AFMD Affimed NV

PART I

This financial information should be read in conjunction with “Item 5—Operating and Financial Review and Prospects” and our consolidated audited financial statements, including the notes thereto, included in this Annual Report.

B.   Capitalization and indebtedness

Not applicable.

C.   Reasons for the offer and use of proceeds

Not applicable.

D.   Risk factors

You should carefully consider the risks and uncertainties described below and the other information in this Annual Report before making an investment in our common shares. Our business, financial condition or results of operations could be materially and adversely affected if any of these risks occurs, and as a result, the market price of our common shares could decline and you could lose all or part of your investment. This Annual Report also contains forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. See “Forward-Looking Statements.” Our actual results could differ materially and adversely from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements as a result of certain factors.

Risks Related to Our Business and the Development and Commercialization of Our Product Candidates

All of our product candidates are in preclinical or clinical development. Drug development is expensive, time consuming and uncertain, and we may ultimately not be able to obtain regulatory approvals for the commercialization of some or all of our product candidates.

The research, testing, manufacturing, labeling, approval, selling, marketing and distribution of drug products are subject to extensive regulation by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, the European Medicines Agency, or EMA, national competent authorities in Europe, including the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut, or PEI, and other non-U.S. regulatory authorities, which establish regulations that differ from country to country. We are not permitted to market our product candidates in the United States or in other countries until we receive approval of a Biologics License Application, or BLA, from the FDA or marketing approval from applicable regulatory authorities outside the United States. Our product candidates are in various stages of development and are subject to the risks of failure inherent in drug development. We have not submitted an application for or received marketing approval for any of our product candidates. We have limited experience in conducting and managing the clinical studies necessary to obtain regulatory approvals, including approval by the FDA or the European Commission. Obtaining approval of a BLA or a Marketing Authorization Application can be a lengthy, expensive and uncertain process. In addition, failure to comply with FDA, EMA and other non-U.S. regulatory requirements may, either before or after product approval, if any, subject our company to administrative or judicially imposed sanctions, including:

The FDA, the EMA and other non-U.S. regulatory authorities also have substantial discretion in the drug approval process. The number of preclinical studies and clinical studies that will be required for regulatory approval varies depending on the product candidate, the disease or condition that the product candidate is designed to address, and the regulations applicable to any particular drug candidate. Regulatory agencies can delay, limit or deny approval of a product candidate for many reasons, including:

For example, during the fourth quarter of 2018, the FDA concurred with our decision to place AFM11 on clinical hold after the occurrence of serious adverse events, or SAEs, in three patients, which included a death in our ALL study and two life-threatening events in our NHL study, and formally placed the AFM11 investigational new drug, or IND, application on full clinical hold.

Any delay in obtaining or failure to obtain required approvals could materially adversely affect our ability to generate revenue from the particular product candidate, which likely would result in significant harm to our financial position and adversely impact our share price. Furthermore, any regulatory approval to market a product may be subject to limitations on the indicated uses for which we may market the product. These limitations may limit the size of the market for the product.

Clinical drug development involves a lengthy and expensive process with uncertain timelines and uncertain outcomes, and results of earlier trials may not be predictive of future trial results. If clinical studies of our product candidates are prolonged or delayed, we may be unable to obtain required regulatory approvals, and therefore be unable to commercialize our product candidates on a timely basis or at all.

We have no history of conducting large-scale or pivotal clinical studies or commercializing pharmaceutical products, which may make it difficult to evaluate the prospects for our future viability.

Our operations to date have been limited to financing and staffing our company, developing our technology and developing AFM13, AFM11 and our other product candidates. We have not yet demonstrated an ability successfully to complete a large-scale or pivotal clinical study, obtain marketing approval, manufacture a commercial scale product or conduct sales and marketing activities necessary for successful product commercialization. Consequently, predictions about our future success or viability may not be as accurate as they could be if we had a history of successfully developing and commercializing pharmaceutical products.

If clinical studies for our product candidates are prolonged, delayed or stopped, we may be unable to obtain regulatory approval and commercialize our product candidates on a timely basis, which would require us to incur additional costs and delay or restrict our receipt of any product revenue.

There have been significant developments in the highly dynamic field of immuno-oncology such as the earlier availability of product candidates or earlier approval of drugs for the same indications as our product candidates. For example, in the past, this has occurred with Blincyto in acute lymphocytic leukemia, or ALL, and with anti-PD‑1 antibodies in Hodgkin Lymphoma, or HL, resulting in delays in clinical study initiation for our phase 1 trial of AFM11 in ALL and for delays in recruiting for our phase 1 trial of AFM11 in NHL and our phase 2a Investigator Sponsored Trial, or IST, of AFM13 in HL. In addition, certain clinical studies in which we are involved and which are testing our product candidates are sponsored by academic sites, known as ISTs. By definition, the financing, design, and conduct of such studies is under the sole responsibility of the respective sponsor. Therefore, we have limited control over these studies and we do not have control over the timing and reporting of the data from these trials. In addition, we may have limited information about ISTs while they are being conducted, including the status of trial initiation and patient recruitment, changes to trial design and clinical study results.

A phase 2a clinical study of AFM13 in patients with HL started recruitment in the second quarter of 2015. Due to delays in opening trial sites and the availability of anti-PD‑1 antibodies for the treatment of relapsed/refractory HL patients, in the past we have experienced slower recruitment into the study than anticipated. Consequently, the overall study design was revised in order to adapt to the changing treatment landscape, namely the availability of anti-PD‑1 antibodies. The study now includes HL patients relapsed or refractory to treatment with both brentuximab vedotin (Adcetris®) and anti-PD‑1 antibodies. The study is open and recruiting under the new study design. Furthermore, we are conducting a phase 1b clinical study of AFM13 in combination with Merck’s anti-PD‑1 antibody Keytruda® (pembrolizumab) in relapsed/refractory Hodgkin lymphoma. In this study, we have completed recruitment of a total of 30 patients, comprising a dose escalation cohort of 12 patients as well as an expansion cohort of an additional 18 patients. In addition, we are supporting an IST of AFM13 in patients with CD30+ lymphoma led by Columbia University. This translational phase 1b/2a study of AFM13 in patients with relapsed or refractory CD30+ lymphoma with cutaneous manifestations is designed to allow for serial biopsies, thereby enabling assessment of NK cell biology and tumor cell killing within the tumor microenvironment. In this study, the third cohort has been fully enrolled and recruitment into the fourth cohort is ongoing. Following discussions with the FDA during the fourth quarter of 2018, we announced our registrational pathway and updated clinical development plans for AFM13. We plan to initiate a phase 2 study evaluating the efficacy and safety of AFM13 as monotherapy in patients with relapsed or refractory CD30 positive peripheral T cell lymphoma (PTCL) or transformed mycosis fungoides (TMF), a subset of cutaneous T cell lymphoma (CTCL), in the first half of 2019. Based on the unmet medical need for safe and effective new treatments in these hard-to-treat populations and preliminary feedback from the FDA, we believe that results from an open-label, single-arm phase 2 study could form the basis for a BLA submission and support an accelerated approval for patients with relapsed or refractory CD30 positive PTCL or TMF.

The commencement of planned clinical studies could be substantially delayed or prevented by several factors, including:

The completion of our clinical studies has been and could in the future be substantially delayed or prevented by several factors, including:

Changes in regulatory requirements and guidance may also occur and we may need to significantly amend clinical study protocols or submit new clinical study protocols to reflect these changes with appropriate regulatory authorities. In addition, changes in the competitive environment have occurred and may continue to occur.

Amendments may require us to renegotiate terms with CROs or resubmit clinical study protocols to IRBs or ethics committees for re-examination, which may impact the costs, timing or successful completion of a clinical study.

Our clinical studies may be suspended or terminated at any time by the FDA, the PEI, other regulatory authorities, the IRB or ethics committee overseeing the clinical study at issue, any of our clinical study sites with respect to that site, or us, due to a number of factors, including:

For example during the fourth quarter of 2018, we placed AFM11 on clinical hold after the occurrence of SAEs in three patients, which included a death in the ALL study and two life-threatening events in the NHL study. The SAEs occurred in patients enrolled in the highest dose cohorts of each study. Subsequently, we received a formal notification from the FDA that the regulatory agency has concurred with our decision to stop recruitment and formally placed the AFM11 IND application on full clinical hold.

Our product development costs will increase if we experience delays in clinical studies or marketing approvals or if we are required to conduct additional clinical studies or other testing of our product candidates. We may be required to obtain additional funds to conduct and complete such clinical studies. We cannot assure you that our clinical studies will begin as planned or be completed on schedule, if at all, or that we will not need to restructure our trials after they have begun. Significant clinical study delays also could shorten any periods during which we may have the exclusive right to commercialize our product candidates or allow our competitors to bring products to market before we do, which may harm our business and results of operations.

Any failure or significant delay in completing clinical studies for our product candidates would adversely affect our ability to obtain regulatory approval and our commercial prospects and ability to generate product revenue will be diminished.

The results of previous clinical studies may not be predictive of future results, our progress in trials for one product candidate may not be indicative of progress in trials for other product candidates and the results of our current and planned clinical studies may not satisfy the requirements of the FDA, the EMA or other non-U.S. regulatory authorities.

We currently have no products approved for sale and we cannot guarantee that we will ever have marketable products. Clinical failure can occur at any stage of clinical development. Clinical studies may produce negative or inconclusive results, and we or any of our current and future collaborators may decide, or regulators may require us, to conduct additional clinical or preclinical testing. We will be required to demonstrate with substantial evidence through well-controlled clinical studies that our product candidates are safe and effective for use in a diverse population before we can seek regulatory approvals for their commercial sale. Success in early clinical trials does not mean that future larger registration clinical studies will be successful because product candidates in later-stage clinical studies may fail to demonstrate sufficient safety and efficacy to the satisfaction of the FDA and non-U.S. regulatory authorities despite having progressed through initial clinical studies. Product candidates that have shown promising results in early clinical studies may still suffer significant setbacks in subsequent registration clinical studies. Similarly, the outcome of preclinical testing and early clinical studies may not be predictive of the success of later clinical studies, and interim results of a clinical study do not necessarily predict final results. Progress in trials of one product candidate does not indicate that we will make similar progress in additional trials for that product candidate or in trials for our other product candidates. A number of companies in the pharmaceutical industry, including those with greater resources and experience than us, have suffered significant setbacks in advanced clinical studies, even after obtaining promising results in earlier clinical studies.

In addition, the design of a clinical study can determine whether its results will support approval of a product and flaws in the design of a clinical study may not become apparent until the clinical study is well advanced. We may be unable to design and execute a clinical study to support regulatory approval.

In some instances, there can be significant variability in safety and/or efficacy results between different trials of the same product candidate due to numerous factors, including changes in trial protocols, differences in size and type of the patient populations, adherence to the dosing regimen and other trial protocols and the rate of dropout among clinical study participants. We do not know whether any phase 2, phase 3 or other clinical studies we or any of our collaborators may conduct will demonstrate consistent or adequate efficacy and safety to obtain regulatory approval to market our product candidates.

Further, our product candidates may not be approved even if they achieve their primary endpoints in phase 3 clinical studies or registration trials. The FDA, the EMA or other non-U.S. regulatory authorities may disagree with our trial design and our interpretation of data from preclinical studies and clinical studies. In addition, any of these regulatory authorities may change requirements for the approval of a product candidate even after reviewing and providing comments or advice on a protocol for a clinical study. In addition, any of these regulatory authorities may also approve a product candidate for fewer or more limited indications than we request or may grant approval contingent on the performance of costly post-marketing clinical studies. The FDA, the EMA or other non-U.S. regulatory authorities may not accept the labeling claims that we believe would be necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of our product candidates.

We depend on enrollment of patients in our clinical studies for our product candidates. We compete with other sponsors who have ongoing clinical studies of investigational therapies for patients for our clinical studies. If we are unable to enroll patients in our clinical studies, our research and development efforts could be materially adversely affected.

Successful and timely completion of clinical studies will require that we enroll a sufficient number of patients. Trials may be subject to delays as a result of patient enrollment taking longer than anticipated. Patient enrollment depends on many factors, including the size and nature of the patient population, eligibility criteria for the trial, the proximity of patients to clinical sites, the design of the clinical protocol, the availability of competing clinical studies, the availability of new drugs approved for the indication the clinical study is investigating, and clinicians’ and patients’ perceptions as to the potential advantages of the drug being studied in relation to other available therapies. In addition, we compete with approved immunotherapies and investigational immunotherapies for patients for our clinical studies. Our product candidate AFM13 has orphan drug designation for the treatment of HL, which means that the potential patient population is limited. Under the current, revised protocol of the GHSG phase 2a clinical study of AFM13, we have been seeking to enroll patients with relapsed/refractory HL who have been treated with Adcetris® (brentuximab vedotin) and anti-PD1 antibodies, which is an even more limited population of patients. As we are developing AFM13 and certain of our other product candidates for patients for whom previous therapies have failed and who may not have long to live, patients may elect not to participate in our, or any, clinical study.

The approval of new immuno-oncology drugs such as checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) has changed the landscape for conducting clinical studies of other oncology drugs, including ours, both for indications for which such drugs are approved as well as for indications in which additional trials are being conducted. In addition, there are several other types of drugs in development for the indications for which we are developing AFM13 and certain of our other product candidates. We compete for patients with the sponsors of trials for all of these drugs. These factors may make it difficult for us to enroll enough patients to complete our clinical studies in a timely and cost-effective manner.

For example, although the GHSG phase 2a clinical study of AFM13 in patients with HL started recruitment in the second quarter of 2015, due to the availability of anti-PD‑1 antibodies for the treatment of relapsed/refractory HL patients, we have experienced slower recruitment into the study than anticipated. Further delays in the completion of any clinical study of our product candidates will increase our costs, slow down our product candidate development and approval process and delay or potentially jeopardize our ability to commence product sales and generate revenue. In addition, some of the factors that cause, or lead to, a delay in the commencement or completion of clinical studies may also ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval of our product candidates.

We use new technologies in the development of our product candidates and the FDA and other regulatory authorities have not approved products that utilize these technologies.

Our product candidates in development are based on specific technologies, such as immune cell engagers, Trispecific Abs and novel tetravalent, bispecific antibody formats, capable of recruiting either NK cells or T cells. The approval of our product candidates is less certain than approval of drugs that do not employ such novel technologies or methods of action. We intend to work closely with the FDA, the EMA and other regulatory

authorities to perform the requisite scientific analyses and evaluation of our methods to obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates. For example, final assays and specifications of our product candidates, in particular regarding cytotoxicity, have yet to be developed, and the FDA, EMA or other regulatory authorities may require additional analyses to evaluate this aspect of our product quality. It is possible that the validation process may take time and resources, require independent third-party analyses or not be accepted by the FDA, the EMA and other regulatory authorities. Delays or failure to obtain regulatory approval of any of the product candidates that we are developing would adversely affect our business.

Even if our product candidates obtain regulatory approval, they will be subject to continuous regulatory review.

If marketing authorization is obtained for any of our product candidates, the product will remain subject to continuous review and therefore authorization could be subsequently withdrawn or restricted. We will be subject to ongoing obligations and oversight by regulatory authorities, including adverse event reporting requirements, marketing restrictions and, potentially, other post-marketing obligations, all of which may result in significant expense and limit our ability to commercialize such products.

If there are changes in the application of legislation or regulatory policies, or if problems are discovered with a product or our manufacture of a product, or if we or one of our distributors, licensees or co-marketers fails to comply with regulatory requirements, the regulators could take various actions. These include imposing fines on us, imposing restrictions on the product or its manufacture and requiring us to recall or remove the product from the market. The regulators could also suspend or withdraw our marketing authorizations, requiring us to conduct additional clinical studies, change our product labeling or submit additional applications for marketing authorization. If any of these events occurs, our ability to sell such product may be impaired, and we may incur substantial additional expense to comply with regulatory requirements, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We may not be successful in our efforts to use and expand our technology platforms to build a pipeline of product candidates.

A key element of our strategy is to use and expand our technology platforms to build a pipeline of product candidates and progress these product candidates through clinical development for the treatment of a variety of different types of diseases. Although our research and development efforts to date have resulted in a pipeline of product candidates directed at various cancers, we may not be able to develop product candidates that are safe and effective. Even if we are successful in continuing to build our pipeline, the potential product candidates that we identify may not be suitable for clinical development, including as a result of being shown to have harmful side effects or other characteristics that indicate that they are unlikely to be products that will receive marketing approval and achieve market acceptance. If we do not continue to successfully develop and begin to commercialize product candidates, we will face difficulty in obtaining product revenues in future periods, which could result in significant harm to our financial position and adversely affect our share price.

Even if we obtain marketing approval of any of our product candidates in a major pharmaceutical market such as the United States or Europe, we may never obtain approval or commercialize our products in other major markets, which would limit our ability to realize their full market potential.

In order to market any products in a country or territory, we must establish and comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of such countries or territories regarding safety and efficacy. Clinical studies conducted in one country may not be accepted by regulatory authorities in other countries, and regulatory approval in one country does not mean that regulatory approval will be obtained in any other country. Approval procedures vary among countries and can involve additional product testing and validation and additional administrative review periods. Seeking regulatory approvals in all major markets could result in significant delays, difficulties and costs for us and may require additional preclinical studies or clinical studies which would be costly and time consuming. Regulatory requirements can vary widely from country to country and could delay or prevent the introduction of our products in those countries. Satisfying these and other regulatory

requirements is costly, time consuming, uncertain and subject to unanticipated delays. In addition, our failure to obtain regulatory approval in any country may delay or have negative effects on the process for regulatory approval in other countries. We do not have any product candidates approved for sale in any jurisdiction, including international markets, and we do not have experience in obtaining regulatory approval in international markets. If we fail to comply with regulatory requirements in international markets or to obtain and maintain required approvals, our target market will be reduced and our ability to realize the full market potential of our products will be harmed.

In the United States, we may seek fast track designation of AFM13 and certain of our other product candidates, with the intent to pursue an accelerated approval pathway and potentially, breakthrough designation of AFM13 and/or certain of our other product candidates. There is no assurance that the FDA will grant such designations; and, even if it does grant such designations to AFM13 and/or certain of our other product candidates, such designation may not actually lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process and does not increase the likelihood that our product candidates will receive marketing approval in the United States.

Based on clinical data, either from ongoing or new clinical studies, we plan to seek fast track approval of AFM13 as a monotherapy and/or as a combination in relevant indications. In addition, we may seek fast track approval of certain of our other product candidates. The fast track program, a provision of the FDA Modernization Act of 1997, is designed to facilitate interactions between a sponsoring company and the FDA before and during submission of a BLA for an investigational agent that, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs, is intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, and which demonstrates the potential to address an unmet medical need for that disease or condition. Under the fast track program, the FDA may consider reviewing portions of a marketing application before the sponsor submits the complete application if the FDA determines, after a preliminary evaluation of the clinical data, that a fast track product may be effective. A fast track designation provides the opportunity for more frequent interactions with the FDA, and a fast track product could be eligible for priority review if supported by clinical data at the time of submission of the BLA.

The FDA is authorized to designate a product candidate as a breakthrough therapy if it finds that the product is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. For products designated as breakthrough therapies, interaction and communication between the FDA and the sponsor of the trial can help to identify the most efficient path for clinical development while minimizing the number of patients placed in ineffective control regimens. Products designated as breakthrough therapies by the FDA are also eligible for accelerated approval.

