In February 2015, we announced that the FDAU.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) accepted, without objection, the Phase IbI dose-escalation clinical trial of GEN-1 in combination with the standard of care in neoadjuvant ovarian cancer (the “OVATION I Study”). On September 30, 2015, we announced enrollment of the first patient in the OVATION I Study. The OVATION I Study was designed (i) to identify a safe, tolerable and potentially therapeutically active dose of GEN-1 by recruiting and maximizing an immune response and (ii) to enroll three to six patients per dose level to evaluate safety and efficacy and attempt to define an optimal dose for a follow-on Phase I/II study. to:

In addition, the OVATION I Study establishesestablished a unique opportunity to assess how cytokine-based compounds such as GEN-1, directly affect ovarian cancer cells and the tumor microenvironment in newly diagnosed ovarian cancer patients. The study was designed to characterize the nature of the immune response triggered by GEN-1 at various levels of the patients’ immune system, including:

We initiated the OVATION I Study at four clinical sites at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, Oklahoma University Medical Center, Washington University in St. Louis, and the Medical College of Wisconsin. During 2016 and 2017, we announced data from the first fourteen patients in the OVATION I Study who completed treatment.Study. On October 3, 2017, we announced final clinicaltranslational research and translational researchclinical data from the OVATION I Study.

Key translational research findings from all evaluable patients are consistent with the earlier reports from partial analysis of the data and are summarized below:

The Company also reported positive clinical data from the first fourteen patients who completed treatment in the OVATION I Study. GEN-1 plus standard chemotherapy produced positive clinical results, with no dose limiting toxicities and positive dose dependent efficacy signals which correlate well with positive surgical outcomes. Theoutcomes as summarized below:

On March 2, 2019, the Company announced final progression free survival (“PFS”) results from the OVATION I Study evaluated escalating doses of GEN-1 (36 mg/m2, 47 mg/m2, 61 mg/m2 and 79 mg/m2) administered intraperitoneally in combination with three cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy prior to interval debulking surgery, followed by three cycles of NAC in the treatment of newly diagnosed patients with Stage III/IV ovarian cancer.

In this Phase IB dose-escalation study, the 14 patients who were evaluable for response demonstrated medianStudy. Median PFS of 21 months in patients treated per protocol (n=14) was 21 months and was 17.1 months for the intent-to-treat (“ITT”) population (n=18) for all dose cohorts, including three patients who dropped out of the study after 13 days or less, and two patients who did not receive full NAC and GEN-1 cycles. In addition, 100%Under the current standard of patients administeredcare, in women with Stage III/IV ovarian cancer undergoing NAC, plus the two higher doses of GEN-1 experienced an objective tumor response (defined as a partial or complete response) compared to only 60% of patients given the two lower doses. Pathological changes were assessed as part of the study, with the density of markers measured in tissue sections assessed via immunohistochemistry staining. Among patients administered the high doses of GEN-1 (n=8), pre-treatment to post-treatment reductions in key biomarkers were observed (FoxP3 -62.5%; IDO-1 -60%; PD-1 -62.5%; PD-L1 -37.5%). Reductions were also observed in patients administered the lower doses of GEN-1 (n=4) for all but one of the four key biomarkers (FoxP3 -40%; IDO-1 -40%; PD-1 +25%; PD-L1 -37.5%).their disease progresses within about 12 months on average. The ratio of CD8+ cells to the four key immunosuppressive cell signals increased following treatment in 60 - 80% of patients.

Dose-limiting toxicity was not reached inresults from the OVATION I Study.Study support continued evaluation of GEN-1 based on promising tumor response, as reported in the PFS data, and the ability for surgeons to completely remove visible tumor at interval debulking surgery. GEN-1 was well tolerated, and no dose-limiting toxicities were detected. Intraperitoneal administration of GEN-1 was feasible with broad patient acceptance.

OVATION 2 StudyStudy. The Company held an Advisory Board Meeting on September 27, 2017 with the clinical investigators and scientific experts including those from Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Vanderbilt University Medical School, and M.D. Anderson Cancer Center to review and finalize clinical, translational research and safety data from the OVATION I Study in order to determine the next steps forward for our GEN-1 immunotherapy program.

On November 13, 2017, the Company filed its Phase I/II clinical trial protocol with the U.S. Food and Drug AdministrationFDA for GEN-1 for the localized treatment of ovarian cancer. The protocol is designed with a single dose escalation phase to 100 mg/m² to identify a safe and tolerable dose of GEN-1 while maximizing an immune response. The Phase I portion of the study will be followed by a continuation at the selected dose in 130approximately 110 patients randomized Phase II study.

In the OVATION 2 Study, patients in the GEN-1 treatment arm will receive GEN-1 plus chemotherapy pre- and post-interval debulking surgery.surgery (“IDS”). The OVATION 2 Study will include up to 130110 patients with Stage III/IV ovarian cancer, with 12 to 15 patients in the Phase I portion and up to 11895 patients in Phase II. The study is 80% powered to show a 33% improvement in the primary endpoint, PFS, when comparing GEN-1 with neoadjuvant + adjuvant chemotherapy versus neoadjuvant + adjuvant chemotherapy alone. The PFS primary analysis will be conducted after at least 80 events have been observed or after all patients have been followed for at least 16 months, whichever is later.

Developed with extensive input from the Company’s Medical Advisory Board, the OVATION 2 Study builds on promising clinical and translational research data from the Phase IB dose-escalation OVATION I Study, in which enrolled patients received escalating weekly doses of GEN-1 up to 79 mg/m² for a total of eight treatments in combination with NACT, followed by IDS. In addition to exploring a higher dose of GEN-1 in the OVATION 2 study, patients will continue to receive GEN-1 after their IDS in combination with adjuvant chemotherapy.

On November 5, 2019, the Company announced that the independent Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) completed its safety review of data from the first eight patients enrolled in the ongoing Phase I/II OVATION 2 Study. Based on the DSMB’s recommendation, the study will continue as planned and the Company will proceed with completing enrollment in the Phase I portion of the trial.

The latest DSMB review of GEN-1 at 100 mg/m² (in November 2019 and February 2020) has confirmed that there were no apparent dose limiting toxicities detected in any of the patients dosed with GEN-1 and that intraperitoneal administration is well tolerated even when given with standard NACT. Of the fifteen patients treated in the Phase I portion of the OVATION 2 Study, nine patients were treated with GEN-1 plus NACT and six patients were treated with NACT only.

In March 2020, the Company announced highly encouraging initial clinical data from the first 15 patients enrolled in the ongoing Phase I/III portion of the OVATION 2 Study for patients newly diagnosed with Stage III and IV ovarian cancer. The OVATION 2 Study combines GEN-1, the Company’s IL-12 gene-mediated immunotherapy, with standard-of-care neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). Following NACT, patients undergo interval debulking surgery (IDS), followed by three additional cycles of chemotherapy.

GEN-1 plus standard NACT produced positive dose-dependent efficacy results, with no dose-limiting toxicities, which correlates well with successful surgical outcomes as summarized below:

BecauseOn March 23, 2020, the Company announced that the European Medicines Agency (the “EMA”) Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products (“COMP”) has recommended that GEN-1 be designated as an orphan medicinal product for the treatment of ovarian cancer. GEN-1 is an IL-12 DNA plasmid vector encased in a non-viral nanoparticle delivery system, which enables cell transfection followed by persistent, local secretion of the risks and uncertainties discussed in this Annual Report, among others, we are unable to estimate the duration and completion costs of our research and development projects or when, if ever, and to what extent we will receive cash inflowsIL-12 protein. GEN-1 previously received orphan designation from the commercializationFDA.

On March 26, 2020, the Company announced with Medidata, a Dassault Systèmes company, that examining matched patient data provided by Medidata in a synthetic control arm (“SCA”) with results from the Company’s completed Phase Ib dose-escalating OVATION I Study showed positive results in progression-free survival (“PFS”). The hazard ratio (“HR”) was 0.53 in the ITT group, showing strong signals of efficacy. Celsion believes these data may warrant consideration of strategies to accelerate the clinical development program for GEN-1 in newly diagnosed, advanced ovarian cancer patients by the FDA. In its March 2019 discussion with Celsion, the FDA noted that preliminary findings from the Phase Ib OVATION I Study were exciting but lacked a control group to evaluate GEN-1’s independent impact on impressive tumor response, surgical results and sale ofPFS. The FDA encouraged the Company to continue its GEN-1 development program and consult with FDA with new findings that may have a product. In addition, withbearing on designations such as Fast Track and Breakthrough Therapy.

SCAs have the recent outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic, we are still evaluating the impact that the pandemic will have on our trials and on our abilitypotential to timely develop our product candidates. Our inability to complete any of our research and development activities, preclinical studies orrevolutionize clinical trials in certain oncology indications and some other diseases where a timely mannerrandomized control is not ethical or our failure to enter into collaborative agreements when appropriate could significantly increase our capital requirements and could adversely impact our liquidity. While our estimated future capital requirementspractical. SCAs are uncertain and could increase or decrease as a result of many factors, including the extent to which we choose to advance our research, development activities, preclinical studies andformed by carefully selecting control patients from historical clinical trials to match the demographic and disease characteristics of the patients treated with the new investigational product. SCAs have been shown to mimic the results of traditional randomized controls so that the treatment effects of an investigational product can be visible by comparison to the SCA. SCAs can help advance the scientific validity of single arm trials, and in certain indications, reduce time and cost, and expose fewer patients to placebos or if weexisting standard-of-care treatments that might not be effective for them.

On July 27, 2020, the Company announced the randomization of the first two patients in the Phase II portion of the OVATION 2 Study with GEN-1 in advanced ovarian cancer. The Company anticipates completing enrollment of up to 110 patients in the second half of 2021. Because this is an open-label study, the Company intends to provide clinical updates throughout the course of treatment including response rates and surgical resection scores.

On February 22, 2021, the Company announced that it has received Fast Track designation from the FDA for GEN-1, its DNA-mediated IL-12 immunotherapy currently in Phase II development for the treatment of advanced ovarian cancer.

On February 25, 2021, the Company provided an update on the OVATION 2 Study. The Company reported that approximately one-third, or 34 patients, of the anticipated 110 patients had been enrolled into the OVATION 2 Study, of which 20 are in the treatment arm and 14 are in the control. Currently, 27 patients have had their interval debulking surgery with the following results:

The Company further reported that 22 clinical sites in the U.S. and Canada have been initiated, with three more sites expected to be added by the end of the first quarter. Clinical investigators met in early February 2021 in a positionvirtual meeting and expressed excitement about the potential for GEN-1 to pursue manufacturing or commercialization activities, we will need significant additional capitaltreat advanced ovarian cancer and, despite the challenges and earlier delays posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, they remain committed to develop our product candidates through development and clinical trials, obtain regulatory approvals and manufacture and commercialize approved products, if any. We do not know whether we will be able to access additional capital when needed or on terms favorable to us or our stockholders. Our inability to raise additional capital, or to do so on terms reasonably acceptable to us, would jeopardizecompleting enrollment in the future successstudy during the second half of our business.2021.

As a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company, our business and our ability to execute our strategy to achieve our corporate goals are subject to numerous risks and uncertainties. Material risks and uncertainties relating to our business and our industry are described in “Part I, Item 1A. Risk FactorsPLACCINE DNA VACCINE TECHNOLOGY PLATFORM” in this Annual Report.

In January 2021, the Company announced the filing of a provisional U.S. patent application for a novel DNA-based, investigational vaccine for preventing or treating infections from a broad range of infectious agents including the coronavirus disease using its PLACCINE DNA vaccine technology platform (“PLACCINE”). The provisional patent covers a family of novel composition of multi-cistronic vectors and polymeric nanoparticles that comprise the PLACCINE DNA vaccine platform technology for preventing or treating infectious agents that have the potential for global pandemics, including the SARS-CoV-2 virus and its variations, using the Company’s platform technology.

Celsion’s PLACCINE DNA vaccine technology platform is characterized by a single multi-cistronic DNA plasmid vector expressing multiple pathogen antigens along with a potent immune modifier and delivered with a synthetic delivery system. It is easily adaptable to creating vaccines for a multitude of pathogens, including emerging pathogens leading to pandemics as well as infectious diseases that have yet to be effectively addressed with current vaccine technologies. This flexible vaccine platform is well supported by an already established supply chain to produce any plasmid vector and its assembly into a respective vaccine formulation.

PLACCINE is an extension of the Company’s synthetic, non-viral TheraPlas delivery technology currently in a Phase II trial for the treatment of late-stage ovarian cancer with GEN-1. Celsion’s proprietary multifunctional DNA vaccine technology concept is built on the flexible PLACCINE technology platform that is amenable to rapidly responding to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, as well as possible future mutations of SARS-CoV-2, other future pandemics, emerging bioterrorism threats, and novel infectious diseases. Celsion’s extensive experience with TheraPlas suggests that the PLACCINE-based nanoparticles are stable at storage temperatures of 4^oC to 25^oC, making vaccines developed on this platform easily suitable for broad world-wide distribution.

Celsion’s vaccine approach is designed to optimize the quality of the immune response dictating the efficiency of pathogen clearance and patient recovery. Celsion has taken a multivalent approach in an effort to generate an even more robust immune response that not only results in a strong neutralizing antibody response, but also a more robust and durable T-cell response. Delivered with Celsion’s synthetic polymeric system, the proprietary DNA plasmid is protected from degradation and its cellular uptake is facilitated.

COVID-19 Vaccine Overview

Emerging data from the recent literature indicates that the quality of the immune response as opposed to its absolute magnitude is what dictates SARS-CoV-2 viral clearance and recovery and that an ineffective or non-neutralizing enhanced antibody response might actually exacerbate disease. The first-generation COVID-19 vaccines were developed for rapid production and deployment and were not optimized for generating cellular responses that result in effective viral clearance. Though early data has indicated some of these vaccines to be over 95% effective, these first-generation vaccines were primarily designed to generate a strong antibody response and, while they have been shown to provide prophylactic protection against disease, the durability of this protection is currently unclear. The vast majority of these vaccines have been specifically developed to target the SARS-CoV-2 Spike (S) protein (antigen), though it is known that restricting a vaccine to a sole viral antigen creates selection pressure that can serve to facilitate the emergence of viral resistance. Indeed, even prior to full vaccine rollout, it has been observed that the S protein is a locus for rapid evolutionary and functional change as evidenced by the D614G, Y453F, 501Y.V2, and VUI-202012/01 mutations/deletions. This propensity for mutation of the S protein leads to future risk of efficacy reduction over time as these mutations accumulate.

Our Next Generation Vaccine Initiative

Celsion’s next generation vaccine initiative stands at the confluence of immunotherapy and immunogenicity and envisions delivery, on a single plasmid, multiple SARS-CoV-2 antigens in conjunction with a potent immune modifier, interleukin-12 (IL-12), which directs a TH-1 immune response, stimulates T-cell immunity, and also promises the promotion of humoral immunity (antibody response). While most COVID-19 vaccines in late-stage clinical development are monovalent (S protein antigen only), Celsion has taken this multivalent approach in an effort to generate an even more robust immune response that not only results in a strong neutralizing antibody response, but also a more robust and durable T-cell response.

Celsion’s vaccine candidate approach comprises a single plasmid vector containing the DNA sequence encoding the cytokine IL-12 and multiple SARS-CoV-2 antigens, including S antigen in combination with the membrane (M) or nucleocapsid (N) antigen. Delivery will be evaluated intramuscularly, intradermally, or subcutaneously with a non-viral synthetic DNA delivery carrier that facilitates vector delivery into the cells of the injected tissue and has potential immune adjuvant properties. Unique designs and formulations of Celsion vaccine candidates may offer several potential key advantages.

Future vaccine technology will need to address viral mutations and the challenges of efficient manufacturing, distribution, and storage. We believe an adaptation of our TheraPlas technology, PLACCINE, has the potential to meet these challenges. Our approach is described in our provisional patent filing and is summarized as a DNA vaccine technology platform characterized by a single plasmid DNA with multiple coding regions. The plasmid vector is designed to express multiple pathogen antigens along with a potent immune modifier. It is delivered via a synthetic delivery system and has the potential to be easily modified to create vaccines against a multitude of infectious diseases, addressing:

We are conducting preliminary research associated with our recently announced proprietary DNA vaccine platform provisional patent filing. At the same time, we are redoubling our efforts and R&D resources in our immuno-oncology and next generation vaccine program.

THERMODOX^® - DIRECTED CHEMOTHERAPY

Liposomes are manufactured submicroscopic vesicles consisting of a discrete aqueous central compartment surrounded by a membrane bilayer composed of naturally occurring lipids. Conventional liposomes have been designed and manufactured to carry drugs and increase residence time, thus allowing the drugs to remain in the bloodstream for extended periods of time before they are removed from the body. However, the current existing liposomal formulations of cancer drugs and liposomal cancer drugs under development do not provide for the immediate release of the drug and the direct targeting of organ specific tumors, two important characteristics that are required for improving the efficacy of cancer drugs such as doxorubicin. A team of research scientists at Duke University developed a heat-sensitive liposome that rapidly changes its structure when heated to a threshold minimum temperature of 39.5º to 42º Celsius. Heating creates channels in the liposome bilayer that allow an encapsulated drug to rapidly disperse into the surrounding tissue. This novel, heat-activated liposomal technology is differentiated from other liposomes through its unique low heat-activated release of encapsulated chemotherapeutic agents. We are able to use several available focused-heat technologies, such as radiofrequency ablation (“RFA”), microwave energy and high intensity focused ultrasound (“HIFU”), to activate the release of drugs from our novel heat sensitive liposomes.

THERMODOX^® for the Treatment of Primary Liver Cancer

Primary Liver Cancer Overview

Hepatocellular carcinoma (“HCC”) is one of the most common and deadliest forms of cancer worldwide. It ranks as the third most common solid tumor cancer. It is estimated that up to 90% of liver cancer patients will die within five years of diagnosis. The incidence of primary liver cancer is approximately 35,000 cases per year in the U.S., approximately 65,000 cases per year in Europe and is increasing at approximately 2-3% per year worldwide. Global incidence (per 2017 GLOBALCAN statistics) is reported at 755,000 cases. The World Health Organization (the “WHO”) has projected that HCC will be the most prevalent form of cancer by 2030. HCC is commonly diagnosed in patients with longstanding hepatic disease and cirrhosis (primarily due to hepatitis C in the U.S., Japan and Europe and hepatitis B in Asia).

At an early stage, the standard first line treatment for liver cancer is surgical resection of the tumor. Up to 80% of patients are ineligible for surgery or transplantation at time of diagnosis because early-stage liver cancer generally has few symptoms and when finally detected the tumor frequently is too large for surgical resection. There are few alternative treatments since radiation therapy and chemotherapy are largely ineffective in treating liver cancer. For tumors generally up to 5 centimeters in diameter, RFA has emerged as the standard of care treatment which directly destroys the tumor tissue through the application of high temperatures administered by a probe inserted into the core of the tumor. Local recurrence rates after RFA directly correlate to the size of the tumor. For tumors 3 cm or smaller in diameter the recurrence rate has been reported to be 10 – 20%; however, for tumors greater than 3 cm, local recurrence rates of 40% or higher have been observed.

