our products, we may require additional funding. Also, our operating plan, including our product development plans, may change as a result of many factors currently unknown to us, and we may need to seek additional funds sooner than planned, through public or private equity or debt financings, government or other third-party funding, marketing and distribution arrangements and other strategic alliances and licensing arrangements, or a combination of these approaches. To commercialize our products, we will require significant working capital to operate our business and maintain our supply chain. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of additional equity or convertible securities, current ownership interests may be diluted, and the terms of these securities may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect the rights of a stockholder. Debt financing, if available, would result in increased fixed payment obligations and a portion of our operating cash flows, if any, being dedicated to the payment of principal and interest on such indebtedness. In addition, debt financing may involve agreements that include restrictive covenants that impose operating restrictions, such as restrictions on the incurrence of additional debt, the making of certain capital expenditures or the declaration of dividends. To the extent we raise additional funds through arrangements with R&D partners or otherwise, we may be required to relinquish some of our technologies, product candidates or revenue streams, license our technologies or product candidates on unfavorable terms, or otherwise agree to terms unfavorable to us. Any additional fundraising efforts may divert our management from their day-to-day activities, which may adversely affect our ability to develop and commercialize our product candidates. In addition, we cannot guarantee that future financing will be available in sufficient amounts or on terms acceptable to us, if at all. Even if we believe we have sufficient funds for our current or future operating plans, we may seek additional capital if market conditions are favorable or in light of specific strategic considerations. If we are unable to obtain funding on a timely basis, we may be required to significantly curtail, delay or discontinue one or more of our research or product candidate development programs or the commercialization of any product candidate or be unable to expand our operations or otherwise capitalize on our business opportunities, as desired, which could materially affect our business, operating results and prospects and cause the price of the common stock to decline.

We rely on third parties to conduct, monitor, support, and oversee field trials and other research services for product candidates in development, and any performance issues by third parties, or our inability to engage third parties on acceptable terms, may impact our ability to successfully commercialize such product candidates.

Prior to commercializing any product candidate we must conduct large scale field trials to validate the desired product trait. These field trials can take one to two years to complete. We currently conduct field trials, and plan to conduct further field trials, of our product candidates in various geographies. We currently rely on third parties to conduct, monitor, support and oversee these field trials. In some cases, these field trials are conducted outside of the United States, making it difficult for us to monitor the daily activity of the work being conducted by the third parties that we engage. Although we provide our third-party contractors with extensive protocols regarding the establishment, management, harvest, transportation and storage of our product candidates, we have limited control over the execution of field trials. Consequently, the success of these field trials depends upon the ability of these third parties to correctly follow our suggested protocols. However, there is no guarantee that third parties will devote adequate time and resources to our field trials or conduct the field trials in accordance with our protocols, including maintenance of all required field trial information. Any such failures may result in delays in the development of our product candidates or the incurrence of additional costs. Even if our third-party contractors adhere to our suggested protocols, field trials may fail to succeed for a variety of other reasons, including weather, disease or pests, improper timing of planting our seeds, or incorrect fertilizer use. Ultimately, we remain responsible for ensuring that each of our field trials is conducted in accordance with

35

the applicable protocol, legal, regulatory and scientific standards, and our reliance on third parties does not relieve us of our responsibilities.

Additionally, if we are unable to maintain or enter into agreements with third-party contractors on acceptable terms, or if any such engagement is terminated prematurely, we may be unable to conduct or complete our field trials in the manner we anticipate. If our relationship with any of these third-party contractors is terminated, we may be unable to enter into arrangements with alternative contractors on commercially reasonable terms, or at all. Switching or adding third-party contractors can involve substantial cost and require extensive management time and focus. In addition, there is a natural transition period when any new third party commences field trial work. As a result, delays may occur, which could materially impact our ability to meet our desired development timelines.

Our crops are new, and if farmers and food processors are unable to work effectively with our crops, our various relationships, our reputation and our results of operations will be harmed.

We plan to provide farmers with information and protocols regarding the establishment, management, harvest, transportation and storage of our crops. These crop management recommendations may include equipment selection, planting and harvest timing, application of crop protection chemicals or herbicides and storage systems and protocols. Our general or specific protocols may not apply in all circumstances, may be improperly implemented, may not be sufficient, or may be incorrect, leading to reduced yields, crop failures or other production problems or losses. If farmers that are producing crops for our food ingredients experience these failures, we may be unable to provide product ingredients to food manufacturers on a timely basis or at all. If we are unable to deliver products in a timely basis or at all, or if farmers that are purchasing our seed in an effort to meet their yields experience these failures, or if our food processors are unable to process our crops effectively and efficiently, we will experience damage to our relationships, reputation and ability to successfully market our products. Further, the use of our seeds may require a change in current planting, rotation or agronomic practices, which may be difficult to implement or may discourage the use of our products by agricultural producers.

There are various reasons why our crops, once available, may fail to succeed, including weather, disease or pests, improper timing of planting our seeds, or incorrect fertilizer use. In addition, cross contamination of our products can happen in any step of the supply chain. Statements by potential customers about negative experiences with our products could harm our reputation, and the decision by these parties not to proceed with large-scale seed purchases could harm our business, revenue and ability to achieve profitability.

The successful commercialization of our products depends on our ability to produce high-quality plants and seeds cost-effectively on a large scale and to accurately forecast demand for our products, and we may be unable to do so.

The production of commercial-scale quantities of seeds requires the multiplication of the plants or seeds through a succession of plantings and seed harvests. The cost-effective production of high-quality, high-volume quantities of any product candidates we successfully develop depends on our ability to scale our production processes to produce plants and seeds in sufficient quantity to meet demand. For example, food ingredients such as soybean oil and wheat flour will require optimized production and commercialization of the underlying plant and seed harvests. We cannot assure that our existing or future seed production techniques will enable us to meet our large-scale production goals cost-effectively for the products in our pipeline. Even if we are successful in developing ways to increase yields and enhance quality, we may not be able to do so cost-effectively or on a timely basis, which could adversely affect our ability to achieve profitability. If we are unable to maintain or enhance the quality of our plants and seeds as we increase our production capacity, including through the expected use of third parties, we may experience reductions in food manufacturer or farmer demand, higher costs and increased inventory write-offs.

In addition, because of the length of time it takes to produce commercial quantities of marketable plants and seeds, we will need to make seed production decisions well in advance of product sales. Our ability to accurately

36

forecast demand can be adversely affected by a number of factors outside of our control, including changes in market conditions, environmental factors, such as pests and diseases, and adverse weather conditions. A shortfall in the supply of our products may reduce product revenue, damage our reputation in the market and adversely affect relationships. Any surplus in the amount of products we have on hand may negatively impact cash flows, reduce the quality of our inventory and ultimately result in write-offs of inventory. Additionally, we will take financial risk in our inventory given that we will have to keep the inventory marked to market on our balance sheet. Fluctuations in the spot price our crops in inventory could have negative impacts on our financial statements. Any failure on our part to produce sufficient inventory, or overproduction of a particular product, could harm our business, results of operations and financial condition. In addition, food manufacturers or farmers may cancel orders or request a decrease in quantity at any time prior to delivery of the plants or seeds, which may lead to a surplus of our products.

In addition, while we estimate that the potential size of our target markets for our products is significant, that estimate has not been independently verified and is based on certain assumptions that may not prove to be accurate. As a result, these estimates could differ materially from actual market sizes, which could result in decreased demand for our products and therefore adversely impact our future business prospects, results of operation and financial condition.

The commercial success of our consumer-centric products is reliant on the needs of food manufacturers and the recognition of shifting consumer preferences.

The commercial success of our consumer-centric products will depend in part on the success of the food manufacturer’s products that our products are included in. We will not control the marketing, distribution, labeling or any other aspects of the sale and commercialization of the food manufacturers’ food products in which our products are an ingredient. Consumer preferences may be a significant driver in the success of our food manufacturer customers in their efforts to sell foods products including our products. While current trends indicate that consumer preferences may be moving towards “healthier” options, we cannot predict whether such trends will continue or which types of food products will be demanded by consumers in the future. Additionally, as health and nutritional science continues to progress, consumer perception of what foods, nutrients and ingredients are considered “healthy” may shift. We and our food manufacturer customers may not be dynamic enough in responding to consumer trends and creating products that will be demanded by consumers in the future. Failure by our food manufacturer customers to successfully recognize consumer trends and commercialize and sell their products which contain our ingredients could lower demand for our products and harm our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Farmers may not recognize the value in our farmer-centric products.