The FDA has broad discretion whether or not to grant fast track or breakthrough designation. Accordingly, even if we believe one of our product candidates meets the criteria for fast track or breakthrough designation, the FDA may disagree and instead determine not to make such designation. In any event, the receipt of fast-track or breakthrough therapy designation for a product candidate may not result in a faster development process, review or approval compared to product candidates considered for approval under conventional FDA procedures and, in any event, does not assure ultimate approval by the FDA. In addition, even if one or more of our product candidates qualify as fast track or breakthrough therapies, the FDA may later decide that the product candidates no longer meet the conditions for qualification or decide that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened.

We may be unable to obtain orphan product designation or exclusivity for some of our product candidates. If our competitors are able to obtain orphan product exclusivity for their products in the same indications for which we are developing our product candidates, we may not be able to have our products approved by the applicable regulatory authority for a significant period of time. Conversely, if we obtain orphan drug exclusivity for some of our product candidates, we may not be able to benefit from the associated marketing exclusivity.

Regulatory authorities in some jurisdictions, including the United States and Europe, may designate drugs for relatively small patient populations as orphan drugs. Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may designate a product candidate as an orphan drug if it is a drug intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally defined as a patient population of fewer than 200,000 individuals annually in the United States. In the European Union, or the EU, the European Commission may designate a product candidate as an orphan medicinal product if it is a medicine for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of life-threatening or very serious conditions that affect not more than five in 10,000 persons in the European Union, or it is unlikely that marketing of the medicine would generate sufficient returns to justify the investment needed for its development. We have received orphan drug designation for AFM13 for the treatment of HL in the United States and Europe, but orphan drug status may not ensure that we have market exclusivity in a particular market and there is no assurance we will be able to receive orphan drug designation for certain of our other product candidates or any additional product candidates. Further, the granting of a request for orphan drug designation does not alter the standard regulatory requirements and process for obtaining marketing approval.

Generally, if a product candidate with an orphan drug designation receives the first marketing approval for the indication for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to a period of marketing exclusivity, which, subject to certain exceptions, precludes the FDA from approving the marketing application of another drug for the same indication for that time period or precludes the EMA, and other national drug regulators in the EU, from accepting the marketing application for another medicinal product for the same indication. The applicable period is seven years in the United States and ten years in the European Union. The EU period can be reduced to six years if a product no longer meets the criteria for orphan drug designation or if the product is sufficiently profitable so that market exclusivity is no longer justified. In the EU, orphan exclusivity may also be extended for an additional two years (i.e., a maximum of 12 years’ orphan exclusivity) if the product is approved on the basis of a dossier that includes pediatric clinical study data generated in accordance with an approved paediatric investigation plan. Orphan drug exclusivity may be lost in the United States if the FDA determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient quantity of the product to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition.

Even if we obtain orphan drug exclusivity for one or more of our products that exclusivity may not effectively protect the product from competition because exclusivity can be suspended under certain circumstances. In the United States, even after an orphan drug is approved, the FDA can subsequently approve another drug for the same condition if the FDA concludes that the later drug is clinically superior in that it is shown to be safer, more effective or makes a major contribution to patient care. In the European Union, orphan exclusivity will not prevent a marketing authorization being granted for a similar medicinal product in the same indication if the new product is safer, more effective or otherwise clinically superior to the first product or if the marketing authorization holder of the first product is unable to supply sufficient quantities of the product.

Our product candidates may result in serious adverse, undesirable or unacceptable side effects which may delay or prevent marketing approval. If such side effects are identified during the development of our product candidates or following approval, if any, we may need to abandon our development of such product candidates, the commercial profile of any approved label may be limited, or we may be subject to other significant negative consequences following marketing approval, if any.

Although all of our product candidates have undergone or will undergo safety testing to the extent possible and agreed with health authorities, not all adverse effects of drugs can be predicted or anticipated. Immunotherapy and its method of action of harnessing the body’s immune system, especially with respect to immune cell engagers, is powerful and could lead to serious side effects that we only discover in clinical studies. Unforeseen

side effects from any of our product candidates could arise either during clinical development or, if such side effects are rarer, after our product candidates have been approved by regulatory authorities and the approved product has been marketed, resulting in the exposure of additional patients. All of our product candidates are still in clinical or preclinical development. While our phase 1 clinical studies for AFM13 demonstrated a favorable safety profile, the results from future trials of AFM13 or other NK cell-engaging bispecific antibodies may not confirm these results. During the fourth quarter of 2018, we placed AFM11 on clinical hold after the occurrence of SAEs in three patients, which included a death in the ALL study and two life-threatening events in the NHL study. The SAEs occurred in patients enrolled in the highest dose cohorts of each study. Subsequently, we received a formal notification from the FDA that the regulatory agency has concurred with our decision to stop recruitment and formally placed the AFM11 IND application on full clinical hold. In early March 2019, we submitted a complete response document to the FDA that summarizes the clinical data from the two AFM11 phase 1 studies to request that the clinical hold be lifted so that clinical development of AFM11 may proceed in ALL patients. The timing of the FDA’s response, and the FDA’s decision, are uncertain. 

Furthermore, we are initially developing our product candidates for patients with HL, CD30+ lymphoma, NHL and other indications for whom no other therapies have succeeded and survival times are frequently short. Therefore, we expect that certain patients may die during the clinical studies of our product candidates, and it may be difficult to ascertain whether such deaths are attributable to the underlying disease, complications from the disease, our product candidates or a combination thereof.

The results of future clinical studies may show that our product candidates cause undesirable or unacceptable side effects, which could interrupt, delay or halt clinical studies, and result in delay of, or failure to obtain, marketing approval from the FDA, the European Commission and other regulatory authorities, or result in marketing approval from the FDA, the European Commission and other regulatory authorities with restrictive label warnings or potential product liability claims. Treatment-related side effects could also affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled subjects to complete the study, or make the product candidate less attractive for partnering. In addition, these side effects may not be appropriately recognized or managed by the treating medical staff, particularly outside of our existing or future collaborators as toxicities resulting from cancer immunotherapies are not normally encountered in the general patient population and by medical personnel. The inability to recognize and manage the potential side effects of our product candidates could result in patient deaths. Any of these occurrences may prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of the affected product candidate and may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly.

Additionally, if any of our product candidates receives marketing approval and we or others later identify undesirable or unacceptable side effects caused by such products:

Any of these events could prevent us, our collaborators or our potential future partners from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of the affected product or could substantially increase commercialization costs and expenses, which in turn could delay or prevent us from generating significant revenue from the sale of our products.

Adverse events in the field of immuno-oncology could damage public perception of our product candidates and negatively affect our business.

The commercial success of our products will depend in part on public acceptance of the use of cancer immunotherapies. SAEs and other adverse events in clinical studies of our product candidates or in clinical studies of others developing similar products and the resulting publicity, as well as any other adverse events in the field of immuno-oncology that may occur in the future, could result in a decrease in demand for any products that we may develop. Although the mode of action of our T cell tetravalent bispecific antibodies differs from that of other approaches in development, the public may not always differentiate between our therapies and others in the field. If public perception is influenced by claims that the use of cancer immunotherapies is unsafe, our products may not be accepted by the general public or the medical community.

Future adverse events in immuno-oncology or the biopharmaceutical industry could also result in greater governmental regulation, stricter labeling requirements and potential regulatory delays in the testing or approvals of our products. Any increased scrutiny could delay or increase the costs of obtaining regulatory approval for our product candidates.

Even if approved, if any of our product candidates do not achieve broad market acceptance among physicians, patients, the medical community and third-party payors, our revenue generated from their sales will be limited.

The commercial success of our product candidates will depend upon their acceptance among physicians, patients and the medical community. The degree of market acceptance of our product candidates will depend on a number of factors, including:

If any of our product candidates are approved, but do not achieve an adequate level of acceptance by physicians, patients and the medical community, we may not generate sufficient revenue from these products, and we may not become or remain profitable. In addition, efforts to educate the medical community and third-party payors on the benefits of our product candidates may require significant resources and may never be successful.

We are subject to manufacturing risks that could substantially increase our costs and limit supply of our product or prevent us from achieving a commercially viable production process.

The process of manufacturing our products is complex, highly regulated and subject to several risks, including:

We currently have no marketing, sales or distribution infrastructure. If we are unable to develop sales, marketing and distribution capabilities on our own or through collaborations, or if we fail to achieve adequate pricing and/or reimbursement we will not be successful in commercializing our product candidates.

We currently have no marketing, sales and distribution capabilities because our lead product candidates are still in clinical development. If any of our product candidates are approved, we intend either to establish a sales and marketing organization with technical expertise and supporting distribution capabilities to commercialize our product candidates, or to outsource this function to a third party. Either of these options would be expensive and time consuming. These costs may be incurred in advance of any approval of our product candidates. In addition, we may not be able to hire a sales force that is sufficient in size or has adequate expertise in the medical markets that we intend to target. Any failure or delay in the development of our internal sales, marketing and distribution capabilities would adversely impact the commercialization of our products.

To the extent that we enter into collaboration agreements with respect to marketing, sales or distribution, our product revenue may be lower than if we directly marketed or sold any approved products. In addition, any revenue we receive will depend in whole or in part upon the efforts of these third-party collaborators, which may not be successful and are generally not within our control. If we are unable to enter into these arrangements on acceptable terms or at all, we may not be able to successfully commercialize any approved products. If we are not successful in commercializing any approved products, either on our own or through collaborations with one or more third parties, our future product revenue will suffer and we may incur significant additional losses.

We may not be able to achieve the prices for our products that we may need for sustained profitability. In particular, there are different and changing reimbursement regulations in major market countries and other countries, and we might not be able to show the specific benefit or other requirements required for reimbursement or reimbursement at a specified pricing level in one or more jurisdictions.

In addition, if we successfully develop combinations of our product candidates with other potentially expensive agents, the market may not allow for premium pricing of our products and hence may impair our ability to achieve profitability.

We face significant competition and if our competitors develop and market products that are more effective, safer or less expensive than our product candidates, our commercial opportunities will be negatively impacted.

The life sciences industry is highly competitive and subject to rapid and significant technological change. We are currently developing therapeutics that will compete with other drugs and therapies that currently exist or are being developed. Products we may develop in the future are also likely to face competition from other drugs and therapies, some of which we may not currently be aware. We have competitors both in the United States and internationally, including major multinational pharmaceutical companies, established biotechnology companies, specialty pharmaceutical companies, universities and other research institutions. Many of our competitors have significantly greater financial, manufacturing, marketing, drug development, technical and human resources than we do. Large pharmaceutical companies, in particular, have extensive experience in clinical testing, obtaining regulatory approvals, recruiting patients and in manufacturing pharmaceutical products. These companies also have significantly greater research and marketing capabilities than we do and may also have products that have been approved or are in late stages of development, and collaborative arrangements in our target markets with leading companies and research institutions. Established pharmaceutical companies may also invest heavily to accelerate discovery and development of novel compounds or to in-license novel compounds that could make the product candidates that we develop obsolete. As a result of all of these factors, our competitors may succeed in obtaining patent protection and/or marketing approval or discovering, developing and commercializing products in our field before we do.

There is a large number of companies developing or marketing treatments for cancer disorders, including many major pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. These treatments consist of small molecule drug products, biologic therapeutics that work, among others, either by using next-generation antibody technology platforms or new immunological approaches to address specific cancer targets, as well as genetically engineered cellular therapeutics. These treatments are often combined with one another in an attempt to maximize the response rate. In addition, several companies are developing therapeutics that work by targeting multiple specificities using a single recombinant molecule, as we are.

Clinical phase 2 data with the anti-PD-1 CPIs nivolumab and pembrolizumab in HL has been published. This data indicates that treatment with anti-PD-1 antibodies results in high response rates in the salvage setting of HL. The FDA granted conditional accelerated approval for nivolumab in 2016 in classical HL patients who have relapsed or progressed after autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation and brentuximab vedotin. The FDA also granted conditional accelerated approval for pembrolizumab in 2017 in adult and pediatric patients with refractory cHL who have relapsed after 3 or more prior lines of therapy. Adcetris® phase 2 and phase 3 studies are reported to be ongoing in combination with nivolumab. If AFM13 were to be approved for HL, we could be in competition with these therapies, as well as any other therapies or combination regimens that comprise the standard of care that AFM13 could potentially displace. Several other agents have reached proof of concept clinical studies in HL, including Afinitor (Novartis AG), ferritarg (MABLife), panobinostat (Novartis) and lenalidomide (Celgene).

Adcetris®, an antibody-drug conjugate targeting CD30, was approved by the FDA in relapsed/refractory HL in 2011. In addition, Adcetris® was approved by the FDA in 2015 for the treatment of patients with HL at high risk of relapse or progression following autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation as consolidation treatment. In the European Union, Adcetris® is approved for the same indications. Adcetris® is also indicated for anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL) and CD30 positive mycosis fungoides, and is currently being investigated in different settings and various combinations in HL. Recent data indicate high complete response rates when combined with nivolumab (with or without ipilimumab) or bendamustine in relapsed/refractory HL.

With respect to competitors for AFM11, Celgene, Novartis, Bellicum, Cellectis, Bluebird Bio and Gilead, amongst others, are each developing therapies using T cells reengineered with chimeric antigen receptors (CARs) against CD19‑positive B cells.

We expect that our tetravalent bispecific antibodies and trispecific antibody platforms as well as our novel tetravalent, bispecific antibody formats will serve as the basis for future product candidates and collaborations with pharmaceutical companies. Other companies also have developed platform technologies that compete with our platforms. For example, MacroGenics is developing its DART and Xencor is developing its Xmab platform, which enable the targeting of multiple receptors or cells by using a single molecule with an antibody-like structure. Ablynx is also developing such a platform aimed at multi-specific targeting, which to date has not reached clinical testing. Dragonfly Therapeutics is developing TriNKET which specifically activate cells of the innate and adoptive immune system.

Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe effects, are more convenient, have a broader label, are marketed more effectively, are reimbursed or are less expensive than any products that we may develop. Our competitors also may obtain FDA, European Commission or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market. Even if our product candidates achieve marketing approval, they may be priced at a significant premium over competitive products if any have been approved by then, resulting in reduced competitiveness.

In addition, our ability to compete in the future may be affected in many cases by insurers or other third-party payors seeking to encourage the use of biosimilar products. In March 2010, former President Obama signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, or collectively, the Health Care Reform Law, a sweeping law intended to broaden access to health insurance, reduce or constrain the growth of healthcare spending, enhance remedies against fraud and abuse, add new transparency requirements for health care and health insurance industries, impose new taxes and fees on the health industry and impose additional health policy reforms. The Health Care Reform Law also created a new regulatory scheme authorizing the FDA to approve biosimilars. Under the Health Care Reform Law, a manufacturer may submit an application for licensure of a biologic product that is “biosimilar to” or “interchangeable with” a previously approved biological product or “reference product,” without the need to submit a full package of preclinical and clinical data. Under this new statutory scheme, an application for a biosimilar product may not be submitted to the FDA until four years following approval of the reference product. The FDA may not approve a biosimilar product until 12 years from the date on which the reference product was approved. Even if a product is considered to be a reference product eligible for exclusivity, another company could market a competing version of that product if the FDA approves a full BLA for such product containing the sponsor’s own preclinical data and data from adequate and well-controlled clinical studies to demonstrate the safety, purity and potency of their product. Furthermore, recent legislation has proposed that the 12‑year exclusivity period for each a reference product may be reduced to seven years.

Smaller and other early stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. These third parties compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel, establishing clinical study sites and patient registration for clinical studies, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs. In addition, the biopharmaceutical industry is characterized by rapid technological change. If we

fail to stay at the forefront of technological change, we may be unable to compete effectively. Technological advances or products developed by our competitors may render our technologies or product candidates obsolete, less competitive or not economical.

Enacted and future legislation may increase the difficulty and cost for us to obtain marketing approval of and commercialize our product candidates and may affect the prices we may set. The successful commercialization of our product candidates will depend in part on the extent to which governmental authorities and health insurers establish adequate coverage and reimbursement levels and pricing policies.

In the United States, the European Union, its member states and some other foreign jurisdictions, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system. These changes could prevent or delay marketing approval of our product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities and affect our ability to sell profitably any products for which we obtain marketing approval. Among policy makers and payors in the United States and elsewhere, there is significant interest in promoting changes in healthcare systems with the stated goals of containing healthcare costs, improving quality and/or expanding access to healthcare.

In the United States, the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, or the Medicare Modernization Act, changed the way Medicare covers and pays for pharmaceutical products. The legislation expanded Medicare coverage for drug purchases by the elderly and introduced a new reimbursement methodology based on average sale prices for physician-administered drugs. In addition, this legislation provided authority for limiting the number of drugs that will be covered in any therapeutic class. Cost-reduction initiatives and other provisions of this legislation could decrease the coverage and price that we receive for any approved products. If we successfully develop combinations of our product candidates with other potentially expensive agents, we may not achieve premium pricing for our products, which may impair our ability to achieve profitability. While the Medicare Modernization Act applies only to drug benefits for Medicare beneficiaries, private payors often follow Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own reimbursement rates. Therefore, any reduction in reimbursement that results from the Medicare Modernization Act may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors.

In addition, the Health Care Reform Law, among other things, increased rebates a manufacturer must pay to the Medicaid program, addressed a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for drugs that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted or injected, established a new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program, in which manufacturers must provide 50% point-of-sale discounts on products covered under Part D and implemented payment system reforms including a national pilot program on payment bundling to encourage hospitals, physicians and other providers to improve the coordination, quality and efficiency of certain healthcare services through bundled payment models. Further, the new law imposed a significant annual fee on companies that manufacture or import branded prescription drug products. Substantial new provisions affecting compliance were enacted, which may affect our business practices with health care practitioners. The goal of the Health Care Reform Law is to reduce the cost of health care and substantially change the way health care is financed by both governmental and private insurers. While we cannot predict what impact on federal reimbursement policies this legislation will have in general or on our business specifically, the Health Care Reform Law may result in downward pressure on pharmaceutical reimbursement, which could negatively affect market acceptance of, and the price we may charge for, any products we develop that receive regulatory approval. Subsequent to the 2016 presidential election, some members of the U.S. Congress have been working to repeal the Health Care Reform Law. For example, since January 2017, President Trump has signed two executive orders and other directives designed to delay, circumvent, or loosen certain requirements mandated by the Health Care Reform Law. Concurrently, Congress has considered legislation that would repeal or repeal and replace all or part of the Health Care Reform Law. In addition, the Tax Cuts and the Jobs Act includes a provision that repeals, effective January 1, 2019, the tax-based shared responsibility payment imposed by the Health Care Reform Law on certain individuals who fail to maintain qualifying health coverage for all or part of a year.

Further, on June 14, 2018 the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that the federal government was not required to pay more than $12.0 billion in Health Care Reform Law risk corridor payments to third-party payors. The effects of this gap in reimbursement on third-party payors, the viability of the Health Care Reform Law marketplace, providers, and our business, are not yet known. In addition, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, have recently proposed regulations that would give states greater flexibility in setting benchmarks for insurers in the individual and small group marketplaces, which may have the effect of relaxing the essential health benefits required under the Health Care Reform Law for plans sold through such marketplaces. The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, or the BBA, among other things, amends the Health Care Reform Law, effective January 1, 2019, to close the coverage gap in most Medicare drug plans, commonly referred to as the “donut hole.” In July 2018, the CMS published a final rule permitting further collections and payments to and from certain Health Care Reform Law qualified health plans and health insurance issuers under the Health Care Reform Law risk adjustment program in response to the outcome of federal district court litigation regarding the method CMS uses to determine this risk adjustment. Moreover, CMS issued a final rule in 2018 that will give states greater flexibility, starting in 2020, in setting benchmarks for insurers in the individual and small group marketplaces, which may have the effect of relaxing the essential health benefits required under the Health Care Reform Law for plans sold through such marketplaces. On December 14, 2018, a U.S. District Court Judge in the Northern District of Texas, or the Texas District Court Judge, ruled that the individual mandate is a critical and inseverable feature of the Health Care Reform Law, and therefore, because it was repealed as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the remaining provisions of the Health Care Reform Law are invalid as well. The Texas District Court Judge subsequently issued an order staying the judgment pending appeal, and both the Trump Administration and CMS have stated the ruling will have no immediate impact.