Celsion’s Approach

While RFA uses extremely high temperatures (greater than 90° Celsius) to ablate the tumor, it may fail to treat micro-metastases in the outer margins of the ablation zone because temperatures in the periphery may not be high enough to destroy cancer cells. Our ThermoDox® treatment approach is designed to utilize the ability of RFA devices to ablate the center of the tumor while simultaneously thermally activating our ThermoDox® liposome to release its encapsulated doxorubicin to kill any remaining viable cancer cells throughout the heated region, including the ablation margins. This novel treatment approach is intended to deliver the drug directly to those cancer cells that survive RFA. This approach is designed to increase the delivery of the doxorubicin at the desired tumor site while potentially reducing drug exposure distant to the tumor site.

OPTIMA Study

The OPTIMA Study represents an evaluation of ThermoDox^® in combination with a first line therapy, RFA, for newly diagnosed, intermediate stage HCC patients. The OPTIMA Study was designed to enroll up to 550 patients globally at approximately 65 clinical sites in the U.S., Canada, European Union (EU), China and other countries in the Asia-Pacific region and will evaluate ThermoDox^® in combination with standardized RFA, which will require a minimum of 45 minutes across all investigators and clinical sites for treating lesions three to seven centimeters, versus standardized RFA alone. The primary endpoint for the OPTIMA Study is OS, and the secondary endpoints are progression free survival and safety. The statistical plan calls for two interim efficacy analyses by an independent Data Monitoring Committee (“DMC”).

On February 24, 2014, we announced that the FDA provided clearance for the OPTIMA Study, which is a pivotal, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase III trial of ThermoDox^®, in combination with standardized RFA, for the treatment of primary liver cancer. The trial design of the OPTIMA Study is based on the comprehensive analysis of data from an earlier Phase III clinical trial called the HEAT Study (the “HEAT Study”). The OPTIMA Study is supported by a hypothesis developed from an OS analysis of a large subgroup of patients from the HEAT Study.

Post-hoc data analysis from our earlier Phase III HEAT Study suggests that ThermoDox^® may substantially improve OS, when compared to the control group, in patients if their lesions undergo a 45-minute RFA procedure standardized for a lesion greater than 3 cm in diameter. Data from nine OS sweeps have been conducted since the top line progression free survival PFS data from the HEAT Study were announced in January 2013, with each data set demonstrating substantial improvement in clinical benefit over the control group with statistical significance. On August 15, 2016, we announced updated results from its final retrospective OS analysis of the data from the HEAT Study. These results demonstrated that in a large, well bounded, subgroup of patients with a single lesion (n=285, 41% of the HEAT Study patients), treatment with a combination of ThermoDox^® and optimized RFA provided an average 54% risk improvement in OS compared to optimized RFA alone. The HR at this analysis is 0.65 (95% CI 0.45 - 0.94) with a p-value of 0.02. Median OS for the ThermoDox^® group has been reached which translates into a two-year survival benefit over the optimized RFA group (projected to be greater than 80 months for the ThermoDox^® plus optimized RFA group compared to less than 60 months projection for the optimized RFA only group). This information should be viewed with caution since it is based on a retrospective analysis of a subgroup.

We also conducted additional analyses that further strengthen the evidence for the HEAT Study subgroup.

On August 13, 2019, the Company announced that results from an independent analysis of the Company’s ThermoDox^® HEAT Study conducted by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) were published in the peer-reviewed publication, Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology. The analysis was conducted by the intramural research program of the NIH and the NIH Center for Interventional Oncology, with the full data set from the Company’s HEAT Study. The analysis evaluated the full data set to determine if there was a correlation between baseline tumor volume and RFA heating time (minutes/tumor volume in milliliters), with or without ThermoDox^® treatment, for patients with HCC. The NIH analysis was conducted under the direction of Dr. Bradford Wood, MD, Director, NIH Center for Interventional Oncology and Chief, NIH Clinical Center Interventional Radiology.

The article titled, “RFA Duration Per Tumor Volume May Correlate with Overall Survival in Solitary Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients Treated with RFA Plus Lyso-thermosensitive Liposomal Doxorubicin,” discussed the NIH analysis of results from 437 patients in the HEAT Study (all patients with a single lesion representing 62.4% of the study population). The key finding was that increased RFA heating time per tumor volume significantly improved OS in patients with single-lesion HCC who were treated with RFA plus ThermoDox^®, compared to patients treated with RFA alone. A one-unit increase in RFA duration per tumor volume was shown to result in about a 20% improvement in OS for patients administered ThermoDox^®, compared to RFA alone. The authors conclude that increasing RFA heating time in combination with ThermoDox^® significantly improves OS and establishes an improvement of over two years versus the control arm when the heating time per milliliter of tumor is greater than 2.5 minutes. This finding was consistent with the Company’s own results, which defined the optimized RFA procedure as a 45-minute treatment for tumors with a diameter of 3 centimeters. Thus, the NIH analysis lent support to the hypothesis underpinning the OPTIMA Study.

In August 2018, the Company announced that the OPTIMA Study was fully enrolled. On August 5, 2019, the Company announced that the prescribed number of OS events had been reached for the first prespecified interim analysis of the OPTIMA Phase III Study. Following preparation of the data, the first interim analysis was conducted by the DMC. The DMC’s pre-planned interim efficacy review followed 128 patient events, or deaths, which occurred in August 2019. On November 4, 2019, the Company announced that the DMC unanimously recommended the OPTIMA Study continue according to protocol. The recommendation was based on a review of blinded safety and data integrity from 556 patients enrolled in the OPTIMA Study. Data presented demonstrated that PFS and OS data appeared to be tracking with patient data observed at a similar point in the Company’s subgroup of patients followed prospectively in the earlier Phase III HEAT Study, upon which the OPTIMA Study was based.

On April 15, 2020, the Company announced that the prescribed minimum number of events of 158 patient deaths had been reached for the second pre-specified interim analysis of the OPTIMA Phase III Study. The hazard ratio for success at 158 deaths is 0.70, which represents a 30% reduction in the risk of death compared with RFA alone. On July 13, 2020, the Company announced that it has received a recommendation from the DMC to consider stopping the global OPTIMA Study. The recommendation was made following the second pre-planned interim safety and efficacy analysis by the DMC on July 9, 2020. The DMC analysis found that the pre-specified boundary for stopping the trial for futility of 0.900 was crossed with an actual value of 0.903. However, the 2-sided p-value of 0.524 for this analysis provides uncertainty, subsequently, the DMC left the final decision of whether or not to stop the OPTIMA Study to Celsion. There were no safety concerns noted during the interim analysis. The Company followed the advice of the DMC considered its options either to stop the study or continue to follow patients after a thorough review of the data, and an evaluation of our probability of success.

On August 4, 2020, the Company issued a press release announcing it would continue following patients for OS, noting that the unexpected and marginally crossed futility boundary, suggested by the Kaplan-Meier analysis at the second interim analysis on July 9, 2020, may be associated with a data maturity issue. On October 12, 2020, the Company provided an update on the ongoing data analysis from its Phase III OPTIMA Study with ThermoDox^® as well as growing interest among clinical investigators in conducting studies with ThermoDox^® as a monotherapy or in combination with other therapies.

On February 11, 2021, the Company provided a final update on the Phase III OPTIMA Study and the decision to stop following patients in the Study. Independent analyses conducted by a global biometrics contract research organization and the NIH, did not find any evidence of significance or factors that would justify continuing to follow patients for OS. Therefore, the Company notified all clinical sites to discontinue following patients. The OPTIMA Study database of 556 patients will now be frozen at 185 patient deaths. While the analyses did identify certain patient subgroups that appear to have had a clinical benefit, the Company concluded that it would not be in its best interest to pursue these retrospective findings as the regulatory hurdles supporting further discussion will be significant.

Investigator-Sponsored Studies with ThermoDox^®

Celsion continues working closely and supporting investigations by others throughout the world in breast cancer, pancreatic cancer and in solid tumors in children. Following inquiries from the NIH, we intend to renew our Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) with the Institute at a nominal cost, one goal of which is to pursue their interest in a study of ThermoDox^® to treat patients with bladder cancer. Importantly, Celsion is developing a business model to support these investigator-sponsored studies in a manner that will not interfere with the Company’s focus on our GEN-1 program and vaccine development initiative.

Below are summaries of several investigator-sponsored studies using ThermoDox®:

BUSINESS STRATEGY AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN

We have not generated and do not expect to generate any revenue from product sales in the next several years, if at all. An element of our business strategy has been to pursue, as resources permit, the research and development of a range of product candidates for a variety of indications. We may also evaluate licensing cancer products from third parties for cancer treatments to expand our current product pipeline. This is intended to allow us to diversify the risks associated with our research and development expenditures. To the extent we are unable to maintain a broad range of product candidates, our dependence on the success of one or a few product candidates would increase and results such as those announced in relation to the HEAT study on January 31, 2013OPTIMA Study in February 2021 will have a more significant impact on our financial prospects, financial condition and market value. We may also consider and evaluate strategic alternatives, including investment in, or acquisition of, complementary businesses, technologies or products. As demonstrated by the HEAT Study and OPTIMA Study results, drug research and development is an inherently uncertain process and there is a high risk of failure at every stage prior to approval. The timing and the outcome of clinical results are extremely difficult to predict. The success or failure of any preclinical development and clinical trial can have a disproportionately positive or negative impact on our results of operations, financial condition, prospects and market value.

Our current business strategy includes the possibility of entering into collaborative arrangements with third parties to complete the development and commercialization of our product candidates. In the event that third parties take over the clinical trial process for one or more of our product candidates, the estimated completion date would largely be under the control of that third party rather than us. We cannot forecast with any degree of certainty which proprietary products or indications, if any, will be subject to future collaborative arrangements, in whole or in part, and how such arrangements would affect our development plan or capital requirements. We may also apply for subsidies, grants or government or agency-sponsored studies that could reduce our development costs.

We had $16.7$19.0 million in cash, investments, interest receivable and deferred income tax asset as of December 31, 2019.2020. During the first quarter of 2020,2021, we raised an additional $6.4$6.9 million in capital under the 2019 Aspire PurchaseCapital on Demand Agreement with JonesTrading, received $1.5 million in gross proceeds from warrant exercises and $35 million from the February 2020January 2021 Registered Direct Offering (as defined below). Given our current development plans, we anticipate our current cash resources will be sufficient to fund our operations and financial commitments through mid-2021. In addition, the Company has approximately $15 million available under the Capital on Demand Agreement with JonesTrading International Services LLC. On March 5, 2020, we announced the termination of the 2019 Aspire Purchase Agreement. Other than the Capital on Demand Agreement with Jones Trading that provides us the ability to sell equity securities in the future, we have no other committed sources of additional capital.2023.

As a result of the risks and uncertainties discussed in this Annual Report, among others, we are unable to estimate the duration and completion costs of our research and development projects or when, if ever, and to what extent we will receive cash inflows from the commercialization and sale of a product if one of our product candidates receives regulatory approval for marketing, if at all. Our inability to complete any of our research and development activities, preclinical studies or clinical trials in a timely manner or our failure to enter into collaborative agreements when appropriate could significantly increase our capital requirements and could adversely impact our liquidity. While our estimated future capital requirements are uncertain and could increase or decrease as a result of many factors, including the extent to which we choose to advance our research and development activities, preclinical studies and clinical trials, or whether we are in a position to pursue manufacturing or commercialization activities, we will need significant additional capital to develop our product candidates through development and clinical trials, obtain regulatory approvals and manufacture and commercialize approved products, if any. We do not know whether we will be able to access additional capital when needed or on terms favorable to us or our stockholders. Our inability to raise additional capital, or to do so on terms reasonably acceptable to us, would jeopardize the future success of our business. SeeItem 7 - Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations for additional information regarding the Company’s financial condition, liquidity and capital resources.

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURES

We are engaged in a limited amount of research and development in our own facilities and have sponsored research programs in partnership with various research institutions, including the National Institutes of Health,NIH, the National Cancer Institute and Duke University. We are currently, with minimal cash expenditures, sponsoring clinical and pre-clinical research at the University of Oxford, University of Utrecht, Oklahoma State University and the Children’s Hospital Research Institute. The majority of the spending in research and development is for the funding of ThermoDox® and GEN-1 clinical trials. Research and development expenses were approximately $13.1$11.3 million and $11.9$13.1 million for the years ended December 31, 20192020 and 2018,2019, respectively. SeePart II, Item 7 - Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operationsfor additional information regarding expenditures related to our research and development programs.

GOVERNMENT REGULATION

Government authorities in the U.S., at the federal, state and local level, and in other countries extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, quality control, approval, manufacturing, labeling, post-approval monitoring and reporting, recordkeeping, packaging, promotion, storage, advertising, distribution, marketing and export and import of pharmaceutical products such as those we are developing. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resourcesresources.

Regulation in the United StatesU.S.

In the United States,U.S., the FDA regulates drugs and biological products under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA)(the “FDCA”), the Public Health Service Act (PHSA)(the “PHSA”) and implementing regulations. Failure to comply with the applicable FDA requirements at any time pre- or post-approval may result in a delay of approval or administrative or judicial sanctions. These sanctions could include the FDA’s imposition of a clinical hold on trials, refusal to approve pending applications, withdrawal of an approval, issuance of warning or untitled letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, civil penalties or criminal prosecution.

Research and Development

The vehicle by which FDA approves a new pharmaceutical product for sale and marketing in the U.S. is a New Drug Application (“NDA”) or a Biologics License Application (BLA). A new drug or biological product cannot be marketed in the United StatesU.S. without FDA’s approval of an NDA/BLA. The steps ordinarily required before a new drug can be marketed in the U.S. include (a) completion of pre-clinical and clinical studies; (b) submission and FDA acceptance of an Investigational New Drug application (IND), which must become effective before human clinical trials may commence; (c) completion of adequate and well-controlled human clinical trials to establish the safety and efficacy of the product to support each of its proposed indications; (d) submission and FDA acceptance of an NDA/BLA; (e) completion of an FDA inspection and potential audits of the facilities where the drug or biological product is manufactured to assess compliance with the current good manufacturing practices (cGMP)cGMP and to assure adequate identity, strength, quality, purity, and potency; and (e) FDA review and approval of the NDA/BLA.

Pre-clinical tests include laboratory evaluations of product chemistry, toxicity, formulation and stability, as well as animal studies, to assess the potential safety and efficacy of the product. Pre-clinical safety tests must be conducted by laboratories that comply with FDA regulations regarding good laboratory practice. The results of pre-clinical tests are submitted to the FDA as part of an IND and are reviewed by the FDA before the commencement of human clinical trials. Submission of an IND will not necessarily result in FDA authorization to commence clinical trials, and the absence of FDA objection to an IND does not necessarily mean that the FDA will ultimately approve an NDA/BLA or that a product candidate otherwise will come to market.

Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational product to human subjects under the supervision of a qualified principal investigator. Clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with good clinical practices under protocols submitted to the FDA as part of an IND and with patient informed consent. Also, each clinical trial must be approved by an Institutional Review Board (IRB),(“IRB”) and is subject to ongoing IRB monitoring.

Clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases, but the phases may overlap or be combined. Phase I clinical trials may be conducted in patients or healthy volunteers to evaluate the product’s safety, dosage tolerance and pharmacokinetics and, if possible, seek to gain an early indication of its effectiveness. Phase II clinical trials usually involve controlled trials in a larger but still relatively small number of subjects from the relevant patient population to evaluate dosage tolerance and appropriate dosage; identify possible short-term adverse effects and safety risks; and provide a preliminary evaluation of the efficacy of the drug for specific indications. Phase III clinical trials are typically conducted in a significantly larger patient population and are intended to further evaluate safety and efficacy, establish the overall risk-benefit profile of the product, and provide an adequate basis for physician labeling.

In certain circumstances, a therapeutic product candidate being studied in clinical trials may be made available for treatment of individual patients. Pursuant to the 21st Century Cures Act (Cures Act), the manufacturer of an investigational product for a serious disease or condition is required to make available, such as by posting on its website, its policy on evaluating and responding to requests for individual patient access to such investigational product.

There can be no assurance that any of our clinical trials will be completed successfully within any specified time period or at all. Either the FDA or we may suspend clinical trials at any time on various grounds, including among other things, if we, the FDA, our independent DMC, or the IRB conclude that clinical subjects are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. The FDA inspects and reviews clinical trial sites, informed consent forms, data from the clinical trial sites (including case report forms and record keeping procedures) and the performance of the protocols by clinical trial personnel to determine compliance with good clinical practices. The conduct of clinical trials is complex and difficult, and there can be no assurance that the design or the performance of the pivotal clinical trial protocols of any of our current or future product candidates will be successful.

The results of pre-clinical studies and clinical trials, if successful, are submitted to FDA in the form of an NDA or BLA. Among other things, the FDA reviews an NDA to determine whether the product is safe and effective for its intended use and reviews a BLA to determine whether the product is safe, pure, and potent, and in each case, whether the product candidate is being manufactured in accordance with cGMP. The testing, submission, and approval process requires substantial time, effort, and financial resources, including substantial application user fees and annual product and establishment user fees. There can be no assurance that any approval will be granted for any product at any time, according to any schedule, or at all. The FDA may refuse to accept or approve an application if it determines that applicable regulatory criteria are not satisfied. The FDA may also require additional testing for safety and efficacy. Even, if regulatory approval is granted, the approval will be limited to specific indications. There can be no assurance that any of our current product candidates will receive regulatory approvals for marketing or, if approved, that approval will be for any or all of the indications that we request.

The FDA has agreed to certain performance goals in the review of NDAs and BLAs. The FDA has 60 days from its receipt of an NDA or BLA to determine whether the application will be accepted for filing based on the agency’s threshold determination that it is sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. Once the NDA/BLA is accepted for filing, most standard reviews applications are completed within ten months of filing; most priority review applications are reviewed within six months of filing. Priority review are applied to a product candidate that the FDA determines has the potential to treat a serious or life-threatening condition and, if approved, would be a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness compared to available therapies. The review process for both standard and priority review may be extended by the FDA for three additional months to consider certain late-submitted information, or information intended to clarify information already provided in the submission.

Section 505(b)(2) NDAs

As an alternative path to FDA approval for modifications to formulations or uses of drugs previously approved by the FDA, an applicant may submit an NDA under Section 505(b)(2) of the FDCA. Section 505(b)(2) was enacted as part of the Hatch-Waxman Amendments. A Section 505(b)(2) NDA is an application that contains full reports of investigations of safety and effectiveness, but where at least some of the information required for approval comes from studies not conducted by, or for, the applicant and for which the applicant has not obtained a right of reference or use from the person by or for whom the investigations were conducted. This type of application permits reliance for such approvals on literature or on an FDA finding of safety, effectiveness or both for an approved drug product.

As such, under Section 505(b)(2), the FDA may rely, for approval of an NDA, on data not developed by the applicant. The FDA may also require companies to perform additional studies or measurements, including clinical trials, to support the change from the approved branded reference drug. The FDA may then approve the new product candidate for the new indication sought by the 505(b)(2) applicant.

FDA Regulations Specific to Gene-Based Products

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA)FDA regulates gene-based products as biological products. Biological products intended for therapeutic use may be regulated by either the Center for Biologics Evaluation & Research (CBER) or the Center for BiologicsDrug Evaluation & Research (CDER). Gene-based products are subject to extensive regulation under the FDCA, the PHSA, and their implementing regulations. Each clinical trial of investigational gene therapies must be reviewed and approved by the Institutional Biosafety Committee (IBC) for each clinical site. IBCs were established undersite if they receive any funding whatsoever from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). IBCs were established under NIH Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant or Synthetic Nucleic Acid Molecules to provide local review and oversight of nearly all forms of research utilizing recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecules. The IBC assesses biosafety issues, specifically, safety practices and containment procedures, related to the investigational product and clinical study. Compliance with the NIH Guidelines is mandatory for investigators at institutions receiving NIH funds for research involving recombinant DNA, however many companies and other institutions not otherwise subject to the NIH Guidelines voluntarily follow them. Such trials remain subject to FDA and other clinical trial regulations, and only after FDA, IBC, and other relevant approvals are in place can these protocols proceed.