The commercial success of our farmer-centric products will rely on convincing farmers of the benefits to yield and natural resource usage. Farmers may not recognize the value of our farmer-centric products and may opt to use other seed products in the market with different varieties. The margins in the farmer-centric seed industry have historically been very narrow, so we may not be able to produce farmer-centric seed products at costs that would be competitive for our farmer customers, which may lead to a reduction in demand for our products.

Adverse weather conditions, natural disasters, crop disease, pests and other natural conditions can impose significant costs and losses on our business.

The ability to grow our products is vulnerable to adverse weather conditions, including windstorms, floods, drought and temperature extremes, which are quite common but difficult to predict, the effects of which may be influenced and intensified by ongoing global climate change. Unfavorable growing conditions can reduce both crop size and crop quality. This risk is particularly acute with respect to regions or countries in which we plan to source a significant percentage of our products. In extreme cases, entire harvests may be lost in some geographic

37

areas. Such adverse conditions can increase costs, decrease revenues and lead to additional charges to earnings, which may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position and results of operations.

The ability to grow our products is also vulnerable to crop disease and to pests, which may vary in severity and effect, depending on the stage of production at the time of infection or infestation, the type of treatment applied, climatic conditions and the risks associated with ongoing global climate change. The costs to control disease and other infestations vary depending on the severity of the damage and the extent of the plantings affected. Moreover, there can be no assurance that available technologies to control such infestations will continue to be effective. These infestations can also increase costs, decrease revenues and lead to additional charges to earnings, which may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position and results of operations.

We expect our business will be highly seasonal and subject to weather conditions and other factors beyond our control, which may cause our sales and operating results to fluctuate significantly.

The sale of plant products is dependent upon planting and growing seasons, which vary from year to year, and are expected to result in both highly seasonal patterns and substantial fluctuations in quarterly sales and profitability. As we have not yet made any sales of our products, we have not yet experienced the full nature or extent to which this business may be seasonal. Furthermore, significant fluctuations in market prices for agricultural inputs and crops could also have an adverse effect on the value of our products. Weather conditions and natural disasters, such as heavy rains, hurricanes, hail, floods, tornadoes, freezing conditions, drought or fire, also affect decisions by food manufacturers or farmers about the types and amounts of seeds to plant and the timing of harvesting and planting such seeds, as well as adversely impact the agricultural industry as a whole in various regions. Disruptions that cause delays by food manufacturers or farmers in harvesting or planting can result in the movement of orders to a future quarter. Disruptions that cause delays by our farmers in harvesting could create us to be delayed, or to fail entirely in delivering food ingredients to food manufacturers. Any of those delays or failures would negatively affect the quarter in which they occur and cause fluctuations in our operating results.

We may expend our limited resources to pursue a particular product candidate and fail to capitalize on product candidates that may be more profitable or for which there is a greater likelihood of success.

We have limited financial and managerial resources. As a result, we may forego or delay pursuit of opportunities with other product candidates that later prove to have greater commercial potential. Our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial products or profitable market opportunities. Our spending on current and future research and development programs and product candidates may not yield any commercially viable products.

If we are sued for defective products and if such lawsuits were determined adversely, we could be subject to substantial damages, for which insurance coverage is not available.

We may be held liable if any product we develop, or any product that uses or incorporates, any of our technologies, causes injury or is found otherwise unsuitable during marketing, sale or consumption. For example, the detection of unintended trait in a commercial seed variety or the crops and products produced may result in physical injury to consumers resulting in potential liability for us as the seed producer or technology provider. If this were to occur, we could be subject to claims by multiple parties based not only on the cost of our plant products but also on their lost profits and business opportunities, including but not limited to trade disruption. Courts could levy substantial damages against us in connection with claims for injuries allegedly caused by use of our products. We do not currently have insurance coverage for such claims. In addition, the detection of unintended traits in our seeds could result in governmental actions such as mandated crop destruction, product recalls or environmental cleanup or monitoring. Concerns about seed quality could also lead to additional regulations being imposed on our business, such as regulations related to testing procedures, mandatory

38

governmental reviews of biotechnology advances, or the integrity of the food supply chain from the farm to the finished product.

Our business activities are currently conducted at a limited number of locations, which makes us susceptible to damage or business disruptions caused by natural disasters or acts of vandalism.

Our current headquarters and certain research and development operations are located in New Brighton, Minnesota and our new headquarters and research facilities are located in Roseville, Minnesota. The greenhouse for the new headquarters is operational and the remainder of the new facility which includes an office, labs and demonstration kitchen are expected to be operational in the first half of 2018. Our seed production takes place primarily in the United States and Argentina. Warehousing for seed storage, which is conducted by a third-party contractor, is located primarily in Minnesota and Wisconsin. We may use a limited number of processing partners which may be located in concentrated areas. We take precautions to safeguard our facilities, including insurance, health and safety protocols, and off-site storage of critical research results and computer data. However, a natural disaster, such as a hurricane, drought, fire, flood, tornado, earthquake, or acts of vandalism, could cause substantial delays in our operations, damage or destroy our equipment, inventory or development projects, and cause us to incur additional expenses.

Recent U.S. tax legislation could adversely affect our business and financial condition

On December 22, 2017, U.S. tax reform legislation known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the “TCJA”) was signed into law. The TCJA makes substantial changes to U.S. tax law, including a reduction in the corporate tax rate, a limitation on deductibility of interest expense, a limitation on the use of net operating losses to offset future taxable income (as further discussed below), the allowance of immediate expensing of capital expenditures, the modification or repeal of certain business deductions and credits, deemed repatriation of foreign earnings and significant changes to the taxation of foreign earnings going forward, and new rules designed to prevent erosion of the U.S. income tax base (such as a new minimum tax, called the Base Erosion and Anti-abuse Tax, applicable to certain U.S. corporations that make certain payments to related foreign persons). We expect the TCJA to have significant effects on us, some of which may be adverse. The extent of the impact remains uncertain at this time and is subject to other regulatory or administrative developments, including any regulations or other guidance promulgated by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, or IRS. The TCJA contains numerous, complex provisions impacting U.S. companies, and we continue to review and assess the legislative language and its potential impact on us. We urge our stockholders to consult with their tax advisors with respect to the TCJA and the potential tax consequences of investing in our common stock.

In addition, our supply chain depends on farmers growing and delivering grain to us under contract. Generally, the TCJA allows farmers to claim a 20% deduction on payments received on sales made through certain cooperatives. Sales to independent companies like us are not eligible for this deduction. This deduction disadvantages companies such as Calyxt, which originate grain from farmers. It has been suggested that disadvantaging independent companies was an unintended outcome of the TCJA and that lawmakers are looking for solutions that level the playing field between cooperatives and independent companies. It is unknown whether lawmakers will be successful in amending the TCJA or whether we will benefit under any amendment. The impact of this provision on us is unknown at this time.

Our ability to use our net operating losses to offset future taxable income may be subject to certain limitations.

As of December 31, 2017, we had approximately $41.6 million of net operating losses, or NOLs, for federal and state income tax purposes, which may be available to offset income tax liabilities in the future. In addition, we may generate additional NOLs in future years. Under Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as amended, the “Code”), a corporation that undergoes an “ownership change” is subject to limitations on its ability to utilize its pre-change NOLs to offset future taxable income. For this purpose, an ownership change generally means a more than 50 percentage point change in the ownership of a corporation by one or more stockholders or

39

specified groups of stockholders, each of which owns 5% or more of the corporation (determined after the application of certain attribution and grouping rules) over a three-year period. Although we do not believe that any of our NOLs are currently subject to limitation under Section 382 of the Code, future changes in our stock ownership, some of which may be outside of our control, could result in an ownership change under Section 382 of the Code, which could limit our ability to use our existing or future NOLs to offset future taxable income. In addition, for an NOL that was generated in the 2017 taxable year or in an earlier taxable year, we are permitted to carry forward the NOL from the taxable year in which it arose only to the succeeding twenty taxable years, and, if we do not generate sufficient taxable income to utilize the NOL carryforward within this period, it may expire unused.