Because of the continued uncertainty about the implementation of the Health Care Reform Law, including the potential for further legal challenges or repeal of that legislation, we cannot quantify or predict with any certainty the likely impact of the Health Care Reform Law or its repeal on our business model, prospects, financial condition or results of operations, in particular on the pricing, coverage or reimbursement of any of our product candidates that may receive marketing approval. We also anticipate that Congress, state legislatures, and third-party payors may continue to review and assess alternative healthcare delivery and payment systems and may in the future propose and adopt legislation or policy changes or implementations effecting additional fundamental changes in the healthcare delivery system. We cannot assure you as to the ultimate content, timing, or effect of changes, nor is it possible at this time to estimate the impact of any such potential legislation.

Moreover, other legislative changes have also been proposed and adopted in the United States since the Health Care Reform Law was enacted. On August 2, 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, created measures for spending reductions by Congress. A Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, tasked with recommending a targeted deficit reduction of at least $1.2 trillion for the years 2013 through 2021, was unable to reach required goals, thereby triggering the legislation’s automatic reduction to several government programs. This includes aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect on April 1, 2013. On January 2, 2013, former President Obama signed into law the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, or the ATRA, which, among other things, further reduced Medicare payments to several providers, including hospitals, imaging centers and cancer treatment centers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. These new laws may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other health care funding, which could have a material adverse effect on our customers and accordingly, our financial operations.

The delivery of healthcare in the European Union, including the establishment and operation of health services and the pricing and reimbursement of medicines, is almost exclusively a matter for national, rather than EU, law and policy. National governments and health service providers have different priorities and approaches to the delivery of health care and the pricing and reimbursement of products in that context. In general, however, the healthcare budgetary constraints in most EU member states have resulted in restrictions on the pricing and reimbursement of medicines by relevant health service providers. Coupled with ever-increasing EU and national regulatory burdens on those wishing to develop and market products, this could prevent or delay marketing

approval of our product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities and affect our ability to commercialize any products for which we obtain marketing approval.

If any product liability lawsuits are successfully brought against us or any of our collaborators, we may incur substantial liabilities and may be required to limit commercialization of our product candidates.

We face an inherent risk of product liability lawsuits related to the testing of our product candidates in seriously ill patients, and will face an even greater risk if product candidates are approved by regulatory authorities and introduced commercially. Despite mandatory product liability insurances in the countries in which we are conducting our clinical studies, we cannot exclude that any claims will be brought against us or our collaborators although product liability claims by participants enrolled in our clinical studies will be usually covered by our insurances. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against any such claims, we may incur substantial liabilities. Regardless of their merit or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in:

If any of our product candidates are approved for commercial sale, we will be highly dependent upon consumer perceptions of us and the safety and quality of our products. We could be adversely affected if we are subject to negative publicity. We could also be adversely affected if any of our products or any similar products distributed by other companies prove to be, or are asserted to be, harmful to patients. Because of our dependence upon consumer perceptions, any adverse publicity associated with illness or other adverse effects resulting from patients’ use or misuse of our products or any similar products distributed by other companies could have a material adverse impact on our financial condition or results of operations.

We have insurance, but our current insurance coverage and any additional coverage for further clinical studies may not be adequate to cover all liabilities that we may incur. We may need to increase and expand our insurance coverage when we begin the commercialization of our product candidates. Insurance coverage is becoming increasingly expensive. As a result, we may be unable to maintain or obtain sufficient insurance at a reasonable cost to protect us against losses that could have a material adverse effect on our business. A successful product liability claim or series of claims brought against us, particularly if judgments exceed any insurance coverage we may have, could decrease our cash resources and adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operation.

Our business may become subject to economic, political, regulatory and other risks associated with international operations.

Our business is subject to risks associated with conducting business internationally. A number of our suppliers and collaborative and clinical study relationships are located outside the United States. Accordingly, our future results could be harmed by a variety of factors, including:

Exchange rate fluctuations or abandonment of the euro currency may materially affect our results of operations and financial condition.

Potential future revenue may be derived from abroad, particularly from the United States. As a result, our business and share price may be affected by fluctuations in foreign exchange rates between the euro and these other currencies, which may also have a significant impact on our reported results of operations and cash flows from period to period, such as the US$. We have converted into euros only the portion of the IPO proceeds, the proceeds from our follow-on offerings in May 2015, January/February 2017 and February 2018, the private placement in October 2015 and sales pursuant to our at-the-market sales agreement, and the proceeds that we have received pursuant to our research collaboration and license agreement with Genentech, that will be spent in euros according to our budget. If the projected payments in either euro or US$ changes, we may be subject to foreign exchange-rate risk. Currently, we do not have any other exchange rate hedging measures in place.

Despite measures taken by the European Union to provide funding to certain EU member states in financial difficulties and by a number of European countries to stabilize their economies and reduce their debt burdens, it is possible that the euro could be abandoned in the future as a currency by countries that have adopted its use. This could lead to the re-introduction of individual currencies in one or more EU member states, or in more extreme circumstances, the dissolution of the European Union. The effects on our business of a potential dissolution of the European Union, the exit of one or more EU member states from the European Union or the abandonment of the euro as a currency, are impossible to predict with certainty, and any such events could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Future acquisitions, strategic investments, partnerships or alliances could be difficult to integrate and/or identify, divert the attention of key management personnel, disrupt our business, dilute shareholder value and/or adversely affect our financial results.

We may consider entering into acquisitions of other companies, businesses, assets or technologies that are complementary to our business and operations as part of our growth strategy. Acquisitions and subsequent integrations of newly acquired businesses would require significant managerial and financial resources and could result in a diversion of resources from our existing business, which in turn could have an adverse effect on our growth and business operations. We must necessarily base any assessment of potential acquisitions and alliances on assumptions with respect to operations, profitability and other matters that may subsequently prove to be incorrect. Future acquisitions and alliances, as well as other investments, may not produce anticipated synergies or perform in accordance with our expectations. The cost and duration of integrating newly acquired businesses could also materially exceed our expectations. It is also possible that we may not identify suitable acquisition targets, strategic investments or partnerships candidates. Our inability to identify such opportunities, or our inability to complete such transactions, may negatively affect our competitiveness and growth prospects. Any of these developments could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Risks Related to Our Financial Position and Need for Additional Capital

We have incurred significant losses since inception and anticipate that we will continue to incur losses for the foreseeable future. We have no products approved for commercial sale, and to date we have not generated any revenue or profit from product sales. We may never achieve or sustain profitability.

We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company with a limited operating history. We have incurred significant losses since our inception. As of December 31, 2018, our accumulated deficit was €202.1 million. Our losses have resulted principally from expenses incurred in research and development of our product candidates and from general and administrative expenses that we have incurred while building our business infrastructure. We expect to continue to incur losses for the foreseeable future, and we expect these losses to increase as we continue our research and development of, and seek regulatory approvals for, our product candidates, prepare for and begin to commercialize any approved products, and add infrastructure and personnel to support our product development efforts and operations as a public company. The net losses and negative cash flows incurred to date, together with expected future losses, have had, and likely will continue to have, an adverse effect on our shareholders’ equity and working capital. The amount of future net losses will depend, in part, on the rate of future growth of our expenses and our ability to generate revenue.

Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with pharmaceutical product development, we are unable to accurately predict the timing or amount of increased expenses or when, or if, we will be able to achieve profitability. For example, our expenses could increase if we are required by the FDA or the EMA to perform trials in addition to those that we currently expect to perform, or if there are any delays in completing our currently planned clinical studies or in the development of any of our product candidates.

To become and remain profitable, we must succeed in developing and commercializing products with significant market potential. This will require us to be successful in a range of challenging activities for which we are only in the preliminary stages, including developing product candidates, obtaining regulatory approval for them, and

manufacturing, marketing and selling those products for which we may obtain regulatory approval. We may never succeed in these activities and may never generate revenue from product sales that is significant enough to achieve profitability. Our ability to generate future revenue from product sales depends heavily on our success in many areas, including but not limited to:

Even if one or more of the product candidates that we develop is approved for commercial sale, we anticipate incurring significant costs associated with commercializing any approved product candidate. Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties with pharmaceutical product development, we are unable to accurately predict the timing or amount of increased expenses or when, or if, we will be able to achieve profitability. Even if we achieve profitability in the future, we may not be able to sustain profitability in subsequent periods. Our failure to become or remain profitable would depress our market value and could impair our ability to raise capital, expand our business, develop other product candidates, or continue our operations. A decline in the value of our company could also cause you to lose all or part of your investment.

We will require substantial additional funding, which may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all, and, if not available, may require us to delay, scale back, or cease our product development programs or operations.

We are advancing our product candidates through clinical development. Developing pharmaceutical products, including conducting preclinical studies and clinical studies, is expensive. In order to obtain such regulatory approval, we will be required to conduct clinical studies for each indication for each of our product candidates. We will require additional funding to complete the development and commercialization of our product candidates and to continue to advance the development of our other product candidates, and such funding may not be available on acceptable terms or at all. Although it is difficult to predict our liquidity requirements, based

upon our current operating plan, we anticipate that our existing liquidity and additional budgeted revenues will enable us to fund the clinical development of AFM13 and AFM11 and pre-clinical development of AFM24 and other future product candidates into 2021, assuming all of our programs advance as currently contemplated. Because successful development of our product candidates is uncertain, we are unable to estimate the actual funds we will require to complete research and development and to commercialize our product candidates.

Our future funding requirements will depend on many factors, including but not limited to:

Until we can generate a sufficient amount of product revenue to finance our cash requirements, which we may never do, we expect to finance future cash needs primarily through a combination of public or private equity offerings, debt financings, strategic collaborations, and grant funding. If sufficient funds on acceptable terms are not available when needed, or at all, we could be forced to significantly reduce operating expenses and delay, scale back or eliminate one or more of our development programs or our business operations or even go bankrupt.

Raising additional capital may cause dilution to our shareholders, restrict our operations or require us to relinquish rights to our intellectual property or future revenue streams.

Until such time, if ever, as we can generate substantial product revenue, we expect to finance our cash needs through a combination of equity offerings, debt financings, grants and licenses and development agreements in connection with any collaborations. We do not have any committed external source of funds. In the event we need to seek additional funds, we may raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities. In such an event, our shareholders’ ownership interests will be diluted, and the terms of these new securities may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect our shareholders’ rights as holders

of our common shares. Debt financing, if available, may involve agreements that include covenants limiting or restricting our ability to take specific actions, such as incurring additional debt, making capital expenditures or declaring dividends.

On November 30, 2016, our subsidiary Affimed GmbH entered into a loan agreement with Silicon Valley Bank, a California corporation (“SVB”), as lender, which we fully guarantee. The loan agreement provides us with a senior secured term loan facility for originally up to €10.0 million, which agreement was amended in May 2017 to provide that such amount would be available in three tranches. On December 8, 2016, we fully drew down the initial tranche of €5.0 million, and on May 31, 2017 we drew down the second tranche of €2.5 million; the availability of the third tranche expired in September 2017 with such amount remaining undrawn. In connection with such drawdowns, we issued SVB warrants to purchase 219,692 of our common shares, at a weighted-average exercise price of $2.07 per common share.

If we raise additional funds through collaborations, strategic alliances or marketing, distribution or licensing arrangements with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our technologies, product candidates, intellectual property or future revenue streams. If we are unable to raise additional funds when needed, we may be required to delay, limit, reduce or terminate our product development or future commercialization efforts or grant rights to develop and market product candidates that we would otherwise prefer to develop and market ourselves.

We have broad discretion in the use of our cash on hand and may not use them effectively.

As of December 31, 2018, we had €108.8 million in cash and cash equivalents and current financial assets. Our management will have broad discretion in the use of such funds and could spend them in ways that do not improve our results of operations or enhance the value of our common shares. The failure by our management to apply these funds effectively could result in financial losses that could have a material adverse effect on our business, cause the price of our common shares to decline and delay the development of our product candidates. Pending their use, we may invest our cash and cash equivalents in a manner that does not produce income or that loses value.

Our ability to use our net operating loss carry forwards and other tax attributes may be limited.

Our ability to utilize our net operating losses, or NOLs, is currently limited, and may be limited further, under Section 8c of the  Körperschaftsteuergesetz (the German Corporation Income Tax Act) and Section 10a of the Gewerbesteuergesetz (the German Trade Tax Act). These limitations apply if a qualified ownership change, as defined by Section 8c of the Körperschaftsteuergesetz , occurs and no exemption is applicable. Generally, a qualified ownership change occurs if more than 50% of the share capital or the voting rights are directly or indirectly transferred to a shareholder or a group of shareholders within a period of five years. A qualified ownership change may also occur in case of an increase in capital leading to a respective change in the shareholding. In the case of such qualified ownership change all tax losses and tax loss carry forwards available as of the time of the ownership change, cannot be utilized in the future. However, to the extent that the tax losses and tax loss carry forwards do not exceed hidden reserves taxable in Germany or the qualified ownership change is made for purposes of the Company’s restructuring ( zum Zwecke der Sanierung ), they may be further utilized despite a qualified ownership change. Furthermore, Section 8c of the Körperschaftssteuergesetz is—under strict requirements—not applicable to a company provided that such company continues only those operations which are causing the loss (Section 8d Körperschaftsteuergesetz ). In addition, the question whether the aforementioned described provisions of Section 8c of the Körperschaftsteuergesetz do comply with the German constitution is currently pending with the Bundesverfassungsgericht (German Supreme Court). On March 29, 2017, the German Supreme Court ruled that Section 8c of the  Körperschaftsteuergesetz has not complied with the German constitution to the extent it formerly stated that a harmful ownership change should occur partially if more than 25% but less than 50% of the share capital or the voting rights are directly or indirectly transferred to a shareholder or a group of shareholders within a period of five years. As a consequence of this decision, the German legislator abolished such part of the provision.

As of December 31, 2018, we had estimated NOL carry forwards for German tax purposes of €163.8 million. Future changes in share ownership may also trigger an ownership change and, consequently, a Section 8c Körperschaftsteuergesetz or a Section 10a Gewerbesteuergesetz limitation. Any limitation may result in the expiration of a portion or the complete tax loss carry forwards before they can be utilized. As a result, if we earn net taxable income, our ability to use our pre-change NOL carry forwards to reduce German income tax may be subject to limitations, which could potentially result in increased future cash tax liability to us.

Risks Related to Our Dependence on Third Parties

Our existing collaborations on research and development candidates are important to our business, and future collaborations may also be important to us. If we are unable to maintain any of these collaborations, if these collaborations are not successful or if we fail to enter into new strategic relationships, our business could be adversely affected.

We have entered into collaborations with other companies that we believe have provided us with valuable funding or other resources such as access to technologies, including our collaborations with The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, Genentech, Merck, The MD Anderson Cancer Center and our former collaboration with Nektar and Amphivena. In the future, we may enter into additional collaborations to leverage our technology platforms, fund our research and development programs or to gain access to sales, marketing or distribution capabilities. Our existing collaborations, and any future collaborations we enter into, may pose a number of risks, including the following:

If our collaborations on research and development candidates do not result in the successful development and commercialization of products or if one of our collaborators terminates its agreement with us, we may not receive any future research funding or milestone or royalty payments under the collaboration. If we do not receive the funding we expect under these agreements, our development of our technology platforms and product candidates could be delayed and we may need additional resources to develop product candidates and our technology platforms.

All of the risks relating to product development, regulatory approval and commercialization described in this Annual Report also apply to the activities of our program collaborators. For example, Amphivena had entered into a warrant agreement with Janssen Biotech Inc. that gave Janssen the option to acquire Amphivena following IND acceptance by the FDA, upon predetermined terms, in exchange for payments under the warrant. Upon effectiveness of such IND application in July 2016, Janssen decided to not exercise its option to purchase Amphivena, which could potentially be viewed as having negative implications for our business and prospects. We have been supporting the clinical development of Amphivena’s product candidate with €2.8 million in financing, €1.0 million of which was invested in Amphivena in October 2016, €0.6 million of which was invested in March 2017, €0.3 million of which was invested in December 2017 and €0.9 million of which was invested in June 2018.

Additionally, subject to its contractual obligations to us, if one of our collaborators is involved in a business combination, the collaborator might deemphasize or terminate the development or commercialization of any product candidate licensed to it by us. If one of our collaborators terminates its agreement with us, we may find it more difficult to attract new collaborators.

For some of our product candidates, we may in the future determine to collaborate with additional pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies for development and potential commercialization of therapeutic products. We face significant competition in seeking appropriate collaborators. Our ability to reach a definitive agreement for a collaboration will depend, among other things, upon our assessment of the collaborator’s resources and expertise, the terms and conditions of the proposed collaboration and the proposed collaborator’s evaluation of a number of factors. These factors may include the design or results of clinical studies, the likelihood of approval by the FDA, the European Commission or similar regulatory authorities outside the United States, the potential market for the subject product candidate, the costs and complexities of manufacturing and delivering such product candidate to patients, the potential of competing products, the existence of uncertainty with respect to our ownership of technology, which can exist if there is a challenge to such ownership without regard to the merits of the challenge and industry and market conditions generally. The collaborator may also consider alternative product candidates or technologies for similar indications that may be available to collaborate on and whether such a collaboration could be more attractive than the one with us for our product candidate.

Collaborations are complex and time-consuming to negotiate and document. In addition, there have been a significant number of recent business combinations among large pharmaceutical companies that have resulted

in a reduced number of potential future collaborators. If we are unable to reach agreements with suitable collaborators on a timely basis, on acceptable terms, or at all, we may have to curtail the development of a product candidate, reduce or delay one or more of our other development programs, delay its potential commercialization or reduce the scope of any sales or marketing activities, or increase our expenditures and undertake development or commercialization activities at our own expense. If we elect to fund and undertake development or commercialization activities on our own, we may need to obtain additional expertise and additional capital, which may not be available to us on acceptable terms or at all. If we fail to enter into collaborations and do not have sufficient funds or expertise to undertake the necessary development and commercialization activities, we may not be able to further develop our product candidates or bring them to market or continue to develop our technology platforms and our business may be materially and adversely affected.

We may also be restricted under existing collaboration agreements from entering into future agreements on certain terms with potential collaborators. Subject to certain specified exceptions, our former collaboration with Amphivena contains restrictions on our engaging in activities that were the subject of the collaboration with third parties for specified periods of time. These restrictions survived the expiration of the agreement in July 2016.

CROs and independent clinical investigators that we engage to conduct our clinical studies may not devote sufficient time or attention to our clinical studies or be able to repeat their past success.