Additional Controls for Biological Products

To help reduce the increased risk of the introduction of adventitious agents, the PHSA emphasizes the importance of manufacturing controls for products whose attributes cannot be precisely defined. The PHSA also provides authority to the FDA to immediately suspend licenses in situations where there exists a danger to public health, to prepare or procure products in the event of shortages and critical public health needs, and to authorize the creation and enforcement of regulations to prevent the introduction or spread of communicable diseases in the United StatesU.S. and between states.

After a BLA is approved, the biological product may be subject to official lot release as a condition of approval. As part of the manufacturing process, the manufacturer is required to perform certain tests on each lot of the product before it is released for distribution. If the product is subject to official release by the FDA, the manufacturer submits samples of each lot of product to the FDA together with a release protocol showing a summary of the history of manufacture of the lot and the results of all of the manufacturer’s tests performed on the lot. The FDA may also perform certain confirmatory tests on lots of some products, such as viral vaccines, before releasing the lots for distribution by the manufacturer.

In addition, the FDA conducts laboratory research related to the regulatory standards on the safety, purity, potency, and effectiveness of biological products. As with drugs, after approval of biological products, manufacturers must address any safety issues that arise, are subject to recalls or a halt in manufacturing, and are subject to periodic inspection after approval.

Expedited Development and Review Programs

The FDA has various programs, including Fast Track, priority review, accelerated approval and breakthrough therapy, which are intended to expedite or simplify the process for reviewing product candidates, or provide for the approval of a product candidate on the basis of a surrogate endpoint. In January 2021, the FDA granted Fast Track designation for GEN-1 for the treatment of ovarian cancer.

Even if a product candidate qualifies for one or more of these programs, the FDA may later decide that the product candidate no longer meets the conditions for qualification or that the time period for FDA review or approval will be lengthened. Generally, product candidates that are eligible for these programs are those for serious or life-threatening conditions, those with the potential to address unmet medical needs and those that offer meaningful benefits over existing treatments. For example, Fast Track is a process designed to facilitate the development and expedite the review of product candidates to treat serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions and fill unmet medical needs.

Although Fast Track and priority review do not affect the standards for approval, the FDA will attempt to facilitate early and frequent meetings with a sponsor of a Fast TrackFast-Track designated product candidate and expedite review of the application for a product candidate designated for priority review. Accelerated approval provides for an earlier approval for a new product candidate that meets the following criteria: is intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, generally provides a meaningful advantage over available therapies and demonstrates an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit or on a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than irreversible morbidity or mortality (IMM) that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on IMM or other clinical benefit. A surrogate endpoint is a laboratory measurement or physical sign used as an indirect or substitute measurement representing a clinically meaningful outcome. As a condition of approval, the FDA may require that a sponsor of a product candidate receiving accelerated approval perform post-marketing clinical trials to verify and describe the predicted effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical endpoint, and the product may be subject to accelerated withdrawal procedures.

A sponsor may seek FDA designation of a product candidate as a “breakthrough therapy” if the product candidate is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other therapeutics, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product candidate may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. A request for Breakthrough Therapy designation should be submitted concurrently with, or as an amendment to, an IND, but ideally no later than the end of Phase 2 meeting.

Disclosure of Clinical Trial Information

Sponsors of clinical trials of FDA-regulated products are required to register and disclose certain clinical trial information. Information related to the product, patient population, phase of investigation, trial sites and investigators, and other aspects of the clinical trial is then made public as part of the registration. Sponsors are also obligated to disclose the results of their clinical trials within one year of completion, although disclosure of the results of these trials can be delayed in certain circumstances for up to two additional years. Competitors may use this publicly available information to gain knowledge regarding the progress of development programs.

Orphan Drug Designation

In 2009, the FDA granted orphan drug designation for ThermoDox® for the treatment of HCC. In 2005, the FDA granted orphan drug designation for GEN-1 for the treatment of ovarian cancer. In 2010, the FDA granted orphan drug designation for ThermoDox^® for the treatment of HCC. Orphan drug designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process. However, if a product which has an orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for the indication for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan drug exclusivity, which means the FDA may not approve any other application to market the same drug for the same indication for a period of seven years, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan exclusivity. Orphan drug designation can also provide opportunities for grant funding towards clinical trial costs, tax advantages and FDA user-fee benefits.

Hatch-Waxman Exclusivity

The FDCA provides a five-year period of non-patent data exclusivity within the U.S. to the first applicant to gain approval of an NDA for a new chemical entity. A drug is a new chemical entity if the FDA has not previously approved any other new drug containing the same active moiety. During the exclusivity period, the FDA generally may not accept for review an abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) or a 505(b)(2) NDA submitted by another company that references the previously approved drug. However, an ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA referencing the new chemical entity may be submitted after four years if it contains a certification of patent invalidity or non-infringement.

Biosimilars

The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (BPCIA)(the “BPCIA”) created an abbreviated approval pathway for biological product candidates shown to be highly similar to or interchangeable with an FDA licensed reference product. Biosimilarity sufficient to reference a prior FDA-approved product requires that there be no differences in conditions of use, route of administration, dosage form, and strength, and no clinically meaningful differences between the biological product candidate and the reference product in terms of safety, purity, and potency. Biosimilarity must be shown through analytical trials, animal trials, and a clinical trial or trials, unless the Secretary of Health and Human Services waives a required element. A biosimilar product candidate may be deemed interchangeable with a prior approved product if it meets the higher hurdle of demonstrating that it can be expected to produce the same clinical results as the reference product and, for products administered multiple times, the biological product and the reference product may be switched after one has been previously administered without increasing safety risks or risks of diminished efficacy relative to exclusive use of the reference product. To date, a handful of biosimilar products and no interchangeable products have been approved under the BPCIA. Complexities associated with the larger, and often more complex, structures of biological products, as well as the process by which such products are manufactured, pose significant hurdles to implementation, which is still being evaluated by the FDA.

A reference product is granted 12 years of exclusivity from the time of first licensure of the reference product, and no application for a biosimilar can be submitted for four years from the date of licensure of the reference product. The first biological product candidate submitted under the abbreviated approval pathway that is determined to be interchangeable with the reference product has exclusivity against a finding of interchangeability for other biological products for the same condition of use for the lesser of (i) one year after first commercial marketing of the first interchangeable biosimilar, (ii) 18 months after the first interchangeable biosimilar is approved if there is no patent challenge, (iii) 18 months after resolution of a lawsuit over the patents of the reference product in favor of the first interchangeable biosimilar applicant, or (iv) 42 months after the first interchangeable biosimilar’s application has been approved if a patent lawsuit is ongoing within the 42-month period.

Post-Approval Requirements

After FDA approval of a product is obtained, we and our contract manufacturers are required to comply with various post-approval requirements, including establishment registration and product listing, record-keeping requirements, reporting of adverse reactions and production problems to the FDA, providing updated safety and efficacy information for drugs, or safety, purity, and potency for biological products, and complying with requirements concerning advertising and promotional labeling. As a condition of approval of an NDA/BLA, the FDA may require the applicant to conduct additional clinical trials or other post market testing and surveillance to further monitor and assess the drug’s safety and efficacy. The FDA can also impose other post-marketing controls on us as well as our products including, but not limited to, restrictions on sale and use, through the approval process, regulations and otherwise. The FDA also has the authority to require the recall of our products in the event of material deficiencies or defects in manufacture. A governmentally mandated recall, or a voluntary recall by us, could result from a number of events or factors, including component failures, manufacturing errors, instability of product or defects in labeling.

In addition, manufacturing establishments in the U.S. and abroad are subject to periodic inspections by the FDA and must comply with cGMP. To maintain compliance with cGMP, manufacturers must expend funds, time and effort in the areas of production and quality control. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the product candidate and the manufacturer must develop methods for testing the quality, purity and potency of the product candidate. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested, and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the product candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its proposed shelf-life.

Foreign Clinical Studies to Support an IND, NDA, or BLA

The FDA will accept as support for an IND, NDA, or BLA a well-designed, well-conducted, non-IND foreign clinical trial if it was conducted in accordance with GCPgood clinical practice (“GCP”) and the FDA is able to validate the data from the trial through an on-site inspection, if necessary. A sponsor or applicant who wishes to rely on a non-IND foreign clinical trial to support an IND must submit supporting information to the FDA to demonstrate that the trial conformed to GCP. This information includes the investigator’s qualifications; a description of the research facilities; a detailed summary of the protocol and trial results and, if requested, case records or additional background data; a description of the drug substance and drug product, including the components, formulation, specifications, and, if available, the bioavailability of the product candidate; information showing that the trial is adequate and well controlled; the name and address of the independent ethics committee that reviewed the trial and a statement that the independent ethics committee meets the required definition; a summary of the independent ethics committee’s decision to approve or modify and approve the trial, or to provide a favorable opinion; a description of how informed consent was obtained; a description of what incentives, if any, were provided to subjects to participate; a description of how the sponsor monitored the trial and ensured that the trial was consistent with the protocol; a description of how investigators were trained to comply with GCP and to conduct the trial in accordance with the trial protocol; and a statement on whether written commitments by investigators to comply with GCP and the protocol were obtained.

Regulatory applications based solely on foreign clinical data meeting these criteria may be approved if the foreign data are applicable to the U.S. population and U.S. medical practice, the trials have been performed by clinical investigators of recognized competence, and the data may be considered valid without the need for an on-site inspection by FDA or, if FDA considers such an inspection to be necessary, FDA is able to validate the data through an on-site inspection or other appropriate means. Failure of an application to meet any of these criteria may result in the application not being approvable based on the foreign data alone.

New Legislation and Regulations

From time to time, legislation is drafted, introduced and passed in Congress that could significantly change the statutory provisions governing the testing, approval, manufacturing and marketing of products regulated by the FDA. In addition to new legislation, FDA regulations and policies are often revised or interpreted by the agency in ways that may significantly affect our business and our products. It is impossible to predict whether further legislative changes will be enacted or whether FDA regulations, guidance, policies or interpretations will be changed or what the effect of such changes, if any, may be. Further, with the COVID-19 pandemic, it is possible that Congress and FDA may implement new laws, regulations, or policies that may impact our ability to continue development programs as planned.

Other regulatory matters

Manufacturing, sales, promotion and other activities of product candidates following product approval, where applicable, or commercialization are also subject to regulation by numerous regulatory authorities in the United StatesU.S. in addition to the FDA, which may include the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, other divisions of the Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, the Department of Justice, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Occupational Safety & Health Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency and state and local governments and governmental agencies.

Other healthcare laws

Healthcare providers, physicians, and third-party payors will play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of any products for which we obtain marketing approval. Our business operations and any current or future arrangements with third-party payors, healthcare providers and physicians may expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations that may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we develop, market, sell and distribute any drugs for which we obtain marketing approval. In the United States,U.S., these laws include, without limitation, state and federal anti-kickback, false claims, physician transparency, and patient data privacy and security laws and regulations, including but not limited to those described below.

The scope and enforcement of each of these laws is uncertain and subject to rapid change in the current environment of healthcare reform, especially in light of the lack of applicable precedent and regulations. Federal and state enforcement bodies have recently increased their scrutiny of interactions between healthcare companies and healthcare providers, which has led to a number of investigations, prosecutions, convictions and settlements in the healthcare industry. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices do not comply with current or future statutes, regulations or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of these laws or any other related governmental regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, imprisonment, disgorgement, exclusion from government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, reputational harm, additional oversight and reporting obligations if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or similar settlement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations. If any of the physicians or other healthcare providers or entities with whom we expect to do business is found to be not in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to similar actions, penalties and sanctions. Ensuring business arrangements comply with applicable healthcare laws, as well as responding to possible investigations by government authorities, can be time- and resource-consuming and can divert a company’s attention from its business.

In the U.S., numerous federal and state laws and regulations, including state data breach notification laws, state health information privacy laws, and federal and state consumer protection laws, govern the collection, use, disclosure, and protection of health-related and other personal information. For example, in June 2018, the State of California enacted the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (the “CCPA”), which came into effect on January 1, 2020 and provides new data privacy rights for consumers and new operational requirements for companies, which may increase our compliance costs and potential liability. The CCPA gives California residents expanded rights to access and delete their personal information, opt out of certain personal information sharing, and receive detailed information about how their personal information is used. The CCPA provides for civil penalties for violations, as well as a private right of action for data breaches that is expected to increase data breach litigation. While there is currently an exception for protected health information that is subject to HIPAA and clinical trial regulations, as currently written, the CCPA may impact certain of our business activities. The CCPA could mark the beginning of a trend toward more stringent state privacy legislation in the U.S., which could increase our potential liability and adversely affect our business.

In the event we decide to conduct clinical trials or continue to enroll subjects in our ongoing or future clinical trials, we may be subject to additional privacy restrictions. The collection, use, storage, disclosure, transfer, or other processing of personal data regarding individuals in the European Economic Area, or EEA, including personal health data, is subject to the EU General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR, which became effective on May 25, 2018. The GDPR is wide-ranging in scope and imposes numerous requirements on companies that process personal data, including requirements relating to processing health and other sensitive data, obtaining consent of the individuals to whom the personal data relates, providing information to individuals regarding data processing activities, implementing safeguards to protect the security and confidentiality of personal data, providing notification of data breaches, and taking certain measures when engaging third-party processors. The GDPR also imposes strict rules on the transfer of personal data to countries outside the EEA, including the United States,U.S., and permits data protection authorities to impose large penalties for violations of the GDPR, including potential fines of up to €20 million or 4% of annual global revenues, whichever is greater. The GDPR also confers a private right of action on data subjects and consumer associations to lodge complaints with supervisory authorities, seek judicial remedies, and obtain compensation for damages resulting from violations of the GDPR. In addition, the GDPR includes restrictions on cross-border data transfers. The GDPR may increase our responsibility and liability in relation to personal data that we process where such processing is subject to the GDPR, and we may be required to put in place additional mechanisms to ensure compliance with the GDPR, including as implemented by individual countries. Compliance with the GDPR will be a rigorous and time-intensive process that may increase our cost of doing business or require us to change our business practices, and despite those efforts, there is a risk that we may be subject to fines and penalties, litigation, and reputational harm in connection with our European activities. Further, the United Kingdom’s decision to leave the EU, often referred to as Brexit, has created uncertainty with regard to data protection regulation in the United Kingdom. In particular, it is unclear how data transfers to and from the United Kingdom will be regulated now that the United Kingdom has left the EU.

Insurance Coverage and ReimbursementReimbursement

In the United StatesU.S. and markets in other countries, patients who are prescribed treatments for their conditions and providers performing the prescribed services generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the associated healthcare costs. Thus, even if a product candidate is approved, sales of the product will depend, in part, on the extent to which third-party payors, including government health programs in the United StatesU.S. such as Medicare and Medicaid, commercial health insurers and managed care organizations, provide coverage, and establish adequate reimbursement levels for, the product. In the United States,U.S., the principal decisions about reimbursement for new medicines are typically made by CMS, an agency within HHS. CMS decides whether and to what extent a new medicine will be covered and reimbursed under Medicare and private payors tend to follow CMS to a substantial degree. No uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for drug products exists among third-party payors. Therefore, coverage and reimbursement for drug products can differ significantly from payor to payor. The process for determining whether a third-party payor will provide coverage for a product may be separate from the process for setting the price or reimbursement rate that the payor will pay for the product once coverage is approved. Third-party payors are increasingly challenging the prices charged, examining the medical necessity, and reviewing the cost-effectiveness of medical products and services and imposing controls to manage costs. Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific products on an approved list, also known as a formulary, which might not include all of the approved products for a particular indication.

In order to secure coverage and reimbursement for any product that might be approved for sale, a company may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of the product, in addition to the costs required to obtain FDA or other comparable regulatory approvals. Additionally, companies may also need to provide discounts to purchasers, private health plans or government healthcare programs. Nonetheless, product candidates may not be considered medically necessary or cost effective. A decision by a third-party payor not to cover a product could reduce physician utilization once the product is approved and have a material adverse effect on sales, our operations and financial condition. Additionally, a third-party payor’s decision to provide coverage for a product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Further, one payor’s determination to provide coverage for a product does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage and reimbursement for the product, and the level of coverage and reimbursement can differ significantly from payor to payor.

The containment of healthcare costs has become a priority of federal, state and foreign governments, and the prices of products have been a focus in this effort. Governments have shown significant interest in implementing cost-containment programs, including price controls, restrictions on reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic products. Adoption of price controls and cost-containment measures, and adoption of more restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could further limit a company’s revenue generated from the sale of any approved products. Coverage policies and third-party payor reimbursement rates may change at any time. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for one or more products for which a company or its collaborators receive regulatory approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future.

The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, also called the Medicare Modernization Act, or the MMA, established the Medicare Part D program to provide a voluntary prescription drug and biologic benefit to Medicare beneficiaries. Under Part D, Medicare beneficiaries may enroll in prescription drug plans offered by private entities that provide coverage of outpatient prescription drugs and biologics. Unlike Medicare Parts A and B, Part D coverage is not standardized. Part D prescription drug plan sponsors are not required to pay for all covered Part D drugs and biologics, and each drug plan can develop its own formulary that identifies which drugs and biologics it will cover, and at what tier or level. However, Part D prescription drug formularies must include products within each therapeutic category and class of covered Part D drugs, though not necessarily all the drugs and biologics in each category or class. Any formulary used by a Part D prescription drug plan must be developed and reviewed by a pharmacy and therapeutic committee. Government payment for some of the costs of prescription drugs and biologics may increase demand for products for which we obtain marketing approval. Any negotiated prices for any of our products covered by a Part D prescription drug plan will likely be lower than the prices we might otherwise obtain. Moreover, while the MMA applies only to drug benefits for Medicare beneficiaries, private payors often follow Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own payment rates. Any reduction in payment that results from the MMA may result in a similar reduction in payments from non-governmental payors.

For a drug or biologic product to receive federal reimbursement under the Medicaid or Medicare Part B programs or to be sold directly to U.S. government agencies, the manufacturer must extend discounts to entities eligible to participate in the 340B drug pricing program. The required 340B discount on a given product is calculated based on the average manufacturer price, or AMP, and Medicaid rebate amounts reported by the manufacturer. As of 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,ACA, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, or collectively the ACA, expanded the types of entities eligible to receive discounted 340B pricing, although under the current state of the law these newly eligible entities (with the exception of children’s hospitals) will not be eligible to receive discounted 340B pricing on orphan drugs. As 340B drug pricing is determined based on AMP and Medicaid rebate data, the revisions to the Medicaid rebate formula and AMP definition described above could cause the required 340B discount to increase. Further, on December 27, 2018, the District Court for the District of Columbia invalidated a reimbursement formula change instituted by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, under the 340B program. For the 2019 and 2018 fiscal years, CMS altered the reimbursement formula. The court ruled this change was not an “adjustment” that was within the Secretary’s discretion to make but was instead a fundamental change in the reimbursement calculation, and such a dramatic change was beyond the scope of the Secretary’s authority. On May 6, 2019, the district court reiterated that the rate reduction exceeded the Secretary’s authority and declared that the rate reduction for 2019 also exceeded the Secretary’s authority and remanded the issue to HHS to devise an appropriate remedy. On July 10, 2019, the district court entered its final judgment and CMS has filed an appeal and a decision by the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is pending. However, subsequently, hospitals have filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for D.C. to enjoin the reimbursement cuts for 2020. It is unclear how such litigation could affect covered hospitals who might purchase our products in the future and affect the rates we may charge such facilities for our approved products. Changes to these current laws and state and federal healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding and otherwise affect the prices we may obtain for any product candidates for which we may obtain regulatory approval or the frequency with which any such product candidate is prescribed or used.