The TCJA contains significant changes to the rules regarding NOLs. These changes include limiting the deduction of NOLs to 80% of current year taxable income, prohibiting the carryback of NOLs, and allowing NOLs to be carried forward indefinitely. These changes apply to NOLs arising in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017, and therefore our ability to use such NOLs to offset any future taxable income may be significantly limited. In addition, the reduction in the federal corporate tax rate under the TCJA potentially diminishes the value of our NOLs to us. Historically, we have established a full valuation allowance for deferred tax assets due to the uncertainty that enough taxable income will be generated in the taxing jurisdiction to utilize the assets. Therefore, we do not expect changes to the rules regarding NOLs under the TCJA to have a material impact on our financial statements for the year ending December 31, 2017, as all net deferred tax assets are fully reserved.

Risks Related to Intellectual Property

We license a significant portion of our intellectual property from Cellectis, our controlling stockholder, and principally rely upon it to prosecute and defend such intellectual property.

Our business relies heavily on the intellectual property we license from Cellectis. Our license from Cellectis is exclusive in the field of researching, developing and commercializing agricultural and food products, including traits, seeds, and feed and food ingredients (excluding any application in connection with animals and animal cells), except that such license is non-exclusive in such field for any activities relating to researching, developing or commercializing certain modified or mutated I-CreI homing endonucleases. In addition, Cellectis has previously granted other third parties non-exclusive rights to use the same intellectual property for research purposes and therefore our exclusive license is subject to such previously granted rights. Pursuant to our license agreement with Cellectis, we are required to pay Cellectis certain royalties and other consideration based upon our commercialization and exploitation of the licensed intellectual property. If we do not comply with our obligations under the license agreement, including the foregoing payment obligations, we may be subject to damages, which may be significant, and in some cases Cellectis may have the right to terminate the license agreement. Any termination of our license agreement with Cellectis would have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

Under our license agreement with Cellectis, and as between the parties, Cellectis has the first right to control the prosecution, maintenance, defense and enforcement of the licensed intellectual property and we have the right to step in and assume such control with respect to the patents owned by Cellectis and exclusively licensed to us under the agreement if Cellectis elects to not prosecute, maintain, defend or enforce such patents. In addition, in certain circumstances, if Cellectis elects to abandon any patents owned by Cellectis and exclusively licensed to us under the agreement, we have the right to assume ownership of such patents. However, there can be no assurance that Cellectis will prosecute, maintain, defend and enforce such intellectual property, either in the best interests of our business or at all. Moreover, any enforcement of the licensed intellectual property could subject it to challenge by third parties and if any such challenge is successful, such intellectual property could be narrowed in scope or held to be invalid or unenforceable, which would materially impair any competitive advantage afforded to us by such intellectual property.

40

In addition, some of the intellectual property that is licensed to us by Cellectis consists of a sublicense of intellectual property originally licensed to Cellectis by the Regents of the University of Minnesota, which we refer to as the University of Minnesota, to exploit such intellectual property in our exclusive agricultural field of use. Therefore, as to such sublicensed intellectual property, our license from Cellectis is subject to the terms and conditions of the license agreement between the University of Minnesota and Cellectis, and to the extent our activities under such sublicense violate any terms and conditions of the license agreement between Cellectis and the University of Minnesota, we will be responsible for any damages that Cellectis may incur. In addition, under the license agreement between Cellectis and the University of Minnesota, the University of Minnesota has the first right to control the prosecution and maintenance of the licensed intellectual property. There can be no assurance that the University of Minnesota will prosecute and maintain such intellectual property in the best interests of our business or at all, and, if the University of Minnesota fails to properly prosecute and maintain such intellectual property, we could lose our rights to such intellectual property, which would materially impair any competitive advantage afforded to us by such intellectual property. For more information regarding our license agreement with Cellectis or the license agreement between Cellectis and the University of Minnesota, please see “Business—Intellectual Property.”

Our ability to compete may decline if we do not, or Cellectis does not, adequately protect our proprietary rights.

Our commercial success depends, in part, on obtaining and maintaining proprietary rights to our and our licensors’ intellectual property estate, including with respect to our product candidates, as well as successfully defending these rights against third-party challenges. Cellectis will only be able to protect our product candidates from unauthorized use by third parties to the extent that valid and enforceable patents, or effectively protected trade secrets, cover them. Our ability to obtain patent protection for our product candidates is uncertain due to a number of factors, including:

Even if we own, obtain or in-license patents covering our product candidates or compositions, we may still be barred from making, using and selling our product candidates or technologies because of the patent rights or

41

other intellectual property rights of others. Others may have filed, and in the future may file, patent applications covering compositions, products or methods that are similar or identical to ours, which could materially affect our ability to successfully develop and commercialize our product candidates. In addition, because patent applications can take many years to issue, there may be currently pending applications unknown to us that may later result in issued patents that our product candidates or compositions may infringe. These patent applications may have priority over patent applications filed by us or our licensors.

Obtaining and maintaining a patent portfolio entails significant expense of resources. Part of such expense includes periodic maintenance fees, renewal fees, annuity fees and various other governmental fees on patents and/or applications due over the course of several stages of prosecuting patent applications, and over the lifetime of maintaining and enforcing issued patents. We or our licensors may or may not choose to pursue or maintain protection for particular intellectual property in our or our licensors’ portfolio. If we or our licensors choose to forgo patent protection or to allow a patent application or patent to lapse purposefully or inadvertently, our competitive position could suffer. In some cases, the prosecution and maintenance of our licensed patents is controlled by the applicable licensor. If such licensor fails to properly prosecute and maintain such patents, we could lose our rights to them which could materially impair any competitive advantage afforded by such patents. Furthermore, we and our licensors employ reputable law firms and other professionals to help comply with the various procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar provisions we and they are subject to and, in many cases, an inadvertent lapse can be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules. There are situations, however, in which failure to make certain payments or noncompliance with certain requirements in the patent prosecution and maintenance process can result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application, resulting in a partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. In such an event, our competitors might be able to enter the market, which would have a material adverse effect on our business.

Legal action that may be required to enforce our patent rights can be expensive and may involve the diversion of significant management time. In addition, these legal actions could be unsuccessful and could also result in the invalidation of our or our licensors’ patents or a finding that they are unenforceable. We or our licensors may or may not choose to pursue litigation or other actions against those that have infringed on our or their patents, or have used them without authorization, due to the associated expense and time commitment of monitoring these activities. In some cases, the enforcement and defense of patents we in-license is controlled by the applicable licensor. If such licensor fails to actively enforce and defend such patents, any competitive advantage afforded by such patents could be materially impaired. In addition, some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of such litigation or proceedings more effectively than we or our licensors can because of their greater financial resources and more mature and developed intellectual property portfolios. Accordingly, despite our efforts, we may not be able to prevent third parties from infringing upon or misappropriating or from successfully challenging our intellectual property rights. If we fail to protect or to enforce our intellectual property rights successfully, our competitive position could suffer, which could harm our results of operations.

In addition to patent protection, because we operate in the highly technical field of biosciences, we rely in part on trade secret protection in order to protect our proprietary technology and processes. However, trade secrets are difficult to protect. Monitoring unauthorized uses and disclosures is difficult, and we do not know whether the steps we have taken to protect our proprietary technologies will be effective. We cannot guarantee that our trade secrets and other proprietary and confidential information will not be disclosed or that competitors will not otherwise gain access to our trade secrets. Despite these efforts, any of these parties may breach the agreements and disclose our proprietary information, including our trade secrets, and we may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for such breaches. We enter into confidentiality and intellectual property assignment agreements with our employees, consultants, outside scientific collaborators, sponsored researchers, and other advisors. These agreements generally require that the other party keep confidential and not disclose to third parties all confidential information developed by the party or made known to the party by us during the course of the party’s relationship with us. These agreements also generally provide that inventions conceived by the party

42

in the course of rendering services to us will be our exclusive property. However, these agreements may be breached or held unenforceable and may not effectively assign intellectual property rights to us.