We expect to continue to depend on independent clinical investigators and CROs to conduct our clinical studies. CROs may also assist us in the collection and analysis of data. There is a limited number of third-party service providers that specialize or have the expertise required to achieve our business objectives. Identifying, qualifying and managing performance of third-party service providers can be difficult, time consuming and cause delays in our development programs. These investigators and CROs will not be our employees and we will not be able to control, other than by contract, the amount of resources, including time, which they devote to our product candidates and clinical studies. In addition, certain clinical studies in which we are involved and which are testing our product candidates are sponsored by academic sites, known as Investigator Sponsored Trials, or ISTs. By definition, the financing, design, and conduct of the study are under the sole responsibility of the respective sponsor. Therefore, we have limited control over these studies and we do not have control over the timing and reporting of the data from these trials. In addition, we may have limited information about ISTs while they are being conducted, including the status of trial initiation and patient recruitment, changes to trial design and clinical study results. Our AFM13 phase 2a in HL and our phase 1b/2a in CD30+ lymphoma with cutaneous manifestations are ISTs. If independent investigators or CROs fail to devote sufficient resources to the development of our product candidates, or if their performance is substandard, it may delay or compromise the completion of trials of our product candidates as well as the prospects for approval and commercialization of any product candidates that we develop. In addition, the use of third-party service providers requires us to disclose our proprietary information to these parties, which could increase the risk that this information will be misappropriated. Further, the FDA and other regulatory authorities require that we comply with standards, commonly referred to as current Good Clinical Practice, or cGCP, and other local legal requirements, e.g. data privacy, for conducting, recording and reporting clinical studies to assure that data and reported results are credible and accurate and that the rights, integrity and confidentiality of trial subjects are protected. Failure of clinical investigators or CROs to meet their obligations to us or comply with cGCP procedures or other applicable legal requirements could adversely affect the clinical development of our product candidates and harm our business.

We contract with third parties for the manufacture of our product candidates for clinical testing in mono- and combination therapy settings and expect to continue to do so for commercialization. This reliance on third parties increases the risk that we will not have sufficient quantities of our product candidates or products, or compounds of such third parties, or such quantities at an acceptable cost, which could delay, prevent or impair our development or commercialization efforts.

We anticipate continuing our engagement of contract manufacturing organizations to provide our clinical supply and internal capacity as we advance our product candidates into and through clinical development. We expect to use third parties for the manufacture of our product candidates for clinical testing, as well as for commercial manufacture. We plan to eventually enter into long-term supply agreements with several manufacturers for commercial supplies. We may be unable to reach agreement on satisfactory terms with contract manufacturers to manufacture our product candidates.

Additionally, the facilities to manufacture our product candidates must be the subject of a satisfactory inspection before the FDA, the EMA or other regulatory authorities approve a BLA or grant a marketing authorization for the product candidate manufactured at that facility. We will depend on these third-party manufacturing partners for compliance with the FDA’s and the EMA’s requirements for the manufacture of our finished products. If our manufacturers cannot successfully manufacture material that conforms to our specifications and the FDA, European Commission and other regulatory authorities’ cGMP requirements, our product candidates will not be approved or, if already approved, may be subject to recalls.

Reliance on third-party manufacturers entails risks to which we would not be subject if we manufactured the product candidates ourselves, including:

Any of these factors could cause the delay of approval or commercialization of our product candidates, cause us to incur higher costs or prevent us from commercializing our product candidates successfully. Furthermore, if any of our product candidates are approved and contract manufacturers fail to deliver the required commercial quantities of finished product on a timely basis and at commercially reasonable prices, and we are unable to find one or more replacement manufacturers capable of production at a substantially equivalent cost, in substantially equivalent volumes and quality and on a timely basis, we would likely be unable to meet demand for our products and could lose potential revenue. It may take several years to establish an alternative source of supply for our product candidates and to have any such new source approved by the FDA, the EMA or any other relevant regulatory authorities.

For our clinical development of AFM13 in combination with the anti-PD‑1 Keytruda® (pembrolizumab), we entered into an agreement with Merck pursuant to which Merck was providing us with pembrolizumab to conduct a phase 1b clinical combination trial in relapsed/refractory HL. We were dependent on Merck for this supply of pembrolizumab. In addition, if we wish to pursue further development of AFM13 in combination with pembrolizumab or any other CPI, we will need to reach an agreement with Merck or another partner for such supply of pembrolizumab or another CPI, respectively. If we do not have an adequate supply and/or cannot reach an agreement with the applicable partner, we may not be able to develop AFM13 in such a combination. Any future supply agreement with a partner for combination trials with AFM13 could influence on our clinical development strategy or our intellectual property or our economic rights, and therefore might impact the content we can derive from such clinical development.

Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property

If we are unable to obtain and enforce patent protection for our product candidates and related technology, our business could be materially harmed.

Issued patents may be challenged, narrowed, invalidated or circumvented. In addition, court decisions may introduce uncertainty in the enforceability or scope of patents owned by biotechnology companies. The legal systems of certain countries do not favor the aggressive enforcement of patents, and the laws of non-U.S. countries may not allow us to protect our inventions with patents to the same extent as the laws of the United States and Europe. Because patent applications in the United States, Europe and many other non-U.S. jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing, or in some cases not at all, and because publications of discoveries in scientific literature lag behind actual discoveries, we cannot be certain that we were the first to make the inventions claimed in our issued patents or pending patent applications, or that we were the first to file for protection of the inventions set forth in our patents or patent applications. As a result, we may not be able to obtain or maintain protection for certain inventions. Therefore, the enforceability and scope of our patents in the United States, Europe and in other non-U.S. countries cannot be predicted with certainty and, as a result, any patents that we own or license may not provide sufficient protection against competitors. We may not be able to obtain or maintain patent protection from our pending patent applications, from those we may file in the future, or from those we may license from third parties. Moreover, even if we are able to obtain patent protection, such patent protection may be of insufficient scope to achieve our business objectives.

We own and/or control our AFM13 patent portfolio, which includes two patent families. The first patent family on AFM13 consists of European patents relating to the use of the specific target combination for the treatment of cancer using a bispecific molecule and will expire in 2020. Our second patent family relates to the mode of action of AFM13, the recruitment of immune effector cells via a specific receptor. These patents will expire in 2026. The latest patent application on AFM13 relates to its combination with PD‑1 antibodies, and was filed in 2016. We also own and/or control our AFM11 patent portfolio, which includes issued patents and pending patent applications. As in the case of AFM13, our issued patents relate to the engineered antibody format and will expire in 2019. The pending patent application family claims a new immune cell engager structure which was specifically used in AFM11, and issued patents in this family will expire in 2030.

Our strategy depends on our ability to identify and seek patent protection for our discoveries. This process is expensive and time consuming, and we may not be able to file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner or in all jurisdictions where protection may be commercially advantageous, or we may financially not be able to protect our proprietary rights at all. Despite our efforts to protect our proprietary rights, unauthorized parties may be able to obtain and use information that we regard as proprietary. The issuance of a patent does not ensure that it is valid or enforceable, so even if we obtain patents, they may not be valid or enforceable against third parties. In addition, the issuance of a patent does not give us the right to practice the patented invention. Third parties may have blocking patents that could prevent us from marketing our own patented product and practicing our own patented technology. Third parties may also seek to market biosimilar versions of any approved products. Alternatively, third parties may seek approval to market their own products similar to or otherwise competitive with our products. In these circumstances, we may need to defend and/or assert our patents, including by filing lawsuits alleging patent infringement. In any of these types of proceedings, a court or agency with jurisdiction may find our patents invalid and/or unenforceable. Even if we have valid and enforceable patents, these patents still may not provide protection against competing products or processes sufficient to achieve our business objectives.

The patent position of pharmaceutical or biotechnology companies, including ours, is generally uncertain and involves complex legal and factual considerations for which legal principles remain unsolved. The standards which the United States Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, and its non-U.S. counterparts use to grant patents are not always applied predictably or uniformly and can change. There is also no uniform, worldwide policy regarding the subject matter and scope of claims granted or allowable in pharmaceutical or biotechnology patents. The laws of some non-U.S. countries do not protect proprietary information to the same extent as the

laws of the United States, and many companies have encountered significant problems and costs in protecting their proprietary information in these non-U.S. countries. Outside the United States, patent protection must be sought in individual jurisdictions, further adding to the cost and uncertainty of obtaining adequate patent protection outside of the United States. Accordingly, we cannot predict whether additional patents protecting our technology will issue in the United States or in non-U.S. jurisdictions, or whether any patents that do issue will have claims of adequate scope to provide competitive advantage. Moreover, we cannot predict whether third parties will be able to successfully obtain claims or the breadth of such claims. The allowance of broader claims may increase the incidence and cost of patent interference proceedings, opposition proceedings, and/or reexamination proceedings, the risk of infringement litigation, and the vulnerability of the claims to challenge. On the other hand, the allowance of narrower claims does not eliminate the potential for adversarial proceedings, and may fail to provide a competitive advantage. Our issued patents may not contain claims sufficiently broad to protect us against third parties with similar technologies or products, or provide us with any competitive advantage.

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

Even after they have issued, our patents and any patents which we license may be challenged, narrowed, invalidated or circumvented. If our patents are invalidated or otherwise limited or will expire prior to the commercialization of our product candidates, other companies may be better able to develop products that compete with ours, which could adversely affect our competitive business position, business prospects and financial condition.

The following are examples of litigation and other adversarial proceedings or disputes that we could become a party to involving our patents or patents licensed to us:

These lawsuits and proceedings would be costly and could affect our results of operations and divert the attention of our managerial and scientific personnel. There is a risk that a court or administrative body would decide that our patents are invalid or not infringed by a third party’s activities, or that the scope of certain issued claims must be further limited. An adverse outcome in a litigation or proceeding involving our own patents could

limit our ability to assert our patents against these or other competitors, affect our ability to receive royalties or other licensing consideration from our licensees, and may curtail or preclude our ability to exclude third parties from making, using and selling similar or competitive products. Any of these occurrences could adversely affect our competitive business position, business prospects and financial condition.

The degree of future protection for our proprietary rights is uncertain because legal means afford only limited protection and may not adequately protect our rights or permit us to gain or keep our competitive advantage. For example:

Our commercial success depends significantly on our ability to operate without infringing the patents and other proprietary rights of third parties.

Our success will depend in part on our ability to operate without infringing the proprietary rights of third parties. Other entities may have or obtain patents or proprietary rights that could limit our ability to make, use, sell, offer for sale or import our future approved products or impair our competitive position.

Patents could be issued to third parties that we may ultimately be found to infringe. Third parties may have or obtain valid and enforceable patents or proprietary rights that could block us from developing product candidates using our technology. Our failure to obtain a license to any technology that we require may materially harm our business, financial condition and results of operations. Moreover, our failure to maintain a license to any technology that we require may also materially harm our business, financial condition, and results of operations. Furthermore, we would be exposed to a threat of litigation.

In the pharmaceutical industry, significant litigation and other proceedings regarding patents, patent applications, trademarks and other intellectual property rights have become commonplace. The types of situations in which we may become a party to such litigation or proceedings include:

These lawsuits would be costly and could affect our results of operations and divert the attention of our management and scientific personnel. There is a risk that a court would decide that we or our collaborators are infringing the third party’s patents and would order us or our collaborators to stop the activities covered by the patents. In that event, we or our collaborators may not have a viable alternative to the technology protected by the patent and may need to halt work on the affected product candidate or cease commercialization of an approved product. In addition, there is a risk that a court will order us or our collaborators to pay the other party damages. An adverse outcome in any litigation or other proceeding could subject us to significant liabilities to third parties and require us to cease using the technology that is at issue or to license the technology from third parties. We may not be able to obtain any required licenses on commercially acceptable terms or at all. Any of these outcomes could have a material adverse effect on our business.

The pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries have produced a significant number of patents, and it may not always be clear to industry participants, including us, which patents cover various types of products or methods of use. The coverage of patents is subject to interpretation by the courts, and the interpretation is not always uniform or predictable. If we are sued for patent infringement, we would need to demonstrate that our products or methods either do not infringe the patent claims of the relevant patent or that the patent claims are invalid, and we may not be able to do this. Proving invalidity is difficult. For example, in the United States, proving invalidity requires a showing of clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption of validity enjoyed by issued patents. Even if we are successful in these proceedings, we may incur substantial costs and divert management’s time and attention in pursuing these proceedings, which could have a material adverse effect on us. 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. Patent litigation is costly and time consuming. We may not have sufficient resources to bring these actions to a successful conclusion. In addition, if we do not obtain a license, develop or obtain non-infringing technology, fail to defend an infringement action successfully or have infringed patents declared invalid, we may incur substantial monetary damages, encounter significant delays in bringing our product candidates to market and be precluded from manufacturing or selling our product candidates.

The cost of any patent litigation or other proceeding, even if resolved in our favor, could be substantial. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the cost of such litigation and proceedings more effectively than we can because of their substantially greater resources. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings could have a material adverse effect on our ability to compete in the marketplace. Patent litigation and other proceedings may also absorb significant management time.

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 registered or unregistered 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, which we need to build name recognition by potential partners or customers in our markets of interest. Over the long term, if we are unable to establish name recognition based on our trademarks and trade names, then we may not be able to compete effectively and our business may be adversely affected.

The patent protection and patent prosecution for some of our product candidates is dependent on third parties.

While we normally seek to obtain the right to control prosecution, maintenance and enforcement of the patents relating to our product candidates, there may be times when the filing and prosecution activities for patents

relating to our product candidates are controlled by our licensors. Although we monitor  the ongoing prosecution and maintenance of the licensed patents, if any of our future licensing partners fail to prosecute, maintain and enforce such patents and patent applications in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business, including by payment of all applicable fees for patents covering AFM13, AFM11 or any of our product candidates, we could lose our rights to the intellectual property or our exclusivity with respect to those rights, our ability to develop and commercialize those product candidates may be adversely affected and we may not be able to prevent competitors from making, using, and selling competing products.

Our business may be adversely affected if we are unable to gain access to relevant intellectual property rights of third parties, or if our licensing partners terminate our rights in certain technologies that are licensed or sublicensed to us.

We currently rely, and may in the future rely, on certain intellectual property rights licensed from third parties in order to be able to use various proprietary technologies that are material to our business. For example, the immune cell engager technology was developed under certain patents licensed exclusively to us by DKFZ under a 2001 license agreement which was subsequently amended in 2006 and ended in 2018. We no longer have rights to the immune cell engager technology. Additionally, an antibody generated in the development of our immune cell engager candidates was developed using antibody phage display technologies licensed to us by Xoma. In March 2018, the last of the licensed Xoma patent rights expired, and we no longer have any obligations to Xoma under the agreement. In each of these cases, the licensor retained their full ownership interest with respect to the licensed patent rights, and our rights to use the technologies associated with those patents and to employ the inventions claimed in the licensed patent rights were subject to the continuation of and our compliance with the terms of those licenses.

In some cases, we do not control the prosecution, maintenance or filing of the patents to which we hold licenses, and the enforcement of our licensed patents or defense of any claims asserting the invalidity of these patents is subject to the control or cooperation of our licensors. We cannot be certain that our licensors will prosecute, maintain, enforce and defend the licensed patent rights in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business. We also cannot be certain that drafting or prosecution of the licensed patents by our licensors have been conducted in compliance with applicable laws and regulations and will result in valid and enforceable patents and other intellectual property rights.

We are a party to a number of agreements, including license agreements, through which we have gained rights to certain intellectual property that relate to our business and we expect to enter into additional such agreements in the future. We expect that future agreements will impose, various diligence, commercialization, milestone payment, royalty, and other obligations on us. Certain of our licenses contain provisions that allow the licensor to terminate the license upon the occurrence of specific events or conditions. For example, our rights under each of the licenses described above are subject to our continued compliance with the terms of the licenses, certain diligence and development obligations, the payment of royalties, milestone payments and other fees, and certain disclosure and confidentiality obligations. If we are found to be in breach of any of our license agreements, in certain circumstances our licensors may take action against us, including by terminating the applicable license. Because of the complexity of our product candidates and the patents we have licensed, determining the scope of the licenses and related obligations may be difficult and could lead to disputes between us and the licensor. An unfavorable resolution of such a dispute could lead to an increase in the royalties payable pursuant to the license or a termination of the license. If any of our licensors were to terminate our license agreement with them, we may be prevented from the continued use of certain technologies, including our rights to the Flexibody and antibody phage display technologies, in clinical studies or, if our products are approved for marketing, from using such technologies in the manufacturing of products that could be sold commercially. This could delay or prevent us from offering our product candidates. We might not have the necessary rights or the financial resources to develop, manufacture or market our current or future product candidates without the rights granted under these licenses, and the loss of sales or potential sales in such product candidates could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Under certain of our agreements, our licensors have the right to convert an exclusive license to a non-exclusive license upon the expiration of the initial exclusivity period or upon the occurrence of certain events. Such a conversion would potentially allow third parties to practice the technologies licensed under the agreement, and could materially adversely affect the value of the product candidate we are developing under the agreement.

In addition to the above risks, certain of our intellectual property rights are sublicenses under intellectual property owned by third parties. The actions of our licensors may therefore affect our rights to use our sublicensed intellectual property, even if we are in compliance with all of the obligations under our license agreements.

We may not be successful in obtaining or maintaining necessary rights to our product candidates through acquisitions and in-licenses.

We currently have rights to the intellectual property, through licenses from third parties and under patents that we own, to develop our product candidates. Because our programs may require the use of proprietary rights held by third parties, the growth of our business will likely depend in part on our ability to acquire, in-license, maintain or use these proprietary rights. In addition, our product candidates may require specific formulations to work effectively and efficiently and the rights to these formulations may be held by others. We may be unable to acquire or in-license any compositions, methods of use, processes, or other third-party intellectual property rights from third parties that we identify as necessary for our product candidates. The licensing and acquisition of third-party intellectual property rights is a competitive area, and a number of more established companies are also pursuing strategies to license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights that we may consider attractive. These established companies may have a competitive advantage over us due to their size, cash resources, and greater clinical development and commercialization capabilities.

For example, we sometimes collaborate with U.S. and non-U.S. academic institutions to accelerate our preclinical 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 collaboration. Regardless of such option, we may be unable to negotiate a license within the specified timeframe or under terms that are acceptable to us. If we are unable to do so, the institution may offer the intellectual property rights to other parties, potentially blocking our ability to pursue our applicable product candidate or program.

In addition, companies that perceive us to be a competitor may be unwilling to assign or license rights to us. We also may be unable to license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights on terms that would allow us to make an appropriate return on our investment. If we are unable to successfully obtain a license to third-party intellectual property rights necessary for the development of a product candidate or program, we may have to abandon development of that product candidate or program and our business and financial condition could suffer.

If we are unable to protect the confidentiality of our proprietary information, the value of our technology and products could be adversely affected.

In addition to patent protection, we also rely on other proprietary rights, including protection of trade secrets, and other proprietary information. To maintain the confidentiality of trade secrets and proprietary information, we enter into confidentiality agreements with our employees, to the extent a confidentiality obligation is not covered by their employment agreements, consultants, collaborators and others upon the commencement of their relationships with us. These agreements require that all confidential information developed by the individual or made known to the individual by us during the course of the individual’s relationship with us be kept confidential and not disclosed to third parties and the public domain, so that it cannot be used for patent protection anymore, either by local law or if not applicable pursuant to specific agreements with employees and our personnel policies it is intended that any inventions conceived by the individual in the course of rendering services to us shall be our exclusive property. However, we may not obtain these agreements in all circumstances, and individuals with whom we have these agreements or may not comply with their terms or

with local law. Thus, despite such legal provisions or agreement, such inventions may become assigned to third parties. In the event of unauthorized use or disclosure of our trade secrets or proprietary information, these legal provisions or agreements, even if obtained, may not provide meaningful protection, particularly for our trade secrets or other confidential information. To the extent that our employees, consultants or contractors use technology or know-how owned by third parties in their work for us, disputes may arise between us and those third parties as to the rights in related inventions. To the extent that an individual who is not an employee of us and thus not obligated to assign rights in intellectual property to us is rightfully an inventor of intellectual property, we may need to obtain an assignment or a license to that intellectual property from that individual, or a third party or from that individual’s assignee. Such assignment or license may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all.