These laws, and future state and federal healthcare reform measures may be adopted in the future, any of which may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding and otherwise affect the prices we may obtain for any product candidates for which we may obtain regulatory approval or the frequency with which any such product candidate is prescribed or used.

Outside the United States,U.S., ensuring coverage and adequate payment for a product also involves challenges, as the pricing of biological products is subject to governmental control in many countries. For example, in the European Union, pricing and reimbursement schemes vary widely from country to country. Some countries provide that products may be marketed only after a reimbursement price has been agreed. Some countries may require the completion of additional studies that compare the cost effectiveness of a particular therapy to currently available therapies or so-called health technology assessments, in order to obtain reimbursement or pricing approval. Other countries may allow companies to fix their own prices for products but monitor and control product volumes and issue guidance to physicians to limit prescriptions. Efforts to control prices and utilization of biological products will likely continue as countries attempt to manage healthcare expenditures.

Current and future healthcare reform legislation

In the United StatesU.S. and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been, and likely will continue to be, a number of legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system directed at broadening the availability of healthcare, improving the quality of healthcare, and containing or lowering the cost of healthcare. For example in March 2010, the United States Congress enacted the Affordable Care Act, which, among other things, includes changes to the coverage and payment for products under government health care programs. The Affordable Care Act includes provisions of importance to our potential product candidates that:

Some of the provisions of the Affordable Care Act have yet to be implemented, and there have been judicial and Congressional challenges to certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act, as well as recent efforts by the Trump administration to repeal or replace certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act. Since January 2017, President Trump has signed two Executive Orders and other directives designed to delay the implementation of certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act. Concurrently, Congress has considered legislation that would repeal or repeal and replace all or part of the Affordable Care Act. While Congress has not passed comprehensive repeal legislation, it has enacted laws that modify certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act such as removing penalties, starting January 1, 2019, for not complying with the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate to carry health insurance, delaying the implementation of certain Affordable Care Act-mandated fees, and increasing the point-of-sale discount that is owed by pharmaceutical manufacturers who participate in Medicare Part D. On December 14, 2018, a Texas U.S. District Court Judge ruled that the ACA is unconstitutional in its entirety because the “individual mandate” was repealed by Congress as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. Additionally, on December 18, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld the District Court ruling that the individual mandate was unconstitutional and remanded the case back to the District Court to determine whether the remaining provisions of the ACA are invalid as well. On March 2, 2020, the United States Supreme Court granted the petitions for writs of certiorari to review this case, and has allotted one hour for oral arguments, which are expected to occur in the fall. We will continue to evaluate the effect that the ACA and its possible repeal and replacement has on our business.

Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the Affordable Care Act was enacted. In August 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, included aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect in April 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, will remain in effect through 2029 unless additional Congressional action is taken. In January 2013, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was signed into law, which, among other things, further reduced Medicare payments to several providers, including hospitals, imaging centers and cancer treatment centers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years.

Moreover, payment methodologies may be subject to changes in healthcare legislation and regulatory initiatives. For example, CMS may develop new payment and delivery models, such as bundled payment models. In addition, recently there has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their commercial products, which has resulted in several Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted state and federal legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for pharmaceutical products. For example, at the federal level, the Trump administration’s budget for fiscal year 2021 includes a $135 billion allowance to support legislative proposals seeking to reduce drug prices, increase competition, lower out-of-pocket drug costs for patients, and increase patient access to lower-cost generic and biosimilar drugs. Additionally, the Trump administration previously released a “Blueprint” to lower drug prices and reduce out of pocket costs of drugs that contains additional proposals to increase drug manufacturer competition, increase the negotiating power of certain federal healthcare programs, incentivize manufacturers to lower the list price of their products, and reduce the out of pocket costs of drug products paid by consumers. HHS has solicited feedback on some of these measures and has implemented others under its existing authority. For example, in May 2019, CMS issued a final rule to allow Medicare Advantage Plans the option of using step therapy, a type of prior authorization, for Part B drugs beginning January 1, 2020. This final rule codified CMS’s policy change that was effective January 1, 2019. Although a number of these and other measures may require additional authorization to become effective, Congress and the Trump administration have each indicated that it will continue to seek new legislative and/or administrative measures to control drug costs. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare and other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payers. At the state level, legislatures are increasingly passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control biopharmaceutical and biologic product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing.

On May 30, 2018, the Right to Try Act was signed into law. The law, among other things, provides a federal framework for certain patients to access certain investigational new drug products that have completed a Phase 1 clinical trial and that are undergoing investigation for FDA approval. Under certain circumstances, eligible patients can seek treatment without enrolling in clinical trials and without obtaining FDA permission under the FDA expanded access program. There is no obligation for a drug manufacturer to make its drug products available to eligible patients as a result of the Right to Try Act, but the manufacturer must develop an internal policy and respond to patient requests according to that policy.

Also, in March 2010, the U.S. Congress enacted the ACA, which, among other things, includes changes to the coverage and payment for products under government health care programs. The ACA includes provisions of importance to our potential product candidates that:

Some of the provisions of the ACA have yet to be implemented, and there have been judicial and Congressional challenges to certain provisions of the ACA. While Congress has not passed comprehensive repeal legislation, it has enacted laws that modify certain provisions of the ACA such as removing penalties, starting January 1, 2019, for not complying with the ACA’s individual mandate to carry health insurance, delaying the implementation of certain ACA-mandated fees, and increasing the point-of-sale discount that is owed by pharmaceutical manufacturers who participate in Medicare Part D. On December 14, 2018, a Texas U.S. District Court Judge ruled that the ACA is unconstitutional in its entirety because the “individual mandate” was repealed by Congress as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. Additionally, on December 18, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld the District Court ruling that the individual mandate was unconstitutional and remanded the case back to the District Court to determine whether the remaining provisions of the ACA are invalid as well. On March 2, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the petitions for writs of certiorari to review this case, and has allotted one hour for oral arguments. The Unites States Supreme Court is expected to rule on the legal challenge to the constitutionality of the ACA in early 2021. We will continue to evaluate the effect that the ACA and its possible repeal and replacement has on our business. Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the U.S. since the ACA was enacted.

Moreover, payment methodologies may be subject to changes in healthcare legislation and regulatory initiatives. For example, CMS may develop new payment and delivery models, such as bundled payment models. In addition, recently there has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their commercial products, which has resulted in several Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted state and federal legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for pharmaceutical products. For example, the Trump administration previously released a “Blueprint” to lower drug prices and reduce out of pocket costs of drugs that contained additional proposals to increase drug manufacturer competition, increase the negotiating power of certain federal healthcare programs, incentivize manufacturers to lower the list price of their products, and reduce the out-of-pocket costs of drug products paid by consumers. HHS has solicited feedback on some of these measures and has implemented others under its existing authority. For example, in May 2019, CMS issued a final rule to allow Medicare Advantage Plans the option of using step therapy, a type of prior authorization, for Part B drugs beginning January 1, 2020. This final rule codified CMS’s policy change that was effective January 1, 2019.

On November 20, 2020, CMS issued an Interim Final Rule implementing the Most Favored Nation, or MFN, Model under which Medicare Part B reimbursement rates will be calculated for certain drugs and biological products based on the lowest price drug manufacturers receive in other similar countries. The MFN Model regulations mandate participation by identified Part B providers and will apply in all U.S. states and territories for a seven-year period beginning January 1, 2021, and ending December 31, 2027. The Interim Final Rule has not been finalized and is subject to revision and challenge. Additionally, on November 20, 2020, HHS Office of the Inspector General finalized a regulation with the goal of lowering prescription drug prices and out-of-pocket spending for prescription drugs. Specifically, the final rule clarifies and amends the discount safe harbor under the federal Anti-kickback statute (AKS) with the effect that rebates paid from drug manufacturers to Medicare Part D prescription drug plan sponsors or their pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) are excluded from liability protection under the discount safe harbor. The rule also adds a new safe harbor for point-of-sale reductions in price and another that protects certain fixed-fee service arrangements between PBMs and drug manufacturers.

Pursuant to the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, also known as the CARES Act, and the 2020 Omnibus Bill, the reductions required by the Budget Control Act of 2011 are suspended from May 1, 2020 through March 31, 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. As the legislation currently stands, the reductions will go back into effect April 2021 and will remain in effect through 2030 unless additional Congressional action is taken. Further, it is possible that the government will take additional steps to address the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, on April 18, 2020, CMS announced that qualified health plan issuers under the ACA may suspend activities related to the collection and reporting of quality data that would have otherwise been reported between May and June 2020 because of the challenges healthcare providers are facing responding to the COVID-19 virus.

Although a number of these and other measures may require additional authorization to become effective, and it is unclear whether President Joseph Biden will work to reverse these measures or pursue similar policy initiatives, Congress has indicated that it will continue to seek new legislative and/or administrative measures to control drug costs. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare and other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payers. Moreover, at the state level, legislatures are increasingly passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control biopharmaceutical and biologic product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing.

Regulation Outside of the U.S.

In addition to regulations in the U.S., we will be subject to a variety of regulations of other countries governing, among other things, any clinical trials and commercial sales and distribution of our product candidates. Whether or not we obtain FDA approval (clinical trial or marketing) for a product, we must obtain the requisite approvals from regulatory authorities in countries outside of the U.S., such as the EU and China, prior to the commencement of clinical trials or marketing of the products in those countries. The approval process and requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary greatly from place to place, and the time may be longer or shorter than that required for FDA approval.

In the EU, before starting a clinical trial, a valid request for authorization must be submitted by the sponsor to the competent authority of the EU Member State(s) in which the sponsor plans to conduct the clinical trial, as well as to an independent national Ethics Committee. A clinical trial may commence only once the relevant Ethics Committee(s) has (have) issued a favorable opinion and the competent authority of the EU Member State(s) concerned has (have) not informed the sponsor of any grounds for non-acceptance. Failure to comply with the EU requirements may subject a company to the rejection of the request and the prohibition to start a clinical trial. Clinical trials conducted in the EU (or used for marketing authorization application in the EU) must be conducted in accordance with applicable Good Clinical Practice (“GCP”)GCP and Good Manufacturing Practice (“GMP”) rules, ICH guidelines and be consistent with ethical principles. EU Member State inspections are regularly conducted to verify the sponsor’s compliance with applicable rules. The sponsor is required to record and report to the relevant national competent authorities (and to the Ethics Committee) information about serious unexpected suspected adverse reactions (“S.U.S.A.Rs”). The way clinical trials are conducted in the EU will undergo a major change when the new EU Clinical Trial Regulation (Regulation 536/2014) comes into application in 2019.at the earliest at the beginning of December 2021.

As in the U.S., no medicinal product may be placed on the EU market unless a marketing authorization has been issued. In the EU, medicinal products may be authorized either via the mutual recognition and decentralized procedure, the national procedure or the centralized procedure. The centralized procedure, which is compulsory for medicines produced by biotechnology or those medicines intended to treat AIDS, cancer, neurodegenerative disorders or diabetes and is optional for those medicines that are highly innovative, provides for the grant of a single marketing authorization that is valid for all EU Member States. Marketing authorizations granted via the centralized procedure are valid for all EU Member States. Products submitted for approval via the centralized procedure are assessed by the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP)(the “CHMP”), a committee within the European Medicine Agency (EMA)(“EMA”). The CHMP assesses, inter alia, whether a medicine meets the necessary quality, safety and efficacy requirements and whether it has a positive risk-benefit balance. The requirements for an application dossier for a biological product contain different aspects than that of a chemical medicinal product.

In the EU, the requirements for pricing, coverage and reimbursement of any product candidates for which we obtain regulatory approval are provided for by the national laws of EU Member States. Governments influence the price of pharmaceutical products through their pricing and reimbursement rules and control of national health care systems that fund a large part of the cost of those products to consumers.

We may seek orphan designations for our product candidates. In the EU, as we understand it, a medicinal product may be designated as an orphan medicinal product if the sponsor can establish that it is intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition affecting not more than five in 10 thousand persons, or that, for the same purposes, it is unlikely that the marketing of the medicinal product would generate sufficient return; and that there exists no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment of the condition in question that has been authorized in the EU or, if such method exists, that the medicinal product will be of significant benefit to those affected by that condition. Sponsors who obtain orphan designation benefit from a type of scientific advice specific for designated orphan medicinal products and protocol assistance from the EMA. Fee reductions are also available depending on the status of the sponsor and the type of service required. Marketing authorization applications for designated orphan medicinal products must be submitted through the centralized procedure.

The EU Data Protection Directive and Member State implementing legislation may also apply to health-related and other personal information obtained outside of the U.S. The Directive will be replaced by the EU General Data Protection RegulationGDPR in May 2018. The Regulation will increase our responsibility and liability in relation to personal data that we process, and we may be required to put in place additional mechanisms to ensure compliance with the new EU data protection rules.

MANUFACTURING AND SUPPLY

We do not currently own or operate manufacturing facilities for the production of preclinical, clinical or commercial quantities of any of our product candidates. We currently contract with third party contract manufacturing organizations (CMOs)(“CMOs”) for our preclinical and clinical trial supplies, and we expect to continue to do so to meet the preclinical and any clinical requirements of our product candidates. We have agreements for the supply of such drug materials with manufacturers or suppliers that we believe have sufficient capacity to meet our demands. In addition, we believe that adequate alternative sources for such supplies exist. However, there is a risk that, if supplies are interrupted, it would materially harm our business. We typically order raw materials and services on a purchase order basis and do not enter into long-term dedicated capacity or minimum supply arrangements.

Manufacturing is subject to extensive regulations that impose various procedural and documentation requirements, which govern record keeping, manufacturing processes and controls, personnel, quality control and quality assurance, among others. Our CMOs manufacture our product candidates under cGMP conditions. cGMP is a regulatory standard for the production of pharmaceuticals that will be used in humans which is recognized by FDA and many foreign regulatory authorities.

SALES AND MARKETING

Our current focus is on the development of our existing portfolio, the completion of clinical trials and, if and where appropriate, the registration of our product candidates. We currently do not have marketing, sales and distribution capabilities. If we receive marketing and commercialization approval for any of our product candidates, we intend to market the product either directly or through strategic alliances and distribution agreements with third parties. The ultimate implementation of our strategy for realizing the financial value of our product candidates is dependent on the results of clinical trials for our product candidates, the availability of regulatory approvals and the ability to negotiate acceptable commercial terms with third parties.

PRODUCT LIABILITY AND INSURANCE

Our business exposes us to potential product liability risks that are inherent in the testing, manufacturing and marketing of human therapeutic products. We presently have product liability insurance limited to $10 million per incident, and if we were to be subject to a claim in excess of this coverage or to a claim not covered by our insurance and the claim succeeded, we would be required to pay the claim out of our own limited resources.

COMPETITION

Competition in the discovery and development of new methods for treating and preventing disease is intense. We face, and will continue to face, competition from pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, as well as academic and research institutions and government agencies both in the U.S. and abroad. We face significant competition from organizations pursuing the same or similar technologies used by us in our drug discovery efforts and from organizations developing pharmaceuticals that are competitive with our product candidates.

Most of our competitors, either alone or together with their collaborative partners, have substantially greater financial resources and larger research and development staffs than we do. In addition, most of these organizations, either alone or together with their collaborators, have significantly greater experience than we do in developing products, undertaking preclinical testing and clinical trials, obtaining FDA and other regulatory approvals of products, and manufacturing and marketing products. Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical industry may result in even more resources being concentrated among our competitors. These companies, as well as academic institutions, governmental agencies, and private research organizations, also compete with us in recruiting and retaining highly qualified scientific personnel and consultants. Our ability to compete successfully with other companies in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology field also depends on the status of our collaborations and on the continuing availability of capital to us.

ThermoDox®

Although there are many drugs and devices marketed and under development for the treatment of cancer, the Company is not aware of any other heat activated drug delivery product either being marketed or in human clinical development. In addition, the Company is not aware of any other Phase III clinical trial for the treatment of newly diagnosed or intermediate stage HCC or primary liver cancer.

GEN-1

Studied indications for GEN-1 currently include stage III/IV ovarian cancer and glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) brain cancer. In evaluating the competitive landscape for both indications, early stagethis indication, early-stage indications are treated with chemotherapy (temozolomide, BCNU, CCNU for brain cancer; docetaxel,(docetaxel, doxil and cisplatinum for ovarian cancer), while later stage ovarian cancer is treated with Bevacizumab - Avastin®, an anti-angiogenesis inhibitor. Avastin® is currently also being evaluated for early stageearly-stage disease.

In product positioning for the ovarian cancer indications, there currently is no direct immunotherapy competitor for GEN-1, which will be studied as an adjuvant to both chemotherapy standard of care regimens, as well as anti-angiogenesis compounds. To support these cases, we have conducted clinical studies in combination with chemotherapy for ovarian cancer, and preclinical studies in combination with both temozolomide and Bevacizumab-Avastin®Bevacizumab-Avastin^®.

ThermoDox^®

Although there are many drugs and devices marketed and under development for the treatment of cancer, the Company is not aware of any other heat activated drug delivery product either being marketed or in human clinical development.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

LicensesPatents and Proprietary Rights

Duke University License Agreement

In 1999,For the ThermoDox® technology, we entered into aeither exclusively license agreement with Duke University under which we received exclusive rights, subject to certain exceptions, to commercialize and use Duke’s thermo-liposome technology. In relation to these liposome patents licensed from Duke University, we have filed two additional patents related to the formulation and use of liposomes. We have also licensed from Valentis, CA certain global rights covering the use of pegylation for temperature sensitive liposomes.

In 2003, our obligations under the license agreement with Duke University with respect to the testing and regulatory milestones and other licensed technology performance deadlines were eliminated in exchange for a payment of shares of our common stock. The license agreement continues to be subject to agreements to pay a royalty based upon future sales. In conjunction with the patent holder, we have filed international applications for a certain number of the U.S. patents.

Our rights under the license agreement with Duke University extend for the longer of 20 years or the end of any term for which any relevant patents are issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Currently we have rights to Duke’s patent for its thermo-liposome technology in the U.S. and to future patents received by Duke in Canada, the EU, Japan and Australia, where it has patent applications have been granted. The European grant provides coverage in the European Community. For this technology, our license rights are worldwide, including the U.S., Canada, certain EU Member States, Australia, Hong Kong, and Japan.

Patents and Proprietary Rights

Celsion holds an exclusive license agreement with Duke University for its temperature-sensitive liposome technology that covers the ThermoDox® formulation.formulation or own U.S. and international patents with claims and methods and compositions of matters that cover various aspects of lysolipid thermally sensitive liposomes technology, with expiration dates ranging from 2018 to 2026. Celsion also has issued patents which pertain specifically to methods of storing stabilized, temperature-sensitive liposomal formulations and will assist in the protection of global rights. These patents will extend the overall term of the ThermoDox® patent portfolio to 2026. TheseThe patents are the first in this family, which includesinclude a pending applicationsapplication in the U.S., and issued patents in Europe and additional key commercial geographies in Asia. This extended patent runway to 2026 allows for the evaluation of future development activities for ThermoDox® and Celsion’s heat-sensitive liposome technology platform.

