APM Aptorum Group Ltd

Item 3. KEY INFORMATION

A. [Reserved]

B. Capitalization and Indebtedness

Not applicable.

C. Reasons for the Offer and Use of Proceeds

Not applicable.

D. Risk Factors

Our business faces significant risks. You should carefully consider all of the information set forth in this annual report on Form 20-F and in our other filings with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, or the SEC, including the following risk factors which we face and which are faced by our industry. Our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects could be materially adversely affected by any of these risks. This report also contains forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. Our results could materially differ from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements, as a result of certain factors including the risks described below and elsewhere in this annual report and our other SEC filings. See “Special Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements” below.

Summary Risk Factors

The following summarizes some, but not all, of the risks provided below. Please carefully consider all of the information discussed in this Item 3.D. “Risk Factors” in this annual report for a more thorough description of these and other risks.

Risks Related to Doing Business in Hong Kong

Risks Related to the Preclinical and Clinical Development of Our Drug Candidates

Risks Related to Obtaining Regulatory Approval for Our Drug Candidates

Risks Related to Commercialization of Our Drug Candidates

Risks Related to Our IP

Risks Related to Our Reliance on Unrelated Parties

Risks Related to AML Clinic, Natural Supplements and Diagnostic Technology

Risks Related to Our Industry, Business and Operation

Risks Related to Our Corporate Structure

Risks Related to our Securities

Risks Related to the Preclinical and Clinical Development of Our Drug Candidates

We currently do not generate revenue from product sales and may never become profitable; unless we can raise more capital through additional financings, of which there can be no guarantee, our principal source of revenue will be from AML Clinic, which may not be substantial.

Our ability to generate revenue and become profitable depends upon our ability to successfully complete the development of, and obtain the necessary regulatory approvals for, the drug candidates in our Lead Projects and any future drug candidates we may develop, as we do not currently have any drugs that are available for commercial sale. We expect to continue to incur losses before commercialization of our drug candidates and any future drug candidates. None of our drug candidates has been approved for marketing in the U.S., Europe, the PRC or any other jurisdictions and may never receive such approval. Our ability to generate revenue and achieve profitability is dependent on our ability to complete the development of our drug candidates and any future drug candidates we develop in our portfolio, obtain necessary regulatory approvals, and have our drugs products under development manufactured and successfully marketed, of which there can be no guarantee. Although AML Clinic commenced operations in June 2018 and we have received some revenue from such operations, even at full capacity, AML Clinic may not bring enough revenue to support our operation and R&D. Thus, we may not be able to generate a profit until our drug candidates become profitable.

Even if we receive regulatory approval and marketing authorization for one or more of our drug candidates or one or more of any future drug candidates for commercial sale, a potential product may not generate revenue at all unless we are successful in:

In addition, our ability to achieve and maintain profitability depends on timing and the amount of expenses we will incur. Our expenses could increase materially if we are required by the FDA, NMPA, EMA, Health Canada or other comparable regulatory authorities to perform studies in addition to those that we currently have anticipated. Even if our drug candidates are approved for commercial sale, we anticipate incurring significant costs associated with the commercial launch of these products.

Our ability to become and remain profitable depends on our ability to generate revenue. Even if we are able to generate revenues from AML Clinic or the sale or sublicense of any products we may develop or license, we may not become profitable on a sustainable basis or at all. Our failure to become and remain profitable would decrease the value of our Company and adversely affect the market price of our Class A Ordinary Shares, which could impair our ability to raise capital, expand our business or continue our operations.

AML Clinic’s operations and the initial commercialization of our NativusWell^® (NLS-2) natural supplements may be our principal source of revenue for the foreseeable future and most likely, without additional financing, such revenue will not be sufficient for us to carry out all of our plans.

As stated above, we have not generated any revenue and do not foresee generating any revenue from our drug candidates in the near future. Effective as of March 2018, we leased the property in Central, Hong Kong that is the home to AML Clinic, which commenced operations in June 2018. We also expect to launch NativusWell^® (NLS-2) to the market in 2022.

Until our therapeutic candidates produce revenue, our principal source of revenue is from AML Clinic, but neither is sufficient by themselves to fund our other operations; even if we receive revenue from NativusWell^® (NLS-2) natural supplements later this year, which we cannot guarantee, it will not provide sufficient revenue. We believe that available cash, together with the efforts from management plans and actions described elsewhere in this report, should enable the Company to meet presently anticipated cash needs for at least the next 12 months after the date that the financial statements are issued and the Company has prepared the consolidated financial statements on a going concern basis. However, the Company continues to have ongoing obligations and it expects that it will require additional capital in order to execute its longer-term development plan. If the Company encounters unforeseen circumstances that place constraints on its capital resources, management will be required to take various measures to conserve liquidity, which could include, but not necessarily be limited to, deferring some of its research and seeking to dispose of marketable securities. Management cannot provide any assurance that the Company will raise additional capital if needed.

Preclinical development is a long, expensive and uncertain process, and we may terminate one or more of our current preclinical development programs.

Traditionally, drug discovery and development is a time-consuming, costly and high-risk business. On average, the cost of launching a new drug is estimated to approach US$2.6 billion and can take around 12 years to make it to the market (4 key benefits of drug repositioning. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.totalbiopharma.com/2012/07/04/4-key-benefits-drug-repositioning/). Despite the huge expenditures, only approximately 1 in 1,000 potential drugs is graduated to human clinical trials after pre-clinical testing in the United States, (Norman, G. A. Drugs, Devices, and the FDA: Part 1. JACC: Basic to Translational Science, 1(3), 170-179, 2016) and nearly 86.2% of drug candidates entering phase 1 trials fails to achieve drug approval. (Wong C. H., Siah K. W. & Lo A. W. (2019, April), “Estimation of clinical trial success rates and related parameters,” retrieved from https://academic.oup.com/biostatistics/article/20/2/273/4817524). Even after a drug is commercialized, there are just too many factors affecting the sales of pharmaceutical products, including unmet need/burden of disease (68.2%), clinical efficacy (47.3%), comparator choice (36.4%), safety profile (36.4%), and price (35.5%) (Sendyona, S., Odeyemi, I., & Maman, K. “Perceptions and factors affecting pharmaceutical market access: Results from a literature review and survey of stakeholders in different settings” Journal of Market Access & Health Policy, 4(1), 31660, 2016). In the end, on average, only 20% of approved new drugs generate revenues that exceed the average R&D investment. (Rosenblatt, M. (2014, December 19) “The Real Cost of “High-Priced” Drugs,” retrieved from https://hbr.org/2014/11/the-real-cost-of-high-priced-drugs). We may determine that certain preclinical product candidates or programs do not have sufficient potential to warrant the allocation of resources toward them. Accordingly, we may elect to terminate our programs for and, in certain cases, our licenses to, such product candidates or programs. If we terminate a preclinical program in which we have invested significant resources, we will have expended resources on a program that will not provide a full return on our investment and missed the opportunity to have allocated those resources to potentially more productive uses.

Management has discretion to terminate the development of any of our projects at any time.

In light of the costs, both in time and expense, as well as the preclinical results and general business considerations, management may decide not to continue developing a particular preclinical program without announcement. Management will always base its decision on what it believes to be the most efficient use of the Company’s resources to provide the most value to its shareholders. As a result, investors may not always be aware of the termination of a previously announced study or trial. The Company will continue to provide update on its active preclinical projects in its SEC filings and/or press releases, as appropriate.

We may not be successful in our efforts to identify or discover additional drug candidates. Due to our limited resources and access to capital, we must continue to prioritize development of certain drug candidates; such decisions may prove to be wrong and may adversely affect our business.

Although we intend to explore other therapeutic opportunities in addition to the drug candidates that we are currently developing, we may fail to identify other drug candidates for a number of reasons. For example, our research methodology may be unsuccessful in identifying potential drug candidates or those we identify may be shown to have harmful side effects or other undesirable characteristics that make them unmarketable or unlikely to receive regulatory approval.

Research programs to pursue the development of our drug candidates for additional indications and to identify new drug candidates and disease targets require substantial technical, financial and human resources whether or not we ultimately are successful. Our research programs may initially show promise in identifying potential indications and/or drug candidates, yet fail to yield results for clinical development for a number of reasons, including but not limited to:

Because we have limited financial and managerial resources, we have chosen to focus at present on our three Lead Projects, which may ultimately prove to be unsuccessful. As a result of this focus, we may forego or delay pursuit of opportunities with other drug candidates, or for other indications that later prove to have greater commercial potential or a greater likelihood of success. Even if we determine to pursue alternative therapeutic or diagnostic drug candidates, these other drug candidates or other potential programs may ultimately prove to be unsuccessful. In short, our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial products or profitable market opportunities.

Accordingly, there can be no assurance that we will ever be able to develop suitable potential drug candidates through internal research programs. This could materially adversely affect our future growth and prospects.

If we encounter difficulties enrolling patients in our clinical trials, our clinical development activities could be delayed or otherwise adversely affected.

Although we obtained CTA/FDA approval to initiate clinical trials for our Lead Projects, there can be no assurance, timely completion of clinical trials in accordance with their protocols depends, among other things, on our ability to enroll a sufficient number of patients who meet the trial criteria and remain in the trial until its conclusion. We may experience difficulties enrolling and retaining appropriate patients in our clinical trials for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to:

Even if we are able to enroll a sufficient number of patients in our clinical trials, delays in patient enrollment may result in increased costs or may affect the timing or outcome of the planned clinical trials, which could prevent completion of these trials and adversely affect our ability to advance the development of our drug candidates.

Clinical drug development involves a lengthy and expensive process and could fail at any stage of the process. We have limited experience in conducting clinical trials and results of earlier studies and trials may not be reproduced in future clinical trials.

For our drug candidates, clinical testing is expensive and can take many years to complete, while failure can occur at any time during the clinical trial process. The results of studies in animals and early clinical trials of our drug candidates may not predict the results of later-stage clinical trials. Drug candidates in later stages of clinical trials may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy traits despite having progressed through studies in animals and initial clinical trials. In some instances, there can be significant variability in safety and/or efficacy results between different trials of the same drug candidate due to numerous factors, including changes in trial procedures set forth in protocols, differences in the size and type of the patient populations (including genetic differences), patient adherence to the dosing regimen and the patient dropout rate. Results in later trials may also differ from earlier trials due to a larger number of clinical trial sites and additional countries and languages involved in such trials. In addition, the design of a clinical trial can determine whether its results will support approval of a drug candidate, and flaws in the design of a clinical trial may not become apparent until the clinical trial is well advanced and significant expense has been incurred.

A number of companies in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries have suffered significant setbacks in advanced clinical trials due to lack of demonstrated efficacy or adverse safety profiles, notwithstanding promising results in earlier trials. Clinical trials of potential products often reveal that it is not practical or feasible to continue development efforts. Furthermore, if the trials we conduct fail to meet their primary statistical and clinical endpoints, they will not support the approval from the FDA, NMPA, EMA, Health Canada or other comparable regulatory authorities for our drug candidates. If this occurs, we would need to replace the failed study with new trials, which would require significant additional expense, cause substantial delays in commercialization and materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, cash flows and results of operations.

If clinical trials of our drug candidates fail to demonstrate safety and efficacy to the satisfaction of the FDA, NMPA, EMA, Health Canada or other comparable regulatory authorities, or do not otherwise produce positive results, we may incur additional costs or experience delays in completing, or ultimately be unable to complete, the development and commercialization of our drug candidates.

Before applying for and obtaining regulatory approval for the sale of any of our drug candidates, we must conduct extensive clinical trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of our drug candidates in humans. Clinical testing is expensive, difficult to design and implement, can take many years to complete and may fail. A failure of one or more of our clinical trials can occur at any stage of testing and successful interim results of a clinical trial do not necessarily predict successful final results.

We and our CROs are required to comply with current Good Clinical Practices (“cGCP”) requirements, which are regulations and guidelines enforced by the FDA, NMPA, EMA, Health Canada and other comparable regulatory authorities for all drugs in clinical development. Regulatory authorities enforce these cGCP through periodic inspections of trial sponsors, principal investigators and trial sites. Compliance with cGCP can be costly and if we or any of our CROs fail to comply with applicable cGCP, the clinical data generated in our clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA, NMPA, EMA, Health Canada or comparable regulatory authorities may require us to perform additional clinical trials before approving our marketing applications.

We may experience numerous unexpected events during, or as a result of, clinical trials that could delay or prevent our ability to receive regulatory approval or commercialize our drug candidates, including but not limited to:

If we are required to conduct additional clinical trials or other testing of our drug candidates beyond those that we currently contemplate, if we are unable to successfully complete clinical trials of our drug candidates or other testing, if the results of these trials or tests are not positive or are only modestly positive or if they raise safety concerns, we may:

Delays in testing or approvals may result in increases in our drug development costs. We do not know whether any clinical trials will begin as planned, will need to be restructured, or will be completed on schedule, or at all. Clinical trials may produce negative or inconclusive results. Moreover, these trials may be delayed or proceed less quickly than intended. Delays in completing our clinical trials will increase our costs, slow down our drug candidate development and approval process, and jeopardize our ability to commence product sales and generate revenues and we may not have sufficient funding to complete the testing and approval process. Any of these events may significantly harm our business, financial condition and prospects, lead to the denial of regulatory approval of our drug candidates or allow our competitors to bring drugs to market before we do, impairing our ability to commercialize our drugs if and when approved.

Significant clinical trial delays also could shorten any periods during which we have the exclusive right to commercialize our drug candidates or allow our competitors to bring products to market before we do, impair our ability to commercialize our drug candidates and may harm our business and results of operations.

We may in the future conduct clinical trials for our drug candidates in sites outside the U.S. and the FDA may not accept data from trials conducted in such locations.

We may in the future conduct certain of our clinical trials outside the U.S. Although the FDA may accept data from clinical trials conducted outside the U.S. for our New Drug Application (“NDA”), acceptance of this data is subject to certain conditions imposed by the FDA. There can be no assurance the FDA will accept data from any of the clinical trials we conduct outside the U.S. If the FDA does not accept the data from any of our clinical trials conducted outside the U.S., it would likely result in the need for additional clinical trials in the U.S., which would be costly and time-consuming and could delay or prevent the commercialization of any of our drug candidates.

Risks Related to Obtaining Regulatory Approval for Our Drug Candidates

The regulatory approval processes of the FDA, NMPA, EMA, Health Canada and other comparable regulatory authorities are lengthy, time-consuming and inherently unpredictable, and if we are ultimately unable to obtain regulatory approval for our current drug candidates or any future drug candidates we may develop, our business will be substantially harmed.

We cannot commercialize drug candidates without first obtaining regulatory approval to market each drug from the FDA, NMPA, EMA, Health Canada or comparable regulatory authorities. Before obtaining regulatory approvals for the commercial sale of any drug candidate for a target indication, we must demonstrate in studies in animals and well-controlled clinical trials, and, with respect to approval in the United States and other regulatory agencies, to the satisfaction of the FDA, NMPA, EMA, Health Canada or comparable regulatory authorities, that the drug candidate is safe and effective for use for that target indication and that the manufacturing facilities, processes and controls are adequate.

The time required to obtain approval from the FDA, NMPA, EMA, Health Canada and other comparable regulatory authorities is unpredictable but typically takes many years following the commencement of studies in animals and clinical trials and depends upon numerous factors, including the substantial discretion of the regulatory authorities.

In addition, approval policies, regulations or the type and amount of clinical data necessary to gain approval can differ among regulatory authorities and may change during the course of the development of a drug candidate. We have not obtained regulatory approval for any drug candidate. It is possible that neither our existing drug candidates nor any drug candidates we may discover or acquire for development in the future will ever obtain regulatory approval. Even if we obtain regulatory approval in one jurisdiction, we may not obtain it in other jurisdictions.

Our drug candidates could fail to receive regulatory approval from any of the FDA, NMPA, EMA, Health Canada or other comparable regulatory authorities for many reasons, including but not limited to:

Any of the FDA, NMPA, EMA, Health Canada or other comparable regulatory authorities may require more information, including additional preclinical studies or clinical data, to support approval, which may delay or prevent approval and our commercialization plans, or we may decide to abandon the development program. If we were to obtain approval, regulatory authorities may approve any of our drug candidates for fewer or more limited indications than we request. Regulatory authorities also may grant approval contingent on the performance of costly post-marketing clinical trials, or may approve a drug candidate with a label that is not desirable for the successful commercialization of that drug candidate. In addition, if our drug candidate produces undesirable side effects or involves other safety issues, the FDA may require the establishment of a Risk Evaluation Mitigation Strategy (“REMS”), or NMPA, EMA, Health Canada or other comparable regulatory authorities may require the establishment of a similar strategy. Such a strategy may, for instance, restrict distribution of our drug candidates, require patient or physician education, or impose other burdensome implementation requirements on us.

Regulatory approval may be substantially delayed or may not be obtained for one or all of our drug candidates if regulatory authorities require additional time or studies to assess the safety or efficacy of our drug candidates.

We currently do not have any drug candidates that have gained approval for sale by the FDA, NMPA or EMA, Health Canada or other regulatory authorities in any other country, and we cannot guarantee that we will ever have marketable drugs. Despite SACT-1 having been granted orphan drug status, this is not an approval for sale by the FDA. Our business is substantially dependent on our ability to complete the development of, obtain marketing approval for and successfully commercialize drug candidates in a timely manner. We cannot commercialize drug candidates without first obtaining marketing approval from the FDA, NMPA, EMA, Health Canada and comparable regulatory authorities. In the U.S., we hope to file INDs for the drug candidates from our Lead Projects and, subject to the approval of IND, Phase 1 clinical trials in humans. Even if we are permitted to commence such clinical trials, they may not be successful and regulators may not agree with our conclusions regarding the data generated by our clinical trials.

We may be unable to complete development of our drug candidates or initiate or complete development of any future drug candidates we may develop on our projected schedule. While we believe that our existing cash will likely enable us to complete the preclinical development of at least one of our current Lead Projects, the full clinical development, manufacturing and launch of that drug candidate, will take significant additional time and likely require funding beyond the existing cash. In addition, if regulatory authorities require additional time or studies to assess the safety or efficacy of our drug candidates, we may not have or be able to obtain adequate funding to complete the necessary steps for approval for our drug candidates or any future drug candidates.

Preclinical studies in animals and clinical trials in humans to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of our drug candidates are time-consuming, expensive and take several years or more to complete. Delays in preclinical or clinical trials, regulatory approvals or rejections of applications for regulatory approval in the U.S., Europe, the PRC or other markets may result from many factors, including but not limited to:

Changes in regulatory requirements and guidance may also occur, and we may need to amend clinical trial protocols submitted to applicable regulatory authorities to reflect these changes. Amendments may require us to resubmit clinical trial protocols to IRBs or ethics committees for re-examination, which may increase the costs or time required to complete a clinical trial.

If we experience delays in the completion of, or the termination of, a clinical trial, of any of our drug candidates, the commercial prospects of our drug candidates will be harmed, and our ability to generate product sales revenues from any of those drug candidates will be delayed. In addition, any delay in completing our clinical trials will increase our costs, slow down our drug candidate development and approval process, and jeopardize our ability to commence product sales and generate revenues. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly. In addition, many of the factors that cause, or lead to, a delay in the commencement or completion of clinical trials may also ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval of our drug candidates.