In addition to contractual measures, we try to protect the confidential nature of our proprietary information using physical and technological security measures. Such measures may not provide adequate protection for our proprietary information. For example, our security measures may not prevent an employee or consultant with authorized access from misappropriating our trade secrets and providing them to a competitor, and the recourse we have available against such misconduct may not provide an adequate remedy to protect our interests fully. Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret can be difficult, expensive and time consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, courts outside the United States may be less willing to protect trade secrets. Furthermore, our proprietary information may be independently developed by others in a manner that could prevent legal recourse by us. If any of our confidential or proprietary information, including our trade secrets, were to be disclosed or misappropriated, or if any such information was independently developed by a competitor, our competitive position could be harmed and our business could be materially and adversely affected.

Patents and patent applications involve highly complex legal and factual questions, which, if determined adversely to us, could negatively impact our competitive position.

The patent positions of biotechnology companies and other actors in our fields of business can be highly uncertain and typically involve complex scientific, legal and factual analyses. In particular, the interpretation and breadth of claims allowed in some patents covering biological compositions may be uncertain and difficult to determine, and are often affected materially by the facts and circumstances that pertain to the patented compositions and the related patent claims. The standards of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, and foreign patent offices are sometimes uncertain and could change in the future. Consequently, the issuance and scope of patents cannot be predicted with certainty. Patents, if issued, may be challenged, invalidated, narrowed or circumvented. U.S. patents and patent applications may also be subject to interference proceedings, and U.S. patents may be subject to reexamination proceedings, post-grant review, inter partes review, or other administrative proceedings in the USPTO. Foreign patents as well may be subject to opposition or comparable proceedings in corresponding foreign patent offices. Challenges to our or our licensors’ patents and patent applications, if successful, may result in the denial of our or our licensors’ patent applications or the loss or reduction in their scope. In addition, such interference, reexamination, post-grant review, inter partes review, opposition proceedings and other administrative proceedings may be costly and involve the diversion of significant management time. Accordingly, rights under any of our or our licensors’ patents may not provide us with sufficient protection against competitive products or processes and any loss, denial or reduction in scope of any of such patents and patent applications may have a material adverse effect on our business.

Furthermore, even if not challenged, our or our licensors’ patents and patent applications may not adequately protect our product candidates or technology or prevent others from designing their products or technology to avoid being covered by our or our licensors’ patent claims. If the breadth or strength of protection provided by the patents we own or license with respect to our product candidates is threatened, it could dissuade companies from partnering with us to develop, and could threaten our ability to successfully commercialize, our product candidates. Furthermore, for U.S. patent applications in which claims are entitled to a priority date before March 16, 2013, an interference proceeding can be provoked by a third party or instituted by the USPTO in order to determine who was the first to invent any of the subject matter covered by such patent claims.

In addition, changes in, or different interpretations of, patent laws in the United States and other countries may permit others to use our discoveries or to develop and commercialize our technology and products without providing any notice or compensation to us, or may limit the scope of patent protection that we or our licensors are able to obtain. The laws of some countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as U.S. laws and those countries may lack adequate rules and procedures for defending our intellectual property rights.

43

If we or our licensors fail to obtain and maintain patent protection and trade secret protection of our product candidates and technology, we could lose our competitive advantage and competition we face would increase, reducing any potential revenues and have a material adverse effect on our business.

The lives of our patents may not be sufficient to effectively protect our products and business.

Patents have a limited lifespan. In the United States, the natural expiration of a patent is generally 20 years after its first effective filing date. Although various extensions may be available, the life of a patent, and the protection it affords, is limited. Our or our licensors’ issued patents will expire on dates ranging from 2020 to 2033, subject to any patent extensions that may be available for such patents. If patents are issued on our or our licensors’ pending patent applications, the resulting patents are projected to expire on dates ranging from 2023 to 2037. In addition, although upon issuance in the United States a patent’s life can be increased based on certain delays caused by the USPTO, this increase can be reduced or eliminated based on certain delays caused by the patent applicant during patent prosecution. If we or our licensors do not have sufficient patent life to protect our products, our business and results of operations will be adversely affected.

Developments in patent law could have a negative impact on our business.

From time to time, the United States Supreme Court, or the Supreme Court, other federal courts, the United States Congress, the USPTO and similar foreign authorities may change the standards of patentability and any such changes could have a negative impact on our business.

The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or the America Invents Act, which was signed into law in 2011, includes a number of significant changes to U.S. patent law. These changes include a transition from a “first-to-invent” system to a “first-to-file” system, changes to the way issued patents are challenged, and changes to the way patent applications are disputed during the examination process. As a result of these changes, the patent law in the United States may favor larger and more established companies that have greater resources to devote to patent application filing and prosecution. The USPTO has developed new and untested regulations and procedures to govern the full implementation of the America Invents Act, and many of the substantive changes to patent law associated with the America Invents Act, and, in particular, the first-to-file provisions became effective on March 16, 2013. Substantive changes to patent law associated with the America Invents Act may affect our ability to obtain patents, and if obtained, to enforce or defend them. Accordingly, it is not clear what, if any, impact the America Invents Act will have on the cost of prosecuting our or our licensors’ patent applications and the ability for us and our licensors to obtain patents and enforce or defend any patents that may issue from such patent applications, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

In addition, recent Supreme Court rulings have narrowed the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances and weakened the rights of patent owners in certain situations. This combination of events has created uncertainty with respect to the validity and enforceability of patents, once obtained. Depending on future actions by the Supreme Court, the United States Congress, the federal courts, the USPTO and similar foreign authorities, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that could have a material adverse effect on our existing patent portfolio and our ability to protect and enforce our intellectual property in the future.

We will not seek to protect our intellectual property rights in all jurisdictions throughout the world and we may not be able to adequately enforce our intellectual property rights even in the jurisdictions where we seek protection.

Filing, prosecuting and defending patents on our product candidates in all countries and jurisdictions throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and our intellectual property rights in some countries outside the United States could be less extensive than those in the United States, assuming that rights are obtained in the United States. In addition, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual property

44

rights to the same extent as federal and state laws in the United States. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in all countries outside the United States, or from selling or importing products made using our inventions in and into the United States or other jurisdictions.

Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we or our licensors do not pursue and obtain patent protection to develop their own products and further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we or our licensors have patent protection, but where the ability to enforce our or our licensors’ patent rights is not as strong as in the United States. These products may compete with our products and our intellectual property rights and such rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent such competition.

The laws of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as the laws of the United States. Patent protection must be sought on a country-by-country basis, which is an expensive and time-consuming process with uncertain outcomes. Accordingly, we and our licensors may choose not to seek patent protection in certain countries, and we will not have the benefit of patent protection in such countries. In addition, the legal systems of some countries, particularly developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents and other intellectual property protection, especially those relating to biotechnologies, and the requirements for patentability differ, in varying degrees, from country to country, and the laws of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights, including trade secrets, to the same extent as federal and state laws of the United States. As a result, many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in certain foreign jurisdictions. Such issues may make it difficult for us to stop the infringement, misappropriation or other violation of our intellectual property rights. For example, many foreign countries, including the EU countries, have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner must grant licenses to third parties. In addition, many countries limit the enforceability of patents against third parties, including government agencies or government contractors. In these countries, patents may provide limited or no benefit. In those countries, we and our licensors may have limited remedies if patents are infringed or if we or our licensors are compelled to grant a license to a third party, which could materially diminish the value of those patents. This could limit our potential revenue opportunities. Accordingly, our and our licensors’ efforts to enforce intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we own or license. Similarly, if our trade secrets are disclosed in a foreign jurisdiction, competitors worldwide could have access to our proprietary information and we may be without satisfactory recourse. Such disclosure could have a material adverse effect on our business. Moreover, our ability to protect and enforce our intellectual property rights may be adversely affected by unforeseen changes in foreign intellectual property laws.

Furthermore, proceedings to enforce our licensors’ and our patent rights and other intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, could put our or our licensors’ patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly, could put our or our licensors’ patent applications at risk of not issuing and could provoke third parties to assert claims against us or our licensors. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate and the damages or other remedies awarded to us, if any, may not be commercially meaningful, while the damages and other remedies we may be ordered to pay such third parties may be significant. Accordingly, our licensors’ and our efforts to enforce our intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop or license.

Third parties may assert rights to inventions we develop or otherwise regard as our own.