For the ThermoDox® technology, we either exclusively license or own U.S. and international patents with claims and methods and compositions of matters that cover various aspects of lysolipid thermally sensitive liposomes technology, with expiration dates ranging from 2018 to 2026.

For the TheraPlas technology, we own three U.S. and international patents and related applications with claims and methods and compositions of matters that cover various aspects of TheraPlas and GEN-1 technologies, with expiration dates ranging from 2020 to 2028.

As mentioned above, the FDA granted orphan drug designation to ThermoDox® for the treatment of HCC and to GEN-1 for the treatment of ovarian cancer. Orphan drug designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process. However, if a product which has an orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for the indication for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan drug exclusivity, which means the FDA may not approve any other application to market the same drug for the same indication for a period of seven years, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan exclusivity. Orphan drug designation can also provide opportunities for grant funding towards clinical trial costs, tax advantages and FDA user-fee benefits.

There can be no assurance that an issued patent will remain valid and enforceable in a court of law through the entire patent term. Should the validity of a patent be challenged, the legal process associated with defending the patent can be costly and time consuming. Issued patents can be subject to oppositions, interferences and other third-party challenges that can result in the revocation of the patent or maintenance of the patent in amended form (and potentially in a form that renders the patent without commercially relevant or broad coverage). Competitors may be able to circumvent our patents. Development and commercialization of pharmaceutical products can be subject to substantial delays and it is possible that at the time of commercialization any patent covering the product has expired or will be in force for only a short period of time following commercialization. We cannot predict with any certainty if any third-party U.S. or foreign patent rights, other proprietary rights, will be deemed infringed by the use of our technology. Nor can we predict with certainty which, if any, of these rights will or may be asserted against us by third parties. Should we need to defend ourselves and our partners against any such claims, substantial costs may be incurred. Furthermore, parties making such claims may be able to obtain injunctive or other equitable relief, which could effectively block our ability to develop or commercialize some or all of our products in the U.S. and abroad and could result in the award of substantial damages. In the event of a claim of infringement, we or our partners may be required to obtain one or more licenses from a third party. There can be no assurance that we can obtain a license on a reasonable basis should we deem it necessary to obtain rights to an alternative technology that meets our needs. The failure to obtain a license may have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

In addition to the rights available to us under completed or pending license agreements, we rely on our proprietary know-how and experience in the development and use of heat for medical therapies, which we seek to protect, in part, through proprietary information agreements with employees, consultants and others. There can be no assurance that these proprietary information agreements will not be breached, that we will have adequate remedies for any breach, or that these agreements, even if fully enforced, will be adequate to prevent third-party use of the Company’s proprietary technology. Please refer to“Part 1, Item 1A, Risk Factors,”including, but not limited to, “We rely on trade secret protection and other unpatented proprietary rights for important proprietary technologies, and any loss of such rights could harm our business, results of operations and financial condition.” Similarly, we cannot guarantee that technology rights licensed to us by others will not be successfully challenged or circumvented by third parties, or that the rights granted will provide us with adequate protection. Please refer to“Part 1, Item 1A, Risk Factors,” including, but not limited to, “Our business depends on licensinglicense agreements with third parties to permit us to use patented technologies. The loss of any of our rights under these agreements could impair our ability to develop and market our products.”

EMPLOYEES

As of March 25, 2020,18, 2021, we employed 2927 full-time employees. We also maintain active independent contractor relationships with various individuals, most of whom have month-to-month or annual consulting agreements. None of our employees are covered by a collective bargaining agreement, and we consider our relationship with our employees to be good.

COMPANY INFORMATION

Celsion was founded in 1982 and is a Delaware corporation. Our principal executive offices are located at 997 Lenox Drive, Suite 100, Lawrenceville, NJ 08648. Our telephone number is (609) 896-9100. The Company’s website is www.celsion.com. The information contained in, or that can be accessed through, our website is not part of, and is not incorporated in, this Annual Report.

AVAILABLE INFORMATION

We make available free of charge through our website, www.celsion.com, our Annual Report, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K, and all amendments to those reports as soon as reasonably practicable after such material is electronically filed with or furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC)“SEC”). In addition, our website includes other items related to corporate governance matters, including, among other things, our corporate governance principles, charters of various committees of the Board of Directors, and our code of business conduct and ethics applicable to all employees, officers and directors. We intend to disclose on our internet website any amendments to or waivers from our code of business conduct and ethics as well as any amendments to its corporate governance principles or the charters of various committees of the Board of Directors. Copies of these documents may be obtained, free of charge, from our website. The SEC also maintains an internet site that contains reports, proxy and information statements and other information regarding issuers that file periodic and other reports electronically with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The address of that site is www.sec.gov. The information available on or through our website is not a part of this Annual Report and should not be relied upon.

RECENT EVENTS

On February 27, 2020,January 26, 2021, the Company entered into a Securities Purchase Agreement (the “Purchase Agreement”) withissued and sold 25,925,925 shares of common stock to several institutional investors, pursuant to which the Company agreed to issue and sell, in a registered direct offering (the “Offering”), an aggregate of 4,571,428 shares (the “Shares”) of our common stock at an offering price of $1.05 per share for gross proceeds of approximately $4.8$35 million before the deduction of the Placement Agentplacement agent fees and offering expenses. The Shares are being offered byexpenses (the “January 2021 Offering”). In connection with the January 2021 Offering, the Company pursuantpaid the placement agents a cash fee equal to a registration statement on Form S-3 (File No. 333-227236). The Purchase Agreement contains customary representations, warranties and agreements by the Company and customary conditions to closing. The closing7% of the aggregate gross proceeds raised from the sale of the securities sold in the January 2021 Offering and the Private Placement occurred on March 3, 2020. In a concurrent private placement (the “Private Placement”), the Company agreed to issue to the investors that participated in the Offering,reimbursed them for no additional consideration, warrants, to purchase up to 2,971,428 shares of Common Stock (the “Original Warrants”). The Original Warrants were initially exercisable six months following their and were set to expire on the five-year anniversary of such initial exercise date. The Warrants had an exercise price of $1.15 per share subject to adjustment as provided therein. On March 12, 2020 the Company entered into private exchange agreements (the “Exchange Agreements”) with holders the Warrants. Pursuant to the Exchange Agreements, in return for a higher exercise price of $1.24 per share of Common Stock, the Company issued new warrants to the Investors to purchase up to 3,200,000 shares of Common Stock (the “Exchange Warrants”) in exchange for the Original Warrants. The Exchange Warrants, like the Original Warrants, are initially exercisable six months following their issuance (the “Initial Exercise Date”) and expire on the five-year anniversary of their Initial Exercise Date. Other than having a higher exercise price, different issue date, Initial Exercise Date and expiration date, the terms of the Exchange Warrants are identical to those of the Original Warrants.certain expenses.

On March 5, 2020, the Company delivered notice to Aspire Capital Fund, LLC, an Illinois limited liability company (“Aspire Capital”), terminating the Common Stock Purchase Agreement dated October 28, 2019 (the “2019 Aspire Purchase Agreement”) with Aspire Capital effective as of March 6, 2020. The 2019 Aspire Purchase Agreement provided that, upon the terms and subject to the conditions and limitations set forth therein, Aspire Capital was committed to purchase up to an aggregate of $10 million of shares of the Company’s common stock over the 24-month term of the 2019 Aspire Purchase Agreement at a price equal to (i) the lowest sale price of the Company’s common stock on the purchase date; or (ii) the arithmetic average of the three (3) lowest closing sale prices for the Company’s common stock during the ten (10) consecutive trading days ending on the trading day immediately preceding the purchase date. In consideration for entering into the 2019 Aspire Purchase Agreement, the Company issued to Aspire Capital 100,000 shares of the Company’s common stock.

We are providing the following cautionary discussion of risk factors uncertainties and assumptionsuncertainties that we believe are relevant to our business. These are factors that, individually or in the aggregate, we think could cause our actual results to differ materially from expected or historical results and our forward-looking statements. We note these factors for investors as permitted by Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act, and Section 27A of the Securities Act. You should understand that it is not possible to predict or identify all such factors. Consequently, you should not consider the following to be a complete discussion of all potential risks or uncertainties that may impact our business. Moreover, we operate in a competitive and rapidly changing environment. New factors emerge from time to time, and it is not possible to predict the impact of all of these factors on our business, financial condition or results of operations. We undertake no obligation to publicly update forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise.

Risk Factors Summary

The following is a summary of some of the Company’s most important risks and uncertainties that could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, and results of operations. You should read this summary together with the more detailed description of each risk factor. Additional discussion of the risks summarized in this Risk Factors Summary, and other risks that we face, can be found below under the heading “Risk Factors” and should be carefully considered, together with other information in this Form 10-K and our other filings with the SEC, before making an investment in our securities.

Risk Related to Our Business and Operations

Risks Related to Intellectual Property

Risks Related to Our Securities

RISKS RELATED TO OUR BUSINESS AND OPERATIONS

We have a history of significant losses from operations and expect to continue to incur significant losses for the foreseeable future.

Since our inception, our expenses have substantially exceeded our revenue, resulting in continuing losses and an accumulated deficit of $291$312 million at December 31, 2019.2020. For the years ended December 31, 20192020 and 2018,2019, we incurred net losses of $16.9$21.5 million and $11.9$16.9 million, respectively. We currently have no product revenue and do not expect to generate any product revenue for the foreseeable future. Because we are committed to continuing our product research, development, clinical trial and commercialization programs, we will continue to incur significant operating losses unless and until we complete the development of ThermoDox®, GEN-1 and other new product candidates and these product candidates have been clinically tested, approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA)U.S. FDA and successfully marketed. The amount of future losses is uncertain. Our ability to achieve profitability, if ever, will depend on, among other things, us or our collaborators successfully developing product candidates, obtaining regulatory approvals to market and commercialize product candidates, manufacturing any approved products on commercially reasonable terms, establishing a sales and marketing organization or suitable third-party alternatives for any approved product and raising sufficient funds to finance business activities. If we or our collaborators are unable to develop and commercialize one or more of our product candidates or if sales revenue from any product candidate that receives approval is insufficient, we will not achieve profitability, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We do not expect to generate revenue for the foreseeable future.

We have devoted our resources to developing a new generation of products and will not be able to market these products until we have completed clinical trials and obtain all necessary governmental approvals. Our lead product candidate, ThermoDox® and the product candidates, we purchased in our acquisition of EGEN, including GEN-1, are still in various stages of development and trials and cannot be marketed until we have completed clinical testing and obtained necessary governmental approval. Following our announcement on January 31, 2013February 11, 2021 that the HEATCompany’s Phase III OPTIMA Study failed to meet its primary endpoint of progression free survival,OS, we continueddo not expect to followgenerate revenue from ThermoDox^® for the patients enrolled in the HEAT Study to the secondary endpoint, overall survival. Based on the overall survival data from the post-hoc analysis of results from the HEAT Study, we launched a pivotal, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase III trial of ThermoDox® in combination with RFA in primary liver cancer, known as the OPTIMA Study, in the first half of 2014.foreseeable future. GEN-1 is currently in an early stage of clinical developmenta Phase II trial for the treatment of ovarian cancer. We conducted a Phase I dose-escalation clinical trial of GEN-1 in combination with the standard of care in neo-adjuvant ovarian cancer starting in the second half of 2015 and completing enrollment in 2017. We also expanded our ovarian cancer development program to include a Phase I/II dose escalating trial evaluating GEN-1 in ovarian cancer patients. Our delivery technology platforms, TheraPlas and TheraSilence, are in preclinical stages of development. Accordingly, our revenue sources are, and will remain, extremely limited until our product candidates are clinically tested, approved by the FDA or foreign regulatory agencies and successfully marketed. We cannot guarantee that any of our product candidates will be approved by the FDA or any foreign regulatory agency or marketed, successfully or otherwise, at any time in the foreseeable future or at all.

Drug development is an inherently uncertain process with a high risk of failure at every stage of development. Our lead drug candidate, ThermoDox^®, failed to meet its primary endpoint in our earliertwo Phase III clinical trial.trials.

On January 31, 2013, we announced that our lead product ThermoDox®ThermoDox^® in combination with radiofrequency ablation (RFA)RFA failed to meet the primary endpoint of the Phase III clinical trial for primary liver cancer, known as the HEAT study. We have not completed our finalOn July 13, 2020, the Company announced that it has received a recommendation from the independent DMC to consider stopping the global Phase III OPTIMA Study of ThermoDox^® in combination with RFA for the treatment of HCC, or primary liver cancer. The recommendation was made following the second pre-planned interim safety and efficacy analysis by the DMC on July 9, 2020. The DMC’s analysis found that the pre-specified boundary for stopping the trial for futility of 0.900 was crossed with an actual value of 0.903. The Company followed the advice of the DMC and considered its options to either stop the study or continue to follow patients after a thorough review of the data, and do not knowan evaluation of the extentprobability of success. On February 11, 2021, the Company issued a letter to which, if any,shareholders stating the failure of ThermoDox®Company was notifying all clinical sites to meet its primary endpointdiscontinue following patients in the Phase III trial could impact our other ongoing studies of ThermoDox® including a pivotal, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase III trial of ThermoDox® in combination with RFA in primary liver cancer, known as the OPTIMA study, which we launched in the first half of 2014. The trial design of the OPTIMA study is based on the overall survival data from the post-hoc analysis of results from the HEAT study. In addition, we have initiated a Phase I dose-escalation clinical trial of GEN-1 in combination with the standard of care in neo-adjuvant ovarian cancer, known as the OVATION Study, and plan to expand our ovarian cancer development program to include a Phase I/II dose escalating trial evaluating GEN-1, known as the OVATION II Study, in ovarian cancer patients.Study.

Preclinical testing and clinical trials are long, expensive, and highly uncertain processes and failure can unexpectedly occur at any stage of clinical development, as evidenced by the failure of ThermoDox® ThermoDox^® to meet its primary endpoint in the HEAT study.Study and the OPTIMA Study. Drug development is inherently risky and clinical trials take us several years to complete. The start or end of a clinical trial is often delayed or halted due to changing regulatory requirements, manufacturing challenges, required clinical trial administrative actions, slower than anticipated patient enrollment, changing standards of care, availability, or prevalence of use of a comparator drug or required prior therapy, clinical outcomes including insufficient efficacy, safety concerns, or our own financial constraints. The results from preclinical testing or early clinical trials of a product candidate may not predict the results that will be obtained in later phase clinical trials of the product candidate. We, the FDA, or other applicable regulatory authorities may suspend clinical trials of a product candidate at any time for various reasons, including a belief that subjects participating in such trials are being exposed to unacceptable health risks or adverse side effects. We may not have the financial resources to continue development of, or to enter into collaborations for, a product candidate if we experience any problems or other unforeseen events that delay or prevent regulatory approval of, or our ability to commercialize, product candidates. The failure of one or more of our drug candidates or development programs could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

We will need to raise additional capital to fund our planned future operations, and we may be unable to secure such capital without dilutive financing transactions. If we are not able to raise additional capital, we may not be able to complete the development, testing and commercialization of our product candidates.

We have not generated significant revenue and have incurred significant net losses in each year since our inception. For the year ended December 31, 2019,2020, we hadincurred a net loss of $16.9 million and used $20.3 million to fund operations.$21.5 million. We have incurred approximately $291$312 million of accumulatedcumulative net losses as of December 31, 2019.losses. As of December 31, 2019,2020, we had approximately $16.7 million in cash short-term investments, interest receivable and deferred income tax asset.cash equivalents of $17.2 million.

We have substantial future capital requirements to continue our research and development activities and advance our product candidates through various development stages. For example, ThermoDox® is being evaluated in a Phase III clinical trial in combination with RFA for the treatment of primary liver cancer and other preclinical studies. We completed a Phase I dose-escalation clinical trial of GEN-1 in combination with the standard of care in neo-adjuvant ovarian cancer in the third quarter of 2017 and expanded our clinical development program for GEN-1 into a follow-on Phase I/II trial for newly diagnosed ovarian cancer in 2018.

To complete the development and commercialization of our product candidates, we will need to raise substantial amounts of additional capital to fund our operations. Our future capital requirements will depend upon numerous unpredictable factors, including, without limitation, the cost, timing, progress and outcomes of clinical studies and regulatory reviews of our proprietary drug candidates, our efforts to implement new collaborations, licenses and strategic transactions, general and administrative expenses, capital expenditures and other unforeseen uses of cash. Other than the Capital on Demand Agreement that provides us the ability to sell equity securities in the future, we do not have any committed sources of financing and cannot assure you that alternate funding will be available in a timely manner, on acceptable terms or at all. We may need to pursue dilutive equity financings, such as the issuance of shares of common stock, convertible debt or other convertible or exercisable securities. Such dilutive equity financings could dilute the percentage ownership of our current common stockholders and could significantly lower the market value of our common stock. In addition, a financing could result in the issuance of new securities that may have rights, preferences or privileges senior to those of our existing stockholders.

If we are unable to obtain additional capital on a timely basis or on acceptable terms, or, if current market conditions, includingestimate the volatility in the markets resulting from the worldwide Covid-19 pandemic, make capital raising impractical or impossible, we may be required to delay, reduce or terminateduration and completion costs of our research and development programsprojects or when, if ever, and to what extent we will receive cash inflows from the commercialization and sale of a product.. Our inability to complete any of our research and development activities, preclinical studies or clinical trials in a timely manner or our failure to enter into collaborative agreements when appropriate could significantly increase our capital requirements and could adversely impact our liquidity. While our estimated future capital requirements are uncertain and could increase or decrease as a result of many factors, including the extent to which we choose to advance our research, development activities, preclinical studies and clinical trials, or if any, limit strategic opportunitieswe are in a position to pursue manufacturing or undergo corporate restructuring activities. We also could be requiredcommercialization activities, we will need significant additional capital to seek funds through arrangements with collaborators or others that may require us to relinquish rights to some ofdevelop our technologies, product candidates or potential markets or that could impose onerous financial or other terms. Furthermore, if we cannot fund our ongoingthrough development and other operating requirements, particularly those associated with our obligations to conduct clinical trials, under our licensing agreements,obtain regulatory approvals and manufacture and commercialize approved products, if any. We do not know whether we will be in breachable to access additional capital when needed or on terms favorable to us or our stockholders. Our inability to raise additional capital, or to do so on terms reasonably acceptable to us, would jeopardize the future success of these licensing agreements and could therefore lose our license rights, which could have material adverse effects on our business.

If we do not obtain or maintain FDA and foreign regulatory approvals for our drug candidates on a timely basis, or at all, or if the terms of any approval impose significant restrictions or limitations on use, we will be unable to sell those products and our business, results of operations and financial condition will be negatively affected.

To obtain regulatory approvals from the FDA and foreign regulatory agencies, we must conduct clinical trials demonstrating that our products are safe and effective. We may need to amend ongoing trials, or the FDA and/or foreign regulatory agencies may require us to perform additional trials beyond those we planned. The testing and approval process requirerequires substantial time, effort and resources, and generally takes a number of years to complete. The time to complete testing and obtaining approvals is uncertain, and the FDA and foreign regulatory agencies have substantial discretion, at any phase of development, to terminate clinical studies, require additional clinical studies or other testing, delay or withhold approval, and mandate product withdrawals, including recalls. In addition, our drug candidates may have undesirable side effects or other unexpected characteristics that could cause us or regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay or halt clinical trials and could result in a more restricted label or the delay or denial of regulatory approval by regulatory authorities.