Adequate remedies may not exist in the event of unauthorized use or disclosure of our proprietary information. The disclosure of our trade secrets would impair our competitive position and may materially harm our business, financial condition and results of operations. Costly and time consuming litigation could be necessary to enforce and determine the scope of our proprietary rights, and failure to maintain trade secret protection could adversely affect our competitive business position. In addition, others may independently discover or develop our trade secrets and proprietary information, and the existence of our own trade secrets affords no protection against such independent discovery.

As is common in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, we employ individuals who were previously or concurrently employed at research institutions and/or other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. We may be subject to claims that these employees, or we, have inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed trade secrets or other proprietary information of their former employers, or that patents and applications we have filed to protect inventions of these employees, even those related to one or more of our product candidates, are rightfully owned by their former or concurrent employer. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. Even if we are successful in defending against these claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management.

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

Periodic maintenance fees, renewal fees, annuity fees and various other governmental fees on patents and/or applications will be due to the USPTO and various non-U.S. patent offices at various points over the lifetime of our patents and/or applications. We have systems in place to remind us to pay these fees, and we rely on our outside counsel to pay these fees when due. Additionally, the USPTO and various non-U.S. patent offices require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar provisions during the patent application process. We employ reputable law firms and other professionals to help us comply, and in many cases, an inadvertent lapse can be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with rules applicable to the particular jurisdiction. However, there are situations in which noncompliance can result in abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. If such an event were to occur, it could have a material adverse effect on our business. In addition, we are responsible for the payment of patent fees for patent rights that we have licensed from other parties. If any licensor of these patents does not itself elect to make these payments, and we fail to do so, we may be liable to the licensor for any costs and consequences of any resulting loss of patent rights.

We may not be able to protect our intellectual property rights throughout the world.

Filing, prosecuting, and defending patents on product candidates in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and our intellectual property rights in some countries outside the United States can be less extensive than those in the United States and Europe. In addition, the laws of some countries outside the United States and Europe, such as China, do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as federal and state laws in the United States and laws in Europe. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in all countries outside the United States and Europe, or from selling

or importing products made using our inventions in and into the United States, Europe or other jurisdictions. As part of ordinary course prosecution and maintenance activities, we determine whether and in which countries to seek patent protection outside the United States and Europe. This also applies to patents we have acquired or in-licensed from third parties. In some cases this means that we, or our predecessors in interest or licensors of patents within our portfolio, have sought patent protection in a limited number of countries for patents covering our product candidates. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained or are unable to adequately enforce patent protection to develop their own products and further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we have patent protection, but enforcement is not as strong as that in the United States and Europe. These products may compete with our products and our patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing.

Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in jurisdictions outside the United States and Europe. The legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents, trade secrets, and other intellectual property protection, particularly those relating to biotechnology products, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patents, the reproduction of our manufacturing or other know-how or marketing of competing products in violation of our proprietary rights generally. Proceedings to enforce our patent rights in jurisdictions outside the United States and Europe, whether or not successful, could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, could put our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and our patent applications at risk of not issuing and could provoke third parties to assert claims against us. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. Accordingly, 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.

Certain of our employees and patents are subject to German law.

Approximately 69 of our personnel, including our managing directors and most of our employees working in research and development, work in Germany and are subject to German employment law. Ideas, developments, discoveries and inventions made by such employees are subject to the provisions of the German Act on Employees’ Inventions ( Arbeitnehmererfindungsgesetz ), which regulates the ownership of, and compensation for, inventions made by employees. We face the risk that disputes may occur between us and our employees or ex-employees pertaining to the sufficiency of compensation paid by us, allocation of rights to inventions under this act or alleged non-adherence to the provisions of this act, any of which may be costly to resolve and take up our management’s time and efforts whether we prevail or fail in such dispute.

If we do not obtain protection under the Hatch-Waxman Amendments and similar non-U.S. legislation for extending the term of patents covering each of our product candidates, our business may be materially harmed.

Depending upon the timing, duration and conditions of FDA marketing approval of our product candidates, one or more of our U.S. patents may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, referred to as the Hatch-Waxman Amendments and similar legislation in the EU. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments permit a patent term extension of up to five years for a patent covering an approved product as compensation for effective patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review process. However, we may not receive an extension if we fail to apply within applicable deadlines, fail to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents or otherwise fail to satisfy applicable requirements. Moreover, the length of the extension could be less than we request. If we are unable to obtain patent term extension or the term of any such extension is less than we request, the period during which we can enforce our patent rights for that product will be shortened and our competitors may obtain approval to market competing products sooner. As a result, our revenue from applicable products could be reduced, possibly materially.

Our information technology systems could face serious disruptions that could adversely affect our business.

Our information technology and other internal infrastructure systems, including corporate firewalls, servers, leased lines and connection to the Internet, face the risk of systemic failure that could disrupt our operations. A significant disruption in the availability of our information technology and other internal infrastructure systems could cause interruptions in our collaborations with our partners and delays in our research and development work.

Risks Related to Legal Compliance Matters

Because we and our suppliers are subject to environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, we may become exposed to liability and substantial expenses in connection with environmental compliance or remediation activities which may adversely affect our business and financial condition.

Our operations, including our research, development, testing and manufacturing activities, are subject to numerous environmental, health and safety laws and regulations. These laws and regulations govern, among other things, the controlled use, handling, release and disposal of, and the maintenance of a registry for, hazardous materials and biological materials, such as chemical solvents, human cells, carcinogenic compounds, mutagenic compounds and compounds that have a toxic effect on reproduction, laboratory procedures and exposure to blood-borne pathogens. If we fail to comply with such laws and regulations, we could be subject to fines or other sanctions.

As with other companies engaged in activities similar to ours, we face a risk of environmental liability inherent in our current and historical activities, including liability relating to releases of or exposure to hazardous or biological materials. Environmental, health and safety laws and regulations are becoming more stringent. We may be required to incur substantial expenses in connection with future environmental compliance or remediation activities, in which case, our production and development efforts may be interrupted or delayed and our financial condition and results of operations may be materially adversely affected.

The third parties with whom we contract to manufacture our product candidates are also subject to these and other environmental, health and safety laws and regulations. Liabilities they incur pursuant to these laws and regulations could result in significant costs or in certain circumstances, an interruption in operations, any of which could adversely impact our business and financial condition if we are unable to find an alternate supplier in a timely manner.

Our employees may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including noncompliance with regulatory standards and requirements and insider trading.

We are exposed to the risk of employee fraud or other misconduct. Misconduct by employees could include intentional failures to comply with FDA or EMA regulations, to provide accurate information to the FDA or the EMA or intentional failures to report financial information or data accurately or to disclose unauthorized activities to us. Employee misconduct could also involve the improper use of information obtained in the course of clinical studies, which could result in regulatory sanctions and serious harm to our reputation. We have adopted a Compliance Management System (comprising the code of conduct and the compliance policy) which is based on three pillars: prevent, detect and respond to misconduct and an insider trading policy, each of which is communicated on a regular basis. However, it is not always possible to identify and deter employee misconduct, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to comply with these laws or regulations. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business, including the imposition of significant fines or other sanctions.

Risks Relating to Employee Matters and Managing Growth

Our future success depends on our ability to retain key executives and to attract, retain and motivate qualified personnel.

We are highly dependent on the research and development, clinical and business development expertise of our managing directors and other key employees. We have entered into multi-year executive agreements with our managing directors. If any of our managing directors or other key employees becomes unavailable to perform services for us, we may not be able to find a qualified replacement in a timely fashion, which could impede the achievement of our research, development and commercialization objectives and seriously harm our ability to successfully implement our business strategy. The contracts with our three current managing directors, Dr. Adi Hoess, Dr. Florian Fischer and Dr. Wolfgang Fischer, run until the end of the general meeting in 2020. We do not maintain any key man insurance for our managing directors at this time.

Recruiting and retaining qualified scientific, clinical, manufacturing and sales and marketing personnel will also be critical to our success. In addition, we will need to expand and effectively manage our managerial, operational, financial, development and other resources in order to successfully pursue our research, development and commercialization efforts for our existing and future product candidates. Furthermore, replacing managing directors and key employees may be difficult and may take an extended period of time because of the limited number of individuals in our industry with the breadth of skills and experience required to successfully develop, gain regulatory approval of and commercialize products. Competition to hire from this limited pool is intense, and we may be unable to hire, train, retain or motivate these key personnel on acceptable terms given the competition among numerous pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies for similar personnel. We also experience competition for the hiring of scientific and clinical personnel from universities and research institutions. In addition, we rely on consultants and advisors, including scientific and clinical advisors, to assist us in formulating our research and development and commercialization strategy. Our consultants and advisors may be employed by employers other than us and may have commitments under consulting or advisory contracts with other entities that may limit their availability to us. If we are unable to continue to attract and retain high quality personnel, our ability to pursue our growth strategy will be limited.

We will need to grow our organization, specifically to expand our development, and regulatory capabilities, and we may experience difficulties in managing this growth, which could disrupt our operations.

We have 110 personnel (103 full time equivalents), including those of our subsidiaries. As our development and commercialization plans and strategies develop, we expect to expand our employee base on an as-needed basis. Future growth would impose significant added responsibilities on members of management, including the need to identify, recruit, maintain, motivate and integrate additional employees. Also, our management may need to divert a disproportionate amount of their attention away from our day-to-day activities and devote a substantial amount of time to managing these growth activities. We may not be able to effectively manage the expansion of our operations which may result in weaknesses in our infrastructure, give rise to operational errors, loss of business opportunities, loss of employees and reduced productivity among remaining employees. Our expected growth could require significant capital expenditures and may divert financial resources from other projects, such as the development of existing and additional product candidates. If our management is unable to effectively manage our expected growth, our expenses may increase more than expected, our ability to generate and/or grow 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 and compete effectively with others in our industry will depend, in part, on our ability to effectively manage any future growth.

Risks Related to Our Common Shares

Our share price has been and may in the future be volatile, which could cause holders of our common shares to incur substantial losses.

You should consider an investment in our common shares as risky and invest only if you can withstand a significant loss and wide fluctuations in the market value of your investment. Our share price has been and in the future may be subject to substantial price volatility. In addition, the stock market has recently experienced significant volatility, particularly with respect to pharmaceutical, biotechnology and other life sciences company stocks. The volatility of pharmaceutical, biotechnology and other life sciences company stocks often does not relate to the operating performance of the companies represented by the stock. Some of the factors that may cause the market price of our common shares to fluctuate include:

In addition, in the past, when the market price of a stock has been volatile, holders of that stock have instituted securities class action litigation against the company that issued the stock. If any of our shareholders brought a lawsuit against us, we could incur substantial costs defending the lawsuit and divert the time and attention of our management, which could seriously harm our business.

Future sales, or the possibility of future sales, of a substantial number of our common shares could adversely affect the price of the shares and dilute shareholders.

Future sales of a substantial number of our common shares, or the perception that such sales will occur, could cause a decline in the market price of our common shares. We had 62,430,106 common shares outstanding as of March 15, 2019. If our existing shareholders sell substantial amounts of common shares in the public market, or the market perceives that such sales may occur, the market price of our common shares and our ability to raise capital through an issue of equity securities in the future could be adversely affected. In addition, we have registered on a Form S‑8 registration statement all common shares that we may issue under our equity compensation plans. As a result, these shares can be freely sold in the public market upon issuance, subject to volume limitations applicable to affiliates.

We also entered into a registration rights agreement upon consummation of our initial public offering pursuant to which we have agreed under certain circumstances to file a registration statement to register the resale of the common shares held by certain of our existing shareholders, as well as to cooperate in certain public offerings of such common shares.

On October 22, 2018, we filed a shelf registration statement on Form F‑3 for the potential offer and sale by us of up to $150 million of our common shares, senior debt securities, subordinated debt securities, warrants, purchase contracts or units. The registration statement was declared effective by the SEC on November 7, 2018. Up to $50 million of our common shares may be offered and sold under the registration statement pursuant to an “at-the-market” offering. Because the price per share of each share sold under the registration statement will depend on the market price of our shares at the time of the sale and other market conditions, it is not possible at this stage to predict the number of shares that ultimately may be offered and sold under the registration statement. If we sell common shares, convertible securities or other equity securities, existing shareholders may be diluted by such sales, and in certain cases new investors could gain rights superior to our existing shareholders. Any sales of our common shares, or the perception that such sales could occur, could have a negative impact on the trading price of our shares.

We are a foreign private issuer and, as a result, we are not subject to U.S. proxy rules and are subject to Exchange Act reporting obligations that, to some extent, are more lenient and less frequent than those of a U.S. domestic public company.

We report under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, as a non-U.S. company with foreign private issuer status. Because we qualify as a foreign private issuer under the Exchange Act and although we are subject to Dutch laws and regulations with regard to such matters and intend to furnish quarterly financial information to the SEC, we are exempt from certain provisions of the Exchange Act that are applicable to U.S. domestic public companies, including (i) the sections of the Exchange Act regulating the solicitation of proxies, consents or authorizations in respect of a security registered under the Exchange Act, (ii) the sections of the Exchange Act requiring insiders to file public reports of their stock ownership and trading activities and liability for insiders who profit from trades made in a short period of time and (iii) the rules under the Exchange Act requiring the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) of quarterly reports

on Form 10‑Q containing unaudited financial and other specified information, or current reports on Form 8‑K, upon the occurrence of specified significant events. In addition, foreign private issuers are not required to file their annual report on Form 20‑F until four months after the end of each fiscal year, while U.S. domestic issuers that are accelerated filers are required to file their annual report on Form 10‑K within 75 days after the end of each fiscal year. Foreign private issuers are also exempt from Regulation Fair Disclosure, aimed at preventing issuers from making selective disclosures of material information. As a result of the above, you may not have the same protections afforded to shareholders of companies that are not foreign private issuers.

As a foreign private issuer and as permitted by the listing requirements of Nasdaq, we follow certain home country governance practices rather than the corporate governance requirements of Nasdaq.

We are a foreign private issuer. As a result, in accordance with the listing requirements of The Nasdaq Global Market, or Nasdaq, we follow home country governance requirements and certain exemptions thereunder rather than comply with the corporate governance requirements of Nasdaq. In accordance with Dutch law and generally accepted business practices, our Articles of Association do not provide quorum requirements generally applicable to general meetings of shareholders in the United States. To this extent, our practice varies from the requirement of Nasdaq Listing Rule 5620(c), which requires an issuer to provide in its bylaws for a generally applicable quorum, and that such quorum may not be less than one-third of the outstanding voting stock. Although we must provide shareholders with an agenda and other relevant documents for the general meeting of shareholders, Dutch law does not have a regulatory regime for the solicitation of proxies and the solicitation of proxies is not a generally accepted business practice in the Netherlands, thus our practice will vary from the requirement of Nasdaq Listing Rule 5620(b). As permitted by the listing requirements of Nasdaq, we have also opted out of the requirements of Nasdaq Listing Rule 5605(d), which requires, inter alia, an issuer to have a compensation committee that consists entirely of independent directors, and Nasdaq Listing Rule 5605(e), which requires independent director oversight of director nominations. Also, Dutch law does not require that we disclose information regarding third party compensation of our directors or director nominees. As a result, our practice varies from the third-party compensation disclosure requirements of Nasdaq Listing Rule 5250(b)(3). In addition, we have opted out of shareholder approval requirements, as included in the Nasdaq Listing Rules, for the issuance of securities in connection with certain events such as the acquisition of stock or assets of another company, the establishment of or amendments to equity-based compensation plans for employees, a change of control of us and certain private placements. To this extent, our practice varies from the requirements of Nasdaq Rule 5635, which generally requires an issuer to obtain shareholder approval for the issuance of securities in connection with such events. Accordingly, you may not have the same protections afforded to shareholders of companies that are subject to these Nasdaq requirements.

We may lose our foreign private issuer status which would then require us to comply with the Exchange Act’s domestic reporting regime and cause us to incur significant legal, accounting and other expenses.

We are a foreign private issuer and therefore we are not required to comply with all of the periodic disclosure and current reporting requirements of the Exchange Act applicable to U.S. domestic issuers. If in the future we are not a foreign private issuer as of the end of the second fiscal quarter in any fiscal year, we would be required to comply with all of the periodic disclosure and current reporting requirements of the Exchange Act applicable to U.S. domestic issuers in the subsequent fiscal year. In order to maintain our current status as a foreign private issuer, either (a) a majority of our common shares must be either directly or indirectly owned of record by non-residents of the United States or (b)(i) a majority of our managing directors or supervisory directors may not be United States citizens or residents, (ii) more than 50 percent of our assets cannot be located in the United States and (iii) our business must be administered principally outside the United States. If we were to lose this status, we would be required to comply with the Exchange Act reporting and other requirements applicable to U.S. domestic issuers, which are more detailed and extensive than the requirements for foreign private issuers. We may also be required to make changes in our corporate governance practices in accordance with various SEC and stock exchange rules. The regulatory and compliance costs to us under U.S. securities laws if we are required to comply with the reporting requirements applicable to a U.S. domestic issuer may be significantly higher than the cost we would incur as a foreign private issuer. As a result, we expect that a loss

of foreign private issuer status would increase our legal and financial compliance costs and would make some activities highly time consuming and costly. We also expect that if we were required to comply with the rules and regulations applicable to U.S. domestic issuers, it would make it more difficult and expensive for us to obtain director and officer liability insurance, and we may be required to accept reduced coverage or incur substantially higher costs to obtain coverage. These rules and regulations could also make it more difficult for us to attract and retain qualified supervisory directors.

Failure to comply with Nasdaq continued listing requirements may result in our common shares being delisted from Nasdaq.

If our stock price falls below $1.00 per common share, we may not continue to qualify for continued listing on Nasdaq. To maintain listing, we are required, among other things, to maintain a minimum closing bid price of $1.00 per common share. If the closing bid price of our common shares is below $1.00 per share for 30 consecutive business days, we will receive a deficiency notice from Nasdaq advising us that we have a certain period of time, typically 180 days, to regain compliance by maintaining a minimum closing bid price of at least $1.00 for at least ten consecutive business days, although Nasdaq could require a longer period.

The delisting of our common shares would significantly affect the ability of investors to trade our common shares and negatively impact the liquidity and price of our common shares. In addition, the delisting of our common shares could materially adversely impact our ability to raise capital on acceptable terms or at all. Delisting from Nasdaq could also have other negative results, including the potential loss of confidence by our current or prospective collaboration partners and third-party service providers, the loss of institutional investor interest, and fewer licensing and partnering opportunities.

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

We are an “emerging growth company,” as defined in the JOBS Act. For as long as we continue to be an “emerging growth company,” we may take advantage of exemptions from various reporting requirements that are applicable to other public companies that are not “emerging growth companies,” including not being required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, exemptions from the requirements of holding a nonbinding advisory vote on executive compensation and shareholder approval of any golden parachute payments not previously approved. We have been, and continue to be, an “emerging growth company” for a period of five years following the completion of our initial public offering (2019), but will no longer be an “emerging growth company” as of December 31, 2019. We cannot predict if investors will find our common shares less attractive because we may rely on these exemptions. If some investors find our common shares less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for our common shares and the price of our common shares may be more volatile.

We do not anticipate paying cash dividends, and accordingly, shareholders must rely on stock appreciation for any return on their investment.