If we are required to conduct additional clinical trials or other studies with respect to any of our drug candidates beyond those that we initially contemplated, if we are unable to successfully complete our clinical trials or other studies or if the results of these studies are not positive or are only modestly positive, we may be delayed in obtaining regulatory approval for that drug candidate, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval at all or we may obtain approval for indications that are not as broad as intended. Our product development costs will also increase if we experience delays in testing or approvals, and we may not have sufficient funding to complete the testing and approval process. Significant clinical trial delays could allow our competitors to bring their products to market before we do and impair our ability to commercialize our drugs, if and when approved. If any of this occurs, our business will be materially harmed.

Our drug candidates may cause undesirable adverse events or have other properties that could delay or prevent their regulatory approval, limit the commercial profile of an approved label, or result in significant negative consequences following any regulatory approval.

Undesirable adverse events caused by our drug candidates or any future drug candidates we may develop could cause us or regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay or halt clinical trials and could result in a more restrictive label or the delay or denial of regulatory approval by the FDA, NMPA, EMA, Health Canada or other comparable regulatory authorities. Results of our potential clinical trials could reveal a high and unacceptable severity or prevalence of adverse effects. In such event, our trials could be suspended or terminated and the FDA, NMPA, EMA, Health Canada or other comparable regulatory authorities could order us to cease further development of, or deny approval of, our drug candidates for any or all target indications. Drug-related adverse events could also affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled subjects to complete the trial, could result in potential product liability claims and may harm our reputation, business, financial condition and business prospects significantly.

Additionally, if any of our current or future drug candidates receives regulatory approval, and we or others later identify undesirable side effects caused by such drugs, a number of potentially significant negative consequences could result, including but not limited to:

Any of these events could prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of the particular drug candidate, if approved, and could significantly harm our business, results of operations and prospects.

Even if we receive regulatory approval for our drug candidates, we will be subject to ongoing regulatory obligations and continued regulatory review, which may result in significant additional expense and we may be subject to penalties if we fail to comply with regulatory requirements or experience unanticipated problems with our drug candidates.

If our drug candidates or any future drug candidates we develop are approved, they will be subject to ongoing regulatory requirements for manufacturing, labeling, packaging, storage, advertising, promotion, sampling, record-keeping, conduct of post-marketing studies, and submission of safety, efficacy, and other post-market information, including both federal and state requirements in the United States and requirements of comparable regulatory authorities outside of the United States.

Manufacturers and manufacturers’ facilities are required to comply with extensive requirements from the FDA, NMPA, EMA, Health Canada and comparable regulatory authorities, including, in the United States, ensuring that quality control and manufacturing procedures conform to cGMP regulations. As such, our contract manufacturers will be subject to continual review and inspections to assess compliance with cGMP and adherence to commitments made in any NDA, other marketing application, and previous responses to inspection observations. Accordingly, we and others with whom we work must continue to expend time, money and effort in all areas of regulatory compliance, including manufacturing, production and quality control.

Any regulatory approvals that we receive for our drug candidates may be subject to limitations on the approved indicated uses for which the drug may be marketed or to the conditions of approval, or contain requirements for potentially costly post-marketing testing, including Phase 4 clinical trials and surveillance to monitor the safety and efficacy of the drug candidate. The regulatory authorities may also require risk management plans or programs as a condition of approval of our drug candidates (such as REMS of the FDA and risk-management plan of the EMA), which could entail requirements for long-term patient follow-up, a medication guide, physician communication plans or additional elements to ensure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. In addition, if the FDA, NMPA, EMA, Health Canada or a comparable regulatory authority approves our drug candidates, we will have to comply with requirements including, for example, submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, registration, as well as continued compliance with cGCP and cGMP, for any clinical trials that we conduct post-approval.

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

The FDA strictly regulates marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of products that are placed on the market. Companies may promote drugs only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved label and may not promote drugs for any off-label use, such as uses that are not described in the product’s labeling and that differ from those approved by the regulatory authorities. However, physicians may prescribe drug products for off-label uses and such off-label uses are common across some medical specialties. Thus, they may, unbeknownst to us, use our product for an “off label” indication for a specific treatment recipient. The FDA, NMPA, EMA, Health Canada and other regulatory authorities actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses, and if we are found to be out of compliance with the requirements and restrictions imposed on us under those laws and restrictions, we may be subject to significant liability, including civil and administrative remedies as well as criminal sanctions, and the off-label use of our products may increase the risk of product liability claims. In addition, management’s attention could be diverted from our business operations and our reputation could be damaged.

The policies of the FDA, NMPA, EMA, Health Canada and other regulatory authorities may change and we cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action, either in the United States or abroad. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may lose any regulatory approval that we may have obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability.

Despite FDA’s consent for us to pursue the 505(b)(2) development pathway for SACT-1, we may be unable to successfully complete the 505(b)(2) pathway for the pediatric formulation of SACT-1 to treat neuroblastoma as planned, which would materially impact our likelihood of obtaining FDA approval.

Even though the FDA is allowing us to pursue the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway for our product candidates, we will need to conduct additional clinical trials, provide additional data and information and meet additional standards for regulatory approval. If this were to occur, the time and financial resources required to obtain FDA approval for our product candidates would likely substantially increase. We cannot assure you that we will receive the requisite or timely approvals for commercialization of such product candidate. Any failure to obtain regulatory approval of our product candidates would significantly limit our ability to generate revenues, and any failure to obtain such approval for all of the indications and labeling claims we deem desirable could reduce our potential revenues.

If we or our third-party suppliers fail to comply with the FDA’s good manufacturing practice regulations or fail to adequately, timely, or sufficiently respond to an FDA Form 483 or subsequent Warning Letter, this could impair our ability to market our products in a cost-effective and timely manner and could result in FDA enforcement action.

We and our third-party suppliers are required to comply with the FDA’s Current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP) which covers the methods and documentation of the design, testing, production, control, quality assurance, labeling, packaging, sterilization, storage and shipping of our products. The FDA audits compliance with the cGMP and related regulations through periodic announced and unannounced inspections of manufacturing and other facilities. The FDA may conduct these inspections or audits at any time. If, during the inspection, FDA identifies issues which, in FDA’s judgment, may constitute violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act or FDA’s regulations, the FDA inspector may issue an FDA Form 483 listing these observations.

Note that if an entity does not address observations found in an FDA Form 483 to FDA’s satisfaction, the FDA could take enforcement action, including any of the following sanctions:

Any of the foregoing actions could have a material adverse effect on our reputation, business, financial condition and operating results.

Risks Related to Commercialization of Our Drug Candidates

Even if any of our drug candidates receive regulatory approval, it may fail to achieve the degree of market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors and others in the medical community necessary for commercial success.

After we complete clinical trials and receive regulatory approval for any of our drug candidates, which may not happen for some time, we recognize that such candidate(s) may ultimately fail to gain sufficient market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors and others in the medical community. We may not be able to achieve or maintain market acceptance of our products over time if new products or technology are introduced that are more favorably received than our products, are more cost effective or render our drug obsolete. We will face competition with respect to our drug candidates from other pharmaceutical companies developing products in the same disease/therapeutic area and specialty pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies worldwide. Many of the companies against which we may be competing have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, animal testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals and marketing approval for drugs than we do. Physicians, patients and third-party payors may prefer other novel products to ours, which means that we may not generate significant sales revenues for that product and that product may not become profitable. The degree of market acceptance of our drug candidates, if approved for commercial sale, will depend on a number of factors, including but not limited to:

We depend substantially on the success of the drug candidates being researched as our current Lead Projects. If we are unable to license or sublicense, sell or otherwise commercialize our drug candidates, or experience significant delays in doing so, our business will be materially harmed.

Our business and the ability to generate revenue related to product sales, if ever achieved, will depend on the successful development, regulatory approval and licensing or sublicensing or other commercialization of our drug candidates or any other drug candidates we may develop. We have invested a significant amount of financial resources in the development of our drug candidates and we may invest in other drug candidates. The success of our drug candidates and any other potential drug candidates will depend on many factors, including but not limited to:

We may not achieve regulatory approval and commercialization in a timely manner or at all. Significant delays in obtaining approval for and/or to successfully commercialize our drug candidates would materially harm our business and we may not be able to generate sufficient revenues and cash flows to continue our operations.

Risks Related to Our IP

A significant portion of our IP portfolio currently includes pending patent applications that have not yet been issued as granted patents and if the pending patent applications covering our product candidates fail to be issued, our business will be adversely affected. If we or our licensors are unable to obtain and maintain patent protection for our technology and drugs, our competitors could develop and commercialize technology and drugs similar or identical to ours, and our ability to successfully commercialize our technology and drugs may be adversely affected.

Our success depends largely on our ability to obtain and maintain patent protection and other forms of IP rights for the composition of matter, method of use and/or method of manufacture for each of our drug candidates. Failure to obtain, maintain protection, enforce or extend adequate patent and other IP rights could materially adversely affect our ability to develop and market one or more of our drug candidates. We also rely on trade secrets and know-how to develop and maintain our proprietary and IP position for each of our drug candidates. Any failure to protect our trade secrets and know-how with respect to any specific drug and diagnostics technology candidate could adversely affect the market potential of that potential product.

As of the date of this report, the Company has, through its licenses, obtained rights to patents and patent applications covering some or all its drug and diagnostics technology candidates that have been filed in major jurisdictions such as the United States, member states of the European Patent Organization (the “EPO”) and the PRC (collectively, “Major Patent Jurisdictions”), as well as in other countries. We have also filed a number of provisional applications to establish earlier filing dates for certain of our other ongoing researches, the specifics of which are currently proprietary and confidential. To the extent we do not seek or obtain patent protection in a particular jurisdiction, we may not have commercial incentive to seek marketing authorization in such jurisdiction. Nonetheless, other parties might enter those markets with generic versions or copies of our products and received regulatory approval without having significantly invested in their own research and development costs compared to the Company’s investment. For more information about our IP portfolio, please refer to the Intellectual Property section below.

With respect to issued patents in certain jurisdictions, for example in the U.S. and under the EPO, we may be entitled to obtain a patent term extension to extend the patent expiration date provided we meet the applicable requirements for obtaining such patent term extensions. We have sought to support our proprietary position by working with our licensors in filing patent applications in the names of the licensors in the United States and through the PCT, related to the Lead Projects and certain other drug candidates. In the future, we intend to file patent applications on supplemental or improvement IP derived from the licensed technologies, where those IP would be solely or jointly owned by the Company pursuant to the terms of respective license agreements. Filing patents covering multiple technologies in multiple countries is time-consuming and expensive, and we may not have the resources file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications in a timely manner. It is also possible that we will fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development output before it is too late to obtain patent protection.

We cannot be certain that patents will be issued or granted with respect to patent applications that are currently pending, or that issued or granted patents will not later be found to be invalid or unenforceable.

The patent position of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies is generally uncertain because it involves complex legal and factual considerations. The standards applied by the EPO, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, and foreign patent offices in granting patents are not always applied uniformly or predictably. For example, there is no uniform worldwide policy regarding patentable subject matter or the scope of claims allowable in biotechnology and pharmaceutical patents. Consequently, patents may not issue from our pending patent applications and even if they do issue, such patents may not issue in a form that effectively prevents others from commercializing competing products. As such, we do not know the degree of future protection that we will have on our proprietary products and technology.

Additionally, the issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity or enforceability, and our patents may be challenged in the courts or patent offices in the United States and abroad. Even if patents do successfully issue and even if such patents cover our drug candidates, other parties may initiate, for patents filed before March 16, 2013 (i.e., the enactment of the America Invents Act), interference or re-examination proceedings, for patents filed on or after March 16, 2013, post-grant review, inter partes review, nullification or derivation proceedings, in court or before patent offices, or similar proceedings challenging the validity, enforceability or scope of such patents, which may result in the patent claims being narrowed or invalidated. Successful defense of its patents can constitute a material factor in a company’s expenses. According to an article published by BlueIron (https://finance.yahoo.com/news/current-patent-litigation-costs-between-120200165.html), depending on the value at stake, the American Intellectual Property Law Association’s “2019 Report of the Economic Survey” reported the average costs of a patent litigation are between $2.3 million to $4.0 million.

In addition, the fact that the Company has exclusive rights to prevent others from using a patented invention does not necessarily mean that the Company itself will have the unrestricted right to use that invention. Other parties may obtain ownership or licenses to patents or other IP rights that cover the manufacture, use or sale of our current or future products (or elements thereof). This may enable such other parties to enforce their patents or IP rights against us, and may, as a result, affect the commercialization of our products or exploitation of our own technology. We endeavor to identify early patents and patent applications which may block development of a product or technology and minimize this risk by conducting prior art searches before and during the projects. However, relevant documents may be overlooked, yet-to-be published or missed, which may in turn impact on the freedom to commercialize the relevant asset. In such cases, we may not be in a position to develop or commercialize products or drug candidates unless we successfully pursue litigation to nullify or invalidate the other IP rights concerned, or enter into a license agreement with the IP right holder, if available on commercially reasonable terms.

If we are unable to obtain and maintain the appropriate scope for our patents, our competitors could develop and commercialize technology and drugs similar or identical to ours, and our ability to successfully commercialize our technology and drugs may be adversely affected.

We may not obtain sufficient claim scope in those patents to prevent another party from competing successfully with our drug and diagnostics technology candidates. Even if our patent applications issue as patents, they may not issue in a form that will provide us with any meaningful protection, prevent competitors from competing with us or otherwise provide us with any competitive advantage. Our competitors may be able to circumvent our patents by developing similar or alternative technology or drug and diagnostics technology candidates in a non-infringing manner. The issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its scope, validity or enforceability, and our patents may be challenged in the courts or patent offices in the United States and abroad. Such challenges may result in patent claims being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable, which could limit our ability to stop or prevent us from stopping others from using or commercializing similar or identical technology and drug and diagnostics technology candidates, or limit the duration of the patent protection of our technology and drug and diagnostics technology candidates. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new drug and diagnostics technology candidates, patents protecting such candidates might expire before or shortly after such candidates are commercialized. As a result, our patent portfolio may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing drug and diagnostics technology candidates similar or identical to ours.

Further, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our and our current or future licensors’ or collaboration partners’ patent rights are highly uncertain. Our and our licensors’ pending and future patent applications may not result in patents being issued which protect our technology or products, in whole or in part, or which effectively prevent others from commercializing competitive technologies and products.

We may not be able to protect and enforce our IP rights throughout the world.

Our commercial success will depend, in part, on our ability to maintain IP protection for our drug candidates in which we seek to develop and commercialize. While we rely primarily upon a combination of patents, trademarks, trade secrets and other contractual obligations to protect the IP related to our brands, products and other proprietary technologies, these legal means may afford only limited protection.

Filing and prosecuting patents on drug candidates and defending the validity of the same (if challenged) in all countries throughout the world could be prohibitively expensive for us, and our IP rights in countries outside the Major Patent Jurisdictions can be less extensive than those in the Major Patent Jurisdictions. In addition, the laws of some countries in the rest of the world such as India do not protect IP rights to the same extent as laws in the Major Patent Jurisdictions. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent other parties from practicing our inventions in the rest of the world, despite our continued efforts in enforcing our IP rights through legal means. Competitors may use our technology in jurisdictions where we have not or not yet obtained patent protection to develop their own drugs and further, may export otherwise infringing drugs to non-U.S. jurisdictions where we have patent protection.

Our, our licensors’ or collaboration partners’ patent applications cannot be enforced against other parties practicing the technology claimed in such applications unless and until a patent issues from such applications, and then only to the extent the issued claims cover the technology. In addition, patents and other IP rights also will not protect our technology, drug candidates if another party, including our competitors, design around our protected technology, drug candidates without infringing, misappropriating or otherwise violating our patents or other IP rights.

Moreover, currently and as our R&D continues to progress, some of our patents and patent applications are or may be co-owned with another party. Some of our licenses already provide that future-developed technologies (and any resulting patents) will be co-owned with the licensors and other patents for technologies we may acquire or develop with other parties may also be jointly owned. If we are unable to obtain an exclusive license to any such co-owners’ interest in such patents or patent applications, such co-owners may be able to license their rights to other persons, including our competitors, and our competitors could market competing products and technology, and we will be unable to transfer or grant exclusive rights to potential purchasers or development partners of such co-owned technologies. In addition, we may need the cooperation of any such co-owners of our patents in order to enforce such patents against other parties, and such cooperation may not be provided to us. Any of the foregoing could limit the revenue we might generate from our patents or patent applications and thus have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial conditions, results of operations, and prospects.

Because patent applications are confidential for a period of time after filing, and some remain so until issued, we cannot be certain that we or our licensors or collaborators were or will be the first to file any patent application related to a drug and diagnostics technology candidate. Furthermore, in the United States, if patent applications of other parties have an effective filing date before March 16, 2013, an interference proceeding can be initiated by such other party to determine who was the first to invent any of the subject matter covered by the patent claims of our applications. If patent applications of other parties have an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013, in the United States a derivation proceeding can be initiated by such other parties to determine whether our invention was derived from theirs.

Even where we have a valid and enforceable patent, we may not be able to exclude others from practicing our invention where the other party can show that they used the invention in commerce before our filing date or the other party benefits from a compulsory license. In addition, we may be subject to other challenges regarding our exclusive ownership of our IP. If another party were successful in challenging our exclusive ownership of any of our IP, we may lose our right to use such IP, such other party may be able to license such IP to other parties, including our competitors, and our competitors could market competing products and technology. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial conditions, results of operations, and prospects.

Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending IP rights in jurisdictions outside Major Patent Jurisdictions. The legal systems of some countries do not favor the enforcement of patents, trade secrets and other IP, which could make it difficult in those jurisdictions for us to stop the infringement or misappropriation of our patents or other IP rights, or the marketing of competing drugs in violation of our proprietary rights generally.

To date, we have not sought to enforce any issued patents in any jurisdictions. Proceedings to enforce our patent and other IP rights in any jurisdictions could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business.

Furthermore, such proceedings could put our patents at risk of being invalidated, held unenforceable, or interpreted narrowly, could put our patent applications at risk of not issuing, and could provoke other parties to assert claims of infringement or misappropriation against us. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate in jurisdictions where opposition proceedings are available and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. The requirements for patentability may differ in certain countries, particularly developing countries. Certain countries in Europe, the PRC, and developing countries including India, have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner may be compelled to grant licenses to other parties. In those countries, we and our licensors may have limited remedies if patents are infringed or if we or our licensors are compelled to grant a license to another party, which could materially diminish the value of those patents. This could limit our potential revenue opportunities. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce our IP rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the IP that we develop.

We may become involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce our IP, which could be expensive, time-consuming and unsuccessful. Our patent rights relating to our drug and diagnostics technology candidates could be found invalid or unenforceable if challenged in court or before the USPTO or comparable non-U.S. authority.

Competitors may infringe our patent rights or misappropriate or otherwise violate our IP rights. To counter infringement or unauthorized use, litigation may be necessary in the future to enforce or defend our IP rights, to protect our trade secrets or determine the validity and scope of our own IP rights or the proprietary rights of others. This can be expensive and time-consuming. Any claim that we assert against perceived infringers could also provoke these parties to assert counterclaims against us alleging that we infringe their IP rights. Many of our current and potential competitors have the ability to dedicate substantially greater resources to enforce and/or defend their IP rights than we can. Accordingly, despite our efforts, we may not be able to prevent other parties from infringing upon or misappropriating our IP. Litigation could result in substantial costs and diversion of management resources, which could harm our business and financial results. In addition, in an infringement proceeding, a court may decide that patent rights or other IP rights owned by us are invalid or unenforceable, or may refuse to stop the other party from using the technology at issue on the grounds that our patent rights or other IP rights do not cover the technology in question. An adverse result in any litigation proceeding could put our patent, as well as any patents that may issue in the future from our pending patent applications, at risk of being invalidated, held unenforceable or interpreted narrowly. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with IP litigation, there is risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation.