Even if we receive regulatory approval of a product, the approval may limit the indicated uses for which the drug may be marketed. The failure to obtain timely regulatory approval of product candidates, the imposition of marketing limitations, or a product withdrawal would negatively impact our business, results of operations and financial condition. Even if we receive approval, we will be subject to ongoing regulatory obligations and continued regulatory review, which may result in significant additional expense and subject us to restrictions, withdrawal from the market, or penalties if we fail to comply with applicable regulatory requirements or if we experience unanticipated problems with our product candidates, when and if approved. Finally, even if we obtain FDA approval of any of our product candidates, we may never obtain approval or commercialize such products outside of the United States,U.S., given that we may be subject to additional or different regulatory burdens in other markets. This could limit our ability to realize their full market potential.

Our industry is highly regulated by the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory agencies. We must comply with extensive, strictly enforced regulatory requirements to develop, obtain, and maintain marketing approval for any of our product candidates.

Securing FDA or comparable foreign regulatory approval requires the submission of extensive preclinical and clinical data and supporting information for each therapeutic indication to establish the product candidate’s safety and efficacy for its intended use. It takes years to complete the testing of a new drug or biological product and development delays and/or failure can occur at any stage of testing. Any of our present and future clinical trials may be delayed, halted, not authorized, or approval of any of our products may be delayed or may not be obtained due to any of the following:

In addition, information generated during the clinical trial process is susceptible to varying interpretations that could delay, limit, or prevent marketing approval at any stage of the approval process. Moreover, early positive preclinical or clinical trial results may not be replicated in later clinical trials. As more product candidates within a particular class of drugs proceed through clinical development to regulatory review and approval, the amount and type of clinical data that may be required by regulatory authorities may increase or change. Failure to demonstrate adequately the quality, safety, and efficacy of any of our product candidates would delay or prevent marketing approval of the applicable product candidate. We cannot assure you that if clinical trials are completed, either we or our potential collaborators will submit applications for required authorizations to manufacture or market potential products or that any such application will be reviewed and approved by appropriate regulatory authorities in a timely manner, if at all.

The outbreak, duration and severity of the novel coronavirus disease, COVID-19, pandemic could adversely impact our business, including our preclinical studies and clinical trials.

In January 2020, the WHO declared COVID-19 a global pandemic, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services declared a public health emergency to aid the U.S. healthcare community in responding to COVID-19. Governments and businesses around the world have taken unprecedented actions to mitigate the spread of COVID-19, including, but not limited to, shelter-in-place orders, quarantines, and significant restrictions on travel, as well as restrictions that prohibit many employees from going to work. Uncertainty with respect to the economic impacts of the pandemic has introduced significant volatility in the financial markets. The Company did not observe significant impacts on its business or results of operations for the year ended December 31, 2020 due to the global emergence of COVID-19. While the extent to which COVID-19 impacts the Company’s future results will depend on future developments, the pandemic and associated economic impacts could result in a material impact to the Company’s future financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

The Company’s ability to raise additional capital may be adversely impacted by potential worsening global economic conditions and the recent disruptions to, and volatility in, financial markets in the U.S. and worldwide resulting from the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

The disruptions caused by COVID-19 may also disrupt preclinical studies, the clinical trials process and enrollment of patients. This may delay commercialization efforts. The Company is currently monitoring its operating activities in light of these events and it is reasonably possible that the virus could have a negative effect on the Company’s financial condition and results of operations. The specific impact is not readily determinable as of the date of this report.

While, as of the date of this report, we have not experienced any material disruptions to the execution of the clinical trials and the research and development activities that we currently have underway, as a result of the pandemic we may experience disruptions that could severely impact research and development timelines and outcomes, including, but not limited to:

In addition, the trading prices for common stock of other biopharmaceutical companies have been highly volatile as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. The COVID-19 pandemic continues to rapidly evolve. The extent to which the pandemic 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 the U.S. and other countries, business closures or business disruptions and the effectiveness of actions taken in the U.S. and other countries to diagnose, contain and treat the disease. If we or any of the third parties with whom we engage were to experience shutdowns or other business disruptions, our ability to conduct our business and development activities in the manner and on the timelines presently planned could be materially and negatively impacted. There can be no assurance that any such disruptions or delays will not materially adversely impact our business, results of operations, access to financial resources and our financial condition.

New gene-based products for therapeutic applications are subject to extensive regulation by the FDA and comparable agencies in other countries. The precise regulatory requirements with which we will have to comply, now and in the future, are uncertain due to the novelty of the gene-based products we are developing.

The regulatory approval process for novel product candidates such as ours can be significantly more expensive and take longer than for other, better known or more extensively studied product candidates. Limited data exist regarding the safety and efficacy of DNA-based therapeutics compared with conventional therapeutics, and government regulation of DNA-based therapeutics is evolving. Regulatory requirements governing gene and cell therapy products have changed frequently and may continue to change in the future. The FDA has established the Office of Cellular, Tissue and Gene Therapies within its Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), to consolidate the review of gene therapy and related products, and has established the Cellular, Tissue and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee to advise CBER in its review. It is difficult to determine how long it will take or how much it will cost to obtain regulatory approvals for our product candidates in either the U.S. or the European Union or how long it will take to commercialize our product candidates.

Adverse events or the perception of adverse events in the field of gene therapy generally, or with respect to our product candidates specifically, may have a particularly negative impact on public perception of gene therapy and result in greater governmental regulation, including future bans or stricter standards imposed on gene-based therapy clinical trials, stricter labeling requirements and other regulatory delays in the testing or approval of our potential products. For example, eachif we were to engage an NIH-funded institution to conduct a clinical trial, we may be subject to review by the NIH Office of investigational gene therapies must beBiotechnology Activities’ Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee (the RAC). If undertaken, RAC can delay the initiation of a clinical trial, even if the FDA has reviewed the trial design and details and approved byits initiation. Conversely, the Institutional Biosafety Committee (IBC) for each clinical site. IBCs were established under the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant or Synthetic Nucleic Acid Molecules to provide local review and oversight of nearly all forms of research utilizing recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecules. The IBC assesses biosafety issues, specifically, safety practices and containment procedures, related to the investigational product and clinical study. Compliance with the NIH Guidelines is mandatory for investigators at institutions receiving NIH funds for research involving recombinant DNA, however many companies and other institutions not otherwise subject to the NIH Guidelines voluntarily follow them. Such trials remain subject to FDA and other clinical trial regulations, and only after FDA, IBC, and other relevant approvals are in place can these protocols proceed. The FDA can put an investigational new drug (IND)IND application on a clinical hold even if the IBCRAC has provided a favorable review or an exemption from in-depth, public review. Such committee and advisory group reviews and any new guidelines they promulgate may lengthen the regulatory review process, require us to perform additional studies, increase our development costs, lead to changes in regulatory positions and interpretations, delay or prevent approval and commercialization of our product candidates or lead to significant post-approval limitations or restrictions. Any increased scrutiny could delay or increase the costs of our product development efforts or clinical trials.

Even if our products receive regulatory approval, they may still face future development and regulatory difficulties. Government regulators may impose significant restrictions on a product’s indicated uses or marketing or impose ongoing requirements for potentially costly post-approval studies. This governmental oversight may be particularly strict with respect to gene-based therapies.

Serious adverse events, undesirable side effects or other unexpected properties of our product candidates may be identified during development or after approval, which could lead to the discontinuation of our clinical development programs, refusal by regulatory authorities to approve our product candidates or, if discovered following marketing approval, revocation of marketing authorizations or limitations on the use of our product candidates thereby limiting the commercial potential of such product candidate.

As we continue our development of our product candidates and initiate clinical trials of our additional product candidates, serious adverse events, undesirable side effects or unexpected characteristics may emerge causing us to abandon these product candidates or limit their development to more narrow uses or subpopulations in which the serious adverse events, undesirable side effects or other characteristics are less prevalent, less severe or more acceptable from a risk-benefit perspective.

Even if our product candidates initially show promise in these early clinical trials, the side effects of drugs are frequently only detectable after they are tested in large, Phase 3 clinical trials or, in some cases, after they are made available to patients on a commercial scale after approval. Sometimes, it can be difficult to determine if the serious adverse or unexpected side effects were caused by the product candidate or another factor, especially in oncology subjects who may suffer from other medical conditions and be taking other medications. If serious adverse or unexpected side effects are identified during development and are determined to be attributed to our product candidate, we may be required to develop a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) to mitigate those serious safety risks, which could impose significant distribution and use restrictions on our products.

In addition, drug-related side effects could also affect subject recruitment or the ability of enrolled subjects to complete the trial, result in potential product liability claims, reputational harm, withdrawal of approvals, a requirement to include additional warnings on the label or to create a medication guide outlining the risks of such side effects for distribution to patients. It can also result in patient harm, liability lawsuits, and reputational harm. Any of these occurrences could prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance and may harm our business, financial condition, and prospects significantly.

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

We may experience difficulties in patient enrollment in our clinical trials for a variety of reasons. The 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 remain in the trial until its conclusion. The enrollment of patients depends on many factors, including:

In addition, our clinical trials will compete with other clinical trials for product candidates that are in the same therapeutic areas as our product candidates, and this competition will reduce the number and types of patients available to us, because some patients who might have opted to enroll in our trials may instead opt to enroll in a trial being conducted by one of our competitors. Since the number of qualified clinical investigators is limited, we expect to conduct some of our clinical trials at the same clinical trial sites that some of our competitors use, which will reduce the number of patients who are available for our clinical trials in such clinical trial site. Certain of our planned clinical trials may also involve invasive procedures, which may lead some patients to drop out of trials to avoid these follow-up procedures.

Further, timely enrollment in clinical trials is reliant on clinical trial sites which may be adversely affected by global health matters, including, among other things, pandemics. For example, our clinical trial sites may be located in regions currently being affected by the COVID-19 coronavirus. Some factors from the COVID-19 coronavirus outbreakpandemic or any future pandemics that we believe may adversely affect enrollment in our trials include:

These and other factors arising from the COVID-19 coronavirus could worsen in countries that are already afflicted with the virus or could continue to spread to additional countries, each of which may further adversely impact our clinical trials. The global outbreakpandemic of the COVID-19 coronavirus continues to evolve and the conduct of our trials may continue to be adversely affected, despite efforts to mitigate this impact.

We may not successfully engage in future strategic transactions, which could adversely affect our ability to develop and commercialize product candidates, impact our cash position, increase our expense and present significant distractions to our management.

In the future, we may consider strategic alternatives intended to further the development of our business, which may include acquiring businesses, technologies, or products, out- or in-licensing product candidates or technologies or entering into a business combination with another company. Any strategic transaction may require us to incur non-recurring or other charges, increase our near- and long-term expenditures and pose significant integration or implementation challenges or disrupt our management or business. These transactions would entail numerous operational and financial risks, including exposure to unknown liabilities, disruption of our business and diversion of our management’s time and attention in order to manage a collaboration or develop acquired products, product candidates or technologies, incurrence of substantial debt or dilutive issuances of equity securities to pay transaction consideration or costs, higher than expected collaboration, acquisition or integration costs, write-downs of assets or goodwill or impairment charges, increased amortization expenses, difficulty and cost in facilitating the collaboration or combining the operations and personnel of any acquired business, impairment of relationships with key suppliers, manufacturers or customers of any acquired business due to changes in management and ownership and the inability to retain key employees of any acquired business. Accordingly, although there can be no assurance that we will undertake or successfully complete any transactions of the nature described above, any transactions that we do complete may be subject to the foregoing or other risks and have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects. Conversely, any failure to enter any strategic transaction that would be beneficial to us could delay the development and potential commercialization of our product candidates and have a negative impact on the competitiveness of any product candidate that reaches market.

Strategic transactions, such as acquisitions, partnerships, and collaborations, including the EGEN asset acquisition, involve numerous risks, including:

We may never realize the perceived benefits of the EGEN asset acquisition or potential future transactions. We cannot assure you that we will be successful in overcoming problems encountered in connection with any transactions, and our inability to do so could significantly harm our business, results of operations and financial condition. These transactions could dilute a stockholder’s investment in us and cause us to incur debt, contingent liabilities and amortization/impairment charges related to intangible assets, all of which could materially and adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition. In addition, our effective tax rate for future periods could be negatively impacted by the EGEN asset acquisition or potential future transactions.

Our business depends on license agreements with third parties to permit us to use patented technologies. The loss of any of our rights under these agreements could impair our ability to develop and market our products.

Our success will depend, in a substantial part, on our ability to maintain our rights under license agreements granting us rights to use patented technologies. For instance, we are party to license agreements with Duke University, under which we have exclusive rights to commercialize medical treatment products and procedures based on Duke’s thermo-sensitive liposome technology. The Duke University license agreement contains a license fee, royalty and/or research support provisions, testing and regulatory milestones, and other performance requirements that we must meet by certain deadlines. If we breach any provisions of the license and research agreements, we may lose our ability to use the subject technology, as well as compensation for our efforts in developing or exploiting the technology. Any such loss of rights and access to technology could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Further, we cannot guarantee that any patent or other technology rights licensed to us by others will not be challenged or circumvented successfully by third parties, or that the rights granted will provide adequate protection. We may be required to alter any of our potential products or processes or enter into a license and pay licensing fees to a third party or cease certain activities. There can be no assurance that we can obtain a license to any technology that we determine we need on reasonable terms, if at all, or that we could develop or otherwise obtain alternate technology. If a license is not available on commercially reasonable terms or at all, our business, results of operations, and financial condition could be significantly harmed, and we may be prevented from developing and commercializing the product. Litigation, which could result in substantial costs, may also be necessary to enforce any patents issued to or licensed by us or to determine the scope and validity of another’s claimed proprietary rights.

If any of our pending patent applications do not issue, or are deemed invalid following issuance, we may lose valuable intellectual property protection.

The patent positions of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, such as ours, are uncertain and involve complex legal and factual issues. We own various U.S. and international patents and have pending U.S. and international patent applications that cover various aspects of our technologies. There can be no assurance that patents that have issued will be held valid and enforceable in a court of law through the entire patent term. Even for patents that are held valid and enforceable, the legal process associated with obtaining such a judgment is time consuming and costly. Additionally, issued patents can be subject to opposition, interferences or other proceedings that can result in the revocation of the patent or maintenance of the patent in amended form (and potentially in a form that renders the patent without commercially relevant or broad coverage). Further, our competitors may be able to circumvent and otherwise design around our patents. Even if a patent is issued and enforceable, because development and commercialization of pharmaceutical products can be subject to substantial delays, patents may expire early and provide only a short period of protection, if any, following the commercialization of products encompassed by our patents. We may have to participate in interference proceedings declared by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, which could result in a loss of the patent and/or substantial cost to us.

We have filed patent applications, and plan to file additional patent applications, covering various aspects of our technologies and our proprietary product candidates. There can be no assurance that the patent applications for which we apply would actually issue as patents or do so with commercially relevant or broad coverage. The coverage claimed in a patent application can be significantly reduced before the patent is issued. The scope of our claim coverage can be critical to our ability to enter into licensing transactions with third parties and our right to receive royalties from our collaboration partnerships. Since publication of discoveries in scientific or patent literature often lags behind the date of such discoveries, we cannot be certain that we were the first inventor of inventions covered by our patents or patent applications. In addition, there is no guarantee that we will be the first to file a patent application directed to an invention.

An adverse outcome in any judicial proceeding involving intellectual property, including patents, could subject us to significant liabilities to third parties, require disputed rights to be licensed from or to third parties or require us to cease using the technology in dispute. In those instances where we seek an intellectual property license from another, we may not be able to obtain the license on a commercially reasonable basis, if at all, thereby raising concerns on our ability to freely commercialize our technologies or products.

We rely on trade secret protection and other unpatented proprietary rights for important proprietary technologies, and any loss of such rights could harm our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We rely on trade secrets and confidential information that we seek to protect, in part, by confidentiality agreements with our corporate partners, collaborators, employees and consultants. We cannot assure you that these agreements are adequate to protect our trade secrets and confidential information or will not be breached or, if breached, we will have adequate remedies. Furthermore, others may independently develop substantially equivalent confidential and proprietary information or otherwise gain access to our trade secrets or disclose such technology. Any loss of trade secret protection or other unpatented proprietary rights could harm our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Our products may infringe patent rights of others, which may require costly litigation and, if we are not successful, could cause us to pay substantial damages or limit our ability to commercialize our products.

Our commercial success depends on our ability to operate without infringing the patents and other proprietary rights of third parties. There may be third party patents that relate to our products and technology. We may unintentionally infringe upon valid patent rights of third parties. Although we currently are not involved in any material litigation involving patents, a third-party patent holder may assert a claim of patent infringement against us in the future. Alternatively, we may initiate litigation against the third-party patent holder to request that a court declare that we are not infringing the third party’s patent and/or that the third party’s patent is invalid or unenforceable. If a claim of infringement is asserted against us and is successful, and therefore we are found to infringe, we could be required to pay damages for infringement, including treble damages if it is determined that we knew or became aware of such a patent and we failed to exercise due care in determining whether or not we infringed the patent. If we have supplied infringing products to third parties or have licensed third parties to manufacture, use or market infringing products, we may be obligated to indemnify these third parties for damages they may be required to pay to the patent holder and for any losses they may sustain.

We can also be prevented from selling or commercializing any of our products that use the infringing technology in the future, unless we obtain a license from such third party. A license may not be available from such third party on commercially reasonable terms or may not be available at all. Any modification to include a non-infringing technology may not be possible, or if possible, may be difficult or time-consuming to develop, and require revalidation, which could delay our ability to commercialize our products. Any infringement action asserted against us, even if we are ultimately successful in defending against such action, would likely delay the regulatory approval process of our products, harm our competitive position, be expensive and require the time and attention of our key management and technical personnel.

We rely on third parties to conduct all of our clinical trials. If these third parties are unable to carry out their contractual duties in a manner that is consistent with our expectations, comply with budgets and other financial obligations or meet expected deadlines, we may not receive certain development milestone payments or be able to obtain regulatory approval for or commercialize our product candidates in a timely or cost-effective manner.

We do not independently conduct clinical trials for our drug candidates. We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third-party clinical investigators, clinical research organizations (CROs), clinical data management organizations and consultants to design, conduct, supervise and monitor our clinical trials.

Because we do not conduct our own clinical trials, we must rely on the efforts of others and have reduced control over aspects of these activities, including, the timing of such trials, the costs associated with such trials and the procedures that are followed for such trials. We do not expect to significantly increase our personnel in the foreseeable future and may continue to rely on third parties to conduct all of our future clinical trials. If we cannot contract with acceptable third parties on commercially reasonable terms or at all, if these third parties are unable to carry out their contractual duties or obligations in a manner that is consistent with our expectations or meet expected deadlines, if they do not carry out the trials in accordance with budgeted amounts, if the quality or accuracy of the clinical data they obtain is compromised due to their failure to adhere to our clinical protocols or for other reasons, or if they fail to maintain compliance with applicable government regulations and standards, our clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated or may become significantly more expensive, we may not receive development milestone payments when expected or at all, and we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for or successfully commercialize our product candidates.