We currently intend to retain our future earnings, if any, to fund the development and growth of our businesses. As a result, capital appreciation, if any, of our common shares will be your sole source of gain on your investment for the foreseeable future. Investors seeking cash dividends should not invest in our common shares.

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

The trading market for our common shares depends on the research and reports that securities or industry analysts publish about us or our business. We do not have any control over these analysts. We cannot assure you that analysts will cover us or provide favorable coverage. If one or more of the analysts who cover us downgrade our shares or change their opinion of our shares, our share price would likely decline. If one or more

of these analysts cease coverage of our company or fail to regularly publish reports on us, we could lose visibility in the financial markets, which could cause our share price or trading volume to decline.

We are a Dutch public company with limited liability. The rights of our shareholders may be different from the rights of shareholders in companies governed by the laws of U.S. jurisdictions and may not protect investors in a similar fashion afforded by incorporation in a U.S. jurisdiction.

We are a Dutch public company with limited liability ( naamloze vennootschap ) organized under the laws of the Netherlands. Our corporate affairs are governed by our Articles of Association and by the laws governing companies incorporated in the Netherlands. However, there can be no assurance that Dutch law will not change in the future or that it will serve to protect investors in a similar fashion afforded under corporate law principles in the United States, which could adversely affect the rights of investors. As of July 3, 2016, the market abuse rules described in “Description of Share Capital and Articles of Association—Dividends and Other Distributions—Obligation to Disclose Holdings and Transactions” are no longer applicable to us.

The rights of shareholders and the responsibilities of managing directors and supervisory directors may be different from the rights and obligations of shareholders and board members in companies governed by the laws of U.S. jurisdictions. In the performance of its duties, our management board and supervisory board are required by Dutch law to consider the interests of our company, its shareholders, its employees and other stakeholders, in all cases with due observation of the principles of reasonableness and fairness. It is possible that some of these parties will have interests that are different from, or in addition to, your interests as a shareholder.

Our authorized share capital increased as of June 19, 2018, following an amendment of our Articles of Association approved by a resolution of the general meeting of shareholders. Our authorized share capital currently amounts to €3,119,500, divided into 155,975,000 common shares, each with a nominal value of €0.01 and 155,975,000 cumulative preferred shares, each with a nominal value of €0.01.

Provisions of our Articles of Association or Dutch corporate law might deter acquisition bids for us that might be considered favorable and prevent or frustrate any attempt to replace or remove the then management board and supervisory board.

Certain provisions of our Articles of Association may make it more difficult for a third party to acquire control of us or effect a change in our management board or supervisory board. These provisions include: the authorization of a class of shares that may be issued to a friendly party; staggered maximum four-year terms of our supervisory directors; a provision that our managing directors and supervisory directors may only be removed by the general meeting of shareholders by a two-thirds majority of votes cast representing more than 50% of our outstanding share capital (unless the removal was proposed by the supervisory board); and a requirement that certain matters, including an amendment of our Articles of Association, may only be brought to our shareholders for a vote upon a proposal by our management board that has been approved by our supervisory board.

Our anti-takeover provision may prevent a beneficial change of control.

We have adopted an anti-takeover measure pursuant to which our management board may, subject to supervisory board approval but without additional shareholder approval, issue (or grant the right to acquire) cumulative preferred shares. Our management board has been authorized to, subject to supervisory board approval, issue (or grant the right to acquire) cumulative preferred shares by the general meeting of shareholders on September 12, 2014, with effect from September 17, 2014. We may issue an amount of cumulative preferred shares up to 100% of our issued capital immediately prior to the issuance of such cumulative preferred shares. In such event, the cumulative preferred shares (or right to acquire cumulative preferred shares) will be issued to a separate, newly established foundation which will be structured to operate independently of us and will act to serve the best interests of us, our associated business and all parties connected to us, by opposing any influences that conflict with these interests and threaten to undermine our

continuity, independence and identity. While to-date we have not established such a foundation, which action would facilitate a timely response to a take-over approach, we may choose to do so in the future. This anti-takeover measure has the effect of making a takeover of us more difficult or less attractive and as a result, our shareholders may be unable to benefit from a change of control and realize any potential change of control premium. This may materially and adversely affect the market price of our common shares.

The cumulative preferred shares will be issued to the foundation for their nominal value, of which only 25% will be due upon issuance. The voting rights of our shares are based on nominal value and as we expect our shares to trade substantially in excess of nominal value, cumulative preferred shares issued at nominal value can obtain significant voting power for a substantially reduced price and thus be used as a defensive measure. These cumulative preferred shares will have both a liquidation and dividend preference over our common shares and will accrue cash dividends at a fixed rate. The management board may issue these cumulative preferred shares to protect us from influences that do not serve our best interests and threaten to undermine our continuity, independence and identity. These influences may include a third party acquiring a significant percentage of our common shares, our receipt of an offer for our common shares, other concentration of control over our common shares or any other form of pressure on us to alter our strategic policies or anticipation that any such events may come to exist.

We are not obligated to and do not comply with all the best practice provisions of the Dutch Corporate Governance Code. This may affect your rights as a shareholder

As a Dutch company we are subject to the Dutch Corporate Governance Code, or DCGC. The DCGC contains both principles and best practice provisions that regulate relations between the management board, the supervisory board and the shareholders (i.e., the general meeting of shareholders). The DCGC is based on a “comply or explain” principle. Accordingly, companies are required to disclose in their annual reports, filed in the Netherlands, whether they comply with the provisions of the DCGC. If they do not comply with those provisions (e.g., because of a conflicting Nasdaq requirement), the company is required to give the reasons for such non-compliance.

The DCGC applies to all Dutch companies listed on a government-recognized stock exchange, whether in the Netherlands or elsewhere, including Nasdaq. We do not comply with all the best practice provisions of the DCGC. The DCGC was revised as per January 1, 2017, and in our annual report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, we will report on our compliance with this revised Code. This may affect your rights as a shareholder and you may not have the same level of protection as a shareholder in a Dutch company that fully complies with the DCGC.

Claims of U.S. civil liabilities may not be enforceable against us.

We are incorporated under the laws of the Netherlands, and our headquarters are located in Germany. Substantially all of our assets are located outside the United States. The majority of our managing directors and supervisory directors reside outside the United States. As a result, it may not be possible for investors to effect service of process within the United States upon such persons or to enforce against them or us in U.S. courts, including judgments predicated upon the civil liability provisions of the federal securities laws of the United States.

The United States and the Netherlands currently do not have a treaty providing for the reciprocal recognition and enforcement of judgments, other than arbitration awards, in civil and commercial matters. Consequently, a final judgment for payment given by a court in the United States, whether or not predicated solely upon U.S. securities laws, would not automatically be recognized or enforceable in the Netherlands. In order to obtain a judgment which is enforceable in the Netherlands, the party in whose favor a final and conclusive judgment of the U.S. court has been rendered will be required to file its claim with a court of competent jurisdiction in the Netherlands. Such party may submit to the Dutch court the final judgment rendered by the U.S. court. If and to the extent that the Dutch court finds that the jurisdiction of the U.S. court has been based on grounds which are internationally acceptable, that the proceedings before the U.S. court complied with principles of proper

procedures, that recognition and/or enforcement of such judgment would not contravene the public policy of the Netherlands, and that recognition and/or enforcement of the judgment is not irreconcilable with a decision of a Dutch court rendered between the same parties or with an earlier decision of a foreign court rendered between the same parties in a dispute that is about the same subject matter and that is based on the same cause, provided that earlier judgment can be recognized in the Netherlands, the court of the Netherlands will, in principle, give binding effect to the judgment of the U.S. court. Dutch courts may deny the recognition and enforcement of punitive damages or other awards on the basis that recognition and enforcement would contravene public policy of the Netherlands. Moreover, a Dutch court may reduce the amount of damages granted by a U.S. court and recognize damages only to the extent that they are necessary to compensate actual losses or damages. In addition, there is doubt as to whether a Dutch court would impose civil liability on us, our managing directors or supervisory directors or certain experts named herein in an original action predicated solely upon the U.S. federal securities laws brought in a court of competent jurisdiction in the Netherlands against us or such directors or experts, respectively. Enforcement and recognition of judgments of U.S. courts in the Netherlands are solely governed by the provisions of the Dutch Civil Procedure Code.

The United States and Germany currently do not have a treaty providing for the reciprocal recognition and enforcement of judgments, other than arbitration awards, in civil and commercial matters. Consequently, a final judgment for payment given by a court in the United States, whether or not predicated solely upon U.S. securities laws, would not automatically be recognized or enforceable in Germany. German courts may deny the recognition and enforcement of a judgment rendered by a U.S. court if they consider the U.S. court not to be competent or the decision not in line with German public policy principles. For example, recognition of court decisions based on class actions brought in the United States typically raises public policy concerns and judgments awarding punitive damages are generally not enforceable in Germany.

In addition, actions brought in a German court against us, our managing directors or supervisory directors, our senior management and the experts named herein to enforce liabilities based on U.S. federal securities laws may be subject to certain restrictions. In particular, German courts generally do not award punitive damages. Litigation in Germany is also subject to rules of procedure that differ from the U.S. rules, including with respect to the taking and admissibility of evidence, the conduct of the proceedings and the allocation of costs. Proceedings in Germany would have to be conducted in the German language and all documents submitted to the court would, in principle, have to be translated into German. For these reasons, it may be difficult for a U.S. investor to bring an original action in a German court predicated upon the civil liability provisions of the U.S. federal securities laws against us, our managing directors or supervisory directors, our senior management and the experts named in this Annual Report.

Based on the lack of a treaty as described above, U.S. investors may not be able to enforce against us or managing directors or supervisory directors, officers or certain experts named herein who are residents of the Netherlands, Germany, or other countries other than the United States any judgments obtained in U.S. courts in civil and commercial matters, including judgments under the U.S. federal securities laws.

If we fail to maintain an effective system of internal control over financial reporting, we may not be able to accurately report our financial results or prevent fraud. As a result, shareholders could lose confidence in our financial and other public reporting, which would harm our business and the trading price of our common shares.

Effective internal controls over financial reporting are necessary for us to provide reliable financial reports and, together with adequate disclosure controls and procedures, are designed to prevent fraud. Any failure to implement required new or improved controls, or difficulties encountered in their implementation could cause us to fail to meet our reporting obligations. In addition, any testing by us conducted in connection with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, or any subsequent testing by our independent registered public accounting firm, may reveal deficiencies in our internal controls over financial reporting that are deemed to be material weaknesses or that may require prospective or retroactive changes to our financial statements or identify other areas for further attention or improvement. Inferior internal controls could also impair our ability to

raise revenue, result in the loss of investor confidence in the reliability of our financial statements and subject us to regulatory scrutiny and sanctions, which in turn could harm the market value of our common shares.

We are required to disclose changes made in our internal controls and procedures and our management is required to assess the effectiveness of these controls annually. However, for as long as we are an “emerging growth company” under the JOBS Act, our independent registered public accounting firm will not be required to attest to the effectiveness of our internal controls over financial reporting pursuant to Section 404. We will continue to be an “emerging growth company” until our fiscal year ending December 31, 2019. An independent assessment of the effectiveness of our internal controls could detect problems that our management’s assessment might not. Undetected material weaknesses in our internal controls could lead to financial statement restatements and require us to incur the expense of remediation.

Changes in accounting standards could impact our results.

The IASB, or other regulatory bodies, periodically introduce modifications to financial accounting and reporting standards or issue new financial accounting and reporting standards under which we prepare our consolidated financial statements. These changes can materially impact the means by which we report financial information, affecting our results of operations. Also, we could be required to apply new or revised standards retroactively.

More specifically, several new or amended standards and interpretations to IFRS are expected over the coming years. In particular, both IFRS 9 “Financial Instruments” and IFRS 15 “Revenues from Contracts with Customers” went into effect on January 1, 2018 and IFRS 16 “Leases” went into effect on January 1, 2019. With respect to the first time adoption of IFRS 9 and IFRS 15, any transition effects are described in note 3 to the consolidated financial statements as of December 31, 2018. With respect to IFRS 16, during 2018, we completed the assessment of the impact of IFRS 16 on our consolidated financial statements and have identified our leases including contractual payments, renewal options and other terms. Based on this assessment, we expect that the adoption of IFRS 16 will not substantially affect our future results of operations.

Although we do not believe we were a “passive foreign investment company” (a “PFIC”) in 2018, we may be a PFIC in 2019 or one or more future taxable years. A U.S. investor may suffer adverse U.S. federal income tax consequences if we are a PFIC for any taxable year during which the U.S. investor holds common shares.

Under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), we will be a PFIC for any taxable year in which, after the application of certain “look-through” rules with respect to subsidiaries, either (i) 75% or more of our gross income consists of “passive income,” or (ii) 50% or more of the average quarterly value of our assets consist of assets that produce, or are held for the production of, “passive income.” Passive income generally includes interest, dividends, rents, certain non-active royalties and capital gains. Although we have not performed a definitive PFIC analysis using U.S. federal income tax principles, based on certain estimates as to composition of our income and assets, including the implied value, based on our market capitalization, of our assets that produce non-passive income, during 2018, we do not believe that we were a PFIC for our 2018 taxable year. However, there can be no assurance that the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”) will agree with our conclusion. In addition, whether we will be a PFIC in 2019 or any future taxable year is uncertain because, among other things, we currently own, a substantial amount of passive assets, including cash, and because the valuation of our assets that generate non-passive income for PFIC purposes, including our intangible assets, is uncertain and may vary substantially over time. The average quarterly value of our assets for purposes of determining our PFIC status for any taxable year will generally be determined in part by reference to our market capitalization, which has fluctuated and may continue to fluctuate significantly over time. Accordingly, there can be no assurance that we will not be a PFIC for any future taxable year. In addition, we may, directly or indirectly, hold equity interests in other entities, including certain of our subsidiaries that are PFICs (“Lower-tier PFICs”).

If we are a PFIC for any taxable year during which a U.S. investor holds common shares, we generally will continue to be treated as a PFIC with respect to that U.S. investor for all succeeding years during which the

U.S. investor holds common shares, even if we cease to meet the threshold requirements for PFIC status. Such a U.S. investor may be subject to adverse tax consequences, including (i) the treatment of all or a portion of any gain on disposition as ordinary income, (ii) the application of a deferred interest charge on such gain and the receipt of certain dividends and (iii) compliance with certain reporting requirements. To avoid the application of the foregoing rules, a U.S. investor can make an election to treat us and each Lower-tier PFIC as a qualified electing fund (a “QEF Election”) in the first taxable year that we and each Lower-tier PFIC are treated as PFICs with respect to the U.S. investor. We currently intend to provide the information necessary for a U.S. investor to make a QEF Election with respect to us and each Lower-tier PFIC that we control for 2018 and for any future years with respect to which we determine that we or any Lower-tier PFIC that we control are or are likely to be a PFIC. A U.S. investor can also avoid certain of the adverse U.S. federal income tax consequences described above by making a mark-to-market election with respect to its common shares, provided that the common shares are “marketable.” U.S. investors should consult their tax advisers regarding the availability and advisability of making a QEF Election or a mark-to-market election in their particular circumstances. See “U.S. Federal Income Tax Considerations” for further information regarding the consequences to a U.S. investor if we are a PFIC for any taxable year during which the U.S. investor holds common shares.

salvage therapy for patients who have relapsed after, or are refractory to, that is who do not respond to treatment with, standard therapies, which we refer to as relapsed/refractory. These patients have a limited life expectancy and few therapeutic options. We believe this strategy will allow for a faster path to approval and will likely require smaller clinical studies compared to indications with more therapeutic options and larger patient populations. We believe such specialized market segments in oncology can be effectively targeted with a small and dedicated marketing and sales team. We currently intend to establish a commercial sales force in the United States and/or Europe to commercialize our product candidates when and if they are approved.

We also see an opportunity in the clinical development of our tetravalent bispecific antibodies in combination with other agents that harness the immune system to fight cancer cells, such as CPIs, adoptive NK cells and cytokines. Such combinations of cancer immunotherapies may ultimately prove beneficial for larger patient populations in earlier stages of diseases, beyond the relapsed/refractory disease setting.

Our main offices and laboratories are located at the Technology Park adjacent to the German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) in Heidelberg, where we employ 69 personnel, approximately 60% of whom have an advanced academic degree. Including AbCheck (see description below) and Affimed Inc. personnel, our total headcount is 110  (103 full time equivalents). We are led by experienced executives with a track record of successful product development, approvals and launches, specifically in the area of biologics and biopharmaceuticals. Our supervisory board is made up of highly experienced experts from the pharmaceutical and biotech industries, including individuals with a background and expertise in hematological malignancies.

In 2009, we formed AbCheck, our 100% owned, independently run antibody screening platform company, located in the Czech Republic. AbCheck is devoted to the generation and optimization of fully human antibodies. Its technologies include a naïve human antibody library combined with phage and yeast display antibody library, a proprietary algorithm to optimize affinity, stability and manufacturing efficiency and a mass humanization technology to discover and optimize high-quality human antibodies. In addition to providing candidates for Affimed projects, AbCheck is recognized for its expertise in antibody discovery throughout the United States and Europe and has been working with globally active pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies such as Tusk Therapeutics, bluebird bio, Eli Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, Pierre Fabre and others. In 2018 AbCheck formed AbCheck Inc., a 100% owned subsidiary.

B.   Business overview

Our Strategy

Our goal is to engineer targeted immunotherapies, seeking to cure patients by harnessing the power of innate and adaptive immunity (NK cells, macrophages and T cells). We are developing single and combination therapies to treat a variety of cancers. Our novel proprietary antibody platform, ROCK® (Redirected Optimized Cell Killing), delivers several unique types of next-generation tetravalent antibody formats, including bispecific and trispecific Abs and immune cell engagers. Based on the distinctive properties and mechanism of action of these products, which have demonstrated preclinical and clinical activity, we believe that our product candidates, alone or in combination, could eventually become a key element of by improving clinical outcomes in cancer patients. Key elements of our strategy to achieve this goal are to:

Our Strengths

We believe we are a leader in developing cancer immunotherapies due to several factors:

Our research and development pipeline

We are developing a pipeline of immune-cell engagers for the treatment of cancer as shown below:

Our lead candidate, AFM13, is a first-in-class innate cell engager designed for the treatment of certain CD30‑positive (CD30+) B- and T cell malignancies. AFM13 selectively binds to CD30, a clinically validated target, and CD16A, an integral membrane glycoprotein receptor expressed on the surface of NK cells and macrophages, triggering a signal cascade that leads to the destruction of CD30‑positive tumor cells. In contrast to conventional full-length antibodies, AFM13 does not bind to CD16B, which prevents binding to other cell types, e.g. neutrophils, and binds with equal affinity to CD16A polymorphisms at position 158. Furthermore, AFM13 binds CD16A with an approximately 1000‑fold higher affinity than monoclonal antibodies thereby significantly increasing potency and efficacy as preclinically demonstrated.

We are currently investigating AFM13 as monotherapy and as combination therapy in relapsed/refractory CD30‑positive lymphoma patients and relapsed/refractory HL patients.

In the completed first-in-human phase 1 dose-escalation clinical study, AFM13 was well-tolerated and demonstrated tumor shrinkage or slowing of tumor growth, with disease control shown in 16 of 26 patients eligible for efficacy evaluation. AFM13 also demonstrated tumor shrinkage in patients who had relapsed after, or were refractory to Adcetris® (brentuximab vedotin), a CD30‑targeted chemotherapy approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, in August 2011 as a salvage therapy for HL. Approximately half of the patients treated with Adcetris® experienced disease progression in less than half a year after initiation of therapy. Six out of seven patients who became refractory to Adcetris® as the immediate prior therapy experienced stabilization of disease under AFM13 treatment according to Cheson’s criteria, standard criteria for assessing treatment response in lymphoma. We believe that based on its novel mode of action, AFM13 may be beneficial to patients who have relapsed or are refractory to treatment with Adcetris® and may provide more durable clinical benefit.