If we initiate legal proceedings against another party to enforce our patent, or any patents that may be issued in the future from our patent applications, that relates to one of our drug and diagnostics technology candidates, the defendant could counterclaim that such patent rights are invalid or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity or unenforceability are commonplace, and there are numerous grounds upon which another party can assert invalidity or unenforceability of a patent. Parties may also raise similar claims before administrative bodies in the United States or abroad, even outside the context of litigation. Such mechanisms include ex parte re-examination, inter partes review, post-grant review, derivation and equivalent proceedings in non-U.S. jurisdictions, such as opposition proceedings. Such proceedings could result in revocation or amendment to our patents in such a way that they no longer cover and protect our drug and diagnostics technology candidates. With respect to the validity of our patents, for example, there may be invalidating prior art of which we, our patent counsel, and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution. If a defendant were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity and/or unenforceability, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection on our drug and diagnostics technology candidates. Such a loss of patent protection could have a material adverse impact on our business.

We may not be able to prevent misappropriation of our trade secrets or confidential information, particularly in countries where the laws may not protect those rights as fully as in the United States. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with IP litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation.

We may be subject to claims challenging the inventorship of our patents and other IP.

Although we are not currently experiencing any claims challenging the inventorship of our patents or ownership of our IP, we may in the future be subject to claims that former employees, collaborators or other parties have an interest in our patents or other IP as inventors or co-inventors. For example, we may have inventorship disputes arise from conflicting obligations of consultants or others who are involved in developing our drug and diagnostics technology candidates and who have not clearly contracted to transfer or assign any rights they may have to the Company. In addition, for our licensed patents, although a majority of our licensors have procured assignment forms and records from inventors to affirm their ownership in the licensed IP, another party or former employee or collaborator of our licensors not named in the patents may challenge the inventorship of claim an ownership interest in one or more of our or our licensors’ patents. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these and other claims challenging inventorship. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose rights such as exclusive ownership of, or right to use, our patent rights or other IP. Such an outcome could have a material adverse effect on our business. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management and other employees.

If we are sued for infringing IP rights of other parties, such litigation could be costly and time-consuming and could prevent or delay us from developing or commercializing our drug candidates, the outcome of which would be uncertain and could have a material adverse effect on the success of our business.

Our commercial success depends in part on our avoiding infringement of the patents and other IP rights of other parties. There is a substantial amount of litigation involving patent and other IP rights in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries. Numerous issued patents, provisional patents and pending patent applications, which are owned by other parties, exist in the fields in which we are developing drug candidates. As the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries expand and more patents are issued, the risk increases that our drug candidates may give rise to claims of infringement of the patent rights of others.

Other parties may assert that we are employing their proprietary technology without authorization. There may be other patents of which we are currently unaware with claims to materials, formulations, methods of manufacture or methods for treatment related to the use or manufacture of our drug candidates. Because patent applications can take many years to issue, there may be currently pending patent applications or provisional patents which may later result in issued patents that our drug candidates may infringe. In addition, other parties may obtain patents in the future and claim that use of our technology infringes upon these patents. If any other patents were held by a court of competent jurisdiction to cover the manufacturing process of any of our drug candidates, any molecules formed during the manufacturing process or any final drug itself, the holders of any such patents may be able to prevent us from commercializing such drug candidate unless we obtain a license under the applicable patents, or until such patents expire or they are finally determined to be held invalid or unenforceable. Similarly, if any other patent were held by a court of competent jurisdiction to cover aspects of our formulations, processes for manufacture or methods of use, including combination therapy or patient selection methods, the holders of any such patent may be able to block our ability to develop and commercialize the applicable drug candidate unless we obtain a license, limit our uses, or until such patent expires, or is finally determined to be held invalid or unenforceable. In either case, such a license may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all.

Other parties who bring successful claims against us for infringement of their IP rights may obtain injunctive or other equitable relief, which could prevent us from developing and commercializing one or more of our drug candidates. Defense of these claims, regardless of their merits, would involve substantial litigation expense and be a substantial diversion of employee resources from our business. In the event of a successful claim of infringement or misappropriation against us, we may have to pay substantial damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees in the case of willful infringement, obtain one or more licenses from other parties, pay royalties or redesign our infringing drug candidates, which may be impossible or require substantial time and monetary expenditure. In the event of an adverse result in any such litigation, or even in the absence of litigation, we may need to obtain licenses from other parties to advance our research or allow commercialization of our drug candidates. Any required license may not be available at all, or may not be available on commercially reasonable terms. In the event that we are unable to obtain such a license, we would be unable to further develop and commercialize one or more of our drug candidates, which could harm our business significantly. We may also elect to enter into license agreements in order to settle patent infringement claims or resolve disputes prior to litigation, and any such license agreements may require us to pay royalties and other fees that could significantly reduce our profitability for any product related to that patent and thus harm our business.

Even if resolved in our favor, litigation or other legal proceedings relating to IP claims may cause us to incur significant expenses, and could distract our technical personnel, management personnel, or both from their normal responsibilities. In addition, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments, and if securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a substantial adverse effect on the market price of our Class A Ordinary Shares. Such litigation or proceedings could substantially increase our operating losses and reduce the resources available for development activities or any future sales, marketing or distribution activities. We may not have sufficient financial or other resources to adequately conduct such litigation or proceedings. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of such litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their greater financial 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.

There may be patent applications pending of which we are not aware, but which cover similar products to the ones we are attempting to license or develop, which may result in lost time and money, as well as litigation.

It is possible that we have failed to identify relevant outstanding patents or applications. For example, U.S. applications filed before November 29, 2000 and certain U.S. applications filed after that date that will not be filed outside the United States remain confidential until patents are issued. Patent applications filed in the United States after November 29, 2000 and generally filed elsewhere are published approximately 18 months after the earliest filing for which priority is claimed, with such earliest filing date being commonly referred to as the priority date. Therefore, patent applications covering our products could have been filed by others without our knowledge. Additionally, pending patent applications which have been published can, subject to certain limitations, be later amended in a manner that could cover our products or the use of our products. Holders of any such unanticipated patents or patent applications may actively bring infringement claims against us, with the same potential litigation consequences as alluded to elsewhere in this annual report. Any of these events could require us to divert substantial financial and management resources that we would otherwise be able to devote to our business.

Obtaining and maintaining our patent protection depends on compliance with various procedural, document submission, 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 on any issued patent are due to be paid to the USPTO and other patent agencies in several stages over the lifetime of the patent. The USPTO and various non-U.S. governmental patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment, and other similar provisions during the patent application process. Although an inadvertent lapse can in many cases be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules, there are situations in which non-compliance 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. Non-compliance events that could result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application include failure to respond to official actions within prescribed time limits, non-payment of fees, and failure to properly submit documents requesting an extension of time. In any such event, our competitors might be able to enter the market, which would have a material adverse effect on our business.

The terms of our patents may not be sufficient to effectively protect our drug and diagnostics technology candidates and business.

In most countries in which we file, including the United States, the term of an issued patent is generally 20 years from the earliest claimed filing date of a non-provisional patent application in the applicable country. Although various extensions may be available, the life of a patent and the protection it affords is limited. For example, depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of the FDA regulatory approval for our drug candidates, one or more of our U.S. patents, if issued, might be eligible for limited patent term restoration under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, referred to as the Hatch-Waxman Amendments. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments permit a patent term extension of up to five years as compensation for patent term lost during drug development and the FDA regulatory review process. Patent term extensions, however, cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of drug approval by the FDA, and only one patent can be extended for a particular drug. The application for patent term extension is subject to approval by the USPTO, in conjunction with the FDA. We may not be granted an extension because of, for example, failing to apply within applicable deadlines, failing to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents or otherwise failing to satisfy applicable requirements. Moreover, the applicable time period or the scope of patent protection afforded could be less than we request. If we are unable to obtain a patent term extension for a given patent or the term of any such extension is less than we request, the period during which we will have the right to exclusively market our drug will be that of the originally issued patents themselves.

Even if patents covering one of our drug candidates are obtained, thereby giving us a period of exclusivity for manufacturing and marketing that drug, we will not be able to assert such patent rights upon the expiration of the issued patents against potential competitors who may begin marketing generic copies of our medications, and our business and results of operations may be adversely affected.

Changes in patent law in the United States could diminish the value of patents in general, thereby impairing our ability to protect our drug and diagnostics technology candidates.

The United States has recently enacted and is currently implementing wide-ranging patent reform legislation. Recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings have narrowed the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances and weakened the rights of patent owners in certain situations. In addition to increasing uncertainty with regard to our ability to obtain patents in the future, this combination of events has created uncertainty with respect to the value of patents once obtained, if any. Depending on decisions by the U.S. Congress, the federal courts and the USPTO, the laws and regulations governing patents in the United States could change in unpredictable ways that would weaken our ability to obtain new patents, or to enforce our existing patents and patents that we might obtain in the future. For example, in a recent case, Assoc. for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court held that certain claims to naturally-occurring substances are not patentable. Although we do not believe that any of the patents owned or licensed by us will be found invalid based on this decision, future decisions by the courts, the U.S. Congress or the USPTO may impact the value of our patent rights. There could be similar changes in the laws of foreign jurisdictions that may impact the value of our patent rights or our other IP rights.

In addition, recent patent reform legislation in the U.S., including the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or the America Invents Act, could increase those uncertainties and costs. The America Invents Act was signed into law on September 16, 2011, and many of the substantive changes became effective on March 16, 2013. The America Invents Act reforms U.S. patent law in part by changing the U.S. patent system from a “first to invent” system to a “first inventor to file” system, expanding the definition of prior art, and developing a post-grant review system, thus changing the U.S. patent law in a way that may weaken our ability to obtain patent protection in the U.S. for those applications filed after March 16, 2013. Further, the America Invents Act created new procedures to challenge the validity of issued patents in the U.S., including post-grant review and inter partes review proceedings, which some other parties have been using to cause the cancellation of selected or all claims of issued patents of competitors. For a patent with an effective filing date of March 16, 2013 or later, a petition for post-grant review can be filed by another party in a nine-month window from issuance of the patent. A petition for inter partes review can be filed immediately following the issuance of a patent if the patent has an effective filing date prior to March 16, 2013. A petition for inter partes review can be filed after the nine-month-period for filing a post-grant review petition has expired for a patent with an effective filing date of March 16, 2013 or later. Post-grant review proceedings can be brought on any ground of invalidity, whereas inter partes review proceedings can only raise an invalidity challenge based on published prior art and patents. These adversarial actions at the USPTO review patent claims without the presumption of validity afforded to U.S. patents in lawsuits in U.S. federal courts, and use a lower burden of proof than used in litigation in U.S. federal courts. Therefore, it is generally considered easier for a competitor or other party to have a U.S. patent invalidated in a USPTO post-grant review or inter partes review proceeding than invalidated in a litigation in a U.S. federal court. If any of our patents are challenged by another party in such a USPTO proceeding, there is no guarantee that we or our licensors or collaborators will be successful in defending the patent, which would result in our loss of the challenged patent right.

If we are unable to protect the confidentiality of our trade secrets, our business and competitive position would be harmed.

In addition to our issued patents, provisional patent, and pending patent applications, we expect to rely on trade secrets, including unpatented know-how, technology and other proprietary information, to maintain our competitive position and protect our drug and diagnostics technology candidates. We seek to protect these trade secrets, in part, by entering into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with parties that have access to them, such as our employees, corporate collaborators, outside scientific collaborators, sponsored researchers, contract manufacturers, consultants, advisors and other parties. We also enter into confidentiality and invention or patent assignment agreements with our employees and consultants. However, any of these parties may breach such agreements and disclose our proprietary information, and we may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for such breaches. Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret can be difficult, expensive and time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. If trade secrets which are material to our business were to be obtained by a competitor, our competitive position would be harmed.

We may be subject to claims that our employees have wrongfully used or disclosed alleged trade secrets of their former employers.

Although we try to ensure that our employees do not use the proprietary information or know-how of others in their work for us, we may be subject to claims that we or these employees have used or disclosed IP, including trade secrets or other proprietary information, of any such employee’s former employer. In addition, while we typically require our employees, consultants and contractors who may be involved in the development of IP to execute agreements assigning such IP to us, we may be unsuccessful in executing such an agreement with each party who in fact develops IP that we regard as our own, which may result in claims by or against us related to the ownership of such IP. We are not aware of any threatened or pending claims that any of our projects involve misappropriated IP or other proprietary information, but in the future litigation may be necessary to defend against such claims. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable IP rights. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management.

We may be unable to execute on the optimal development plan for one or more of our existing product candidates if we are unable to obtain or maintain necessary rights for some aspect of the developing technology through acquisitions or licenses.

Our existing programs currently use or may in the future use additional technologies subject to proprietary rights held by others, such as particular compositions or methods of manufacture, treatment or use. The licensing and acquisition of IP rights is a competitive area, and more established companies may pursue strategies to license or acquire such IP rights that we may consider necessary or useful. These established companies may have a competitive advantage over us due to their size, cash resources and greater capabilities in clinical development and commercialization.

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 IP rights on terms that would allow us to make an appropriate return on our investment. If we are unable to successfully obtain or maintain licenses or other rights from other parties to use IP of those parties, our business, financial condition and prospects for growth could suffer.

If we fail to comply with our obligations in the agreements under which we license IP rights from other parties or otherwise experience disruptions to our business relationships with our licensors, we could be required to pay monetary damages or could lose license rights that are important to our business.

Many of our projects (including our Lead Projects) are based on IP which we have licensed from other parties. (See “Item 4. Information on the Company – B. Business Overview – Intellectual Property”) Certain of these license agreements impose diligence, development or commercialization obligations on us, such as obligations to pay royalties on net product sales of our drug candidates once commercialized by us, to pay a percentage of sublicensing revenues if the licensed product is sublicensed, to make other specified milestone and/or annual payments relating to our drug candidates or to pay license maintenance and other fees, as well as obligations to pursue commercialization with due diligence. Specifically, a number of our license agreements also require us to meet development timelines in order to maintain the related license(s). In spite of our efforts, our licensors might conclude that we have materially breached our obligations under such license agreements and might therefore seek to terminate the license agreements. If one of our licensors, despite our efforts, were to be successful in terminating its agreement with us, we would not be able to continue to develop, manufacture or market any drug candidate under that license agreements, and we could face claims for monetary damages or other penalties under that agreement. Such an occurrence would diminish or eliminate the value of that project to our Company, even if we are able to negotiate new or reinstated agreements, which may have less favorable terms. Depending on the importance of the IP and the related project, any such development could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial conditions, results of operations, and prospects.

Moreover, disputes may arise regarding intellectual property subject to a licensing agreement, including:

In addition, the agreements under which we currently license intellectual property or technology from other parties are complex, and certain provisions in such agreements may be susceptible to multiple interpretations. The resolution of any contract interpretation disagreement that may arise could narrow what we believe to be the scope of our rights to the relevant intellectual property or technology, or increase what we believe to be our financial or other obligations under the relevant agreement, either of which (depending on the importance of the IP and the related project) could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects. Moreover, if disputes over intellectual property that we have licensed prevent or impair our ability to maintain our current licensing arrangement for a project on commercially acceptable terms, we may be unable to successfully develop and commercialize the affected drug and diagnostics technology candidates, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial conditions, results of operations, and prospects.

We may not have complete control of the preparation, filing and prosecution of patent applications, or to maintain patents, licensed by us from other parties.

The Company has in-licensed, and may in the future in-license patents owned or controlled by others for our use as part of our development plans. We also may out-license or sublicense patents which we own or control in collaborations with others for development and commercialization of our products. In either case, the continuing right to control the preparation, filing and prosecution of patent applications, or to maintain the patents, covering technology under development is a matter for negotiation and we may not always be the party that obtains such control, in which case we will be reliant on our licensors, collaboration partners or sublicensees for determining strategies with respect to those patents. For our existing licenses, while we have an understanding with most of the licensors who maintain control over patent prosecution and we have jointly appointed and engaged patent agents nominated by us under one or more of our licenses, we cannot guarantee that such licensors or collaborators will always accept prosecution strategies proposed by us and/or our patent agents. Therefore, these patents and applications may not be prosecuted and enforced in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business. If our current or future licensors or collaboration partners fail to establish, maintain or protect such patents and other IP rights, such rights may be reduced or eliminated. If our licensors or joint development partners are not fully cooperative or disagree with us as to the prosecution, maintenance or enforcement of any patent rights, such patent rights could be compromised.

Risks Related to Our Reliance on Unrelated Parties

We rely on unrelated parties to conduct discovery and further improvement of our innovations and licensed technologies, as well as our preclinical studies and clinical trials. If these unrelated parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or meet expected deadlines, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for or commercialize our drug candidates, and our business could be substantially harmed.

We have relied upon and plan to continue to rely upon CROs and collaborating institutions to monitor and manage data for our ongoing preclinical studies and programs. We rely on these parties for execution of preclinical studies and clinical trials, and control only certain aspects of their activities. Nevertheless, we are responsible for ensuring that each of our studies is conducted in accordance with the applicable protocol, legal, and regulatory requirements and scientific standards, and our reliance on the CROs and collaborating institutions does not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities. If CROs, collaborating institutions or clinical investigators do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or obligations or meet expected deadlines, development of our product candidates could be delayed and our business could be adversely affected.

In addition, our CROs and collaborating institutions, are subject to numerous environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, including those governing laboratory procedures and the handling, use, storage, treatment and disposal of hazardous materials and waste. In the event of contamination or injury resulting from our use of hazardous materials, we might be held liable for any resulting damages, and any liability could exceed our resources. We could also be subject to civil or criminal fines and penalties, and significant associated costs.

If an IND for one of our drug candidates requires significantly larger quantities of the candidate to be tested, we expect to rely on unrelated parties to manufacture supplies of that candidate. If those unrelated parties fail to provide us with sufficient quantities of clinical supply on that candidate or fail to do so at acceptable quality levels or prices, or fail to maintain required cGMP licenses, we may not be able to manufacture that candidate in sufficient quantities to conduct the necessary human trials. Should the failure by the CRO occur in anticipation of or after marketing approval of that candidate, we may be unable to generate as much revenue as rapidly (and such revenue may not be as profitable) as we had anticipated.

The manufacture of many drug products, particularly in commercial quantities, can be complex and may require significant expertise and capital investment, particularly if the development of advanced manufacturing techniques and process controls are required. We intend to contract with outside contractors to manufacture clinical supplies and process our drug candidates. We have not yet had our drug candidates to be manufactured or processed on a commercial scale and may not be able to do so for any of our drug candidates.

As we expect to engage contract manufacturers, the Company will be exposed to the following risks:

Each of these risks could delay or prevent the completion of our clinical trials or the approval of any of our drug candidates by the FDA, NMPA, EMA, Health Canada or other comparable regulatory authorities, result in higher costs or adversely impact commercialization of our drug candidates.