Despite our reliance on third parties to conduct our clinical trials, we are ultimately responsible for ensuring that each of our clinical trials is conducted in accordance with the general investigational plan and protocols for the trial. Moreover, the FDA requires clinical trials to be conducted in accordance with good clinical practices for conducting, recording and reporting the results of clinical trials to assure that data and reported results are credible and accurate and that the rights, integrity and confidentiality of clinical trial participants are protected. We also are required to register ongoing clinical trials and post the results of completed clinical trials on a government-sponsored database,ClinicalTrials.gov, within certain timeframes. Failure to do so can result in fines, adverse publicity and civil and criminal sanctions. Our reliance on third parties that we do not control does not relieve us of these responsibilities and requirements. If we or a third party we rely on fails to meet these requirements, we may not be able to obtain, or may be delayed in obtaining, marketing authorizations for our drug candidates and will not be able to, or may be delayed in our efforts to, successfully commercialize our drug candidates. This could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Because we rely on third party manufacturing and supply partners, our supply of research and development, preclinical and clinical development materials may become limited or interrupted or may not be of satisfactory quantity or quality.

We rely on third party supply and manufacturing partners to supply the materials and components for, and manufacture, our research and development, preclinical and clinical trial drug supplies. We do not own manufacturing facilities or supply sources for such components and materials. There can be no assurance that our supply of research and development, preclinical and clinical development drugs and other materials will not be limited, interrupted, restricted in certain geographic regions or of satisfactory quality or continue to be available at acceptable prices. Suppliers and manufacturers must meet applicable manufacturing requirements and undergo rigorous facility and process validation tests required by FDA and foreign regulatory authorities in order to comply with regulatory standards, such as current Good Manufacturing Practices.cGMP. In the event that any of our suppliers or manufacturers fails to comply with such requirements or to perform its obligations to us in relation to quality, timing or otherwise, or if our supply of components or other materials becomes limited or interrupted for other reasons, we may be forced to manufacture the materials ourselves, for which we currently do not have the capabilities or resources, or enter into an agreement with another third party, which we may not be able to do on reasonable terms, if at all.

Our business is subject to numerous and evolving state, federal and foreign regulations and we may not be able to secure the government approvals needed to develop and market our products.

Our research and development activities, pre-clinical tests and clinical trials, and ultimately the manufacturing, marketing and labeling of our products, are all subject to extensive regulation by the FDA and foreign regulatory agencies. Pre-clinical testing and clinical trial requirements and the regulatory approval process typically take years and require the expenditure of substantial resources. Additional government regulation may be established that could prevent or delay regulatory approval of our product candidates. Delays or rejections in obtaining regulatory approvals would adversely affect our ability to commercialize any product candidates and our ability to generate product revenue or royalties.

The FDA and foreign regulatory agencies require that the safety and efficacy of product candidates be supported through adequate and well-controlled clinical trials. If the results of pivotal clinical trials do not establish the safety and efficacy of our product candidates to the satisfaction of the FDA and other foreign regulatory agencies, we will not receive the approvals necessary to market such product candidates. Even if regulatory approval of a product candidate is granted, the approval may include significant limitations on the indicated uses for which the product may be marketed.

We are subject to the periodic inspection of our clinical trials, facilities, procedures and operations and/or the testing of our products by the FDA to determine whether our systems and processes, or those of our vendors and suppliers, are in compliance with FDA regulations. Following such inspections, the FDA may issue notices on Form 483 and warning letters that could cause us to modify certain activities identified during the inspection.

Failure to comply with the FDA and other governmental regulations can result in fines, unanticipated compliance expenditures, recall or seizure of products, total or partial suspension of production and/or distribution, suspension of the FDA’s review of product applications, enforcement actions, injunctions and criminal prosecution. Under certain circumstances, the FDA also has the authority to revoke previously granted product approvals. Although we have internal compliance programs, if these programs do not meet regulatory agency standards or if our compliance is deemed deficient in any significant way, it could have a material adverse effect on the Company.

We are also subject to recordkeeping and reporting regulations. These regulations require, among other things, the reporting to the FDA of adverse events alleged to have been associated with the use of a product or in connection with certain product failures. Labeling and promotional activities also are regulated by the FDA. We must also comply with record keeping requirements as well as requirements to report certain adverse events involving our products. The FDA can impose other post-marketing controls on us as well as our products including, but not limited to, restrictions on sale and use, through the approval process, regulations and otherwise.

Many states in which we do or may do business, or in which our products may be sold, if at all, impose licensing, labeling or certification requirements that are in addition to those imposed by the FDA. There can be no assurance that one or more states will not impose regulations or requirements that have a material adverse effect on our ability to sell our products.

In many of the foreign countries in which we may do business or in which our products may be sold, we will be subject to regulation by national governments and supranational agencies as well as by local agencies affecting, among other things, product standards, packaging requirements, labeling requirements, import restrictions, tariff regulations, duties and tax requirements. There can be no assurance that one or more countries or agencies will not impose regulations or requirements that could have a material adverse effect on our ability to sell our products.

We have obtained Orphan Drug Designation for GEN-1 ThermoDox® and may seek Orphan Drug Designation for other product candidates, but we may be unsuccessful or may be unable to maintain the benefits associated with Orphan Drug Designation, including the potential for market exclusivity.

ThermoDox®GEN-1 has been granted orphan drug designation for ovarian cancer in both the U.S. and Europe. ThermoDox^® has been granted orphan drug designation for primary liver cancer in both the U.S. and Europe. As part of our business strategy, we may seek Orphan Drug Designation for other product candidates, but we may be unsuccessful. Regulatory authorities in some jurisdictions, including the U.S. and Europe, may designate drugs for relatively small patient populations as orphan drugs. Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may designate a drug as an orphan drug if it is a drug intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally defined as a patient population of fewer than 200,000 individuals annually in the U.S., or a patient population greater than 200,000 in the U.S. where there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing the drug will be recovered from sales in the U.S.

Even though we have obtained Orphan Drug Designation for ThermoDox®GEN-1 and ThermoDox^® and may obtain such designation for other product candidates in specific indications, we may not be the first to obtain marketing approval of these product candidates for the orphan-designated indication due to the uncertainties associated with developing pharmaceutical products. In addition, exclusive marketing rights in the U.S. may be limited if we seek approval for an indication broader than the orphan-designated indication or may be lost if the FDA later determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient quantities of the product to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition. Further, even if we obtain orphan drug exclusivity for a product, that exclusivity may not effectively protect the product from competition because different drugs with different active moieties can be approved for the same condition. Even after an orphan product is approved, the FDA can subsequently approve the same drug with the same active moiety for the same condition if the FDA concludes that the later drug is safer, more effective or makes a major contribution to patient care. Orphan Drug Designation neither shortens the development time or regulatory review time of a drug nor gives the drug any advantage in the regulatory review or approval process. In addition, while we may seek Orphan Drug Designation for other product candidates, we may never receive such designations.

Fast Track designation may not actually lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process.

Both GEN-1 and ThermoDox® hashave received U.S. FDA Fast Track Designation.Designation in 2021 and 2010, respectively. However, we may not experience a faster development process, review, or approval compared to conventional FDA procedures. The FDA may withdraw our Fast TrackFast-Track designation if the FDA believes that the designation is no longer supported by data from our clinical or pivotal development program. Our Fast TrackFast-Track designation does not guarantee that we will qualify for or be able to take advantage of the FDA’s expedited review procedures or that any application that we may submit to the FDA for regulatory approval will be accepted for filing or ultimately approved.

Our relationships with healthcare providers and physicians and third-party payors will be subject to applicable anti-kickback, fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations, which could expose us to criminal sanctions, civil penalties, contractual damages, reputational harm and diminished profits and future earnings.

Healthcare providers, physicians and third-party payors in the United StatesU.S. and elsewhere play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of biopharmaceutical products. Arrangements with third-party payors and customers can expose biopharmaceutical manufacturers to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations, including, without limitation, the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and the federal False Claims Act, which may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which such companies sell, market and distribute biopharmaceutical products. In particular, the research of our product candidates, as well as 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. Activities subject to these laws also involve the improper use of information obtained in the course of patient recruitment for clinical trials. The applicable federal, state and foreign healthcare laws and regulations laws that may affect our ability to operate include, but are not limited to:

The distribution of biopharmaceutical products is subject to additional requirements and regulations, including extensive record-keeping, licensing, storage and security requirements intended to prevent the unauthorized sale of biopharmaceutical products.

The scope and enforcement of each of these laws is uncertain and subject to rapid change in the current environment of healthcare reform, especially in light of the lack of applicable precedent and regulations. Ensuring business arrangements comply with applicable healthcare laws, as well as responding to possible investigations by government authorities, can be time- and resource-consuming and can divert a company’s attention from the business.

It is possible that governmental and enforcement authorities will conclude that our business practices may not comply with current or future statutes, regulations or case law interpreting applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and 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 civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, imprisonment, reputational harm, possible exclusion from participation in federal and state funded healthcare programs, contractual damages and the curtailment or restricting of our operations, as well as additional reporting obligations and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or other agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws. Further, if any of the physicians or other healthcare providers or entities with whom we expect to do business is found to be not in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to significant criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government funded healthcare programs. Any action for violation of these laws, even if successfully defended, could cause a biopharmaceutical manufacturer to incur significant legal expenses and divert management’s attention from the operation of the business. Prohibitions or restrictions on sales or withdrawal of future marketed products could materially affect business in an adverse way.

Ongoing legislative and regulatory changes affecting the healthcare industry could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Political, economic and regulatory influences are subjecting the healthcare industry to potential fundamental changes that could substantially affect our results of operations by requiring, for example: (i) changes to our manufacturing arrangements; (ii) additions or modifications to product labeling; (iii) the recall or discontinuation of our products; or (iv) additional record-keeping requirements.

In the United States,U.S., there have been and continue to be a number of legislative initiatives to contain healthcare costs. For example, in March 2010, the ACA was passed, which substantially changed the way health care is financed by both governmental and private insurers, and significantly impacted the U.S. biopharmaceutical industry. The ACA, among other things, addressed a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for drugs that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted or injected, increased the minimum Medicaid rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program and extended the rebate program to individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations, established annual fees and taxes on manufacturers of certain branded prescription drugs, and created a new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program, in which manufacturers must agree to offer 70% (increased pursuant to the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, effective as of 2019)certain point-of-sale discounts off negotiated prices of applicable brand drugs to eligible beneficiaries during their coverage gap period, as a condition for the manufacturer’s outpatient drugs to be covered under Medicare Part D.

Since its enactment, some of the provisions of the ACA have yet to be fully implemented, while certain provisions have been subject to judicial, congressional, and executive challenges. As a result, there have been delays in the implementation of, and action taken to repeal or replace, certain aspects of the ACA. Since January 2017, President Trump has signed two Executive Orders designed to delay the implementation of certain provisions of the ACA or otherwise circumvent some of the requirements for health insurance mandated by the ACA. One Executive Order directs federal agencies with authorities and responsibilities under the ACA to waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the implementation of any provision of the ACA that would impose a fiscal or regulatory burden on states, individuals, healthcare providers, health insurers, or manufacturers of pharmaceuticals or medical devices. The second Executive Order terminates the cost-sharing subsidies that reimburse insurers under the ACA. Several state Attorneys General filed suit to stop the administration from terminating the subsidies, but their request for a restraining order was denied by a federal judge in California on October 25, 2017. The loss of the cost share reduction payments is expected to increase premiums on certain policies issued by qualified health plans under the ACA. Further, on June 14, 2018, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that the federal government was not required to pay more than $12 billion in ACA risk corridor payments to third-party payors who argued were owed to them. On December 10, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments inModa Health Plan, Inc. v. United States, which will determine whether the government must make risk corridor payments. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision will be released in the coming months, but we cannot predict how the U.S. Supreme Court will rule. The effects of this gap in reimbursement on third-party payors, the viability of the ACA marketplace, providers, and potentially our business, are not yet known. While Congress has not passed comprehensive repeal legislation, it has enacted laws that modify certain provisions of the Affordable Care ActACA such as removing penalties, starting January 1, 2019, for not complying with the Affordable Care Act’sACA’s individual mandate to carry health insurance, delaying the implementation of certain Affordable Care Act-mandatedACA-mandated fees, and increasing the point-of-sale discount that is owed by pharmaceutical manufacturers who participate in Medicare Part D. On December 14, 2018, a Texas U.S. District Court Judge ruled that the ACA is unconstitutional in its entirety because the “individual mandate” was repealed by Congress as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. Additionally, on December 18, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld the District Court ruling that the individual mandate was unconstitutional and remanded the case back to the District Court to determine whether the remaining provisions of the ACA are invalid as well. On March 2, 2020, the United StatesU.S. Supreme Court granted the petitions for writs of certiorari to review this case, and has allotted one hour for oral arguments, which arearguments. The United States Supreme Court is expected to occurrule on the legal challenge to the constitutionality of the ACA in the fall.early 2021. We cannot predict what affect further changes to the ACA would have on our business.

Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United StatesU.S. since the ACA was enacted. The Budget Control Act of 2011,enacted, affecting among other things, created measures for spending reductions by Congress. A Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, tasked with recommending a targeted deficit reduction of at least $1.2 trillion for the years 2013 through 2021, was unable to reach required goals, thereby triggering the legislation’s automatic reduction to several government programs, including aggregate reductions ofmatters, Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year. These reductions went into effect on April 1, 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, including the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, or BBA, will remain in effect through 2029, unless additional congressional action is taken. The BBA also amended the ACA, effective January 1, 2019, by increasing the point-of-sale discount that is owed by pharmaceutical manufacturers who participate in Medicare Part D and closing the coverage gap in most Medicare drug plans, commonly referred to as the “donut hole”. On January 2, 2013, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was signed into law, which, among other things, further reduced Medicare payments to several types of providers, including hospitals, imaging centers and cancer treatment centers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years.providers.

Moreover, increasing efforts by governmental and third-party payors in the United StatesU.S. and abroad to cap or reduce healthcare costs may cause such organizations to limit both coverage and the level of reimbursement for newly approved products and, as a result, they may not cover or provide adequate payment for our product candidates. There has been increasing legislative and enforcement interest in the United StatesU.S. with respect to specialty drug pricing practices. Specifically, there have been several recent U.S. Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, reduce the cost of prescription drugs under Medicare, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs. Several states have adopted price transparency requirements and those as well as any future federal price transparency requirements that may be implemented in the future could have a negative effect on our business. Additionally, we expect to experience pricing pressures in connection with the sale of any future approved product candidates due to the trend toward managed healthcare, the increasing influence of health maintenance organizations, cost containment initiatives and additional legislative changes.

At the federal level, the Trump administration’s budget for fiscal year 2021 includes a $135 billion allowance to support legislative proposals seeking to reduce drug prices, increase competition, lower out-of-pocket drug costs for patients, and increase patient access to lower-cost generic and biosimilar drugs. The Trump administration previously released a “Blueprint” to lower drug prices and reduce out of pocket costs of drugs that contains additional proposals to increase manufacturer competition, increase the negotiating power of certain federal healthcare programs, incentivize manufacturers to lower the list price of their products and reduce the out of pocket costs of drug products paid by consumers. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, has solicited feedback on some of these measures and has implemented others under its existing authority. For example, in May 2019, CMS issued a final rule that would allow Medicare Advantage Plans the option of using step therapy, a type of prior authorization, for Part B drugs beginning January 1, 2020. This final rule codified CMS’s policy change that was effective January 1, 2019. Although a number of these and other measures may require additional authorization to become effective, Congress and the Trump administration have each indicated that it will continue to seek new legislative and/or administrative measures to control drug costs. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare and other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payers. In addition, individual states in the United StatesU.S. have also increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing.

At the state level, legislatures are increasingly passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control biopharmaceutical and biologic product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing.

Wecannot predict what healthcare reform initiatives may be adopted in the future. Further, federal and state legislative and regulatory developments are likely, and we expect ongoing initiatives in the United StatesU.S. to increase pressure on drug pricing. Such reforms could have an adverse effect on anticipated revenues from reloxaliase and any other product candidates that we may successfully develop and for which we may obtain regulatory approval and may affect our overall financial condition and ability to develop product candidates.

We may fail to comply with evolving European and other privacy laws.

Since we conduct clinical trials in the European Economic Area (“EEA”), we are subject to additional European data-privacy laws. The General Data Protection Regulation, (EU) 2016/679 (“GDPR”) became effective on May 25, 2018 and deals with the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data. The GDPR imposes a broad range of strict requirements on companies subject to the GDPR, including requirements relating to having legal bases for processing personal information relating to identifiable individuals and transferring such information outside the EEA, including to the United States,U.S., providing details to those individuals regarding the processing of their personal information, keeping personal information secure, having data processing agreements with third parties who process personal information, responding to individuals’ requests to exercise their rights in respect of their personal information, reporting security breaches involving personal data to the competent national data protection authority and affected individuals, appointing data protection officers, conducting data protection impact assessments, and record-keeping. The GDPR increases substantially the penalties to which we could be subject in the event of any non-compliance, including fines of up to 10,000,000 Euros or up to 2% of our total worldwide annual turnover for certain comparatively minor offenses, or up to 20,000,000 Euros or up to 4% of our total worldwide annual turnover for more serious offenses. Given the limited enforcement of the GDPR to date, we face uncertainty as to the exact interpretation of the new requirements on our trials and we may be unsuccessful in implementing all measures required by data protection authorities or courts in interpretation of the new law.

In particular, national laws of member states of the EU are in the process of being adapted to the requirements under the GDPR, thereby implementing national laws which may partially deviate from the GDPR and impose different obligations from country to country, so that we do not expect to operate in a uniform legal landscape in the EEA. Also, as it relates to processing and transfer of genetic data, the GDPR specifically allows national laws to impose additional and more specific requirements or restrictions, and European laws have historically differed quite substantially in this field, leading to additional uncertainty. Further, the United Kingdom’s decision to leave the EU, often referred to as Brexit, has created uncertainty with regard to data protection regulation in the United Kingdom. In particular, it is unclear how data transfers to and from the United Kingdom will be regulated now that the United Kingdom has left the EU.

In the event we continue to conduct clinical trials in the EEA, we must also ensure that we maintain adequate safeguards to enable the transfer of personal data outside of the EEA, in particular to the United States,U.S., in compliance with European data protection laws. We expect that we will continue to face uncertainty as to whether our efforts to comply with our obligations under European privacy laws will be sufficient. If we are investigated by a European data protection authority, we may face fines and other penalties. Anype1Any such investigation or charges by European data protection authorities could have a negative effect on our existing business and on our ability to attract and retain new clients or pharmaceutical partners. We may also experience hesitancy, reluctance, or refusal by European or multi-national clients or pharmaceutical partners to continue to use our products and solutions due to the potential risk exposure as a result of the current (and, in particular, future) data protection obligations imposed on them by certain data protection authorities in interpretation of current law, including the GDPR. Such clients or pharmaceutical partners may also view any alternative approaches to compliance as being too costly, too burdensome, too legally uncertain, or otherwise objectionable and therefore decide not to do business with us. Any of the foregoing could materially harm our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operationsoperations.

The success of our products may be harmed if the government, private health insurers and other third-party payers do not provide sufficient coverage or reimbursement.