Affimed is also currently supporting an IST led by GHSG. This phase 2a clinical study of AFM13 in patients with relapsed/refractory HL started recruitment in the second quarter of 2015. Under the original protocol, seventeen patients were recruited that were relapsed/refractory to Adcetris® and naïve to anti-PD‑1 antibodies and two of these patients experienced a partial response Due to the availability of anti-PD‑1 antibodies for the treatment of relapsed/refractory HL patients, the overall study design was revised to recruit HL patients relapsed

or refractory to treatment with brentuximab vedotin and anti-PD‑1 antibodies. The study is open and recruiting under the new study design.

Furthermore, we are conducting a phase 1b clinical study of AFM13 with Merck’s anti-PD‑1 antibody Keytruda ® (pembrolizumab) in HL. In this study, the combination was well-tolerated with most of the adverse events observed mild to moderate in nature and manageable with standard of care. Best response assessment data from 24 patients treated at the highest AFM13 dose level (7 mg/kg) as reported by central read, showed an ORR of 88% (21 of 24 patients), including complete metabolic responses (CmR) in 46% (11 of 24 patients) and partial metabolic responses (PmRs) in 42% (10 of 24 patients). One patient experienced stable disease (SD).

We are also supporting a phase 1b/2a IST of AFM13 in patients with relapsed or refractory CD30+ lymphoma led by investigators at Columbia University in New York. In addition to determining clinical efficacy, this is also a translational study in patients with cutaneous manifestations and is designed to allow for serial biopsies, thereby enabling assessment of immunobiology and tumor cell killing within the tumor microenvironment. An interim analysis of 9 treated patients was recently presented. AFM13 could be safely administered and showed therapeutic activity as a single agent, with an objective response rate (ORR) of 44% (4/9). In detail, one complete response (CR), three partial responses (PRs) and two stable diseases (SDs) were observed. An analysis of biomarker correlatives showed a decrease in circulating NK cells (CD56+ CD3‑ , CD56+ CD16+, NKp46+) during therapy, with post-therapy recovery. In addition, increased CD69 expression on circulating NK cells pre-therapy in responders vs. non-responders was demonstrated. Tumor biopsies showed increased infiltration of CD56+ NK cells in responders compared to nonresponders, while circulating CD4+ CD25+ T cells (Tregs) decreased in responders compared to nonresponders.

In order to prepare for further clinical development, we performed preclinical studies investigating the combination of AFM13 with check-point modulators (CPMs) with collaboration partners. We believe that AFM13 and CPMs administered together could lead to greater tumor cell killing because these molecules may have a synergistic anti-tumor effect, involving both innate and adaptive immune cells. Based on preclinical data, we entered into a collaboration with Merck and have initiated a clinical phase 1b study investigating the combination of AFM13 with Merck’s anti-PD‑1 antibody Keytruda® (pembrolizumab) in patients with relapsed/refractory HL. In addition, the LLS has committed to co-fund the development of AFM13 with the focus having been shifted towards combination therapy in June 2016 following the greater focus of combination therapies in immuno-oncology.

In December 2016, we entered into a clinical development and commercialization collaboration with MD Anderson to evaluate AFM13 in combination with MD Anderson’s NK cell product. On December 3, 2018, we presented preclinical data at the American Society of Hematology Annual Meeting, outlining the successful approach of a novel premixed product, comprising of expanded cord-blood derived NK cells loaded with AFM13 to redirect their specificity against CD30+ tumor cells. MD Anderson is responsible for conducting preclinical research activities, investigating cord-blood derived NK cells in combination with AFM13, followed by a clinical phase 1 study. Data were recently published at ASH2018 and showed that AFM13 can enhance efficacy on cord blood derived NK cells both in vitro and in vivo . We fund research and development expenses for this collaboration and hold an option to exclusive worldwide rights to develop and commercialize any product developed under the collaboration.

Together with the German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), we published data presenting evidence of AFM13, modulating NK cells by sensitizing them to IL‑2 and/or IL‑15 stimulation. In this study, after exposure to AFM13, NK cells showed improved IL‑2‑ and IL‑15‑mediated proliferation and cytotoxicity. These data support the strategy of combining our innate cell engagers with IL‑2‑ or IL‑15 to potentially achieve stronger clinical responses.

Our second clinical stage candidate, AFM11, is a T cell engager designed for the treatment of certain CD19+ B cell malignancies, including non-Hodgkin Lymphoma, or NHL and Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia, or ALL). AFM11 binds selectively with CD19, a clinically validated target in B cell malignancies. It also binds to CD3, a component of the T cell receptor complex, triggering a signal cascade that leads to the destruction of tumor

cells that carry CD19. Based on its molecular characteristics, in particular its molecular weight, we expect AFM11 will have a longer half-life than blinatumomab, a bispecific antibody also targeted against CD19 and CD3 developed by Amgen, and approved in the United States and Europe. AFM11 has shown 100‑fold higher affinity to CD3 resulting in up to 40‑fold greater cytotoxic potency at low T cell counts compared to blinatumomab. We therefore believe it may have an efficacy advantage, especially in immunocompromised patients. As the PK is longer as compared to Amgen’s BiTEs such as Blincyto, AFM11 might have a convenience advantage due to its half-life and we are exploring different dosing regimens in our clinical studies to address specific features relating to T cell engagement, which may require longer infusion times. We are conducting two phase 1 clinical studies of AFM11, one in patients with relapsed/refractory NHL and one in patients with relapsed/refractory ALL. The NHL study has recently completed the third dose cohort and the ALL study was enrolling into the sixth dose cohort. Thirty-three patients have been treated in total in the two ongoing Phase 1 studies. Interim results from the ALL study were recently presented and showed tolerable safety, and complete remissions in 3 of 11 patients treated n the highest 3 dose cohorts. On October 8, 2018, we suspended enrollment of AFM11 after the occurrence of life-threatening or fatal SAEs in three patients, which included two life threatening events in the NHL study and one death in the ALL study. Subsequently, we received notification from the FDA that the regulatory agency formally placed the AFM11 IND application on full clinical hold. In early March 2019, we submitted a complete response document to the FDA that summarizes the clinical data from the two AFM11 phase 1 studies to request that the clinical hold be lifted so that clinical development of AFM11 may proceed in patients with acute lymphocytic leukemia.

Our third candidate, AFM24, is an innate cell-engaging bispecific antibody targeting EGFR. AFM24 is designed to treat patients with different EGFR expressing solid tumors with the potential for better efficacy and safety as compared to current therapeutic anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies that are associated with significant toxicities and treatment resistance. We have successfully completed a toxicology study in cynomolgus monkeys at a range of dose levels up to 75mg/kg over 4 weeks with no observed toxicities even at high dose levels. In contrast, Cetuximab an approved anti-EGFR antibody revealed significant toxicity in the same dose-range. We anticipate completing IND-enabling studies for AFM24 by mid-year 2019 and plan to initiate a  first-in-human study in the second half of 2019.

We have also developed AFM26, an innate cell-engaging bispecific antibody targeting B cell maturation antigen (BCMA) to address the medical need for a novel approach to treat multiple myeloma. AFM26 employs a unique mechanism of action through high affinity engagement of NK cells which in vitro demonstrates efficacy against cells expressing even very low levels of BCMA. NK cell binding of AFM26 is largely unaffected by IgG competition. In addition, AFM26 offers the opportunity for a combination with adoptive NK cell transfer, as it appears to have a favorable safety profile with lower cytokine release as compared to BiTE. In the third quarter of 2018, we successfully partnered AFM26 and no longer control its development.

Amphivena’s product candidate, AMV564, is a CD33/CD3‑specific T cell engager. Amphivena is clinically developing AMV564 for the treatment of acute myeloid leukemia (AML), for which Amphivena has obtained Orphan Drug Designation, and other hematologic malignancies. In preclinical studies, AMV564, which was derived from our   ROCK ®   platform, has demonstrated potent and selective cytotoxic activity in AML patient samples as well as robust tumor growth inhibition and a complete elimination of leukemic blasts in xenograft models. The IND application for AMV564 was accepted in July 2016 and Amphivena is conducting a phase 1 clinical study of AMV564 in relapsed or refractory AML. In June 2018, Amphivena reported initial data from this study. The data demonstrate that AMV564 engages and activates T cells resulting in leukemic cytoreduction. Amphivena has also initiated a Phase 1 dose escalation study of AMV564 in myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS).

In addition, we have been exploring the generation of novel bispecific ROCK ®   -based innate cell engagers and trispecific Abs for various undisclosed targets which are currently at a discovery stage to be developed for different indications.

Immune System and Cancer Background

Immune System

The human immune system is characterized by an early, nonspecific initial response called innate immunity, and a highly specific response adapted to pathogenic or tumorigenic antigenesis called adaptive immunity. Although the human immune system is normally capable of recognizing foreign or aberrant cells, cancer cells have developed highly effective ways to escape the surveillance and defense mechanisms of the immune system. As a result, immune cells such as NK cells and macrophages (parts of the innate immune system) and T cells (a part of the adaptive immune system) cannot recognize tumor cells as foreign or aberrant and therefore cannot fight them.

Increased understanding of the fundamentals of cellular and molecular tumor immunology has identified many ways by which the immune system can be augmented to treat cancer, including priming/boosting of the immune system, T cell modulation, reducing immunosuppression in the tumor microenvironment and enhancing adaptive immunity. This new area of medicine, termed cancer immunotherapy, has the potential to offer adaptable and durable cancer control across a variety of tumor types. Our ROCK ® platform-based immune cell engagers enable a direct interaction of NK cells, macrophages or T cells with cancer cells on the level of single cells, leading to the destruction of the tumor cells.

Cancer

Cancer is a broad group of diseases in which cells divide and grow in an uncontrolled fashion, forming malignancies that can invade other parts of the body. In normal tissues, the rates of new cell growth and cell death are tightly regulated and kept in balance. In cancerous tissues, this balance is disrupted as a result of gene mutations, causing unregulated cell growth that leads to tumor formation. While tumors can grow slowly or rapidly, the dividing cells will nevertheless accumulate and the normal organization of the tissue will become disrupted. Cancers subsequently can spread throughout the body by processes known as invasion and metastasis. Cancer cells that arise in the lymphatic system and bone marrow are referred to as hematological malignancies. Cancer cells that arise in other tissues or organs are referred to as solid tumors.

According to the American Cancer Society, cancer is the second most common cause of death in the United States. In the United States, 1.7 million new cases of cancer are expected to be diagnosed in 2019, and more than 606,000 deaths from cancer are expected to occur. The 5‑year relative survival rate for all cancers diagnosed during 2008‑2014 was 69%. According to a National Institute of Health analysis, medical costs associated with cancer reached $125 billion in 2010 and are projected to increase another 27% by 2020, to at least $158 billion.

The most common methods of treating patients with cancer are surgery, radiation and drug therapy. For patients with localized disease, surgery and radiation therapy are particularly effective. Drug therapies are generally used by physicians in patients who have cancer that has spread beyond the primary site or cannot otherwise be treated through surgery, such as most hematological malignancies. The goal of drug therapies is to damage and kill cancer cells or to interfere with the molecular and cellular processes that control the proliferation, growth and survival of cancer cells. In many cases, drug therapy entails the administration of several different drugs in combination. Over the past several decades, drug therapy has evolved from non-specific drugs that kill both healthy and cancerous cells, to drugs that target specific molecular pathways involved in cancer.

An early approach to pharmacological cancer treatment was to develop drugs, referred to as chemotherapies or cytotoxic drugs, which kill rapidly proliferating cancer cells through mechanisms, such as stopping cell division, disrupting cell metabolism or causing damage to cellular components required for tumor survival and rapid growth. While these drugs have been effective in the treatment of some cancers, cytotoxic drug therapies act in an indiscriminate manner, killing healthy cells along with cancerous cells. Due to their mechanism of action, many cytotoxic drugs have a narrow therapeutic window. i.e. dose range above which the toxicity causes unacceptable or even fatal levels of damage and below which the drugs are not effective in eradicating cancer cells.

The next approach to pharmacological cancer treatment was to develop drugs, referred to as targeted therapeutics, including monoclonal antibodies, which are antibodies that derive from a single parent cell, that target specific biological molecules in the human body that play a role in cell growth and the spread of cancer. Included in this category are small molecule drugs as well as large molecule drugs, also known as biologics. With heightened vigilance and new diagnostic tests, targeted therapies (including monoclonal antibodies such as Herceptin®, Rituxan®, Erbitux® and Avastin® as well as small molecules such as Nexavar® and Tarceva®), have resulted in improvements in overall survival for many cancer patients. More recently, antibodies have been developed that are optimized regarding their effector function, also known as Fc optimized antibody drugs, for example obinutuzumab. These molecules are designed to engage NK cells and macrophages more effectively in the elimination of cancer cells.

Cancer immunotherapy plays an increasing role among emerging cancer drug therapies. The intention is to harness the body’s own immune system to fight tumor cells. There are different approaches: vaccinations, checkpoint modulators, T cell and innate cell engagers, for example, bispecific antibodies, or cellular therapies involving transforming patient’s own T cells to express a specific chimeric antigen receptors (CARs). Ipilimumab (Yervoy®), sipuleucel-T (Provenge®), and more recently nivolumab (Opdivo®), pembrolizumab (Keytruda®), and blinatumomab (Blincyto®) were amongst the first cancer immunotherapies to enter the market. Our platforms of bi- and trispecific antibodies add further promise to the field of immuno-oncology.

Our Technologies

We have developed our proprietary fit-for-purpose ROCK ®   ( Redirected Optimized Cell Killing ) antibody platform to enable the generation of first-in-class multivalent, multi-specific immune cell engagers. Our antibodies have been shown to retarget innate and adaptive immune cells.  ROCK ®   enables us to tailor tetravalent, bispecific immune cell engagers with high affinity and avidity, as well as variable PK profiles for different indications and settings. Through this platform, we were able to generate molecules against validated oncology targets to address the limitations of existing standard treatments.

Schematic representation of our fit-for-purpose ROCK ® platform

Our ROCK® platform offers modularity and versatility for customizable antibody generation and is differentiated from other technologies and is designed to deliver immune cell engagers that:

Leveraging our fit-for-purpose ROCK ® platform, we develop proprietary, next-generation bispecific antibodies, so-called immune cell engagers, which are designed to direct and establish a bridge between either innate immune cells or T cells and cancer cells. Our immune cell engagers have the ability to create an immunological synapse between innate immune cells or T cells and cancer cells and trigger a signal cascade that leads to the destruction of cancer cells. Due to their novel tetravalent architecture (which provides for four binding domains), our immune cell engagers bind to their targets with high affinity and have half-lives that support intravenous administration and dosing schedules similar to monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) to achieve potent antitumor efficacy. We are developing a variety of tetravalent, bispecific antibody formats with the potential to tailor immune-engaging therapies to different indications and settings.

Immune Cell Engagers

Our fit-for-purpose ROCK ® platform enables the design and development of various antibody formats. Our lead product candidate AFM13 is an innate cell engager binding to CD16A on NK cells and macrophages and CD30, a receptor found on the tumor cells of patients with HL and other CD30+ malignancies.

Specifically, they are designed to have the following properties:

Trispecific Antibodies (TriFlex)

ROCK ® also enables the generation of trispecific antibodies. Like bispecific immune cell engagers, trispecific Abs also have two domains for immune cell targeting and two for tumor cell targeting, but their two tumor binding domains or effector cell binding domains can be distinct, each one designed to bind a different target on the tumor cell or effector cell, respectively (see illustration below). ROCK ® enables development of our trispecific Abs as both NK cell and T cell engagers.

Schematic representation of bispecific immune cell engagers (left and middle) and trispecific Abs (right)

Schematic representation of the mode of action of a tetravalent bispecific immune cell engager

Immune cell engagers bind to immune cells and enable both the recognition of tumor cells and their redirection to these tumor cells by forming an immunological synapse. Immune cells then release perforins, creating pores in the tumor cell membrane through which granzymes enter the cell, triggering apoptosis and resulting in tumor cell death.

Innate cell engagers

Innate immune cells, such as NK cells and macrophages, distinguish between healthy cells and foreign or aberrant cells through a process that is governed by a complex interaction of activating and inhibitory receptors that regulate their activity. While innate immune cells can bind to the Fc regions of native full-length antibodies

through Fcγ receptors to induce a cytotoxic effect, our Innate immune cell engagers are designed to enhance the activity of innate immune cells in killing targeted tumor cells because they bind the FcγRIIIA (CD16A) receptor on innate immune cells with high specificity and approximately 1,000‑fold higher affinity than IgG-based antibodies, and greater than 25‑fold higher affinity than typical Fc-optimized IgG antibodies.

CD16A is an integral membrane glycoprotein found on the surface of innate immune cells, but not neutrophils. Classical mAbs bind not only to CD16A, but, to our knowledge, also to the highly homologous CD16B, an isoform differing from CD16A by only a few amino acids. CD16B is expressed on neutrophils, which are the most numerous white blood cells (leukocytes), and blood plasma contains high levels of soluble CD16B cleaved from the daily turnover of apoptotic neutrophils. Thus CD16B, being readily available to bind to any Fc-based antibody formats, facilitates target-mediated drug disposition for such antibodies. To engage and activate innate immune cells, we have generated a highly effective and specific human antibody that specifically targets the CD16A receptor and does not cross-react with CD16B; This antibody also binds to both CD16A allotypes (amino acid 158 with either valine or phenyalanine) with equal affinity, a polymorphism that has been shown to reduce efficacy of marketed classical antibodies such as trastuzumab or elotuzumab (see figure below).

Binding of innate immune cell engager to CD16A (high-and low affinity genetic variants (allotypes) 158V and 158F, respectively) and to CD16B (SH, NA1 and NA2 allotypes), the latter showing zero response (no binding)

Our lead innate cell engager AFM13, binds to CD16A on immune cells and to CD30, a receptor found on malignant cells that have been implicated in lymphoma, including HL and T cell lymphoma.

T cell engagers

CD4+ or CD8+ T-lymphocytes (T cells) are primary effectors of adaptive immunity and launch an attack only once foreign or aberrant material is processed and small pieces thereof are presented to them. Our T cell engagers are designed to tether a T cell directly to a target on a tumor cell.

Our T cell immune cell engagers bind with high affinity to the CD3 protein of the T cell receptor and a target molecule on the tumor cell. Once our T cell immune cell engagers recruit a T cell to the tumor cell, the T cell generates a strong activation signal that induces the release of cytotoxic proteins perforin and granzyme and results in the destruction of the cancer cell. Our T cell engagers have demonstrated in preclinical studies target-dependent cytotoxicity at low picomolar concentrations, which we believe may allow us to achieve therapeutic doses in the microgram range. In the absence of a tumor cell, the binding to CD3 on the T cells by the immune cell engagers is not sufficient to activate the T cells.

Our T cell engager lead candidate, AFM11, binds to CD3 and CD19, a B cell receptor found on malignant cells that cause leukemia or lymphoma, including NHL. The high potency of AFM11 has also been measured at low T cell counts, which may be of particular benefit to patients whose immune systems are compromised, for example by chemotherapy.