We are also responsible for quality control by our manufacturers. We intend to rely on those unrelated-party manufactures to perform certain quality assurance tests on our drug candidates prior to delivery to patients. If these tests are not appropriately done and test data are not reliable, patients could be put at risk of serious harm and the FDA, NMPA, EMA, Health Canada or other comparable regulatory authorities could place significant restrictions on our Company until deficiencies are remedied.

Manufacturers of drug products often encounter difficulties in production, particularly in scaling up or out, validating the production process, and assuring high reliability of the manufacturing process (including the absence of contamination). These problems include logistics and shipping, difficulties with production costs and yields, quality control, including stability of the product, product testing, operator error, availability of qualified personnel, as well as compliance with strictly enforced federal, state and non-U.S. regulations. Furthermore, if contaminants are discovered in our supply of our drug candidates or in the manufacturing facilities, such manufacturing facilities may need to be closed for an extended period of time to investigate and remedy the contamination. It is possible that stability failures or other issues relating to the manufacture of our drug candidates may occur in the future. Additionally, our manufacturers may experience manufacturing difficulties due to resource constraints, or as a result of labor disputes or unstable political environments. If our manufacturers were to encounter any of these difficulties, or otherwise fail to comply with their contractual obligations, our ability to provide our drug candidate to patients in clinical trials would be jeopardized. Any delay or interruption in the manufacturing of clinical trial supplies could delay the completion of clinical trials, increase the costs associated with maintaining clinical trial programs and, depending upon the period of delay, require us to begin new clinical trials with additional costs or terminate clinical trials completely.

Review of changes in the manufacturing process of our drug candidates could cause delays resulting from the need for additional regulatory approvals.

Changes in a process or procedure for manufacturing one of our drug candidates, including a change in the location where the drug candidate is manufactured or a change of a contract manufacturer, could require prior review by the FDA, NMPA, EMA, Health Canada or other comparable regulatory authorities and approval of the manufacturing process and procedures in accordance with the FDA, NMPA, EMA, or Health Canada’s regulations, or comparable requirements. This review may be costly and time-consuming and could delay or prevent the launch of a product. The new facility will also be subject to pre-approval inspection. In addition, we would have to demonstrate that the product made at the new facility is equivalent to the product made at the former facility by physical and chemical methods, which are costly and time-consuming. It is also possible that the FDA, NMPA, EMA, Health Canada or other comparable regulatory authorities may require clinical testing as a way to prove equivalency, which would result in additional costs and delay.

Risks Related to AML Clinic

Failure to comply with all laws and regulations applicable to the business of AML Clinic could have a material, adverse impact on the Company’s business.

Operation of AML Clinic subjects the Company to a variety of Hong Kong laws and regulations specific to companies and professionals in the business of delivering medical care. We and our employees will be subject to licensing and professional qualifications that do not apply to our other businesses. Breach of any of these laws, regulations or licensing requirements could subject the Company to significant fines and other penalties and possibly damage the Company’s reputation, which could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business.

Risks Related to Our Natural Supplements

We may be subject to government regulations for natural supplements

From a regulatory perspective, some of the Company’s non-drug candidates (including those developed under the project company Nativus), may be regulated as natural supplements, including NativusWell^® (NLS-2). For those non-drug candidates that the Company plans to develop, they are subject to extensive and rigorous domestic government regulation, including regulation by the FDA, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, other divisions of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, state and local governments and their respective foreign equivalents. The FDA regulates natural supplements, cosmetics and drugs under different regulatory schemes.

For example, the FDA regulates the processing, formulation, safety, manufacturing, packaging, labeling, advertising and distribution of natural supplements and cosmetics under its natural supplement and cosmetic authority, respectively. The FDA also regulates the research, development, pre-clinical and clinical testing, manufacture, safety, effectiveness, record keeping, reporting, labeling, storage, approval, advertising, promotion, sale, distribution, import and export of pharmaceutical products under various regulatory provisions. If any drug products we develop are tested or marketed abroad, they will also be subject to extensive regulation by foreign governments, whether or not we have obtained FDA approval for a given product and its uses. Such foreign regulation may be equally or more demanding than corresponding U.S. regulation.

Government regulation substantially increases the cost and risk of researching, developing, manufacturing and selling products. Our failure to comply with these regulations could result in, by way of example, significant fines, criminal and civil liability, product seizures, recalls, withdrawals, withdrawals of approvals and exclusion and debarment from government programs. Any of these actions, including the inability of our hormone therapy drug candidates to obtain and maintain regulatory approval, would have a materially adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

In addition, the FDA’s policies may change and additional government regulations may be issued that could prevent, limit, or delay regulatory approval of our drug candidates, or impose more stringent product labeling and post-marketing testing and other requirements.

We intend to launch and market NativusWell^® (NLS-2) in Hong Kong. In Hong Kong, natural supplements are defined as “health food” products. “Health food” containing medicines are subject to the Pharmacy and Poisons Ordinance (Cap 138) and such “health food” containing Chinese medicines are regulated by the Chinese Medicine Ordinance (Cap 549), where they must meet the requirements in respect of safety, quality and efficacy before they can be registered.

For other “health food” products which cannot be classified as Chinese medicine or western medicine are regulated under the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance (Cap 132) as general food products. The Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance requires the manufacturers and sellers of food to ensure that their products are fit for human consumption and comply with the requirements in respect of food safety, food standards and labelling. In addition, all prepackaged food should bear labels which correctly list out the ingredients of the food under the Food and Drugs (Composition and Labelling) Regulations (Cap 132W) under the Ordinance.

The NativusWell^® (NLS-2) is made with the bioactive ingredient extracted Chinese yam powder and does not contain any western or Chinese medicine; therefore, registration is not required under the local laws for marketing in Hong Kong. We will, however, ensure the compliance of the Food and Drugs (Composition and Labelling) Regulations (Cap 132W) with by proper labelling in place.

Risks Related to Our Diagnostics Technology

Our products could in the future be subject to additional regulation by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration or other domestic and international regulatory agencies, which could increase our costs and delay our commercialization efforts, thereby materially and adversely affecting our business and results of operations.

The FDA has statutory authority to assure that medical devices and in vitro diagnostics, including those where the RPIDD technology may be utilized, are safe and effective for their intended uses. Should the RPIDD technology be utilized in U.S. as a Laboratory Developed Test (LDT), the FDA has historically exercised its enforcement discretion and may not enforce applicable provisions of the FDC Act and regulations with respect to LDTs. We believe the RPIDD may not be subject to the FDA’s enforcement of its medical device regulations and the applicable FDC Act provisions.

However, if and when we utilize the RPIDD technology in the U.S., the FDA may disagree with our assessment that the RPIDD falls within the definition of an LDT and seek to regulate the RPIDD as medical devices. If the FDA determines that our products are subject to such requirements, we could be subject to enforcement action, including administrative and judicial sanctions, and additional regulatory controls and submissions for the RPIDD, all of which could be burdensome.

In the future, certain of our products or related applications could be subject to additional FDA regulation. Even where a product is not subject to FDA clearance or approval requirements, the FDA may impose restrictions as to the types of customers to which we can market and sell our products. Such regulation and restrictions may materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. Other regulatory regimes that do not currently present material challenges but that could in the future subject to regulations include biosecurity should our RPIDD technology be utilized in the U.S.

In addition, many countries have laws and regulations that could affect our products and which could limit our ability to sell our products in those countries. The number and scope of these requirements are increasing. We may not be able to obtain regulatory approvals in such countries or may incur significant costs in obtaining or maintaining foreign regulatory approvals. For example, the European Union, or EU, is transitioning from the existing European Directive 98/79/EC on in vitro diagnostic medical devices, or In Vitro Diagnostic Directive (IVDD), to the In Vitro Diagnostic Device Regulation (EU) 2017/746 (IVDR), which imposes stricter requirements for the marketing and sale of medical devices, including in the area of clinical evaluation requirements, quality systems and post-market surveillance. The IVDR is expected to become effective in May 2022. It is likely that we will be impacted by this new regulation, either directly as a manufacturer of IVDs, or indirectly as a supplier to customers who are placing IVDs in the EU market for clinical or diagnostic use. Complying with the requirements of the IVDR may require us to incur significant expenditures. Failure to meet these requirements could adversely impact our business in the EU and other regions that tie their product registrations or chemical regulations to the EU requirements.

Risks Related to Our Industry, Business and Operation

If we do not comply with laws regulating the protection of the environment and health and human safety, our business could be adversely affected.

Our research, development and clinic operations involve the use of hazardous materials, chemicals and various radioactive compounds/radiation and AML Clinic may create medical waste and radiation. Our R&D Center may maintain quantities of various flammable and toxic chemicals in our facilities that are required for our research, development and manufacturing activities. We are subject to local laws and regulations governing the use, manufacture, storage, handling and disposal of these hazardous materials and of medical waste at the jurisdictions where we operate our clinic and research facilities, which are currently limited to Hong Kong. We believe our procedures for storing, handling and disposing of these materials comply with the relevant guidelines and laws of the jurisdictions in which our facilities are located. Although we believe that our safety procedures for handling and disposing of these materials comply with the standards mandated by applicable regulations, the risk of accidental contamination or injury from these materials cannot be eliminated. If an accident occurs, we could be held liable for resulting damages, which could be substantial. We are also subject to numerous environmental, health and workplace safety laws and regulations, including those governing laboratory procedures, exposure to blood-borne pathogens and the handling of biohazardous materials and medical waste.

Although we maintain workers’ compensation insurance to cover us for costs and expenses we may incur due to injuries to our employees resulting from the use of these materials, this insurance may not provide adequate coverage against potential liabilities. We do not maintain insurance for environmental liability or toxic tort claims that may be asserted against us in connection with our storage or disposal of biological, hazardous or radioactive materials. Additional federal, state and local laws and regulations affecting our operations may be adopted in the future. We may incur substantial costs to comply with, and substantial fines or penalties, if we violate any of these laws or regulations.

Our future success depends on our ability to retain our Chief Executive Officer, our scientific and clinical advisors, and other key executives and to attract, retain and motivate qualified personnel.

We are highly dependent on Darren Hui, our Chief Executive Officer, as well as, other principal members of our management teams, scientific teams as well as scientific and clinical advisors. Although we have formal employment agreements, which we refer to as appointment letters, with all of our executive officers, these agreements do not prevent our executives from terminating their employment with us at any time, subject to applicable notice periods. Nevertheless, the loss of the services of any of these persons could impede the achievement of our research, development and commercialization objectives.

To induce valuable employees to remain at our Company, in addition to salary and cash incentives, we plan to provide share incentive grants that vest over time. The value to employees of these equity grants that vest over time may be significantly affected by movements in the price of our Class A Ordinary Shares that are beyond our control, and may at any time be insufficient to counteract more lucrative offers from other companies. Although we have appointment letters with our key employees, any of our employees could resign at any time, with 1-month to 3-months prior written notice or with payment in lieu of notice.

Recruiting and retaining qualified officers, scientific, clinical, sales and marketing personnel or consultants will also be critical to our success. In addition, we rely on consultants and advisors, including scientific and clinical advisors, to assist us in formulating our discovery and preclinical studies development and commercialization strategy. The loss of the services of our executive officers or other key employees and consultants could impede the achievement of our research, development and commercialization objectives and seriously harm our ability to successfully implement our business strategy.

Furthermore, replacing executive officers and key employees or consultants 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 drug and diagnostics technology candidates. Competition to hire from this limited pool is intense, and we may be unable to hire, train, retain or motivate these key personnel or consultants 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. 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 increase the size and capabilities of our organization, and we may experience difficulties in managing our growth.

As of the date of this amendment to the annual report, we have 17 full-time and 1 part-time employees. Of these, 5 full-time are engaged in research and development and laboratory operations, 7 full-time are engaged in general and administrative functions and 5 full-time and 1 part-time are engaged in the clinic operation. As of the date of this amendment to the annual report, 17 of our employees are located in Asia and 1 of our employees is located in Europe. In addition, we have engaged and may continue to engage 66 independent contracted consultants and advisors to assist us with our operations. As our development and commercialization plans and strategies develop, and as we have transitioned into operating as a public company, we will need to establish and maintain effective disclosure and financial controls and make changes in our corporate governance practices. We will need to add a significant number of additional managerial, operational, sales, marketing, financial and other personnel with the appropriate public company experience and technical knowledge and we may not successfully recruit and maintain such personnel. Future growth will impose significant added responsibilities on members of management, including:

Our future financial performance and our ability to commercialize our drug candidates will depend, in part, on our ability to effectively manage our future growth, and our management may also have to divert a disproportionate amount of its attention away from day-to-day activities in order to devote a substantial amount of time to managing these growth activities.

We currently rely, and for the foreseeable future will continue to rely, in substantial part on certain independent organizations, advisors and consultants for significant input in selecting and evaluating new products to pursue. These independent organizations, advisors and consultants may not continue to be available to us on a timely basis when needed, and in such case, we may not have the ability to find qualified replacements. In addition, if we are unable to effectively manage our outsourced activities, or if the quality or accuracy of the services provided by consultants is compromised for any reason, our clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated, and we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval of our drug candidates or otherwise advance our business. Furthermore, we may not be able to manage our existing consultants or find other competent outside contractors and consultants on economically reasonable terms, if at all.

If we are not able to effectively expand our organization by hiring new employees and expanding our groups of consultants and contractors, we may not be able to successfully implement the tasks necessary to further develop and commercialize our drug and diagnostics technology candidates and, accordingly, may not achieve our research, development and commercialization goals.

We intend to seek additional collaborations, strategic alliances or acquisitions or enter into royalty-seeking or sublicensing arrangements in the future, but we may not realize the benefits of these arrangements.

We intend to form or seek strategic alliances, create joint ventures or collaborations, acquire complimentary products, IP rights, technology or businesses or enter into additional licensing arrangements with unrelated parties that we determine may complement or augment our development and commercialization efforts with respect to our drug and diagnostics technology candidates. Any of these relationships may require us to incur non-recurring and other charges, increase our near and long-term expenditures, issue securities that dilute our existing shareholders, or disrupt our management and business.

We will face significant competition in seeking appropriate strategic partners and the negotiation process is likely to be time-consuming, costly and complex. Moreover, we may not be successful in our efforts to establish a strategic partnership or another alternative arrangement for any of our drug and diagnostics technology candidates because their state of development may be deemed to be too early for collaborative effort and others may not view our drug candidates as having the requisite potential to demonstrate safety and efficacy. If and when we enter into an agreement with a collaboration partner or sublicensee for development and commercialization of a drug or diagnostics technology candidate, we can expect to relinquish some or all of the control over the future success of that drug candidate to the unrelated-party.

Further, even if we enter into a collaboration involving any of our drug and diagnostics technology candidates, the arrangement will be subject to numerous risks, which may include the following:

As a result, if we enter into collaboration agreements and strategic partnerships or license our drugs, we may not be able to realize the benefit of such transactions, which could delay our timelines or otherwise adversely affect our business. Following a strategic transaction or license, we may not achieve the revenue or specific net income that justifies such transaction. If we are unable to reach agreements with a suitable collaborator on a timely basis, on acceptable terms, or at all, we may have to curtail the development of a drug or diagnostics technology candidate, reduce or delay its development program or 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 fail to enter into collaborations, we may seek to fund and undertake development or commercialization activities on our own, but we may not have sufficient funds or expertise to undertake the necessary development and commercialization activities. In such a case, we may not be able to further develop our drug and diagnostics technology candidates or bring them to market and generate product sales revenue, which would harm our business prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

Our employees, independent contractors, consultants, commercial partners and vendors may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including non-compliance with regulatory standards and requirements.

We are exposed to the risk of fraud, misconduct or other illegal activity by our employees, independent contractors, consultants, commercial partners and vendors. Misconduct by these parties could include intentional, reckless and negligent conduct that fails to: comply with the laws of the FDA and other similar non-U.S. regulatory authorities; provide true, complete and accurate information to the FDA and other similar non-U.S. regulatory authorities; comply with manufacturing standards we have established; comply with healthcare fraud and abuse laws in the United States and similar non-U.S. fraudulent misconduct laws; or report financial information or data accurately or to disclose unauthorized activities to us. If we obtain the FDA approval for any of our drug and diagnostics technology candidates and begin commercializing those drugs in the United States, our potential exposure under U.S. laws will increase significantly and our costs associated with compliance with such laws are also likely to increase. These laws may impact, among other things, our current activities with principal investigators of our sponsored researches and research patients and our use of information obtained in the course of patient recruitment for clinical trials, as well as proposed and future sales, marketing and education programs. In particular, the promotion, sales and marketing of healthcare items and services, as well as certain business arrangements in the healthcare industry, are subject to extensive laws designed to prevent fraud, kickbacks, self-dealing and other abusive practices. These laws and regulations may restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, structuring and commission(s), certain customer incentive programs and other business arrangements generally.

It is not always possible to identify and deter misconduct by employees and other parties, 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.

Our disclosure controls and procedures may not prevent or detect all errors or acts of fraud.

Our disclosure controls and procedures are designed to reasonably assure that information required to be disclosed by us in reports we file or submit under the Exchange Act is accumulated and communicated to management, and recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the rules and forms of the SEC.

We believe that any disclosure controls and procedures, or internal controls and procedures, no matter how well conceived and operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the objectives of the control system are met.

These inherent limitations include the realities that judgments in decision-making can be faulty, and that breakdowns can occur because of simple error or mistake. Additionally, controls can be circumvented by the individual acts of some persons, by collusion of two or more people or by an unauthorized override of the controls. Accordingly, because of the inherent limitations in our control system, misstatements due to error or fraud may occur and not be detected, which would likely cause investors to lose confidence in our reported financial information. This could in turn limit our access to capital markets, harm our results of operations, and lead to a decline in the trading price of our Class A Ordinary Shares. Additionally, ineffective internal control over financial reporting could expose us to increased risk of fraud or misuse of corporate assets and subject us to potential delisting from the stock exchange on which we list, regulatory investigations and civil or criminal sanctions. We may also be required to restate our financial statements from prior periods.

If we fail to establish and maintain proper internal financial reporting controls, our ability to produce accurate financial statements or comply with applicable regulations could be impaired.

Pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, we are required to file a report by our management on our internal control over financial reporting, including an attestation report on internal control over financial reporting issued by our independent registered public accounting firm. However, while we remain an emerging growth company, we will not be required to include an attestation report on internal control over financial reporting issued by our independent registered public accounting firm. The presence of material weaknesses in internal control over financial reporting could result in financial statement errors which, in turn, could lead to errors in our financial reports and/or delays in our financial reporting, which could require us to restate our operating results. In connection with the audit of our financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2018, we and our independent registered public accounting firm identified one material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting, as defined in the standards established by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board of the United States. The material weakness identified was the lack of dedicated resources to take responsibility for the finance and accounting functions and the preparation of financial statements in compliance with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States, or U.S. GAAP.

Since 2019, we took actions to remediate the abovementioned material weakness, and we believe we have remediated the material weakness by implementing the following measures:

As of December 31, 2021 and 2020, we determined that the aforementioned measures remediated the material weakness. However, since we are still in the process of replenishing and building up a qualified finance and accounting team with sufficient dedicated resources, our management assessed that the deficiency related to the lack of dedicated resources to take responsibility for the finance and accounting functions and the preparation of financial statements in compliance with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States, or U.S. GAAP, still existed as of December 31, 2021. Based on the definition of “material weakness” and “significant deficiency” in the standards established by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board of the United States, our management concluded that the deficiency now only rises to the level of a significant deficiency. However, we cannot assure you that we will not identify additional material weaknesses or significant deficiencies in the future.