Third parties may in the future make claims challenging the inventorship or ownership of our or our licensors’ intellectual property. We have written agreements with R&D partners that provide for the ownership of intellectual property arising from our strategic alliances. These agreements provide that we must negotiate certain commercial rights with such partners with respect to joint inventions or inventions made by our partners that arise from the results of the strategic alliance. In some instances, there may not be adequate written provisions to address clearly the allocation of intellectual property rights that may arise from the respective alliance. If we

45

cannot successfully negotiate sufficient ownership and commercial rights to the inventions that result from our use of a third-party partner’s materials when required, or if disputes otherwise arise with respect to the intellectual property developed through the use of a partner’s samples, we may be limited in our ability to capitalize on the full market potential of these inventions. In addition, we may face claims by third parties that our agreements with employees, contractors, or consultants obligating them to assign intellectual property to us are ineffective, or are in conflict with prior or competing contractual obligations of assignment, which could result in ownership disputes regarding intellectual property we have developed or will develop and could interfere with our ability to capture the full commercial value of such inventions. Litigation may be necessary to resolve an ownership dispute, and if we are not successful, we may be precluded from using certain intellectual property and associated products and technology, or may lose our rights in that intellectual property. Either outcome could have a material adverse effect on our business.

In addition, the research resulting in certain of our in-licensed patent rights and technology was funded in part by the United States government. As a result, the United States government has certain rights to such patent rights and technology, which include march-in rights. When new technologies are developed with government funding, the government generally obtains certain rights in any resulting patents, including a non-exclusive license authorizing the government to use the invention or to have others use the invention on its behalf. The government can exercise its march-in rights if it determines that action is necessary because we fail to achieve practical application of the government-funded technology, or because action is necessary to alleviate health or safety needs, to meet requirements of federal regulations, or to give preference to the United States industry. Any exercise by the government of any of the foregoing rights could have a material adverse effect on our business.

We may not identify relevant third party patents or may incorrectly interpret the relevance, scope or expiration of a third party patent which might adversely affect our ability to develop and market our products.

We cannot guarantee that any of our patent searches or analyses, including but not limited to the identification of relevant patents, the scope of patent claims or the expiration of relevant patents, are complete or thorough, nor can we be certain that we have identified each and every third party patent and pending application in the United States and abroad that is relevant to or necessary for the commercialization of our product candidates in any jurisdiction.

The scope of a patent claim is determined by an interpretation of the law, the written disclosure in a patent and the patent’s prosecution history. Our interpretation of the relevance or the scope of a patent or a pending application may be incorrect, which may negatively impact our ability to market our products. We may incorrectly determine that our products are not covered by a third party patent or may incorrectly predict whether a third party’s pending application will issue with claims of relevant scope. Our determination of the expiration date of any patent in the United States or abroad that we consider relevant may be incorrect, which may negatively impact our ability to develop and market our product candidates. Our failure to identify and correctly interpret relevant patents may negatively impact our ability to develop and market our products.

Third parties may assert that our employees or consultants have wrongfully used or disclosed confidential information or misappropriated trade secrets.

We currently employ, and in the future may employ, individuals who were previously employed at universities or other biotechnology companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. Although we try to ensure that our employees and consultants do not use the proprietary information or know-how of others in their work for us, we may be subject to claims that we or our employees, consultants or independent contractors have inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed intellectual property, including trade secrets or other proprietary information, of a former employer or other third parties. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management and other employees.

46

Any infringement, misappropriation or other violation by us of intellectual property rights of others may prevent or delay our product development efforts and may prevent or increase the costs of our successfully commercializing our product candidates, if approved.

Our success will depend in part on our ability to operate without infringing, misappropriating or otherwise violating the intellectual property and proprietary rights of third parties. We cannot assure you that our business operations, products, product candidates and methods and the business operations, products, product candidates and methods of our partners do not or will not infringe, misappropriate or otherwise violate the patents or other intellectual property rights of third parties.

The biotechnology industry is characterized by extensive litigation regarding patents and other intellectual property rights. Other parties may allege that our products, product candidates or the use of our technologies infringe, misappropriate or otherwise violate patent claims or other intellectual property rights held by them or that we are employing their proprietary technology without authorization. Patent and other types of intellectual property litigation can involve complex factual and legal questions, and their outcome is uncertain. Any claim relating to intellectual property infringement that is successfully asserted against us may require us to pay substantial damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees if we or our partners are found to be willfully infringing another party’s patents, for past use of the asserted intellectual property and royalties and other consideration going forward if we are forced to take a license. Such a license may not be available on commercially reasonable terms, or at all. Even if we were able to obtain a license, it could be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors access to the same intellectual property rights or technologies licensed to us. In addition, if any such claim were successfully asserted against us and we could not obtain a license, we or our partners may be forced to stop or delay developing, manufacturing, selling or otherwise commercializing our products, product candidates or other infringing technology, or those we develop with our R&D partners.

Even if we are successful in these proceedings, we may incur substantial costs and divert management time and attention pursuing these proceedings, which could have a material adverse effect on us. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation. In addition, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments and if securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a substantial adverse effect on the price of our common stock. Such litigation or proceedings could substantially increase our operating losses and reduce the resources available for development activities or any future sales, marketing or distribution activities. If we are unable to avoid infringing the patent rights of others, we may be required to seek a license, defend an infringement action or challenge the validity of the patents in court, or redesign our products. Patent litigation is costly and time consuming. We may not have sufficient resources to bring these actions to a successful conclusion. In addition, intellectual property litigation or claims could force us to do one or more of the following:

Any of these risks coming to fruition could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects.

47

We may be unsuccessful in licensing or acquiring intellectual property from third parties that may be required to develop and commercialize our product candidates.

Because our programs may involve additional product candidates that may require the use of intellectual property or proprietary rights held by third parties, the growth of our business will likely depend in part on our ability to acquire, in-license or use these intellectual property and proprietary rights. For example, if we determined to use a technology other than TALEN to perform our gene editing, such as CRISPR, we would likely need one or more licenses to use that technology. However, we may be unable to acquire or in-license any third party intellectual property or proprietary rights. Even if we are able to acquire or in-license such rights, we may be unable to do so on commercially reasonable terms. The licensing and acquisition of third party intellectual property and proprietary rights is a competitive area, and a number of more established companies are also pursuing strategies to license or acquire third party intellectual property and proprietary rights that we may consider attractive or necessary. These established companies may have a competitive advantage over us due to their size, capital resources and agricultural development and commercialization capabilities.

For example, we sometimes partner with academic institutions to accelerate our research or development under written agreements with these institutions. Typically, these institutions provide us with an option to negotiate a license to any of the institution’s rights in technology resulting from the strategic alliance. Regardless of such option, we may be unable to negotiate a license within the specified time frame or under terms that are acceptable to us, and the institution may license such intellectual property rights to third parties, potentially blocking our ability to pursue our development and commercialization plans.

Further, our consulting agreement with Dr. Voytas generally obligates Dr. Voytas to assign to us any intellectual property solely or jointly conceived, developed or reduced to practice by him in the course of the performance of his services to us. However, we do not have any rights, including any assignment or right of first refusal rights, to intellectual property conceived, developed or reduced to practice by Dr. Voytas outside the course of the performance of his services to us, including in connection with his employment at the University of Minnesota.

In addition, companies that perceive us to be a competitor may be unwilling to assign or license intellectual property and proprietary rights to us. We also may be unable to license or acquire third party intellectual property and proprietary rights on terms that would allow us to make an appropriate return on our investment or at all. If we are unable to successfully acquire or in-license rights to required third party intellectual property and proprietary rights or maintain the existing intellectual property and proprietary rights we have, we may have to cease development of the relevant program, product or product candidate, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Loss of or damage to our germplasm libraries would significantly slow our product development efforts.

We have access to a comprehensive collection of germplasm for our product candidates, in part, through licensing agreements with leading institutions. Germplasm comprises genetic material covering the diversity of a crop, the attributes of which are inherited from generation to generation. Germplasm is a key strategic asset since it forms the basis of plant breeding programs. To the extent that we lose access to the germplasm because of the termination or breach of our licensing agreements or as a result of insufficient quantities of germplasm for testing, breeding and commercial use in relevant geographies, our product development capabilities could be negatively impacted. In addition, loss of or damage to our germplasm would significantly impair our research and development activities. Although we restrict access to our germplasm at our facilities to protect this valuable resource, we cannot guarantee that our efforts to protect our germplasm will be successful. The destruction or theft of a significant portion of our germplasm collection would adversely affect our business and results of operations.