Trispecific Antibodies (TriFlex)

Our trispecific antibody platform could pave the way for cancer products with a substantially widened therapeutic window. Through our proprietary tetravalent domain structure, we have the ability to generate antibodies that exhibit three different binding specificities. Such structures are normally challenging to make, but we have succeeded in generating such molecules and have found that they have all the features to be used as drug candidates, such as manufacturability and stability. Our initial work is aimed at targeting two different tumor targets, and with a third functionality, engaging T cells or NK cells to exert a cytotoxic effect. Targeting two tumor targets allows for greater selectivity for cancer cells, sparing healthy tissue and resulting in a wider therapeutic window by opening up the potential target space, or dose range within which the drug can be effective in eradicating cancer cells without causing unacceptable levels of side effects.

In January 2015, we were awarded a €2.4 million ($3 million) grant program from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF). The grant, awarded under the BMBF’s “KMU-innovative: Biotechnology – BioChance” program, covered approximately 40% of funding for a research and development program to develop multi-specific antibodies for the treatment of multiple myeloma.

Our Target Markets

HL and CD30‑positive Malignancies

HL is a type of lymphoma, which is a cancer originating from white blood cells called lymphocytes. CD30 is a cell membrane protein and tumor marker of different hematological malignancies of which HL is one of the more prevalent. There are approximately 9,000 new cases of HL in the United States every year and about 23,000 new cases in North America, the European Union and Japan.

Patients with newly diagnosed HL, depending on disease stage, are treated primarily with chemotherapy, sometimes in combination with radiotherapy. The current initial standard regimens are highly effective, but associated with acute and chronic toxicity. A number of patients are either refractory to or relapsing from standard therapy that included chemotherapy followed by Adcetris®, and we believe these represent a total of approximately 4,000‑5,000 patients every year in North America, the European Union and Japan.

Adcetris® is the first approved targeted therapy for HL patients that are relapsed/refractory to second line treatments. Adcetris® targets CD30, the same target as AFM13, but has a different mode of action, acting as a targeted chemotherapy, rather than as a targeted immunotherapy. As an antibody-drug conjugate, Adcetris®

delivers a toxin (monomethyl auristatin E) to the cells that carry the CD30 antigen. The drug conjugate is internalized by the tumor cell, which is then destroyed. In a phase 2 clinical study, Adcetris® treatment in relapsed/ refractory HL patients resulted in an overall response rate of 75% and a complete response rate of 34%. However, the median progression free survival after Adcetris® is only 9.3 months. In addition, the treatment is associated with considerable adverse events like neutropenia (low neutrophils) and neuropathy (damage to the peripheral nervous system).

FDA and EMA have approved nivolumab in classical HL that has relapsed or progressed after autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation and Acetris® in 2016. Recently, the FDA has approved pembrolizumab for the treatment of adult and pediatric patients with refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL), or who have relapsed after three or more prior lines of therapy. Overall response rates for the anti-PD‑1 antibodies (nivolumab and pembrolizumab) in relapsed/refractory classical HL patients post brentuximab vedotin are 64 to 74%, with complete remission rates of 12‑25%. Other CD30+ hematological malignancies include CD30+ hematological malignancies include CD30+ T cell lymphoma, or TCL, and CD30+ diffuse large B cell lymphoma, or DLBCL (approximately 25% of DLBCL tumors express CD30), which together contribute approximately 6,000‑8,000 relapsed/refractory cancer cases per year in North America, the European Union and Japan.

Other CD30‑positive Malignancies

4% of all new cancer cases in the US are NHL (SEER Database).  In 2016, approximately 72 000 new cases of NHL were diagnosed in the US (SEER estimate). 5-10% of all Non-Hodgkin Lymphomas (NHL) are peripheral T-Cell Lymphomas (pTCL) and the majority are B-Cell Lymphomas. Within the NHL subtypes, malignancies that are  CD30+ include CD30+ T cell lymphoma, or TCL, and CD30+ diffuse large B cell lymphoma, or DLBCL (approximately 25% of DLBCL tumors express CD30), which together contribute approximately 6,000-8,000 relapsed/refractory cancer cases per year in North America, the European Union and Japan. There are between 3500- 7200 newly diagnosed cases of pTCL in the US every year of which 40-50% are positive for CD30.  Nearly 100% of both types of ALCL are positive for CD30 which represent about 10% of all NHL cases.

NHL

Among a large group of lymphomas, approximately 80% belong to the NHL group. These cancer types can originate from either malignant B cells or T cells, whereby B cell derived NHL comprises the vast majority. NHL includes precursor B cell tumors and 12 distinctly-defined mature B cell tumors, among them DLBCL, follicular lymphoma, or FL, and mantle cell lymphoma, or MCL. The latter three subtypes are the focus of the clinical development of AFM11. The total annual incidence of all B cell lymphoma subtypes in North America, the European Union and Japan is about 160,000 cases, of which 70,000 are in the United States. DLBCL alone represents about 46,000 new patients in North America, the European Union and Japan every year, and currently some 20,000 patients with DLBCL relapse from or become refractory to a series of standard treatments every year.

There is a high medical need for new treatment options in NHL, especially in the relapsed/refractory setting. Standard first line treatment of patients with NHL consists of the CHOP chemotherapy regimen (cyclophosphamid, anthracyclin, vincristin, prednison). The regimen is usually combined with rituximab (an anti CD20 monoclonal antibody) and called R-CHOP. While this regimen results in a durable response for the majority of patients with aggressive disease, in patients with indolent, or slowly progressing, disease, the chemotherapy is less effective. The effect of treatments in relapsed/refractory NHL also depends on the type of disease. For instance, response rates achieved with new targeted therapies in follicular lymphoma (FL) or mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) are at least partially promising and ibrutinib (Impruvica®) was approved in the United States for MCL in 2013 based on phase 2 data showing an overall response rate of 66%. However, in diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL), data are less promising with response rates usually not exceeding 45%. Promising results for this patient population were seen with blinatumomab, a bispecific antibody with the same disease target and immune cell target as AFM11 (CD19/CD3). In a dose-escalation study, patients (n=35)

treated with the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) showed an overall response rate of 69%. In addition, the FDA has recently approved two CAR-T cell therapies: Kymriah® for the treatment of B-cell ALL and Yescarta® for patients suffering from B cell NHL, demonstrating ORRs of 83% and 72%, respectively.

Other CD19‑positive Malignancies

ALL, an aggressive type of leukemia characterized by an overproduction of lymphocytes in the bone marrow and the peripheral blood, is also primarily a B cell disease and exhibits the CD19 receptor. According to the National Cancer Institute, in 2013 an estimated number of 6,000 ALL cases were newly diagnosed in the United States, more than half in children and adolescents. Treatment of patients with ALL usually consists of a regimen that includes vincristine, prednisone, and an anthracycline, with or without asparaginase, and results in a complete response rate of up to 80% in patients aged 1‑18 years; for adults, complete response rates are considerably lower (about 30% for patients above 40 years of age). Blincyto® (blinatumomab) has been approved in the United States and in the EU for Philadelphia chromosome-negative relapsed or refractory B cell precursor acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL). This product is a bifunctional molecule similar to AFM11 in its targeting features and has demonstrated a moderate response rate of about 42% in the labelled adult population.

There are many ongoing clinical studies with investigational drugs, targeting in CD19+ malignancies, including CARs that are in early-stage development for several CD19+ malignancies. CARs are showing high response rates in early clinical studies; however, their clinical use seems to be limited by multiple factors, including potential significant adverse side effects.

EGFR-positive Malignancies

Current treatment options for solid tumors consist of a mix of surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy and targeted therapies. While historically chemotherapy or radiotherapy regimens were standard, nowadays tumor specific antigens guide decision-making for an optimal treatment regimen for individual patient. This has led to the implementation of innovative treatments as standard of care in many solid tumors, in particular monoclonal antibodies and tyrosine kinase inhibitors are frequently used.

EGFR is one of the important targets which is exploited by these targeted therapies. It is expressed in a wide range of solid tumors and is considered a validated target for their treatment. Erbitux® and Vectibix® are anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies which are approved for the treatment of RAS-wildtype metastatic colorectal cancer. This represents ~ 45‑50% of all colorectal cancer patients. However, the treatment of RAS mutant colorectal cancer (CRC) is not effective as the down-stream signaling cascade is constitutively activated and thereby confers resistance to both Erbitux® and Vectibix®. Patients with RAS-mutant CRC might be treated with so-called tyrosine kinase inhibitors. In addition, Erbitux® is also approved for the treatment of locally advanced and recurrent/metastatic head and neck cancer (HNSCC). The anti-EGFR mAb Necitumumab is approved for squamous cell carcinoma of the lung.

Beyond these approved indications, there are signals of clinical activity of anti-EGFR mAbs from early clinical studies in a wide range of different indications.

Immunotherapies play an increasing role in solid tumors. PD‑1 checkpoint inhibitors have been approved for the treatment of melanoma, lung cancer, renal cancer, bladder cancer and head and neck cancer. Many studies with cancer immunotherapies are ongoing. It is expected that immunotherapies will play an increasing role in the standard therapy of solid tumors. However, even with these advances, cure is still the exception for the majority of late stage tumors, in particular metastatic tumors, and the medical need for new and safe treatment approaches remains generally high for solid tumors.

There is a broad spectrum of development opportunities for our tetravalent bispecifc EGFR-targeting antibody.

Our Product Candidates

Our development pipeline currently comprises three distinct product candidates for which we retain full commercial rights. Initially, we will pursue indications in which the medical need is high and for which there is a significant population of patients needing treatment in the salvage setting, expecting to expedite the time to market. If and when we obtain approval for our product candidates as salvage therapies, we plan to explore whether they could also be used as first- or second-line treatments, most likely in combination with one or more treatments that comprise the existing standard of care. All of our product candidates have the potential to target several indications, which could represent significant incremental commercial opportunities in the future.

AFM13

Overview

AFM13 is a first-in-class innate cell engager that we have engineered to bind with high affinity to CD30 expressing tumor cells and at the same time binding to CD16A surface proteins to activate NK cells. AFM13 is intravenously administered in order to recruit innate immune cells and redirect them to the tumor by binding to CD30. AFM13 has several advantageous characteristics:

The clinical and preclinical data that we have accumulated to date suggest that AFM13 appears to be well differentiated from Adcetris®, an approved targeted therapy for HL and TCL patients. Although AFM13 employs the same disease target as Adcetris®, namely CD30, the two compounds are fundamentally different in their

mechanism of action: Adcetris® is a targeted chemotherapy, while AFM13 is a targeted immunotherapy. Adcetris® delivers a toxin (monomethyl auristatin E) to the cells that carry the CD30 receptor, and the cell is killed by the action of the toxin after its internalization and release from the antibody. In contrast, AFM13 does not need to enter the cell, but serves as a connector on the cell surface between the CD30 receptor and a CD16A-positive immune cell. Once the cells are in contact, the killing activity of the immune cell is triggered.

Tumor cells have the ability to activate a multi-drug resistance system, or MDR, which we believe may contribute to the development of resistance to Adcetris®. The MDR, however, does not affect the efficacy of an immunotherapy like AFM13. We believe that this difference may not only translate into efficacy of AFM13 in patients relapsing from Adcetris® therapy, but ultimately into a longer clinical benefit. In addition, the off-target toxicity of Adcetris®’ toxin monomethyl auristatin E causes severe neutropenia (low neutrophils) and neuropathy (damage to the peripheral nervous system). We believe AFM13 may avoid these side effects because it does not introduce a toxin such as monomethyl auristatin E into the cells. Hence, AFM13 may address Adcetris®’ safety limitation.

Clinical development of AFM13

A phase 2a clinical study of AFM13 in patients with HL started recruitment in the second quarter of 2015. Due to delays in opening trial sites and the availability of anti-PD‑1 antibodies for the treatment of relapsed/refractory HL patients, in the past we have experienced slower recruitment into the study than anticipated. Consequently, the overall study design was revised in order to adapt to the changing treatment landscape, namely the availability of anti-PD‑1 antibodies. The study now includes HL patients relapsed or refractory to treatment with both brentuximab vedotin (Adcetris®) and anti-PD‑1 antibodies. Different dosing protocols of AFM13 are being explored to allow for improved exposure in more heavily pretreated patient populations. The study is open and recruiting under the new study design. AFM13 has been granted orphan drug status for the treatment of HL in the United States and the European Union.

In 2016 we initiated a phase 1b clinical study investigating the combination of AFM13 with Merck’s anti-PD‑1 antibody Keytruda®  (pembrolizumab) in HL patients that have relapsed after or are refractory to chemotherapy and Adcetris®. The study is designed to establish a dosing regimen for the combination therapy and assess its safety and efficacy. In this study, the combination was well-tolerated with most of the adverse events observed mild to moderate in nature and manageable with standard of care. Best response assessment data from 24 patients treated at the highest AFM13 dose level (7 mg/kg) as reported by central read, showed an ORR of 88% (21 of 24 patients), including complete metabolic responses (CmR) in 46% (11 of 24 patients) and partial metabolic responses (PmRs) in 42% (10 of 24 patients). One patient experienced stable disease (SD). We are also supporting a phase 1b/2a IST of AFM13 in patients with relapsed or refractory CD30+ lymphoma led by investigators at Columbia University in New York. In addition to determining clinical efficacy, this is also a translational study in patients with cutaneous manifestations and is designed to allow for serial biopsies, thereby enabling assessment of NK cell biology and tumor cell killing within the tumor microenvironment. Enrollment of a total of 9 patients in 3 dose cohorts is complete. An interim analysis of this study was recently presented. In 9 patients (dosed at 1.5‑7.0 mg/kg) AFM13 was well tolerated and showed therapeutic activity as a single agent, with an objective response rate (ORR) of 44% (4 of 9 patients). In detail, one complete response (CR), three partial responses (PRs) and two stable diseases (SDs) were observed. An analysis of biomarker correlatives showed a decrease in circulating NK cells (CD56+ CD3‑ , CD56+ CD16+, NKp46+) during therapy, with post-therapy recovery. In addition, increased CD69 expression on circulating NK cells from responders vs. non-responders was demonstrated. Tumor biopsies showed increased infiltration of CD56+ NK cells pre-therapy in responders compared to nonresponders, while circulating CD4+ CD25+ T cells (Tregs) decreased in responders compared to nonresponders. Most recently the study was amended to allow for recruitment of up to 6 additional patients.

In December 2016, we entered into a clinical development and commercialization collaboration with MD Anderson to evaluate AFM13 in combination with MD Anderson’s cord-blood derived NK cell product. On December 3, 2018, we presented data at the American Society of Hematology Annual Meeting, outlining the successful approach of a novel premixed product comprising expanded cord-blood derived NK cells loaded

with AFM13 to redirect their specificity against CD30+ malignancies. MD Anderson is responsible for conducting preclinical research activities aimed at investigating its NK cells derived from umbilical cord blood in combination with AFM13, which are intended to be followed by a clinical phase 1 study. We fund research and development expenses for this collaboration and hold an option to exclusive worldwide rights to develop and commercialize any product developed under the collaboration.

Together with the German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), we published data presenting evidence of AFM13 modulating NK cells by sensitizing them to IL‑2 and/or IL‑15 stimulation. In this study, after exposure to AFM13, the NK cells showed improved IL‑2‑ and IL‑15‑mediated proliferation and cytotoxicity. These data support the strategy of combining our NK -cell engagers with IL‑2‑ or IL‑15 to potentially achieve deeper clinical responses.

AFM13‑101 phase 1 dose escalation clinical study

We have conducted a phase 1 clinical study of AFM13, AFM13‑101, in patients with HL. All patients in this study suffered from heavily pretreated relapsed/refractory disease and had documented progression of disease at study entry. The objectives of the study were: to determine the safety and tolerability of increasing doses of single cycles of AFM13 as a monotherapy; to determine the maximum tolerated dose and optimal biological dose of AFM13; to determine the pharmacokinetic (PK) profile of AFM13; to analyze immunological markers, NK cell activity, NK cell markers, serum outcome markers and cytokine release; to assess the immunogenicity, or ability to provoke an immune response, of AFM13; and to assess the activity of AFM13. The phase 1 study was conducted in Germany and the United States. We submitted a CTA for the phase 1 study to the PEI in May 2010 and an IND application to the FDA in June 2010.

The study enrolled 28 patients (16 males, 12 females) in eight dose cohorts. In the dose escalation part, 24 patients received increasing doses of AFM13 ranging from 0.01 mg/kg to 7.0 mg/kg on a weekly dosing schedule for four weeks. In addition, four patients were treated with 4.5 mg/kg twice weekly for four weeks. Of the 28 patients, 14 had refractory disease and the remainder had relapsed disease. The patients had received a median of six (range three to 11) previous lines of therapy for HL. Nine patients had previously received Adcetris®.

The clinical results were first presented to the medical community by Professor Andreas Engert, University Hospital of Cologne, the lead investigator for the study, at the Lugano International Meeting on Malignant Lymphoma in 2013. AFM13 showed an acceptable safety profile. An independent data monitoring committee, or IDMC, was responsible for the review of safety data on an ongoing basis. It was concluded that the maximum feasible single dose of 7 mg/kg was reached without any toxicity concerns, and consequently the maximum tolerated dose was not reached. The four patients who were treated with 4.5 mg/kg twice weekly completed treatment without raising any toxicity concerns for the IDMC. The most common adverse events were fever and chills, and in general, they were of mild to moderate severity. Overall, less than 30% of all adverse events were severe.

Twenty-six of 28 patients were eligible for efficacy evaluation. For the remaining two patients, efficacy assessments have not been performed. Of the 26 patients, three had a partial remission, 13 had stable disease and 10 had disease progression as best overall response. With the exception of the 0.04 mg/kg dose cohort, anti-tumor activity was observed at all dose levels tested but was more pronounced at or above 1.5 mg/kg. In this subgroup (n=13), 3 partial responses (=50% tumor shrinkage) and 7 cases with stable disease were observed, with an overall response rate of 23% (3/13) and a disease control rate of 77%. The chart below shows for these 13 individual patients the best overall response measured as a percentage change in tumor volume from baseline (baseline = 0 at the y-axis). The volume is calculated as sum of perpendicular diameters (SPD) for selected lesions of the tumors based on CT-scans.

AFM13‑101 Best Overall Response in % Change in Tumor Volume from Baseline in 13 Patients who Received 1.5 mg/kg

Six of seven patients refractory to Adcetris® as their most recent treatment experienced stabilization of disease, or SD, following AFM13 treatment. One experienced progressive disease, or PD.

Certain biomarkers indicated dose-dependent effects suggesting most active doses at or above 1.5 mg/kg. PK data were assessed in patients of all dosing cohorts. A dose proportional increase of systemic exposure (AUC0‑ (or Area Under the Curve from zero to infinity in a plot of the concentration of the drug in blood plasma against time, which represents the total drug exposure over time) and Cmax (or the maximum (or peak) concentration of the drug measured in plasma after the drug has been administered)) was observed. AFM13 was detectable in peripheral blood up to 168 hours post infusion in the highest dosing cohort. The mean half-life (t1/2) for dose cohorts 1.5 mg/kg was 9‑19 hours. AFM13 treatment resulted in an increase of activated NK cells, which are characterized by CD69 expression at their surface. There was a trend showing that higher doses result in a more pronounced increase of CD69+ NK cells. Moreover, CD69 levels rose after AFM13 administration and fell to about baseline prior to the next dose (see figure below), indicating a pattern that reflected the PK of AFM13. All 28 patients in the study had measurable levels of soluble CD30 (sCD30), at the start of AFM13 treatment. sCD30 is shed by the tumor and measurable in peripheral blood. In 24 patients the