Our management concluded that our internal controls over financial reporting were effective as of December 31, 2021. However, if we fail to maintain effective internal controls over financial reporting in the future, our management and our independent registered public accounting firm may conclude that our internal control over financial reporting is not effective. Investors may lose confidence in our operating results, the price of the Class A Ordinary Shares could decline and we may be subject to litigation or regulatory enforcement actions. In addition, if we are unable to meet the requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Class A Ordinary Shares may not be able to remain listed on the NASDAQ Global Market.

We may market our products, if approved, globally; if we do, we will be subject to the risk of doing business internationally.

We operate and expect to operate in various countries, and we may not be able to market our products in, or develop new products successfully for, these markets. We may also encounter other risks of doing business internationally including but not limited to:

In addition, we are subject to general geopolitical risks in foreign countries where we operate, such as political and economic instability and changes in diplomatic and trade relationships, which could affect, among other things, customers’ inventory levels and consumer purchasing, which could cause our results to fluctuate and our net sales to decline. The occurrence of any one or more of these risks of doing business internationally, individually or in the aggregate, could materially and adversely affect our business and results of operations.

If we engage in future acquisitions or strategic partnerships, this may increase our capital requirements, dilute our shareholders, cause us to incur debt or assume contingent liabilities, and subject us to other risks.

We may evaluate various acquisitions and strategic partnerships, including licensing or acquiring complementary products, IP rights, technology or businesses. Any potential acquisition or strategic partnership may entail numerous risks, including, but not limited to:

In addition, if we undertake acquisitions, we may issue dilutive securities, assume or incur debt obligations, incur large one-time expenses and acquire intangible assets that could result in significant future amortization expense. Moreover, we may not be able to locate suitable acquisition opportunities and this inability could impair our ability to grow or obtain access to technology or products that may be important to the development of our business.

If we fail to comply with the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”), or other anti-bribery laws, including the Bribery Act 2010 of the United Kingdom (UK Bribery Act”), our reputation may be harmed and we could be subject to penalties and significant expenses that have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We are subject to the FCPA. The FCPA and UK Bribery Act generally prohibits us from making improper payments to non-U.S. officials for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business or other benefits. We are also subject to the anti-bribery laws of other jurisdictions, particularly the PRC. As our business expands, the applicability of the FCPA and other anti-bribery laws to our operations will increase. Our procedures and controls to monitor anti-bribery compliance may fail to protect us from reckless or criminal acts committed by our employees or agents. If we, due to either our own deliberate or inadvertent acts or those of others, fail to comply with applicable anti-bribery laws, our reputation could be harmed and we could incur criminal or civil penalties, other sanctions and/or significant expenses, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, including our financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and prospects.

Our business and results of operations may be negatively impacted by the UK’s withdrawal from the EU.

On June 23, 2016, the UK held a referendum in which a majority of voters approved an exit from the EU, or Brexit, and the UK formally left the EU on January 31, 2020. There was a transition period during which EU pharmaceutical laws continued to apply to the UK, which expired on December 31, 2020. However, the EU and the UK have concluded a trade and cooperation agreement, or TCA, which was provisionally applicable since January 1, 2021 and has been formally applicable since May 1, 2021. The TCA includes specific provisions concerning pharmaceuticals, which include the mutual recognition of GMP, inspections of manufacturing facilities for medicinal products and GMP documents issued, but does not foresee wholesale mutual recognition of UK and EU pharmaceutical regulations. At present, Great Britain has implemented EU legislation on the marketing, promotion and sale of medicinal products through the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 (as amended) (under the Northern Ireland Protocol, the EU regulatory framework will continue to apply in Northern Ireland). The regulatory regime in Great Britain therefore currently aligns in the most part with EU regulations, however it is possible that these regimes will diverge in the future now that Great Britain’s regulatory system is independent from the EU and the TCA does not provide for mutual recognition of UK and EU pharmaceutical legislation. For example, the new Clinical Trials Regulation which became effective in the EU on January 31, 2022 and provides for a streamlined clinical trial application and assessment procedure covering multiple EU Member States has not been implemented into UK law, and a separate application will need to be submitted for clinical trial authorization in the UK. In addition, as we are headquartered in the UK, it is possible that Brexit may impact some or all of our current operations. For example, Brexit will impact our ability to freely move employees from our headquarters in the UK to other locations in the EU. Furthermore, if other EU Member States pursue withdrawal, barrier-free access among the EEA overall could be diminished or eliminated.

The long-term effects of Brexit will depend in part on how the terms of the TCA continue to take effect in practice and the terms of any further agreements the UK makes with the EU. Such a withdrawal from the EU is unprecedented, and it is unclear how the restrictions on the UK’s access to the European single market for goods, capital, services and labor, or single market, and the wider commercial, legal and regulatory environment, will impact our future operations (including business activities conducted by third parties and contract manufacturers on our behalf) and clinical activities in the UK in the long term.

If we commence clinical trials of one of our drug or diagnostics technology candidates, and product liability lawsuits are brought against us, we may incur substantial liabilities and the commercialization of such drug or diagnostics technology candidates may be affected.

If any of our drug or diagnostics technology candidates enter clinical trials, we will face an inherent risk of product liability suits and will face an even greater risk if we obtain approval to commercialize any drugs. For example, we may be sued if our drug candidates cause or are perceived to cause injury or are found to be otherwise unsuitable during clinical testing, manufacturing, marketing or sale. Any such product liability claims may include allegations of defects in manufacturing, defects in design, a failure to warn of dangers inherent in the drug, negligence, strict liability or a breach of warranties. Claims could also be asserted under state consumer protection acts. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against product liability claims, we may incur substantial liabilities or be required to limit commercialization of our drug candidates. Even successful defense would require significant financial and management resources. Regardless of the merits or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in:

We shall seek to obtain the appropriate insurance once our candidates are ready for clinical trial. However, our inability to obtain sufficient product liability insurance at an acceptable cost to protect against potential product liability claims could prevent or inhibit the commercialization of drugs we develop, alone or with collaborators. We currently do not have in place product liability insurance and although we plan to have in place such insurance as and when the products are ready for commercialization, as well as insurance covering clinical trials, the amount of such insurance coverage may not be adequate, we may be unable to maintain such insurance, or we may not be able to obtain additional or replacement insurance at a reasonable cost, if at all. Our insurance policies may also have various exclusions, and we may be subject to a product liability claim for which we have no coverage. We may have to pay any amounts awarded by a court or negotiated in a settlement that exceed our coverage limitations or that are not covered by our insurance, and we may not have, or be able to obtain, sufficient capital to pay such amounts. Even if our agreements with any future corporate collaborators entitle us to indemnification against losses, such indemnification may not be available or adequate should any claim arise.

Additionally, we may be sued if the products that we commercialize, market or sell cause or are perceived to cause injury or are found to be otherwise unsuitable, and may result in:

Our insurance coverage may be inadequate to protect us against losses.

We currently maintain property insurance for our office premises (including two units of server and accessories). We hold employer’s liability insurance generally covering death or work-related injury of employees; we maintain “Office Care Plan Insurance” for those persons working in our offices and “Medical Plan” for our employee. We hold public liability insurance covering certain incidents involving unrelated parties that occur on or in the premises of the Company. We have directors and officers liability insurance. We do not have key-man life insurance on any of our senior management or key personnel, or business interruption insurance. Our insurance coverage may be insufficient to cover any claim for product liability, damage to our fixed assets or employee injuries. If any claims for damage are brought against us, or if we experience any business disruption, litigation or natural disaster, we might incur substantial costs and diversion of resources.

Fluctuations in exchange rates could result in foreign currency exchange losses

Our operations and equity are funded in U.S. dollars and we currently incur the majority of our expenses in U.S. dollars or in H.K. dollars. H.K. dollar is currently pegged to the U.S. dollar; however, we cannot guarantee that such peg will continue to be in place in the future. Our exposure to foreign exchange risk primarily relates to the limited cash denominated in currencies other than the functional currencies of each entity and limited revenue contracts dominated in H.K. dollars in certain Hong Kong operating entities. We do not believe that we currently have any significant direct foreign exchange risk and have not hedged exposures denominated in foreign currencies or any other derivative financial instruments.

If we are exposed to foreign currency exchange risk as our results of operations, cash flows maybe subject to fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates. For example, if a significant portion of our clinical trial activities may be conducted outside of the United States, and associated costs may be incurred in the local currency of the country in which the trial is being conducted, which costs could be subject to fluctuations in currency exchange rates. We currently do not engage in hedging transactions to protect against uncertainty in future exchange rates between particular foreign currencies and the U.S. dollar. A decline in the value of the U.S. dollar against currencies in countries in which we conduct clinical trials could have a negative impact on our research and development costs. Foreign currency fluctuations are unpredictable and may adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Our investments are subject to risks that could result in losses.

We had unrestricted cash of $8.13 million, $3.50 million and $5.19 million as of December 31, 2021, 2020 and 2019, respectively. We may invest our cash in a variety of financial instruments. All of these investments are subject to credit, liquidity, market and interest rate risk. Such risks, including the failure or severe financial distress of the financial institutions that hold our cash, cash equivalents and investments, may result in a loss of liquidity, impairment to our investments, realization of substantial future losses, or a complete loss of the investments in the long-term, which may have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, liquidity and financial condition. While we believe our cash position does not expose us to excessive risk, future investments may be subject to adverse changes in market value.

We are exposed to risks associated with our computer hardware, network security and data storage.

Similar to all other computer network users, our computer network system is vulnerable to attack of computer virus, worms, trojan horses, hackers or other similar computer network disruptive problems. Any failure in safeguarding our computer network system from these disruptive problems may cause breakdown of our computer network system and leakage of confidential information of the Company. Any failure in the protection of our computer network system from external threat may disrupt our operation and may damage our reputation for any breach of confidentiality to our customers, which in turn may adversely affect our business operation and performance. In the event that our confidential information is stolen and misused, we may become exposed to potential risks of losses from litigation and possible liability.

In addition, we are highly dependent on our IT infrastructure to store research data and information and manage our business operations. We do not backup all data on a real-time basis and the effectiveness of our business operations may be materially affected by any failure in our IT infrastructure. If our communications and IT systems do not function properly, or if there is any partial or complete failure of our systems, we could suffer financial losses, business disruption or damage to our reputation.

Business disruptions could seriously harm our future revenue and financial condition and increase our costs and expenses.

Our operations, and those of our research institution collaborators, CROs, suppliers and other contractors and consultants, could be subject to supply chain disruptions, earthquakes, power shortages, telecommunications failures, damage from computer viruses, material computer system failures, water shortages, floods, hurricanes, typhoons, fires, extreme weather conditions, medical epidemics and other natural or man-made disasters or business interruptions. In addition, we partially rely on our research institution collaborators for conducting research and development of our drug candidates, and they may be affected by government shutdowns or withdrawn funding. The occurrence of any of these business disruptions could seriously harm our operations and financial condition and increase our costs and expenses. We rely on contract manufacturers to produce and process our drug candidates. Our ability to obtain clinical supplies of our drug candidates could be disrupted if the operations of these suppliers are affected by a man-made or natural disaster or other business interruption. A large portion of our contract manufacturer’s operations is located in a single facility. Damage or extended periods of interruption to our corporate or our contract manufacturer’s development or research facilities due to fire, natural disaster, power loss, communications failure, unauthorized entry or other events could cause us to cease or delay development of some or all of our drug candidates.

Although we do not currently conduct any business in the PRC, we may in the future; in doing so we would be exposed to various risks related to doing business in the PRC.

Although we currently do not conduct any business in the PRC, we are the exclusive licensee to certain PRC patents directed to our drug candidates, and we intend to file application for certain products in the PRC. The pharmaceutical industry in the PRC is subject to comprehensive government regulation and supervision, encompassing the approval, registration, manufacturing, packaging, licensing and marketing of new drugs. (See “Item 4. Information on the Company – B. Business Overview – Regulations”). In recent years, the regulatory framework in the PRC regarding the pharmaceutical industry has undergone significant changes, and we expect that it will continue to undergo significant changes. Any such changes or amendments may result in increased compliance costs on our business or cause delays in or prevent the successful development or commercialization of our drug candidates in the PRC and reduce the current benefits that we believe are available to us from developing and manufacturing drugs in the PRC. Chinese authorities have become increasingly vigilant in enforcing laws in the pharmaceutical industry and any failure by us or our partners to maintain compliance with applicable laws and regulations or obtain and maintain required licenses and permits may result in the suspension or termination of our business activities in the PRC. We believe our strategy and approach is aligned with the PRC government’s policies, but we cannot ensure that our strategy and approach will continue to be aligned.

If in the future, we commence business or operation in the PRC, changes in the political and economic policies of the PRC government may materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and may result in our inability to sustain our growth and expansion strategies. Once we start doing business in the PRC, our financial condition and results of operation in the PRC could be materially and adversely affected by government control over capital investments or changes in tax regulations that are applicable to us, and consequently have a material adverse effect on our businesses, financial condition and results of operations.

If the U.S. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, or the PCAOB, is unable to inspect our auditors as required under the Holding Foreign Companies Accountable Act, the SEC will prohibit the trading of our Class A Ordinary Shares. A trading prohibition for our Class A Ordinary Shares, or the threat of a trading prohibition, may materially and adversely affect the value of your investment. Additionally, the inability of the PCAOB to conduct inspections of our auditors would deprive our investors of the benefits of such inspections.

The U.S. Holding Foreign Companies Accountable Act, or the HFCA Act, was enacted into law on December 18, 2020. Under the HFCA Act, if the SEC determines that we have filed audit reports issued by a registered public accounting firm that has not been subject to inspection by the PCAOB for three consecutive years (beginning with this annual report on Form 20-F), the SEC will prohibit our securities, including our Class A Ordinary Shares, from being traded on a U.S. national securities exchange, including NASDAQ, or in the over-the-counter trading market in the U.S. Furthermore, on June 22, 2021, the U.S. Senate passed the AHFCAA, which, if signed into law, would amend the HFCA Act and require the SEC to prohibit an issuer’s securities from trading on any U.S. stock exchanges if its auditor is not subject to the PCAOB inspections for two consecutive years instead of three consecutive years, thus reducing the time period for triggering the prohibition on trading. On September 22, 2021, the PCAOB adopted a final rule implementing the HFCA Act, which provides a framework for the PCAOB to use when determining, as contemplated under the HFCA Act, whether the Board is unable to inspect or investigate completely registered public accounting firms located in a foreign jurisdiction because of a position taken by one or more authorities in that jurisdiction. On November 5, 2021, the SEC approved the PCAOB’s Rule 6100, Board Determinations Under the Holding Foreign Companies Accountable Act. Rule 6100 provides a framework for the PCAOB to use when determining, as contemplated under the HFCA Act, whether it is unable to inspect or investigate completely registered public accounting firms located in a foreign jurisdiction because of a position taken by one or more authorities in that jurisdiction. On December 2, 2021, the SEC issued amendments to finalize rules implementing the submission and disclosure requirements in the HFCA Act. The rules apply to registrants that the SEC identifies as having filed an annual report with an audit report issued by a registered public accounting firm that is located in a foreign jurisdiction and that PCAOB is unable to inspect or investigate completely because of a position taken by an authority in foreign jurisdictions. The process for implementing trading prohibitions pursuant to the HFCA Acts will be based on a list of registered public accounting firms that the PCAOB has been unable to inspect and investigate completely as a result of a position taken by a non-U.S. government, or the Relevant Jurisdiction, and such identified auditors, the PCAOB Identified Firms.  The first list of PCAOB Identified Firms was included in a release by the PCAOB on December 16, 2021, or the PCAOB December 2021 Release. The SEC will review annual reports filed with it for fiscal years beginning after December 18, 2020 to determine if the auditor used for such reports was so identified by the PCAOB, and such issuers will be designated as “Commission Identified Issuers” on a list to be published by the SEC.  If an issuer is a Commission Identified Issuer for two consecutive years (which will be determined after the second such annual report), the SEC will issue a trading order that will implement prohibitions described above.

On December 29, 2022, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, was signed into law by President Biden. The Consolidated Appropriations Act contained, among other things, an identical provision to AHFCAA, which reduce the number of consecutive non-inspection years required for triggering the prohibitions under the HFCA Act from three years to two.

Our current independent accounting firm, Marcum Asia CPAs LLP (formerly known as Marcum Bernstein & Pinchuk LLP), whose audit report is included in this annual report on Form 20-F, is headquartered in Manhattan, New York, and was not included in the list of PCAOB Identified Firms in the PCAOB December Release. Our ability to retain an auditor subject to PCAOB inspection and investigation, including but not limited to inspection of the audit working papers related to us, may depend on the relevant positions of U.S. and Chinese regulators. Marcum Asia CPAs LLP’s audit working papers related to us are located in China. With respect to audits of companies with operations in China, such as the Company, there are uncertainties about the ability of our auditor to fully cooperate with a request by the PCAOB for audit working papers in China without the approval of Chinese authorities. If in the future Marcum Asia CPAs LLP is included in the list of PCAOB Identified Firms and we are unable to retain a PCAOB-registered auditor subject to PCAOB inspection and investigation, a trading prohibition for our Class A Ordinary Shares could be issued shortly after our filing of the second consecutive annual report on Form 20-F for which we have retained a PCAOB Identified Firm.

If our Class A Ordinary Shares are subject to a trading prohibition under the HFCA Act, the price of our Class A Ordinary Shares may be adversely affected, and the threat of such a trading prohibition would also adversely affect their price. If we are unable to be listed on another securities exchange that provides sufficient liquidity, such a trading prohibition may substantially impair your ability to sell or purchase our Class A Ordinary Shares when you wish to do so. Furthermore, if we are able to maintain a listing of our Class A Ordinary Shares on a non-U.S. exchange, investors owning our Class A Ordinary Shares may have to take additional steps to engage in transactions on that exchange, including establishing non-U.S. brokerage accounts.  

The HFCA Act also imposes additional certification and disclosure requirements for Commission Identified Issuers, and these requirements apply to issuers in the year following their listing as Commission Identified Issuers. The additional requirements include a certification that the issuer is not owned or controlled by a governmental entity in the Relevant Jurisdiction, and the additional requirements for annual reports include disclosure that the issuer’s financials were audited by a firm not subject to PCAOB inspection, disclosure on governmental entities in the Relevant Jurisdiction’s ownership in and controlling financial interest in the issuer, the names of Chinese Communist Party, or CCP, members on the board of the issuer or its operating entities, and whether the issuer’s article’s include a charter of the CCP, including the text of such charter.

In addition to the issues under the HFCA discussed above, the PCAOB’s inability to conduct inspections in China and Hong Kong prevents it from fully evaluating the audits and quality control procedures of the independent registered public accounting firm, consequently, investors would be deprived of the benefits of such PCAOB inspections. Our current independent registered public accounting firm, Marcum Asia CPAs LLP, is headquartered in Manhattan, New York, and has been inspected by the PCAOB on a regular basis with the last inspection in 2020. However, in the event it is later determined that the PCAOB is unable to inspect or investigate completely our auditor because of a position taken by an authority in a foreign jurisdiction, then such lack of inspection could cause trading in our securities to be prohibited under the HFCA Act, and ultimately result in a determination by a securities exchange to delist our Class A Ordinary Shares.