48

If we fail to comply with our obligations in the agreements under which we license intellectual property rights from third parties or otherwise experience disruptions to our business relationships with our licensors, we could lose license rights that are important to our business.

We are a party to a number of intellectual property license agreements that are important to our business and expect to enter into additional license agreements in the future. Our existing license agreements impose, and we expect that future license agreements will impose, various diligence, royalty and other obligations on us. If we fail to comply with our obligations under these agreements, or we are subject to a bankruptcy, our licensors may have the right to terminate the license, in which event we would not be able to market products or product candidates covered by the license.

In addition, disputes may arise regarding the payment of the royalties or other consideration due to licensors in connection with our exploitation of the rights we license from them. Licensors may contest the basis of payments we retained and claim that we are obligated to make payments under a broader basis. In addition to the costs of any litigation we may face as a result, any legal action against us could increase our payment obligations under the respective agreement and require us to pay interest and potentially damages to such licensors.

In some cases, patent prosecution of our licensed technology is controlled solely by the licensor. If such licensor fails to obtain and maintain patent or other protection for the proprietary intellectual property we license from such licensor, we could lose our rights to such intellectual property or the exclusivity of such rights, and our competitors could market competing products using such intellectual property. In addition, these patents and applications may not be prosecuted and enforced in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business. In that event, we may be required to expend significant time and resources to develop or license replacement technology. If we are unable to do so, we may be unable to develop or commercialize the affected products and product candidates, which could harm our business significantly. In other cases, we control the prosecution of patents resulting from licensed technology. In the event we breach any of our obligations related to such prosecution, we may incur significant liability to our licensing partners. We may also require the cooperation of our licensors to enforce any licensed patent rights, and such cooperation may not be provided. Moreover, we have obligations under these license agreements, and any failure to satisfy those obligations could give our licensor the right to terminate the agreement. Termination of a necessary license agreement could have a material adverse impact on our business.

Licensing of intellectual property is of critical importance to our business and involves complex legal, business and scientific issues and is complicated by the rapid pace of scientific discovery in our industry. Disputes may arise regarding intellectual property subject to a licensing agreement (including the intellectual property licensed to us by Cellectis), including:

If disputes over intellectual property that we have licensed from third parties prevent or impair our ability to maintain our current licensing arrangements on acceptable terms, we may be unable to successfully develop and commercialize the affected product candidates, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

49

Any partnerships that we may enter into in the future may not be successful, which could adversely affect our ability to develop and commercialize our product candidates.

We may seek R&D partnerships or joint venture arrangements with third parties for the development or commercialization of our product candidates depending on the merits of retaining commercialization rights for ourselves as compared to entering into partnerships or joint venture arrangements. We will face, to the extent that we decide to enter into partnerships or joint venture agreements, significant competition in seeking appropriate partners. Moreover, partnerships or joint venture arrangements are complex and time-consuming to negotiate, document, implement and maintain. We may not be successful in our efforts to establish and implement partnerships, joint ventures, or other alternative arrangements should we so chose to enter into such arrangements. The terms of any partnerships, joint ventures, or other arrangements that we may establish may not be favorable to us.

Any future partnerships or joint ventures that we enter into may not be successful. The success of our R&D partnerships or joint venture arrangements will depend heavily on the efforts and activities of our partners. R&D partnerships and joint ventures are subject to numerous risks, which may include that:

50

If our trademarks and trade names are not adequately protected, then we may not be able to build name recognition in our markets of interest and our business may be adversely affected.

Our trademarks or trade names may be challenged, infringed, circumvented or declared generic or determined to be infringing on other marks. We may not be able to protect our rights to these trademarks and trade names or may be forced to stop using these names and trademarks, which we need for name recognition by potential partners or food manufacturers or farmers in our markets of interest. If we are unable to establish name recognition based on our trademarks and trade names, we may not be able to compete effectively and our business may be adversely affected.

Risks Related to Our Organization, Structure and Operation

We will need to develop and expand our company, and we may encounter difficulties in managing this development and expansion, which could disrupt our operations.

As of December 31, 2017, we had 35 employees. We expect to increase our number of employees and the scope and location of our operations. To manage our anticipated development and expansion, including the development and the commercialization of our product candidates, we must continue to implement and improve our managerial, operational and financial systems, expand our facilities and continue to recruit and train additional qualified personnel. Members of our management team may need to divert a disproportionate amount of their attention away from their day-to-day activities and devote a substantial amount of time to managing these development activities. Due to our limited resources, we may not be able to effectively manage the expansion of our operations or recruit and train additional qualified personnel. This may result in weaknesses in our infrastructure, give rise to operational mistakes, loss of business opportunities, loss of employees and reduced productivity among remaining employees. The physical expansion of our operations may lead to significant costs and may divert financial resources from other projects, such as the development of our product candidates. If our management is unable to effectively manage our expected development and expansion, our expenses may increase more than expected, our ability to generate or increase our revenue could be reduced and we may not be able to implement our business strategy. Our future financial performance and our ability to commercialize our product candidates, if approved, and compete effectively will depend, in part, on our ability to effectively manage the future development and expansion of our company.

We depend on key management personnel and attracting and retaining other qualified personnel, and our business could be harmed if we lose key management personnel or cannot attract and retain other qualified personnel.

Our success depends to a significant degree upon the technical skills and continued service of certain members of our management team: Federico A. Tripodi, our CEO, and Daniel Voytas, Ph.D., our CSO. Dr. Voytas works for us as a consultant pursuant to a consulting agreement under which he is required to work 10 days per month with us. The loss of the services of one or both of these key executive officers could have a material adverse effect on us. We do not maintain “key man” insurance policies on the lives of any of our employees. Our success also will depend upon our ability to attract and retain additional qualified management, regulatory, technical, and sales and marketing executives and personnel. The failure to attract, integrate, motivate, and retain additional skilled and qualified personnel could have a material adverse effect on our business.

We compete for such personnel against numerous companies, including larger, more established companies with significantly greater financial resources than we possess. In addition, failure to succeed in our product candidates’ development may make it more challenging to recruit and retain qualified personnel. There can be no assurance that we will be successful in attracting or retaining such personnel and the failure to do so could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

51

We may not be able to fully enforce covenants not to compete with our key management personnel, and therefore we may be unable to prevent our competitors from benefiting from the expertise of such employees.

Our offer letters with key management personnel, which include executive officers, and our consulting agreement with Dr. Voytas, contain non-compete provisions. These provisions prohibit our key management personnel, if they cease working for us, from competing directly with us or working for our competitors for a period of time. Under applicable laws, we may be unable to enforce these provisions. If we cannot enforce the non-compete provisions with our key management personnel, we may be unable to prevent our competitors from benefiting from the expertise of such management personnel. Even if these provisions are enforceable, they may not adequately protect our interests. The defection of one or more of our management personnel to a competitor could materially adversely affect our business, results of operations and ability to capitalize on our proprietary information.

We must maintain effective internal control over financial reporting, and if we are unable to do so, the accuracy and timeliness of our financial reporting may be adversely affected, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, investor confidence and market price.

We must maintain effective internal control over financial reporting in order to accurately and timely report our results of operations and financial condition. As a public company, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires, among other things, that we assess the effectiveness of our controls over financial reporting at the end of each fiscal year. We anticipate being first required to issue management’s annual report on internal control over financial reporting, pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, in respect of our annual report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018.

The rules governing the standards that must be met for our management to assess our internal control over financial reporting pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act are complex and require significant documentation, testing and possible remediation. These stringent standards require that our audit and finance committee be advised and regularly updated on management’s assessment of internal control over financial reporting. In addition, our independent registered public accounting firm will be required to attest to the effectiveness of our internal controls over financial reporting beginning with our annual report following the date on which we are no longer an “emerging growth company.” If we fail to staff our accounting and finance function adequately or maintain internal control over financial reporting adequate to meet the requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, our business and reputation may be harmed.

We may use hazardous chemicals and biological materials in our business and are subject to numerous environmental, health and safety laws and regulations. Compliance with such laws and regulations and any claims relating to improper handling, storage or disposal of these materials could be time consuming and costly.