The SEC could take the position that we are an “investment company” subject to the extensive requirements of the Investment Company Act of 1940. Such a characterization and the associated compliance requirements could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

Our business had historically included passive healthcare related investments in early stage companies primarily in the United States. Although we are in the process of liquidating those securities that remain in our portfolio, we still hold some such investments and these are included as assets of our Company on a consolidated basis. As part of the Restructure, we resolved to exit such portfolio investments over an appropriate timeframe and focus our resources on our current business. Since the date of the Restructure, we have not held ourselves out as an investment company and we do not believe we are an “investment company” under the Investment Company Act of 1940. If the SEC or a court, however, were to disagree with us, we could be required to register as an investment company. This would subject us to disclosure and accounting rules geared toward investment companies, rather than operating companies, which may limit our ability to borrow money, issue options, issue multiple classes of stock and debt, and engage in transactions with affiliates, and may require us to undertake significant costs and expenses to meet the disclosure and regulatory requirements to which we would be subject as a registered investment company.

If we are classified as a passive foreign investment company for U.S. federal income tax purposes, United States holders of our Class A Ordinary Shares may be subject to adverse United States federal income tax consequences.

A non-U.S. corporation will be a passive foreign investment company (“PFIC”) for U.S. federal income tax purposes, for such year, if either

Passive income generally includes dividends, interests, rents and royalties (other than rents or royalties derived from the active conduct of a trade or business) and gains from the disposition of passive assets.

A separate determination must be made after the close of each taxable year as to whether a non-U.S. corporation is a PFIC for that year. For purposes of the PFIC analysis, in general, a non-U.S. corporation is deemed to own its pro rata share of the gross income and assets of any entity in which it is considered to own at least 25% of the equity by value. Based on the current and anticipated value of our assets, we believe we were a PFIC for U.S. federal income tax purposes for our taxable year ending December 31, 2021, and we may be a PFIC for U.S. federal income tax purposes for our current taxable year ending December 31, 2022.

In determining whether we are a PFIC, cash and investments are considered by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) to be a passive asset. During our taxable year ending December 31, 2021, we believe that the amount of restricted and unrestricted cash we had on hand and investments were greater than 50% of our total assets. The composition of our assets during the current taxable year may cause us to continue to be classified as a PFIC. The determination of whether we will be a PFIC for our current taxable year or a future year may depend in part upon how quickly we spend our liquid assets, and on the value of our goodwill and other unbooked intangibles not reflected on our balance sheet, which may depend upon the market value of our Class A Ordinary Shares from time to time. Further, while we will endeavor to use a classification methodology and valuation approach that is reasonable, the IRS may challenge our classification or valuation of our goodwill and other unbooked intangibles for purposes of determining whether we are a PFIC in the current or one or more future taxable years.

If we are a PFIC for any taxable year during which a U.S. Holder owns our Class A Ordinary Shares or warrants, certain adverse U.S. federal income tax consequences could apply to such U.S. Holder. As discussed under “Taxation – Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Considerations for U.S. Holders – Passive Foreign Investment Company Rules”, a U.S. Holder may be able to make certain tax elections that would lessen the adverse impact of PFIC status; however, in order to make such elections the U.S. holder will usually have to have been provided information about the company by us, and there is no assurance that the company will provide such information.

For a more detailed discussion of the application of the PFIC rules to us and the consequences to U.S. holders if we were determined to be a PFIC. (See “Item 10. Additional Information – E. Taxation – Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Considerations for U.S. Holders – Passive Foreign Investment Company Rules”)

Our results of operation may be negatively affected should the 2019-nCov virus (Coronavirus) continue to spread on a wider scale.

Our business could be adversely affected by the effects of a widespread outbreak of contagious disease, including the outbreak of respiratory illness caused by a novel coronavirus. Any outbreak of contagious diseases, and other adverse public health developments, particularly in China, could have a material and adverse effect on our business operations. These could include disruptions or restrictions on our ability to travel or to distribute our products, as well as temporary closures of our facilities or the facilities of our suppliers or customers.

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to rapidly evolve. The extent to which the outbreak impacts our business, preclinical studies and clinical trials will depend on future developments, which are highly uncertain and cannot be predicted with confidence, such as the ultimate geographic spread of the disease, the duration of the pandemic, travel restrictions and social distancing in various countries, business closures or business disruptions and the effectiveness of actions taken to contain and treat the disease. If we or any of the third parties with whom we engage were to experience shutdowns, undergo the compulsory universal testing by the HKSAR Government or other business disruptions, our ability to conduct our business in the manner and on the timelines presently planned could be materially and negatively impacted.

In addition, the trading prices for our Class A Ordinary Shares and other biopharmaceutical companies have been highly volatile as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result, we may face difficulties raising capital through sales of our securities or such sales may be on unfavorable terms.

The outbreak of the novel coronavirus disease, COVID-19, or other pandemic, epidemic or outbreak of an infectious disease may materially and adversely impact our preclinical studies and clinical trials.

As a result of the COVID-19 outbreak, or similar pandemics, we have and may in the future experience disruptions that could materially and adversely impact our manufacturing, preclinical development activities, preclinical studies and planned clinical trial. Potential disruptions include but are not limited to:

Risks Related to Our Corporate Structure

One of our directors controls a majority of our voting shares.

One of our Non-Executive Directors and former CEO, Mr. Ian Huen, and his affiliates, over which he is deemed to have control and/or have substantial influence, has voting rights with respect to an aggregate of 20,686,261 ordinary shares, on an as converted basis (4,624,792 Class A Ordinary Shares and 16,061,469 Class B Ordinary Shares), representing approximately 69% of the voting power of our outstanding ordinary shares as of the date hereof. As a result, Mr. Huen has the ability to control the outcome of matters submitted to our shareholders for approval, including the election of directors and any merger, consolidation, or sale of all or substantially all of our assets. Additionally, in the event that Mr. Huen controls our company at the time of his death, control may be transferred to a person or entity that he designates as his successor. As a board member, Mr. Huen owes a fiduciary duty to our shareholders and must act in good faith in a manner he reasonably believes to be in the best interests of our shareholders. As a shareholder, even a controlling shareholder, Mr. Huen is entitled to vote his shares, and shares over which he has voting control as a result of voting agreements, in his own interests, which may not always be in the interests of our shareholders generally.

As a “controlled company” under the rules of the NASDAQ Global Market, we may choose to exempt our company from certain corporate governance requirements that could have an adverse effect on our public shareholders.

Our directors and officers beneficially own a majority of the voting power of our outstanding Class A Ordinary Shares. Under the Rule 4350(c) of the NASDAQ Global Market, a company of which more than 50% of the voting power is held by an individual, group or another company is a “controlled company” and may elect not to comply with certain corporate governance requirements, including the requirement that a majority of our directors be independent, as defined in the NASDAQ Global Market Rules, and the requirement that our compensation and nominating and corporate governance committees consist entirely of independent directors. Although we do not intend to rely on the “controlled company” exemption under the Nasdaq listing rules, we could elect to rely on this exemption in the future. If we elect to rely on the “controlled company” exemption, a majority of the members of our board of directors might not be independent directors and our nominating and corporate governance and compensation committees might not consist entirely of independent directors. Accordingly, during any time while we remain a controlled company relying on the exemption and during any transition period following a time when we are no longer a controlled company, you would not have the same protections afforded to shareholders of companies that are subject to all of the NASDAQ Global Market corporate governance requirements. Our status as a controlled company could cause our Class A Ordinary Share to look less attractive to certain investors or otherwise harm our trading price.

We may not be able to consolidate the financial results of some of our affiliated companies or such consolidation could materially adversely affect our operating results and financial condition.

The Company has three VIEs which are incorporated under the laws of Cayman Islands and conduct operations in Hong Kong. The Company currently consolidates two of those VIEs since the Group has a variable interest in them and is determined to be the primary beneficiary of those 2 VIES under U.S. GAAP. This determination is based on whether the Group has a variable interest (or combination of variable interests) that provides the Company with (a) the power to direct the activities that most significantly impact the VIEs’ economic performance and (b) the obligation to absorb losses or right to receive benefits that could be potentially significant to the VIE. The Group continually reassesses whether it is the primary beneficiary of a VIE throughout the entire period the Group is involved with the VIE. According to those standards, we determined that we have the power to manage and make decisions that affect Mios and Scipio’s research and development activities, which activities most significantly impact Mios and Scipio’s economic performance. However, we do not have such power over Libra’s research and development activities, which activities most significantly impact Libra’s economic performance. Accordingly, we determined that we are the primary beneficiary of Mios and Scipio, but not the primary beneficiary of Libra. As a result, Mios and Scipio’s financial results are consolidated in our consolidated financial statements. In the event that in the future the VIEs no longer meet the definition of a VIE, or we are deemed not to be the primary beneficiary of the VIE for accounting purpose, we would not be able to consolidate line by line that VIE’s financial results in our consolidated financial statements. Also, if in the future an affiliate company becomes a VIE and we become the primary beneficiary of it for accounting purposes, we would be required to consolidate that entity’s financial results in our consolidated financial statements. If such entity’s financial results were negative, this could have a corresponding negative impact on our operating results.

The economic substance legislation of the Cayman Islands may adversely impact us or our operations.

The Company is subject to Cayman Islands economic substance legislation (“ESA”) requiring that where the Company carries on a relevant activity (as defined in the ESA) it must maintain economic substance within the Cayman Islands, including adequate premises and employees within the Cayman Islands. As an entity subject to the ESA, the Company is required to assess its operations to determine the required compliance (if any) with the ESA, to file an annual notification with the Cayman Islands Registrar of Companies disclosing whether the Company is carrying out any relevant activities within the meaning of the ESA and an annual return with the Department of International Tax Co-Operation. Where applicable, the Company must establish that its operations satisfy the economic substance requirements of the ESA. The Company is required to monitor its operations to ensure it remains in compliance with all requirements under the ESA. Failure to satisfy these requirements may subject the Company to penalties under the ESA. 

EU AML High-Risk Third Countries List

On March 13, 2022, the European Commission (“EC”) updated its list of ‘high-risk third countries’ (“EU AML List”) identified as having strategic deficiencies in their anti-money laundering/counter-terrorist financing regimes to add nine countries, including the Cayman Islands. The EC has noted it is committed to there being a greater alignment between the EU AML List and the FATF listing process. The addition of the Cayman Islands to the EU AML List is a direct result of the inclusion of the Cayman Islands on the FATF grey list in February 2021. It is unclear how long this designation will remain in place and what ramifications, if any, the designation will have for the Company.

The Financial Action Task Force has increased monitoring of the Cayman Islands.

In February 2021, the Cayman Islands was added to the Financial Action Task Force (“FATF”) list of jurisdictions whose anti-money laundering practices are under increased monitoring, commonly referred to as the “FATF grey list.” When the FATF places a jurisdiction under increased monitoring, it means the country has committed to resolve swiftly the identified strategic deficiencies within agreed timeframes and is subject to increased monitoring during that timeframe. In its October 2021 and October 2022 plenary, the FATF recognized the progress made by the Cayman Islands to improve its anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing regime. Despite this recognition, it is still unclear how long this designation will remain in place and what ramifications, if any, the designation will have for the Company.

Risks Related to our Securities

Class A Ordinary Shares eligible for future sale may adversely affect the market price of our Class A Ordinary Shares if the shares are successfully listed on NASDAQ or other stock markets, as the future sale of a substantial amount of outstanding Class A Ordinary Shares in the public marketplace could reduce the price of our Class A Ordinary Shares.

The market price of our Class A Ordinary Shares could decline as a result of sales of substantial amounts of our Class A Ordinary Shares in the public market, or the perception that these sales could occur. In addition, these factors could make it more difficult for us to raise funds through future offerings of our Class A Ordinary Shares. An aggregate of 13,277,429 Class A Ordinary Shares are outstanding as of the date of this amendment to the annual report. 8,365,080 of the Class A Ordinary Shares are freely transferable without restriction or further registration under the Securities Act. The remaining Class A Ordinary Shares will be “restricted securities” as defined in Rule 144. These Class A Ordinary Shares may be sold without registration under the Securities Act to the extent permitted by Rule 144 or other exemptions under the Securities Act.

A sale or perceived sale of a substantial number of our Ordinary Shares may cause the price of our Class A Ordinary Shares to decline.

If our shareholders sell substantial amounts of our Class A Ordinary Shares in the public market, the market price of our Class A Ordinary Shares could fall. Moreover, the perceived risk of this potential dilution could cause shareholders to attempt to sell their shares and investors to short our Class A Ordinary Shares. These sales also may make it more difficult for us to sell equity or equity-related securities in the future at a time and price that we deem reasonable or appropriate.

Issuances by us of additional securities, could affect ownership and voting rights over us. In addition, the issuance of preferred shares, or options or warrants to purchase those preferred shares, could negatively impact the value of the Ordinary Shares as the result of preferential dividend rights, conversion rights, redemption rights and liquidation provisions granted to the stockholders of such preferred shares.

From time to time, we may issue in public or private sales additional securities to third party investors. Such securities may provide holders with ownership and voting rights that could provide the holders thereof with substantial influence over our business. Any preferred shares that may be issued shall have such rights, preferences, privileges and restrictions as may be designated from time-to-time by our board, including preferential dividend rights, voting rights, conversion rights, redemption rights and liquidation provisions. There cannot be any assurance that we will not issue preferred securities with rights and preferences that are more beneficial than those provided to our Ordinary Shares.

We have not paid dividends in the past and do not expect to pay dividends in the future, and any return on investment may be limited to the value of our shares.

We have never paid any cash dividends on our Class A Ordinary Shares and do not anticipate paying any cash dividends on our Class A Ordinary Shares in the foreseeable future, and any return on investment may be limited to the value of our Class A Ordinary Shares. We plan to retain any future earnings to finance growth.

Our dividend policy is subject to the discretion of our Board of Directors and will depend on, among other things, our earnings, financial condition, capital requirements and other factors. There is no assurance that our Board of Directors will declare dividends even if we are profitable. Under Cayman Islands law, dividends may be declared and paid only out of funds legally available therefor, namely out of either profit or our share premium account, and provided further that a dividend may not be paid if this would result in our Company being unable to pay its debts as they fall due in the ordinary course of business and the realizable value of assets of our Company will not be less than the sum of our total liabilities, other than deferred taxes as shown on our books of account, and our capital.

Our Class B Ordinary Shares have greater voting power than our Class A Ordinary Shares and certain existing shareholders have substantial influence over our Company and their interests may not be aligned with the interests of our other shareholders.

We have a dual-class voting structure consisting of Class A Ordinary Shares and Class B Ordinary Shares. Under this structure, holders of Class A Ordinary Shares are entitled to one vote per share, and holders of Class B Ordinary Shares are entitled to ten votes per share, which can cause the holders of Class B Ordinary Shares to have an unbalanced, higher concentration of voting power. Our management team as a group beneficially owns over 18 million Class B Ordinary Shares representing approximately 77% voting power. As a result, until such time as their collective voting power is below 50%, our management team as a group of controlling shareholders have substantial influence over our business, including decisions regarding mergers, consolidations and the sale of all or substantially all of our assets, election of directors and other significant corporate actions. They may take actions that are not in the best interests of us or our other shareholders. These corporate actions may be taken even if they are opposed by our other shareholders. Further, concentration of ownership of our Class B Ordinary Shares may discourage, prevent or delay the consummation of change of control transactions that shareholders may consider favorable, including transactions in which shareholders might otherwise receive a premium for their shares. Future issuances of Class B Ordinary Shares may also be dilutive to the holders of Class A Ordinary Shares. As a result, the market price of our Class A Ordinary Shares could be adversely affected.

Shareholders who hold shares of Class B Ordinary Shares, including our executive officers and their affiliates, hold approximately 94% of the voting power of our outstanding ordinary shares. Because of the ten-to-one voting ratio between our Class B and Class A Ordinary Shares, the holders of our Class B Ordinary Shares will collectively continue to control a majority of the combined voting power of our Ordinary Shares and therefore be able to control all matters submitted to our shareholders for approval, so long as the Class B Ordinary Shares represent at least 9.1% of all outstanding shares of our Ordinary Shares.

Raising additional capital may cause dilution to our shareholders, restrict our operations or require us to relinquish rights to our technology or drug and diagnostics technology candidates.

We may seek additional funding through a combination of equity offerings, debt financings, collaborations, licensing arrangements, strategic alliances and marketing or distribution arrangements. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, your ownership interest will be diluted, and the terms may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect your rights as a holder of our Class A Ordinary Shares. The incurrence of additional indebtedness or the issuance of certain equity securities could result in increased fixed payment obligations, and could also result in certain additional restrictive covenants, such as limitations on our ability to incur additional debt or issue additional equity, limitations on our ability to acquire or license IP rights and other operating restrictions that could adversely impact our ability to conduct our business. In addition, issuance of additional equity securities, or the possibility of such issuance, may cause the market price of our Class A Ordinary Shares to decline. In the event that we enter into collaborations or licensing arrangements to raise capital, we may be required to accept unfavorable terms, including relinquishing or licensing to another party on unfavorable terms our rights to technology or drug and diagnostics technology candidates that we otherwise would seek to develop or commercialize ourselves or potentially reserve for future potential arrangements when we might be able to achieve more favorable terms.

Since we are a Cayman Islands exempted company, the rights of our shareholders may be more limited than those of shareholders of a company organized in the United States.

Our corporate affairs are governed by our Second Amended and Restated Memorandum and Articles of Association (as may be amended from time to time) (“Memorandum and Articles”), the Companies Law (2018 Revision) of the Cayman Islands (the “Companies Law”) and the common law of the Cayman Islands. The rights of shareholders to take action against the directors, actions by minority shareholders and the fiduciary responsibilities of our directors are to a large extent governed by the common law of the Cayman Islands. This common law is derived in part from comparatively limited judicial precedent in the Cayman Islands as well as from English common law, which has persuasive, but not binding, authority on a court in the Cayman Islands. Under the laws of some jurisdictions in the United States, majority and controlling shareholders generally have certain fiduciary responsibilities to the minority shareholders. Shareholder action must be taken in good faith, and actions by controlling shareholders which are obviously unreasonable may be declared null and void. Cayman Islands law protecting the interests of minority shareholders may not be as protective in all circumstances as the law protecting minority shareholders in some U.S. jurisdictions. In addition, the circumstances in which a shareholder of a Cayman Islands company may sue the company derivatively, and the procedures and defenses that may be available to the company, may result in the rights of shareholders of a Cayman Islands company being more limited than those of shareholders of a company organized in the United States. Accordingly, shareholders may have fewer alternatives available to them if they believe that corporate wrongdoing has occurred. The Cayman Islands courts are also unlikely to recognize or enforce judgments from U.S. courts based on certain liability provisions of U.S. securities laws that are penal in nature. There is no statutory recognition in the Cayman Islands of judgments obtained in the United States, although the courts of the Cayman Islands will generally recognize and enforce non-penal judgment of a foreign court of competent jurisdiction for a liquidated sum without retrial on its merits which is not obtained in a manner contrary to public policy in the Cayman Islands and in respect of which there are no concurrent proceedings in the Cayman Islands. This means, even if shareholders were to sue us successfully, they may not be able to recover anything to make up for the losses suffered.

Furthermore, our directors have the power to take certain actions without shareholder approval which would require shareholder approval under the laws of most U.S. jurisdictions. For example, the directors of a Cayman Islands company, without shareholder approval, may implement a sale of any assets, property, part of the business, or securities of the Company.

While Cayman Islands law allows a dissenting shareholder to express the shareholder’s view that a court sanctioned reorganization of a Cayman Islands company would not provide fair value for the shareholder’s shares, Cayman Islands statutory law does not specifically provide for shareholder appraisal rights on a merger or consolidation of a company. This may make it more difficult for you to assess the value of any consideration you may receive in a merger or consolidation or to require that the acquirer gives you additional consideration if you believe the consideration offered is insufficient. However, Cayman Islands’ statutory law does provide a mechanism for a dissenting shareholder in a merger or consolidation to apply to the Grand Court for a determination of the fair value of the dissenter’s shares, if it is not possible for the Company and the dissenter to agree a fair price within the time limits prescribed.

Shareholders of Cayman Islands exempted companies, such as our Company, have no general rights under Cayman Islands’ law to inspect corporate records and accounts or to obtain copies of lists of shareholders. Our directors have discretion under our Memorandum and Articles to determine whether or not, and under what conditions, our corporate records may be inspected by our shareholders, but are not obliged to make them available to our shareholders. This may make it more difficult for you to obtain the information needed to establish any facts necessary for a shareholder motion or to solicit proxies from other shareholders in connection with a proxy contest.

Lastly, under the law of the Cayman Islands, there is little statutory law for the protection of minority shareholders. The principal protection under statutory law is that shareholders may bring an action to enforce the constituent documents of the corporation, our Memorandum and Articles. Shareholders are entitled to have the affairs of the company conducted in accordance with the general law and the memorandum and articles of association.

There are common law rights for the protection of shareholders that may be invoked, largely dependent on English company law, since the common law of the Cayman Islands for business companies is limited. Under the general rule pursuant to English company law known as the rule in Foss v. Harbottle, a court will generally refuse to interfere with the management of a company at the insistence of a minority of its shareholders who express dissatisfaction with the conduct of the company’s affairs by the majority or the board of directors. However, every shareholder is entitled to have the affairs of the company conducted properly according to law and the constituent documents of the company. As such, if those who control the company have persistently disregarded the requirements of company law or the provisions of the company’s memorandum and articles of association, then the courts will grant relief. Generally, the areas in which the courts will intervene are the following: (1) an act complained of which is outside the scope of the authorized business or is illegal or not capable of ratification by the majority; (2) acts that constitute fraud on the minority where the wrongdoers control the company; (3) acts that infringe on the personal rights of the shareholders, such as the right to vote; and (4) where the company has not complied with provisions requiring approval of a special or extraordinary majority of shareholders, which are more limited than the rights afforded minority shareholders under the laws of many states in the United States subject to limited exceptions, under Cayman Islands Law a minority shareholder may not bring a derivative action against directors. Our Cayman Islands’ counsel has advised us that they are aware of one recent as yet unreported derivative action having been brought in a Cayman Islands’ court. Class actions are not recognized in the Cayman Islands, but groups of shareholders with identical interests may bring representative proceedings, which are similar.

As a result, you may be limited in your ability to protect your interests if you are harmed in a manner that would otherwise enable you to sue in a United States federal court. In addition, shareholders of Cayman Islands companies may not have standing to initiate a shareholder derivative action in U.S. federal courts.

As a result of all of the above, shareholders of our Company may have more difficulty in protecting their interests in the face of actions taken by management, members of the board of directors or controlling shareholders than they would have as shareholders of a public U.S. company.

You may face difficulties in protecting your interests, and your ability to protect your rights through the U.S. federal courts may be limited because we are incorporated under Cayman Islands law, we currently conduct substantially all of our operations outside the United States and some of our directors and executive officers reside outside the United States.

We are incorporated in the Cayman Islands and currently conduct substantially all of our operations outside the United States through our subsidiaries. Some of our directors and executive officers reside outside the United States and a substantial portion of their assets are located outside of the United States. As a result, it may be difficult or impossible for you to bring an action against us or against these individuals in the Cayman Islands, the United Kingdom or in Hong Kong, in the event that you believe that your rights have been infringed under the securities laws of the United States or otherwise. Even if you are successful in bringing an action of this kind, the laws of the Cayman Islands, the United Kingdom and Hong Kong may render you unable to enforce a judgment against our assets or the assets of our directors and officers. There is no statutory recognition in the Cayman Islands of judgments obtained in the United States, the United Kingdom or Hong Kong, although the courts of the Cayman Islands will generally recognize and enforce a non-penal judgment of a foreign court of competent jurisdiction without retrial on the merits if such judgment is final, for a liquidated sum, not in the nature of taxes, a fine or penalty, is not inconsistent with a Cayman Islands’ judgment in respect of the same matters, and was not obtained in a manner which is contrary to public policy. In addition, a Cayman Islands court may stay proceedings if concurrent proceedings are being brought elsewhere.

As a foreign private issuer, we are permitted to adopt certain home country practices in relation to corporate governance matters that differ significantly from the NASDAQ Global Market corporate governance listing standards. These practices may afford less protection to shareholders than they would enjoy if we complied fully with corporate governance listing standards.

As a foreign private issuer, we are permitted to take advantage of certain provisions in the NASDAQ Global Market listing rules that allow us to follow Cayman Islands law for certain governance matters. Certain corporate governance practices in the Cayman Islands may differ significantly from corporate governance listing standards as, except for general fiduciary duties and duties of care, Cayman Islands law has no corporate governance regime which prescribes specific corporate governance standards. We may follow Cayman Islands corporate governance practices in lieu of the corporate governance requirements of the Nasdaq Global Market in respect of the following. For instance, Cayman law does not require that we obtain shareholder approval to issue 20% or more of our outstanding Ordinary Shares in a private offering nor we make our interim results available to shareholders, although as a NASDAQ listed company we are required to publicly file interim results for the first six months of our fiscal year. Therefore, our shareholders may be afforded less protection than they otherwise would have under corporate governance listing standards applicable to U.S. domestic issuers.

We are an emerging growth company within the meaning of the Securities Act and will take advantage of certain reduced reporting requirements.

We are an “emerging growth company,” as defined in the JOBS Act and take advantage of certain exemptions from various requirements applicable to other public companies that are not emerging growth companies including, most significantly, not being required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act for so long as we are an emerging growth company. As a result, if we elect not to comply with such auditor attestation requirements, our investors may not have access to certain information they may deem important.

The JOBS Act also provides that an emerging growth company does not need to comply with any new or revised financial accounting standards until such date that a private company is otherwise required to comply with such new or revised accounting standards. The Company has elected to use the extended transition period for complying with new or revised accounting standard under Section 102(b)(2) of the Jobs Act, that allows the Company to delay the adoption of new or revised accounting standards that have different effective dates for public and private companies until those standards apply to private companies.

Risks Related to Doing Business in Hong Kong

Our company currently does not have any operations in mainland China. Accordingly, the laws and regulations of the PRC do not currently have any material impact on our business, financial condition and results of operations. However, if certain PRC laws and regulations were to become applicable to a company such as us in the future, the application of such laws and regulations may have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to offer or continue to offer securities to investors, any of which may cause the value of our Class A Ordinary Shares, to significantly decline or become worthless. See the following risk factors of “Our business, financial condition and results of operations, and/or the value of our Class A Ordinary Shares or our ability to offer or continue to offer securities to investors may be materially and adversely affected to the extent the laws and regulations of the PRC become applicable to a company such as us” and “The PRC government exerts substantial influence and discretion over the manner in which companies incorporated under the laws of PRC must conduct their business activities. We have business operations in Hong Kong but not in mainland China. However, if we were to become subject to such direct influence or discretion, it may result in a material change in our operations and/or the value of your Class Ordinary Shares, which would materially affect the interests of investors.”

Political risks associated with conducting business in Hong Kong.

Most of our operations are based in Hong Kong. Accordingly, our business operations and financial conditions will be affected by the political and legal developments in Hong Kong. During the period covered by the financial information incorporated by reference into and included in this Report, we maintain substantially most of our operations in Hong Kong. Any adverse economic, social and/or political conditions, material social unrest, strike, riot, civil disturbance or disobedience, as well as significant natural disasters, may affect the market may adversely affect the business operations of our operations. Hong Kong is a special administrative region of the PRC and the basic policies of the PRC regarding Hong Kong are reflected in the Basic Law (the “Hong Kong Basic Law” or the “Basic Law”), namely, Hong Kong’s constitutional document, which provides Hong Kong with a high degree of autonomy and executive, legislative and independent judicial powers, including that of final adjudication under the principle of “one country, two systems”. However, there is no assurance that there will not be any changes in the economic, political and legal environment in Hong Kong in the future. Since our operation is based in Hong Kong, any change of such political arrangements may pose immediate threat to the stability of the economy in Hong Kong, thereby directly and adversely affecting our results of operations and financial positions.

Under the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China, Hong Kong is exclusively in charge of its internal affairs and external relations, while the government of the PRC is responsible for its foreign affairs and defense. As a separate customs territory, Hong Kong maintains and develops relations with foreign states and regions. Based on certain recent development including the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Safeguarding National Security in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region issued by the Standing Committee of the PRC National People’s Congress in June 2020, the U.S. State Department has indicated that the United States no longer considers Hong Kong to have significant autonomy from China and Former President Trump signed an executive order and Hong Kong Autonomy Act (“HKAA”) to remove Hong Kong’s preferential trade status and to authorize the U.S. administration to impose blocking sanctions against individuals and entities who are determined to have materially contributed to the erosion of Hong Kong’s autonomy. The United States may impose the same tariffs and other trade restrictions on exports from Hong Kong that it places on goods from mainland China. These and other recent actions may represent an escalation in political and trade tensions involving the U.S., China and Hong Kong, which could potentially harm our business.

Given the relatively small geographical size of Hong Kong, any of such incidents may have a widespread effect on our business operations, which could in turn adversely and materially affect our business, results of operations and financial condition. It is difficult to predict the full impact of the HKAA on Hong Kong and companies with operations in Hong Kong like us. Furthermore, legislative or administrative actions in respect of China-U.S. relations could cause investor uncertainty for affected issuers, including us, and the market price of our Ordinary Shares could be adversely affected.

If we become directly subject to the recent scrutiny, criticism and negative publicity involving U.S.-listed Chinese companies, we may have to expend significant resources to investigate and resolve the matter which could harm our business operations, stock price and reputation and could result in a loss of your investment in our stock, especially if such matter cannot be addressed and resolved favorably.

Recently, U.S. public companies that have substantially all of their operations in China, including Hong Kong, have been the subject of intense scrutiny, criticism and negative publicity by investors, financial commentators and regulatory agencies, such as the SEC. Much of the scrutiny, criticism and negative publicity has centered around financial and accounting irregularities and mistakes, a lack of effective internal controls over financial accounting, inadequate corporate governance policies or a lack of adherence thereto and, in many cases, allegations of fraud. As a result of the scrutiny, criticism and negative publicity, the publicly traded stock of many U.S. listed Chinese companies has sharply decreased in value and, in some cases, has become virtually worthless. Many of these companies are now subject to shareholder lawsuits and SEC enforcement actions and are conducting internal and external investigations into the allegations. It is not clear what effect this sector-wide scrutiny, criticism and negative publicity will have on our company, our business and our stock price. If we become the subject of any unfavorable allegations, whether such allegations are proven to be true or untrue, we will have to expend significant resources to investigate such allegations and/or defend our company. This situation will be costly and time consuming and distract our management from growing our company.

The recent joint statement by the SEC, proposed rule changes submitted by Nasdaq, and an act passed by the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives, all call for additional and more stringent criteria to be applied to emerging market companies. These developments could add uncertainties to our offering, business operations, share price and reputation.

U.S. public companies that have substantially all of their operations in China and Hong Kong have been the subject of intense scrutiny, criticism and negative publicity by investors, financial commentators and regulatory agencies, such as the SEC. Much of the scrutiny, criticism and negative publicity has centered on financial and accounting irregularities and mistakes, a lack of effective internal controls over financial accounting, inadequate corporate governance policies or a lack of adherence thereto and, in many cases, allegations of fraud.

On April 21, 2020, SEC Chairman Jay Clayton and PCAOB Chairman William D. Duhnke III, along with other senior SEC staff, released a joint statement highlighting the risks associated with investing in companies based in or have substantial operations in emerging markets including China, including Hong Kong, reiterating past SEC and PCAOB statements on matters including the difficulty associated with inspecting accounting firms and audit work papers in China and Hong Kong and higher risks of fraud in emerging markets and the difficulty of bringing and enforcing SEC, Department of Justice and other U.S. regulatory actions, including in instances of fraud, in emerging markets generally.

On May 20, 2020, the U.S. Senate passed the HFCA Act requiring a foreign company to certify it is not owned or controlled by a foreign government if the PCAOB is unable to audit specified reports because the company uses a foreign auditor not subject to PCAOB inspection. If the PCAOB is unable to inspect the company’s auditors for three consecutive years, the issuer’s securities are prohibited to trade on a national exchange. On December 2, 2020, the U.S. House of Representatives approved the HFCA Act.

On May 21, 2021, Nasdaq filed three proposals with the SEC to (i) apply minimum offering size requirement for companies primarily operating in a “Restrictive Market”, (ii) prohibit Restrictive Market companies from directly listing on Nasdaq Capital Market, and only permit them to list on Nasdaq Global Select or Nasdaq Global Market in connection with a direct listing and (iii) apply additional and more stringent criteria to an applicant or listed company based on the qualifications of the company’s auditors.

On March 24, 2021, the SEC announced the adoption of interim final amendments to implement the submission and disclosure requirements of the HFCA Act. In the announcement, the SEC clarifies that before any issuer will have to comply with the interim final amendments, the SEC must implement a process for identifying covered issuers. The announcement also states that the SEC staff is actively assessing how best to implement the other requirements of the HFCA Act, including the identification process and the trading prohibition requirements.

On June 22, 2021, the U.S. Senate passed the AHFCAA, which, if signed into law, would amend the HFCA Act and require the SEC to prohibit an issuer’s securities from trading on any U.S. stock exchanges if its auditor is not subject to the PCAOB inspections for two consecutive years instead of three consecutive years.

On September 22, 2021, the PCAOB adopted a final rule implementing the HFCA Act, which provides a framework for the PCAOB to use when determining, as contemplated under the HFCA Act, whether the board of directors of a company is unable to inspect or investigate completely registered public accounting firms located in a foreign jurisdiction because of a position taken by one or more authorities in that jurisdiction.

On December 2, 2021, the SEC adopted amendments to finalize rules implementing the submission and disclosure requirements in the HFCA Act.

On December 16, 2021, the PCAOB issued a report on its determinations that it is unable to inspect or investigate completely PCAOB-registered public accounting firms headquartered in mainland China and in Hong Kong because of positions taken by PRC and Hong Kong authorities in those jurisdictions.

On December 29, 2022, the Consolidated Appropriations Act was signed into law by President Biden. The Consolidated Appropriations Act contained, among other things, an identical provision to AHFCAA, which reduce the number of consecutive non-inspection years required for triggering the prohibitions under the HFCA Act from three years to two.

The lack of access to the PCAOB inspection in China prevents the PCAOB from fully evaluating audits and quality control procedures of the auditors based in China. As a result, investors may be deprived of the benefits of such PCAOB inspections. The inability of the PCAOB to conduct inspections of auditors in China makes it more difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of these accounting firm’s audit procedures or quality control procedures as compared to auditors outside of China that are subject to the PCAOB inspections, which could cause investors and potential investors in our Class A Ordinary Shares to lose confidence in our audit procedures and reported financial information and the quality of our financial statements.

Our auditor, Marcum Asia CPAs LLP, as the auditor of companies that are traded publicly in the U.S. and firms registered with the PCAOB, are subject to laws in the U.S., pursuant to which the PCAOB conducts regular inspections to assess their compliance with the applicable professional standards. Marcum Asia CPAs LLP is headquartered in Manhattan, New York, and have been inspected by the PCAOB on a regular basis, with the last inspections in 2020, and Marcum Asia CPAs LLP is not subject to the determinations announced by the PCAOB on December 16, 2021.

However, the recent developments would add uncertainties to our ability to offer or continue to offer securities and we cannot assure you whether the national securities exchange we apply to for listing or regulatory authorities would apply additional and more stringent criteria to us after considering the effectiveness of our auditor’s audit procedures and quality control procedures, adequacy of personnel and training, or sufficiency of resources, geographic reach, or experience as it relates to our audit. In addition, the HFCA Act, as amended, which requires that the PCAOB be permitted to inspect an issuer’s public accounting firm within two years, may result in the delisting of our Company or prohibition of trading in our Class A Ordinary Shares in the future if the PCAOB is unable to inspect our accounting firm at such future time.

On August 26, 2022, the China Securities Regulatory Commission, the MOF, and the PCAOB signed the Protocol governing inspections and investigations of audit firms based in mainland China and Hong Kong, taking the first step toward opening access for the PCAOB to inspect and investigate registered public accounting firms headquartered in mainland China and Hong Kong. Pursuant to the fact sheet with respect to the Protocol disclosed by the SEC, the PCAOB shall have independent discretion to select any issuer audits for inspection or investigation and has the unfettered ability to transfer information to the SEC. On December 15, 2022, the PCAOB Board determined that the PCAOB was able to secure complete access to inspect and investigate registered public accounting firms headquartered in mainland China and Hong Kong and voted to vacate its previous determinations to the contrary. However, should PRC authorities obstruct or otherwise fail to facilitate the PCAOB’s access in the future, the PCAOB Board will consider the need to issue a new determination.

As a result of this scrutiny, criticism and negative publicity, the publicly traded stock of many U.S. listed Chinese and Hong Kong companies sharply decreased in value and, in some cases, has become virtually worthless. Many of these companies are now subject to shareholder lawsuits and SEC enforcement actions and are conducting internal and external investigations into the allegations. It is not clear what effect this sector-wide scrutiny, criticism and negative publicity will have on us, our ability to offer or continue to offer securities, business and our share price. If we become the subject of any unfavorable allegations, whether such allegations are proven to be true or untrue, we will have to expend significant resources to investigate such allegations and/or defend our company. This situation will be costly and time consuming and distract our management from developing our growth. If such allegations are not proven to be groundless, we and our business operations will be severely affected and you could sustain a significant decline in the value of our share.

Nasdaq may apply additional and more stringent criteria for our continued listing because our insiders hold a large portion of our listed securities.

Nasdaq Listing Rule 5101 provides Nasdaq with broad discretionary authority over the initial and continued listing of securities in Nasdaq and Nasdaq may use such discretion to deny initial listing, apply additional or more stringent criteria for the initial or continued listing of particular securities, or suspend or delist particular securities based on any event, condition, or circumstance that exists or occurs that makes initial or continued listing of the securities on Nasdaq inadvisable or unwarranted in the opinion of Nasdaq, even though the securities meet all enumerated criteria for initial or continued listing on Nasdaq. In addition, Nasdaq has used its discretion to deny initial or continued listing or to apply additional and more stringent criteria in the instances, including but not limited to: (i) where the company engaged an auditor that has not been subject to an inspection by PCAOB, an auditor that PCAOB cannot inspect, or an auditor that has not demonstrated sufficient resources, geographic reach, or experience to adequately perform the company’s audit; (ii) where the company planned a small public offering, which would result in insiders holding a large portion of the company’s listed securities; and (iii) where the company did not demonstrate sufficient nexus to the U.S. capital market, including having no U.S. shareholders, operations, or members of the board of directors or management. The insiders of our Company hold a large portion of the company’s listed securities. Therefore, we may be subject to the additional and more stringent criteria of Nasdaq for our continued listing, which might result in deficiency letters or inquiries that will take management’s time away from focusing on our operations.