We are subject to numerous federal, state, local and foreign environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, including those governing laboratory procedures, the handling, use, storage, treatment, manufacture and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes, discharge of pollutants into the environment and human health and safety matters. Our research and development processes may involve the controlled use of hazardous materials, including chemicals and biological materials. We cannot eliminate the risk of contamination or discharge and any resultant injury from these materials. We may be sued for any injury or contamination that results from our use or the use by third parties of these materials, or may otherwise be required to remediate such contamination, and our liability may exceed any insurance coverage and our total assets. Compliance with environmental, health and safety laws and regulations may be expensive and may impair our research and development efforts. If we fail to comply with these requirements, we could incur substantial costs and liabilities, including civil or criminal fines and penalties, clean-up costs or capital expenditures for control equipment or operational changes necessary to achieve and maintain compliance. In addition, we cannot predict the impact on our business of new or amended environmental, health and safety laws or regulations or any changes in the way

52

existing and future laws and regulations are interpreted and enforced. These current or future laws and regulations may impair our research, development or production efforts.

Our internal computer systems, or those of our third-party contractors or consultants, may fail or suffer security breaches, which could result in a material disruption of our product development programs.

Despite the implementation of security measures, our internal computer systems and those of our third-party contractors and consultants are vulnerable to damage from computer viruses, unauthorized access, natural disasters, terrorism, war and telecommunication and electrical failures. While we do not believe that we have experienced any such system failure, accident, or security breach to date, if such an event were to occur and cause interruptions in our operations, it could result in a material disruption of our programs. For example, the loss of field trial data for our product candidates could result in delays in our regulatory approval efforts and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data. Additionally, there have been reported cases in the industry where product candidates have been stolen from the field during field trials. To the extent that any disruption or security breach results in a loss of or damage to our data or applications or other data or applications relating to our technology or product candidates, or inappropriate disclosure of confidential or proprietary information, we could incur liabilities and the further development of our product candidates could be delayed.

Our business and operations would suffer in the event of computer system failures, cyber-attacks or a deficiency in our cyber-security.

Despite the implementation of security measures, our internal computer systems, and those of third parties on which we rely, are vulnerable to damage from computer viruses, malware, natural disasters, terrorism, war, telecommunication and electrical failures, cyber-attacks or cyber-intrusions over the Internet, attachments to emails, persons inside our organization, or persons with access to systems inside our organization. The risk of a security breach or disruption, particularly through cyber-attacks or cyber-intrusion, including by computer hackers, foreign governments, and cyber terrorists, has generally increased as the number, intensity and sophistication of attempted attacks and intrusions from around the world have increased. If such an event were to occur and cause interruptions in our operations, it could result in a material disruption of our product development programs. For example, the loss of field trial data from completed or ongoing or planned field trials could result in delays in our regulatory approval efforts and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data. To the extent that any disruption or security breach was to result in a loss of or damage to our data or applications, or inappropriate disclosure of confidential or proprietary information, we could incur material legal claims and liability, damage to our reputation, and the further development of our product candidates could be delayed.

We may acquire businesses or products, or form strategic alliances, in the future, and we may not realize the benefits of such acquisitions.

We plan to selectively partner, in-license or acquired key enabling technologies and businesses across our value chain that we believe will keep us on the cutting edge of our industry. We may not be able to identify appropriate targets or make acquisitions under satisfactory conditions, in particular, satisfactory price conditions. In addition, we may be unable to obtain the financing for these acquisitions under favorable conditions, and could be led to finance these acquisitions using cash that could be allocated to other purposes in the context of existing operations. If we acquire businesses with promising markets or technologies, we may not be able to realize the benefit of acquiring such businesses if we are unable to successfully integrate them with our existing operations and company culture. We may encounter numerous difficulties in developing, manufacturing and marketing any new products resulting from a strategic alliance or acquisition that delay or prevent us from realizing their expected benefits or enhancing our business. We cannot assure you that, following any such acquisition, we will achieve the expected synergies to justify the transaction, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial conditions, earnings and prospects.

53

Risks Related to Our Relationship with Cellectis

Cellectis controls the direction of our business, and the concentrated ownership of our common stock and certain contractual rights Cellectis has will prevent you and other stockholders from influencing significant decisions.

As of December 31, 2017, Cellectis owned approximately 79.7% of our outstanding shares of common stock. Pursuant to our stockholders’ agreement with Cellectis, Cellectis will have certain contractual rights for so long as it beneficially owns at least 50% of the then outstanding shares of our common stock, as described under “Certain Relationships and Related Party Transactions—Relationship with Cellectis—Stockholders Agreement,” including:

In addition, Cellectis will have the following rights for so long as it beneficially owns at least 15% of the then outstanding shares of our common stock, as described under “Certain Relationships and Related Party Transactions—Relationship with Cellectis—Stockholders Agreement,” including:

54

As a result, Cellectis controls the direction of our business, and the concentrated ownership of our common stock and the contractual rights described above will prevent stockholders from influencing significant decisions.

If Cellectis sells a controlling interest in our company to a third party in a private transaction, stockholders may not realize any change-of-control premium on shares of our common stock and we may become subject to the control of a presently unknown third party.

Cellectis has the ability, should it choose to do so, to sell some or all of its shares of our common stock in a privately negotiated transaction, which, if sufficient in size, could result in a change of control of our company.

The ability of Cellectis to privately sell its shares of our common stock, with no requirement for a concurrent offer to be made to acquire all of the shares of our common stock that will be publicly traded hereafter, could prevent stockholders from realizing any change-of-control premium on shares of our common stock that may otherwise accrue to Cellectis on its private sale of our common stock. Additionally, if Cellectis privately sells its significant equity interest in our company, we may become subject to the control of a presently unknown third party. Such third party may have conflicts of interest with those of other stockholders. In addition, if Cellectis sells a controlling interest in our company to a third party, Cellectis may terminate the license agreement and other transitional arrangements, and our other commercial agreements and relationships could be impacted, all of which may adversely affect our ability to run our business as described herein and may have a material adverse effect on our operating results and financial condition.

We are a “controlled company” within the meaning of the rules of the NASDAQ and, as a result, rely on exemptions from certain corporate governance requirements. You do not have the same protections afforded to stockholders of companies that are subject to such requirements.

Because Cellectis controls a majority of the voting power of our outstanding common stock, we are a “controlled company” within the meaning of the corporate governance standards of the NASDAQ. Under these rules, a listed company of which more than 50% of the voting power is held by an individual, group or another company is a “controlled company” and may elect not to comply with certain corporate governance requirements, including:

55

While Cellectis controls a majority of the voting power of our outstanding common stock, we may not have a majority of independent directors or corporate governance and compensation committees consisting entirely of independent directors and we will not be required to have written charters addressing these committees’ purposes and responsibilities or have annual performance evaluations of these committees. Accordingly, you will not have the same protections afforded to stockholders of companies that are subject to all of the corporate governance requirements of the NASDAQ.

Cellectis may compete with us.

Cellectis is not restricted from competing with us in the plant sciences industry business, including as a result of acquiring a company that operates an agricultural biotechnology business. Due to the significant resources of Cellectis, including financial resources, name recognition and know-how resulting from the previous management of our business, Cellectis could have a significant competitive advantage over us should it decide to engage in the type of business we conduct, which may cause our operating results and financial condition to be materially adversely affected.

Certain of our directors may have actual or potential conflicts of interest because of their positions with Cellectis.

Dr. André Choulika, Mr. Alain Godard and Mr. Laurent Arthaud serve on our Board of Directors and also have senior positions as directors or officers of Cellectis. In addition, these directors may own Cellectis ordinary shares and options to purchase Cellectis ordinary shares and other Cellectis equity awards. These individuals’ holdings of Cellectis ordinary shares, options to purchase ordinary shares of Cellectis and other equity awards may be significant for some of these persons compared to these persons’ total assets. Their position at Cellectis and the ownership of any Cellectis equity or equity awards creates, or may create the appearance of, conflicts of interest when these directors are faced with decisions that could have different implications for Cellectis than the decisions have for us.

Cellectis and its directors and officers have limited liability to us or you for breach of fiduciary duty.

Our Certificate of Incorporation provides that, subject to any contractual provision to the contrary, Cellectis will have no obligation to refrain from:

Under our Certificate of Incorporation, neither Cellectis nor any officer or director of Cellectis, except as provided in our Certificate of Incorporation, is liable to us or to our stockholders for breach of any fiduciary duty by reason of any of these activities.

Cellectis currently performs or supports many of our important corporate functions. We incur significant charges and incremental costs as a stand-alone public company.

Cellectis currently performs or supports many important corporate functions for our company. Our financial statements reflect charges for these services on an allocation basis. Many of these services are governed by our management services agreement with Cellectis. Under the management services agreement we are able to use these Cellectis services for one year terms, which are automatically renewed. However, either party has the right to terminate the agreement at the anniversary of the agreement by giving three months’ prior notice. In addition, either party is able to terminate the agreement due to a material breach of the other party, upon prior written notice, subject to limited cure periods and certain change of control, sale and bankruptcy events. We pay

56

Cellectis mutually agreed-upon fees for these services, which are based on Cellectis’ costs of providing the services. See “Certain Relationships and Related Party Transactions—Relationship with Cellectis—Management Services Agreement.”

We may not be able to replace these services or enter into appropriate third-party agreements on terms and conditions, including cost, comparable to those that we will receive from Cellectis under our management services agreement. Additionally, after the agreement terminates, we may be unable to sustain the services at the same levels or obtain the same benefits as when we were receiving such services and benefits from Cellectis. We may need to replicate or replace certain functions, systems and infrastructures to which we would no longer have access. We may also need to make investments or hire additional employees to operate without the same access to Cellectis’ operational and administrative infrastructure. When we begin to operate these functions separately, if we do not have our own adequate systems and business functions in place, or are unable to obtain them from other providers, we may not be able to operate our business effectively or at comparable costs, and our profitability may decline. In addition, we have historically received informal support from Cellectis, which may not be addressed in our management services agreement.

Risks Related to Ownership of Our Common Stock

The requirements of being a U.S. public company require significant resources and management attention and affect our ability to attract and retain executive management and qualified board members.

As a U.S. public company, we incur significant legal, accounting, and other expenses. We are subject to the Exchange Act, including the reporting requirements thereunder, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the NASDAQ listing requirements and other applicable securities rules and regulations. Compliance with these rules and regulations results in significant legal and financial compliance costs, makes some activities more difficult, time-consuming or costly and places substantial demand on our systems and resources. We expect the burdens of compliance obligations to increase after we cease to be an “emerging growth company.”

Pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, or Section 404, we will be required to furnish a report by our management on our internal control over financial reporting, including an attestation report on internal control over financial reporting issued by our independent registered public accounting firm. However, while we remain an emerging growth company, we will not be required to include this attestation report on internal control over financial reporting issued by our independent registered public accounting firm. When our independent registered public accounting firm is required to undertake an assessment of our internal control over financial reporting, the cost of complying with Section 404 will significantly increase and management’s attention may be diverted from other business concerns, which could adversely affect our business and results of operations. We may need to hire more employees in the future or engage outside consultants to comply with these requirements, which will further increase our cost and expense. If we fail to implement the requirements of Section 404 in the required timeframe, we may be subject to sanctions or investigations by regulatory authorities, including the SEC and the NASDAQ. Furthermore, if we are unable to conclude that our internal control over financial reporting is effective, we could lose investor confidence in the accuracy and completeness of our financial reports, the market price of shares of our common stock could decline, and we could be subject to sanctions or investigations by regulatory authorities. Failure to implement or maintain effective internal control systems required of public companies could also restrict our future access to the capital markets. In addition, enhanced legal and regulatory regimes and heightened standards relating to corporate governance and disclosure for public companies result in increased legal and financial compliance costs and make some activities more time consuming.

The market price of our common stock has experienced volatility since our initial public offering in July 2017.

Prior to our initial public offering, or IPO, there had been no public market for shares of our common stock. Since our initial public offering in July 2017, the market price of our common stock has experienced, and may

57

continue to experience, volatility in response to various factors. Some factors that may cause the market price of our common stock to fluctuate, in addition to the other risks mentioned in this section of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, are:

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

Our historical financial information is not necessarily representative of the results we would have achieved as a stand-alone company and may not be a reliable indicator of our future results.

We are a majority-owned subsidiary of Cellectis. As a result, our historical financial information does not reflect the financial condition, results of operations or cash flows we would have achieved as a stand-alone company and not a subsidiary of Cellectis during the periods presented or those we will achieve in the future. This is primarily the result of the following factors:

58

As a result of the separation, it may be difficult for investors to compare our future results to historical results or to evaluate our relative performance or trends in our business.

Future sales of common stock by Cellectis or others of our common stock, or the perception that such sales may occur, could depress the market price of our common stock.

As of December 31, 2017, Cellectis owned approximately 79.7% of our outstanding shares of common stock. Subject to the restrictions described in the paragraph below, future sales of these shares in the public market will be subject to the volume and other restrictions of Rule 144 under the Securities Act for so long as Cellectis is deemed to be our affiliate, unless the shares to be sold are registered with the SEC. We are unable to predict with certainty whether or when Cellectis will sell a substantial number of shares of our common stock. The sale by Cellectis of a substantial number of shares, or a perception that such sales could occur, could significantly reduce the market price of our common stock.

If securities or industry analysts do not publish research or publish inaccurate or unfavorable research about our business, the price of our common stock and trading volume could decline.

The trading market for our common stock depends in part on the research and reports that securities or industry analysts publish about us or our business. If few or no securities or industry analysts cover us, the trading price for our common stock would be negatively impacted. If one or more of the analysts who covers us downgrades our common stock or publishes incorrect or unfavorable research about our business, the price of our common stock would likely decline. If one or more of these analysts ceases coverage of our company or fails to publish reports on us regularly, or downgrades our common stock, demand for our common stock could decrease, which could cause the price of our common stock or trading volume to decline.

We do not intend to pay dividends on our common stock.

We do not intend to pay any dividends to holders of our common stock for the foreseeable future. We currently intend to invest our future earnings, if any, to fund our growth. Therefore, you are not likely to receive any dividends on common stock for the foreseeable future, and the success of an investment in our common stock will depend upon any future appreciation in its value. Consequently, investors may need to sell all or part of their holdings of our common stock after price appreciation, which may never occur, as the only way to realize any future gains on their investment. There is no guarantee that our common stock will appreciate in value or even maintain the price at which our stockholders have purchased our common stock. Investors seeking cash dividends should not purchase our common stock.

Provisions in our Certificate of Incorporation, By-laws and Delaware law may prevent or delay an acquisition of us, which could decrease the trading price of our common stock.

Our Certificate of Incorporation and By-laws contain provisions that are intended to deter coercive takeover practices and inadequate takeover bids and to encourage prospective acquirers to negotiate with our Board of Directors rather than to attempt a hostile takeover. These include the following provisions that become effective once Cellectis’ no longer holds at least 50% of our outstanding shares of common stock:

59

These provisions could make it more difficult for a third party to acquire us, even if the third party’s offer may be considered beneficial by many stockholders. As a result, stockholders may be limited in their ability to obtain a premium for their shares. See “Description of Capital Stock” for a discussion of these provisions.

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

We are an “emerging growth company,” as defined in the JOBS Act, and take advantage of certain exemptions from various reporting requirements that are applicable to other public companies that are not “emerging growth companies” including, but not limited to, not being required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, and reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation in our periodic reports and proxy statements. We cannot predict if investors will find our common stock less attractive because of our reliance on these exemptions. If some investors find our common stock less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for our common stock and our stock price may be more volatile.

The Lease Agreement is a net lease and the costs and expenses associated with the property are to be paid for by us. Beginning on the date that is 18 months following the Initial Term Commencement Date, if landlord decides to sell the property during the term of the Lease Agreement and any extension thereof, we will have a right of first refusal to purchase the property on the same terms offered to any third party.

In consideration of, and as an inducement to, landlord’s agreement to enter into the Lease Agreement, Cellectis entered into a Lease Guaranty with the landlord, whereby Cellectis has guaranteed all of our obligations under the Lease Agreement. Cellectis’ guarantee of Calyxt’s obligations under the sale-leaseback transaction will terminate at the end of the second consecutive calendar year in which Calyxt’s tangible net worth exceeds $300 million, as determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. On November 10, 2017, we agreed to indemnify Cellectis for any obligations incurred by Cellectis under the Lease Guaranty. This indemnification agreement will become effective at such time as Cellectis owns 50% or less of our outstanding common stock.