Our business, financial condition and results of operations, and/or the value of our Class A Ordinary Shares or our ability to offer or continue to offer securities to investors may be materially and adversely affected to the extent the laws and regulations of the PRC become applicable to a company such as us.

We currently do not have or intend to have any subsidiary or any contractual arrangement to establish a variable interest entity structure with any entity in mainland China. All of our operating entities are in jurisdictions outside of mainland China, including all three of our VIEs which are incorporated under the laws of Cayman Islands and conduct operations in Hong Kong. However, as our principal place of business is in Hong Kong, a special administrative region of China, there is no guarantee that if certain existing or future laws of the PRC become applicable to a company such as us, it will not have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition and results of operations and/or our ability to offer or continue to offer securities to investors, any of which may cause the value of such securities to significantly decline or be worthless.

Except for the Basic Law, the national laws of the PRC do not apply in Hong Kong unless they are listed in Annex III of the Basic Law and applied locally by promulgation or local legislation. National laws that may be listed in Annex III are currently limited under the Basic Law to those which fall within the scope of defense and foreign affairs as well as other matters outside the limits of the autonomy of Hong Kong. National laws and regulations relating to data protection, cybersecurity and anti-monopoly have not been listed in Annex III and so do not apply directly to Hong Kong.

The laws and regulations in the PRC are evolving, and their enactment timetable, interpretation and implementation involve significant uncertainties. To the extent any PRC laws and regulations become applicable to us, we may be subject to the risks and uncertainties associated with the legal system in the PRC, including with respect to the enforcement of laws and the possibility of changes of rules and regulations with little or no advance notice. We currently do not have plan to expand our operation or acquire any operation in the mainland China. However, we may also become subject to the laws and regulations of the PRC to the extent we commence business and customer facing operations in mainland China as a result of any future acquisition, expansion or organic growth.

The PRC government exerts substantial influence and discretion over the manner in which companies incorporated under the laws of PRC must conduct their business activities. We have business operations in Hong Kong but not in in mainland China. However, if we were to become subject to such direct influence or discretion, it may result in a material change in our operations and/or the value of our Class A Ordinary Shares, which would materially affect the interest of the investors.

The PRC legal system is evolving rapidly and the PRC laws, regulations, and rules may change quickly with little advance notice. In particular, because these laws, rules and regulations are relatively new, and because of the limited number of published decisions and the non-precedential nature of these decisions, the interpretation of these laws, rules and regulations may contain inconsistences, the enforcement of which involves uncertainties. The PRC government has exercised and continues to exercise substantial control over many sectors of the PRC economy through regulation and/or state ownership. Government actions have had, and may continue to have, a significant effect on economic conditions in the PRC and businesses which are subject to such government actions.

We have business operations in Hong Kong, but not in mainland China, and we directly, or indirectly via our subsidiaries, own equity interests in our operating entities, none of which are located in mainland China, although all three of our VIEs are incorporated under the laws of Cayman Islands and conduct operations in Hong Kong. Our principal executive offices are located in Europe, but our principal place of business is in Hong Kong, a special administrative region of China. The PRC government currently does not exert direct influence and discretion over the manner in which we conduct our business activities outside of mainland China, however, there is no guarantee that we will not be subject to such direct influence or discretion in the future due to changes in laws or other unforeseeable reasons or as a result of our future expansion or acquisition of operations in mainland China. See “- Our business, financial condition and results of operations, and/or the value of our Class A Ordinary Shares or our ability to offer or continue to offer securities to investors may be materially and adversely affected to the extent the laws and regulations of the PRC become applicable to a company such as us.”

We currently do not have plans to expand our operation or acquire any operation in the mainland China. However, if we were to become subject to the direct intervention or influence of the PRC government at any time due to changes in laws or other unforeseeable reasons or as a result of our future development, expansion or acquisition of operations in the PRC, it may require a material change in our operations and/or result in increased costs necessary to comply with existing and newly adopted laws and regulations or penalties for any failure to comply. In addition, the market prices of our Class A Ordinary Shares could be adversely affected as a result of anticipated negative impacts of any such government actions, as well as negative investor sentiment towards Hong Kong-based companies subject to direct PRC government oversight and regulation, regardless of our actual operating performance. There can be no assurance that the Chinese government would not intervene in or influence our operations at any time.

We were not required to obtain permission from the PRC government to list on a U.S. securities exchange, however there is no guarantee that this will continue to be the case in the future in relation to the continued listing of our securities on a securities exchange outside of the PRC, or even when such permission is obtained, it will not be subsequently denied or rescinded. Any actions by the PRC government to exert more oversight and control over offerings (including of businesses whose primary operations are in Hong Kong) that are conducted overseas and/or foreign investments in Hong Kong-based issuers could significantly limit or completely hinder our ability to offer or continue to offer securities to investors and cause the value of our securities, including our Class A Ordinary Shares, to significantly decline or be worthless.

The enactment of Law of the PRC on Safeguarding National Security in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (the “Hong Kong National Security Law”) could impact our Hong Kong holding subsidiary.

On June 30, 2020, the Standing Committee of the PRC National People’s Congress adopted the Hong Kong National Security Law. This law defines the duties and government bodies of the Hong Kong National Security Law for safeguarding national security and four categories of offences - secession, subversion, terrorist activities, and collusion with a foreign country or external elements to endanger national security - and their corresponding penalties. On July 14, 2020, the former U.S. President Donald Trump signed the Hong Kong Autonomy Act, or HKAA, into law, authorizing the U.S. administration to impose blocking sanctions against individuals and entities who are determined to have materially contributed to the erosion of Hong Kong’s autonomy. On August 7, 2020 the U.S. government imposed HKAA-authorized sanctions on eleven individuals, including former HKSAR chief executive Carrie Lam. On October 14, 2020, the U.S. State Department submitted to relevant committees of Congress the report required under HKAA, identifying persons materially contributing to “the failure of the Government of China to meet its obligations under the Joint Declaration or the Basic Law.” The HKAA further authorizes secondary sanctions, including the imposition of blocking sanctions, against foreign financial institutions that knowingly conduct a significant transaction with foreign persons sanctioned under this authority. The imposition of sanctions may directly affect the foreign financial institutions as well as any third parties or customers dealing with any foreign financial institution that is targeted. It is difficult to predict the full impact of the Hong Kong National Security Law and HKAA on Hong Kong and companies located in Hong Kong. If our Hong Kong subsidiaries are determined to be in violation of the Hong Kong National Security Law or the HKAA by competent authorities, our business operations, financial position and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected.

The Hong Kong legal system embodies uncertainties which could limit the availability of legal protections.

As one of the conditions for the handover of the sovereignty of Hong Kong to China, China accepted conditions such as Hong Kong’s Basic Law. The Basic Law ensured Hong Kong will retain its own currency (Hong Kong Dollar), legal system, parliamentary system and people’s rights and freedom for fifty years from 1997. This agreement has given Hong Kong the freedom to function with a high degree of autonomy. The Special Administrative Region of Hong Kong is responsible for its own domestic affairs including, but not limited to, the judiciary and courts of last resort, immigration and customs, public finance, currencies and extradition. Hong Kong continues using the English common law system.

However, if the PRC attempts to alter its agreement to allow Hong Kong to function autonomously, this could potentially impact Hong Kong’s common law legal system and may in turn bring about uncertainty in, for example, the enforcement of our contractual rights. This could, in turn, materially and adversely affect our business and operations. Additionally, intellectual property rights and confidentiality protections in Hong Kong may not be as effective as in the United States or other countries. Accordingly, we cannot predict the effect of future developments in the Hong Kong legal system, including the promulgation of new laws, changes to existing laws or the interpretation or enforcement thereof, or the preemption of local regulations by national laws. These uncertainties could limit the legal protections available to us, including our ability to enforce our agreements with our customers.

There remain some uncertainties as to whether we will be required to obtain approvals from Chinese authorities to list on the U.S. exchanges and offer or continue to offer securities in the future, and if required, we cannot assure you that we will be able to obtain such approval.

The Regulations on Mergers and Acquisitions of Domestic Companies by Foreign Investors (the “M&A Rules”), adopted by six PRC regulatory agencies in 2006 and amended in 2009, requires an overseas special purpose vehicle formed for listing purposes through acquisitions of PRC domestic companies and controlled by PRC companies or individuals to obtain the approval of the China Securities Regulatory Commission (“CSRC”) prior to the listing and trading of such special purpose vehicle’s securities on an overseas stock exchange.

We are also aware that recently, the PRC government initiated a series of regulatory actions and statements to regulate business operations in certain areas in mainland China with little advance notice, including cracking down on illegal activities in the securities market, enhancing supervision over mainland-China-based companies listed overseas using variable interest entity structure, adopting new measures to extend the scope of cybersecurity reviews, and expanding the efforts in anti-monopoly enforcement. For example, on July 6, 2021, the General Office of the Communist Party of China Central Committee and the General Office of the State Council jointly issued a document to crack down on illegal activities in the securities market and promote the high-quality development of the capital market, which, among other things, requires the relevant governmental authorities to strengthen cross-border oversight of law-enforcement and judicial cooperation, to enhance supervision over mainland-China-based companies listed overseas, and to establish and improve the system of extraterritorial application of the PRC securities laws.

On December 28, 2021, the Cyberspace Administration of China (“CAC”), and other PRC authorities promulgated the Cybersecurity Review Measures, which took effect on February 15, 2022. In addition, the Cybersecurity Law, which was adopted by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress on November 7, 2016 and came into force on June 1, 2017, and the Cybersecurity Review Measures, or the “Review Measures”, provide that personal information and important data collected and generated by a critical information infrastructure operator in the course of its operations in mainland China must be stored in mainland China, and if a critical information infrastructure operator purchases internet products and services that affect or may affect national security, it should be subject to national security review by the CAC together with competent departments of the State Council. In addition, for critical information infrastructure operators, or the “CIIOs”, that purchase network-related products and services, the CIIOs shall declare any network-related product or service that affects or may affect national security to the Office of Cybersecurity Review of the CAC for cybersecurity review. Due to the lack of further interpretations, the exact scope of what constitutes a “CIIO” remains unclear. Further, the PRC government authorities may have wide discretion in the interpretation and enforcement of these laws. In addition, the Review Measures stipulates that any online platform operators holding more than one million users/users’ individual information shall be subject to cybersecurity review before listing abroad. As of the date of the annual report, neither we nor our subsidiaries have received any notice from any authorities identifying us or our subsidiaries as a CIIO or requiring us or our subsidiaries to undertake a cybersecurity review by the CAC. Further, as of the date of this amendment to the annual report, neither we nor our subsidiaries have been subject to any penalties, fines, suspensions, or investigations from any competent authorities for violation of the regulations or policies that the CAC has issued.

On June 10, 2021, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress promulgated the Data Security Law, which took effect on September 1, 2021. The Data Security Law requires that data shall not be collected by theft or other illegal means, and it also provides for a data classification and hierarchical protection system. The data classification and hierarchical protection system protects data according to its importance in economic and social development, and the damages it may cause to national security, public interests, or the legitimate rights and interests of individuals and organizations if the data is falsified, damaged, disclosed, illegally obtained or illegally used, which protection system is expected to be built by the state for data security in the near future. On November 14, 2021, CAC published the Regulations on the Data Security Administration Draft, or the “Data Security Regulations Draft”, to solicit public opinion and comments. Under the Data Security Regulations Draft, an overseas initial public offering to be conducted by a data processor processing the personal information of more than one million individuals shall apply for a cybersecurity review. Data processor means an individual or organization that independently makes decisions on the purpose and manner of processing in data processing activities, and data processing activities refers to activities such as the collection, retention, use, processing, transmission, provision, disclosure, or deletion of data. Currently we do not expect the Review Measures to have an impact on the business and operations of our Hong Kong subsidiaries, because (i) our Hong Kong subsidiaries are incorporated and operating in Hong Kong without any subsidiary or variety interest entity (“VIE”) structure in mainland China, and it is unclear whether the Review Measures shall be applied to a Hong Kong company; (ii) as of the date of this amendment to the annual report, our Hong Kong subsidiaries have not collected or stored personal information of any individual clients of mainland China; and (iii) as of the date of this amendment to the annual report, our Hong Kong subsidiaries have not been informed by any PRC governmental authority of any requirement that it file for a cybersecurity review for the offering. Based on laws and regulations currently in effect in the PRC as of the date of this amendment to the annual report, we believe our Hong Kong subsidiaries are not required to pass the cybersecurity review of the CAC in order to list our Class A Ordinary Shares in the U.S.

In addition, on December 24, 2021, the CSRC issued the Administrative Provisions of the State Council Regarding the Overseas Issuance and Listing of Securities by Domestic Enterprises (the “Draft Administrative Provisions”) and the Measures for the Overseas Issuance of Securities and Listing Record-Filings by Domestic Enterprises (Draft for Comments) (the “Draft Filing Measures”), collectively, the Draft Rules Regarding Overseas Listings. The Draft Rules Regarding Overseas Listing aim to lay out the filing regulation arrangement for both direct and indirect overseas listing and clarify the determination criteria for indirect overseas listing in overseas markets. According to the Draft Rules Regarding Overseas Listings, among other things, after making initial applications with overseas stock markets for initial public offerings or listings, all mainland-China-based companies shall file with the CSRC within three working days. The required filing materials with the CSRC include (without limitation): (i) record-filing reports and related undertakings, (ii) compliance certificates, filing or approval documents from the primary regulators of applicants’ businesses (if applicable), (iii) security assessment opinions issued by related departments (if applicable), (iv) PRC legal opinions, and (v) prospectus. In addition, overseas offerings and listings may be prohibited for such mainland-China-based companies when any of the following applies: (1) if the intended securities offerings and listings are specifically prohibited by the laws, regulations or provisions of the PRC; (2) if the intended securities offerings and listings may constitute a threat to, or endanger national security as reviewed and determined by competent authorities under the State Council in accordance with laws; (3) if there are material ownership disputes over applicants’ equity interests, major assets, core technologies, or the others; (4) if, in the past three years, applicants’ domestic enterprises, controlling shareholders or de facto controllers have committed corruption, bribery, embezzlement, misappropriation of property, or other criminal offenses disruptive to the order of the socialist market economy, or are currently under judicial investigation for suspicion of criminal offenses, or are under investigation for suspicion of major violations; (5) if, in the past three years, any directors, supervisors, or senior executives of applicants have been subject to administrative punishments for severe violations, or are currently under judicial investigation for suspicion of criminal offenses, or are under investigation for suspicion of major violations; (6) other circumstances as prescribed by the State Council. The Draft Administrative Provisions further stipulate that a fine between RMB 1 million and RMB 10 million may be imposed if an applicant fails to fulfill the filing requirements with the CSRC or conducts an overseas offering or listing in violation of the Article 7 of Draft Administrative Provisions regarding the prohibited circumstances for overseas offering or listing, and in cases of severe violations, a parallel order to suspend relevant businesses or halt operations for rectification may be issued, and relevant business permits or operational license may be revoked. The Draft Rules Regarding Overseas Listings, if enacted, may subject us to additional compliance requirements in the future, if they are determined to be applicable to Hong Kong companies. If we are determined to be subject to the Draft Rules Regarding Overseas Listings, we cannot assure you that we will be able to receive clearance of such filing requirements in a timely manner, or at all, even though we believe that none of the situations that would clearly prohibit overseas listing and offering applies to us. Based on laws and regulations currently in effect in the PRC as of the date of this amendment to the annual report, we believe our Hong Kong subsidiaries are not required to obtain regulatory approval from the CSRC in order to list our Class A Ordinary Shares in the U.S.

Since these proposed rules, statements and regulatory actions are new, it is highly uncertain how soon the legislative or administrative regulation making bodies will respond and what existing or new laws or regulations or detailed implementations and interpretations will be modified or promulgated, if any. Any failure of us to fully comply with new regulatory requirements may significantly limit or completely hinder our ability to offer or continue to offer the Class A Ordinary Shares, cause significant disruption to our business operations, severely damage our reputation, materially and adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations, and cause the Class A Ordinary Shares to significantly decline in value or become worthless.

As of the date of this amendment to the annual report, on the basis that we currently do not have any business operations in mainland China, we believe are not required to obtain approvals from the PRC authorities to operate our business or list on the U.S. exchanges and offer or continue to offer securities; specifically, we are currently not required to obtain any permission or approval from the CSRC, the CAC or any other PRC governmental authority to operate our business or to list our securities on a U.S. securities exchange or issue securities to foreign investors. However, if we and our Hong Kong subsidiaries (i) do not receive or maintain such approval, should the approval be required in the future by the PRC government, (ii) inadvertently conclude that such approval is not required, or (iii) applicable laws, regulations, or interpretations change and we are required to obtain such approval in the future, our operations and financial condition could be materially adversely affected, and our ability to offer or continue to offer securities to investors could be significantly limited or completely hindered and the securities currently being offered may substantially decline in value and become worthless.

Nevertheless, since these statements and regulatory actions are new, it is highly uncertain how soon the legislative or administrative regulation making bodies will respond and what existing or new laws or regulations or detailed implementations and interpretations will be modified or promulgated, if any. It is also highly uncertain what potential impact such modified or new laws and regulations will have on Aptorum Group’s daily business operations, our ability to accept foreign investments and the listing of our Class A Ordinary Shares on a U.S. or other foreign exchanges. If there is significant change to current political arrangements between mainland China and Hong Kong, the PRC government intervenes or influences operations of companies operated in Hong Kong like us, or exerts more control through change of laws and regulations over offerings conducted overseas and/or foreign investment in issuers like us, it may result in a material change in our operations and/or the value of the securities we are registering for sale or could significantly limit or completely hinder our ability to offer or continue to offer securities to investors and cause the value of our Class A Ordinary Shares to significantly decline or become worthless.

It may be difficult for overseas shareholders and/or regulators to conduct investigations or collect evidence within China.

Shareholder claims or regulatory investigations that are common in the United States generally are difficult to pursue as a matter of law or practicality in China. For example, in China, there are significant legal and other obstacles to providing information needed for regulatory investigations or litigation initiated outside China. Although the authorities in China may establish a regulatory cooperation mechanism with the securities regulatory authorities of another country or region to implement cross-border supervision and administration, such cooperation with the securities regulatory authorities in the Unities States may not be efficient in the absence of mutual and practical cooperation mechanisms. Furthermore, according to Article 177 of the PRC Securities Law, or Article 177, which became effective in March 2020, no overseas securities regulator is allowed to directly conduct investigation or evidence collection activities within the territory of the PRC. While detailed interpretation of or implementation rules under Article 177 have yet to be promulgated, the inability for an overseas securities regulator to directly conduct investigation or evidence collection activities within China may further increase difficulties faced by you in protecting your interests.

Our auditor’s audit working papers are located in PRC. In the event that the U.S. regulators carry out investigation on us and there is a need to conduct investigation or collect evidence within the territory of the PRC, the U.S. regulators may not be able to carry out such investigation or evidence collection directly in the PRC under the PRC laws. The U.S. regulators may consider cross-border cooperation with securities regulatory authority of the PRC by way of judicial assistance, diplomatic channels or regulatory cooperation mechanism established with the securities regulatory authority of the PRC.