Our ability to commercialize our new cancer treatment systems successfully will depend in part on the extent to which reimbursement for the costs of such products and related treatments will be available from third-party payors, which include government authorities such as Medicare, Medicaid, TRICARE, and the Veterans Administration, managed care providers, private health insurers, and other organizations. Patients who are provided medical treatment for their conditions generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the costs associated with their treatment. Coverage and adequate reimbursement from governmental healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and commercial payors is critical to new product acceptance. Patients are unlikely to use our product candidates unless coverage is provided, and reimbursement is adequate to cover a significant portion of the cost. The reimbursement status of newly approved medical products is subject to significant uncertainty We cannot be sure that coverage and reimbursement will be available for, or accurately estimate the potential revenue from, our product candidates or assure that coverage and reimbursement will be available for any product that we may develop.

Government authorities and other third-party payors decide which drugs and treatments they will cover and the amount of reimbursement. In the United States,U.S., the principal decisions about reimbursement for new medicines are typically made by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, an agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. CMS decides whether and to what extent a new medicine will be covered and reimbursed under Medicare and private payors tend to follow CMS to a substantial degree. No uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for drug products exists among third-party payors. Therefore, coverage and reimbursement for drug products can differ significantly from payor to payor. The process for determining whether a third-party payor will provide coverage for a product may be separate from the process for setting the price or reimbursement rate that the payor will pay for the product once coverage is approved. Coverage and reimbursement by a third-party payor may depend upon a number of factors, including the third-party payor’s determination that use of a product is:

In order to secure coverage and reimbursement for any product that might be approved for sale, a company may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of the product, in addition to the costs required to obtain FDA or other comparable regulatory approvals. Additionally, companies may also need to provide discounts to purchasers, private health plans or government healthcare programs. Nonetheless, product candidates may not be considered medically necessary or cost effective. A decision by a third-party payor not to cover a product could reduce physician utilization once the product is approved and have a material adverse effect on sales, our operations and financial condition.

Government, private health insurers and other third-party payors are increasingly attempting to contain healthcare costs by limiting both coverage and the level of reimbursement for new therapeutic products approved for marketing by the FDA. For example, Congress passed the Affordable Care ActACA in 2010 which enacted a number of reforms to expand access to health insurance while also reducing or constraining the growth of healthcare spending, enhancing remedies against fraud and abuse, adding new transparency requirements for healthcare industries, and imposing new taxes on fees on healthcare industry participants, among other policy reforms. Federal agencies, Congress and state legislatures have continued to show interest in implementing cost containment programs to limit the growth of health care costs, including price controls, price disclosures, restrictions on reimbursement and other fundamental changes to the healthcare delivery system. In addition, in recent years, Congress has enacted various laws seeking to reduce the federal debt level and contain healthcare expenditures, and the Medicare and other healthcare programs are frequently identified as potential targets for spending cuts. New government legislation or regulations related to pricing or other fundamental changes to the healthcare delivery system as well as a government or third-party payer decision not to approve pricing for, or provide adequate coverage or reimbursement of, our product candidates hold the potential to severely limit market opportunities of such products. Accordingly, even if coverage and reimbursement are provided by government, private health insurers and third-party payors for uses of our products, market acceptance of these products would be adversely affected if the reimbursement available proves to be unprofitable for health care providers.

Our products may not achieve sufficient acceptance by the medical community to sustain our business.

The commercial success of our products will depend upon their acceptance by the medical community and third-party payors as clinically useful, cost effective and safe. Any of our drug candidates or similar product candidates being investigated by our competitors may prove not to be effective in trial or in practice, cause adverse events or other undesirable side effects. Our testing and clinical practice may not confirm the safety and efficacy of our product candidates or even if further testing and clinical practice produce positive results, the medical community may view these new forms of treatment as effective and desirable or our efforts to market our new products may fail. Market acceptance depends upon physicians and hospitals obtaining adequate reimbursement rates from third-party payors to make our products commercially viable. Any of these factors could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The commercial potential of a drug candidate in development is difficult to predict. If the market size for a new drug is significantly smaller than we anticipate, it could significantly and negatively impact our revenue, results of operations and financial condition.

It is very difficult to predict the commercial potential of product candidates due to important factors such as safety and efficacy compared to other available treatments, including potential generic drug alternatives with similar efficacy profiles, changing standards of care, third party payor reimbursement standards, patient and physician preferences, the availability of competitive alternatives that may emerge either during the long drug development process or after commercial introduction, and the availability of generic versions of our successful product candidates following approval by government health authorities based on the expiration of regulatory exclusivity or our inability to prevent generic versions from coming to market by asserting our patents. If due to one or more of these risks the market potential for a drug candidate is lower than we anticipated, it could significantly and negatively impact the revenue potential for such drug candidate and would adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Several of our current clinical trials are being conducted outside the United States,U.S., and the FDA may not accept data from trials conducted in foreign locations.

Several of our current clinical trials are being conducted outside the United States.U.S. Although the FDA may accept data from clinical trials conducted outside the United States,U.S., acceptance of these data is subject to certain conditions imposed by the FDA. For example, the clinical trial must be well designed and conducted and performed by qualified investigators in accordance with ethical principles. The trial population must also adequately represent the U.S. population, and the data must be applicable to the U.S. population and U.S. medical practice in ways that the FDA deems clinically meaningful. In general, the patient population for any clinical trials conducted outside of the United StatesU.S. must be representative of the population for whom we intend to label the product in the United States.U.S. In addition, while these clinical trials are subject to the applicable local laws, FDA acceptance of the data will be dependent upon its determination that the trials also complied with all applicable U.S. laws and regulations. We cannot assure you that the FDA will accept data from trials conducted outside of the United States.U.S. If the FDA does not accept the data from such clinical trials, it would likely result in the need for additional trials, which would be costly and time-consuming and delay or permanently halt our development of our product candidates.

We have no internal sales or marketing capability. If we are unable to create sales, marketing and distribution capabilities or enter into alliances with others possessing such capabilities to perform these functions, we will not be able to commercialize our products successfully.

We currently have no sales, marketing, or distribution capabilities. We intend to market our products, if and when such products are approved for commercialization by the FDA and foreign regulatory agencies, either directly or through other strategic alliances and distribution arrangements with third parties. If we decide to market our products directly, we will need to commit significant financial and managerial resources to develop a marketing and sales force with technical expertise and with supporting distribution, administration, and compliance capabilities. If we rely on third parties with such capabilities to market our products, we will need to establish and maintain partnership arrangements, and there can be no assurance that we will be able to enter into third-party marketing or distribution arrangements on acceptable terms or at all. To the extent that we do enter into such arrangements, we will be dependent on our marketing and distribution partners. In entering into third-party marketing or distribution arrangements, we expect to incur significant additional expenses and there can be no assurance that such third parties will establish adequate sales and distribution capabilities or be successful in gaining market acceptance for our products and services.

Technologies for the treatment of cancer are subject to rapid change, and the development of treatment strategies that are more effective than our technologies could render our technologies obsolete.

Various methods for treating cancer currently are, and in the future, are expected to be, the subject of extensive research and development. Many possible treatments that are being researched, if successfully developed, may not require, or may supplant, the use of our technologies. The successful development and acceptance of any one or more of these alternative forms of treatment could render our technology obsolete as a cancer treatment method.

We may not be able to hire or retain key officers or employees that we need to implement our business strategy and develop our product candidates and business, including those purchased in the EGEN asset acquisition.

Our success depends significantly on the continued contributions of our executive officers, scientific and technical personnel and consultants, including those retained in the EGEN acquisition, and on our ability to attract additional personnel as we seek to implement our business strategy and develop our product candidates and businesses. Our operations associated with the EGEN acquisition are located in Huntsville, Alabama. Key employees may depart if we fail to successfully manage this additional business location or in relation to any uncertainties or difficulties of integration with Celsion. We cannot guarantee that we will retain key employees to the same extent that we and EGEN retained each of our own employees in the past, which could have a negative impact on our business, results of operations and financial condition. Our integration of EGEN and ability to operate in the fields we acquired from EGEN may be more difficult if we lose key employees. Additionally, during our operating history, we have assigned many essential responsibilities to a relatively small number of individuals. However, as our business and the demands on our key employees expand, we have been, and will continue to be, required to recruit additional qualified employees. The competition for such qualified personnel is intense, and the loss of services of certain key personnel or our inability to attract additional personnel to fill critical positions could adversely affect our business. Further, we do not carry “key man” insurance on any of our personnel. Therefore, loss of the services of key personnel would not be ameliorated by the receipt of the proceeds from such insurance.

Our success will depend in part on our ability to grow and diversify, which in turn will require that we manage and control our growth effectively.

Our business strategy contemplates growth and diversification. Our ability to manage growth effectively will require that we continue to expend funds to improve our operational, financial and management controls, reporting systems and procedures. In addition, we must effectively expand, train and manage our employees. We will be unable to manage our business effectively if we are unable to alleviate the strain on resources caused by growth in a timely and successful manner. There can be no assurance that we will be able to manage our growth and a failure to do so could have a material adverse effect on our business.

We face intense competition and the failure to compete effectively could adversely affect our ability to develop and market our products.

There are many companies and other institutions engaged in research and development of various technologies for cancer treatment products that seek treatment outcomes similar to those that we are pursuing. We believe that the level of interest by others in investigating the potential of possible competitive treatments and alternative technologies will continue and may increase. Potential competitors engaged in all areas of cancer treatment research in the U.S. and other countries include, among others, major pharmaceutical, specialized technology companies, and universities and other research institutions. Most of our current and potential competitors have substantially greater financial, technical, human and other resources, and may also have far greater experience than do we, both in pre-clinical testing and human clinical trials of new products and in obtaining FDA and other regulatory approvals. One or more of these companies or institutions could succeed in developing products or other technologies that are more effective than the products and technologies that we have been or are developing, or which would render our technology and products obsolete and non-competitive. Furthermore, if we are permitted to commence commercial sales of any of our products, we will also be competing, with respect to manufacturing efficiency and marketing, with companies having substantially greater resources and experience in these areas.

We may be subject to significant product liability claims and litigation.

Our business exposes us to potential product liability risks inherent in the testing, manufacturing and marketing of human therapeutic products. We presently have product liability insurance limited to $10 million per incident and $10 million annually. If we were to be subject to a claim in excess of this coverage or to a claim not covered by our insurance and the claim succeeded, we would be required to pay the claim with our own limited resources, which could have a severe adverse effect on our business. Whether or not we are ultimately successful in any product liability litigation, such litigation would harm the business by diverting the attention and resources of our management, consuming substantial amounts of our financial resources and by damaging our reputation. Additionally, we may not be able to maintain our product liability insurance at an acceptable cost, if at all.

We or the third parties upon whom we depend on may be adversely affected by earthquakes, global pandemics or other natural disasters and our business continuity and disaster recovery plans may not adequately protect us from a serious disaster, including earthquakes outbreak of disease or other natural disasters.

Our current operations are located in our facilities in Lawrenceville, New Jersey. Any unplanned event, such as flood, fire, explosion, earthquake, extreme weather condition, medical epidemics, power shortage, telecommunication failure or other natural or manmade accidents or incidents that result in us being unable to fully utilize our facilities, or the manufacturing facilities of our third-party contract manufacturers, may have a material and adverse effect on our ability to operate our business, particularly on a daily basis, and have significant negative consequences on our financial and operating conditions. Loss of access to these facilities may result in increased costs, delays in the development of our product candidates or interruption of our business operations. Earthquakes or other natural disasters could further disrupt our operations and have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. If a natural disaster, power outage or other event occurred that prevented us from using all or a significant portion of our headquarters, that damaged critical infrastructure, such as our research facilities or the manufacturing facilities of our third-party contract manufacturers, or that otherwise disrupted operations, it may be difficult or, in certain cases, impossible, for us to continue our business for a substantial period of time. For example, in December 2019, anPlease see the risk factor titled “The outbreak, severity and duration of athe novel strain of coronavirus ordisease, COVID-19, pandemic could adversely impact our business, including our preclinical studies and clinical trials” for information regarding the COVID-19 coronavirus, originated in Wuhan, China. To date, this outbreak has already resulted in extended shutdowns of certain businesses in the Wuhan region and has had ripple effects to businesses around the world. An outbreak of communicable diseases in China or elsewhere, or the perception that such an outbreak could occur, and the measures taken by the governments of countries affected, could adversely affect our business, financial condition or results of operations by limiting our ability to manufacture products within or outside China, forcing temporary closure of facilities that we rely upon or increasing the costs associated with obtaining clinical supplies of our product candidates. The extent to which the COVID-19 coronavirus impacts our results will depend on future developments, which are highly uncertain and cannot be accurately predicted, including new information which may emerge concerning the severity of the COVID-19 coronavirus and the actions to contain the COVID-19 coronavirus or treat its impact, among others. Global health concerns, such as the COVID-19 coronavirus, could also result in social, economic, and labor instability in the countries in which we or the third parties with whom we engage operate.pandemic.

The disaster recovery and business continuity plansplan we have in place may prove inadequate in the event of a serious disaster or similar event. We may incur substantial expenses as a result of the limited nature of our disaster recovery and business continuity plans, which, could have a material adverse effect on our business. As part of our risk management policy, we maintain insurance coverage at levels that we believe are appropriate for our business. However, in the event of an accident or incident at these facilities, we cannot assure you that the amounts of insurance will be sufficient to satisfy any damages and losses. If our facilities, or the manufacturing facilities of our third-party contract manufacturers, are unable to operate because of an accident or incident or for any other reason, even for a short period of time, any or all of our research and development programs may be harmed.

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

Despite the implementation of security measures, our internal computer systems and those of our CROs and other contractors and consultants are vulnerable to damage from computer viruses, unauthorized access, natural disasters, terrorism, war and telecommunication and electrical failures. Such events could cause interruptions of our operations. For instance, the loss of preclinical data or data from any clinical trial involving our product candidates could result in delays in our development and regulatory filing efforts and significantly increase our costs. To the extent that any disruption or privacy or security breach were to result in a loss of, or damage to, our data, or inappropriate disclosure of confidential or proprietary information, we could be subject to reputational harm, monetary fines, civil suits, civil penalties or criminal sanctions and requirements to disclose the breach, and other forms of liability and the development of our product candidates could be delayed.

Pandemics such as the COVID-19 coronavirus could have an adverse impact on our developmental programs and our financial condition.

In December 2019, a novel strain of the COVID-19 coronavirus was first identified in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China. Any outbreak of contagious diseases, or other adverse public health developments, could have a material and adverse effect on our business operations. These could include disruptions or restrictions on our ability to travel, pursue partnerships and other business transactions, conduct clinical trials, make shipments of biologic materials, as well as be impacted by the temporary closure of the facilities of suppliers and clinical trial sites. Any disruption of suppliers, clinical trial sites or access to patients would likely impact our clinical trial enrollment progress and rates as well as our ability to access capital through the financial markets. The extent to which the COVID-19 coronavirus impacts our business will depend on future developments, which are highly uncertain and cannot be predicted, including new information which may emerge concerning the severity of the COVID-19 coronavirus and the actions to contain the COVID-19 coronavirus or treat its impact, among others.

RISKS RELATED TO OUR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

Our business depends on license agreements with third parties to permit us to use patented technologies. The loss of any of our rights under these agreements could impair our ability to develop and market our products.

Our success will depend, in a substantial part, on our ability to maintain our rights under license agreements granting us rights to use patented technologies. For instance, we are party to license agreements with Duke University, under which we have exclusive rights to commercialize medical treatment products and procedures based on Duke’s thermo-sensitive liposome technology. The Duke University license agreement contains a license fee, royalty and/or research support provisions, testing and regulatory milestones, and other performance requirements that we must meet by certain deadlines. If we breach any provisions of the license and research agreements, we may lose our ability to use the subject technology, as well as compensation for our efforts in developing or exploiting the technology. Any such loss of rights and access to technology could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Further, we cannot guarantee that any patent or other technology rights licensed to us by others will not be challenged or circumvented successfully by third parties, or that the rights granted will provide adequate protection. We may be required to alter any of our potential products or processes or enter into a license and pay licensing fees to a third party or cease certain activities. There can be no assurance that we can obtain a license to any technology that we determine we need on reasonable terms, if at all, or that we could develop or otherwise obtain alternate technology. If a license is not available on commercially reasonable terms or at all, our business, results of operations, and financial condition could be significantly harmed, and we may be prevented from developing and commercializing the product. Litigation, which could result in substantial costs, may also be necessary to enforce any patents issued to or licensed by us or to determine the scope and validity of another’s claimed proprietary rights.

If any of our pending patent applications do not issue, or are deemed invalid following issuance, we may lose valuable intellectual property protection.

The patent positions of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, such as ours, are uncertain and involve complex legal and factual issues. We own various U.S. and international patents and have pending U.S. and international patent applications that cover various aspects of our technologies. There can be no assurance that patents that have issued will be held valid and enforceable in a court of law through the entire patent term. Even for patents that are held valid and enforceable, the legal process associated with obtaining such a judgment is time-consuming and costly. Additionally, issued patents can be subject to opposition, interferences or other proceedings that can result in the revocation of the patent or maintenance of the patent in amended form (and potentially in a form that renders the patent without commercially relevant or broad coverage). Further, our competitors may be able to circumvent and otherwise design around our patents. Even if a patent is issued and enforceable because development and commercialization of pharmaceutical products can be subject to substantial delays, patents may expire early and provide only a short period of protection, if any, following the commercialization of products encompassed by our patents. We may have to participate in interference proceedings declared by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, which could result in a loss of the patent and/or substantial cost to us.

We have filed patent applications, and plan to file additional patent applications, covering various aspects of our technologies and our proprietary product candidates. There can be no assurance that the patent applications for which we apply would actually issue as patents or do so with commercially relevant or broad coverage. The coverage claimed in a patent application can be significantly reduced before the patent is issued. The scope of our claim coverage can be critical to our ability to enter into licensing transactions with third parties and our right to receive royalties from our collaboration partnerships. Since publication of discoveries in scientific or patent literature often lags behind the date of such discoveries, we cannot be certain that we were the first inventor of inventions covered by our patents or patent applications. In addition, there is no guarantee that we will be the first to file a patent application directed to an invention.

An adverse outcome in any judicial proceeding involving intellectual property, including patents, could subject us to significant liabilities to third parties, require disputed rights to be licensed from or to third parties or require us to cease using the technology in dispute. In those instances where we seek an intellectual property license from another, we may not be able to obtain the license on a commercially reasonable basis, if at all, thereby raising concerns on our ability to freely commercialize our technologies or products.

We rely on trade secret protection and other unpatented proprietary rights for important proprietary technologies, and any loss of such rights could harm our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We rely on trade secrets and confidential information that we seek to protect, in part, by confidentiality agreements with our corporate partners, collaborators, employees and consultants. We cannot assure you that these agreements are adequate to protect our trade secrets and confidential information or will not be breached or, if breached, we will have adequate remedies. Furthermore, others may independently develop substantially equivalent confidential and proprietary information or otherwise gain access to our trade secrets or disclose such technology. Any loss of trade secret protection or other unpatented proprietary rights could harm our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Our products may infringe patent rights of others, which may require costly litigation and, if we are not successful, could cause us to pay substantial damages or limit our ability to commercialize our products.

Our commercial success depends on our ability to operate without infringing the patents and other proprietary rights of third parties. There may be third party patents that relate to our products and technology. We may unintentionally infringe upon valid patent rights of third parties. Although we currently are not involved in any material litigation involving patents, a third-party patent holder may assert a claim of patent infringement against us in the future. Alternatively, we may initiate litigation against the third-party patent holder to request that a court declare that we are not infringing the third party’s patent and/or that the third party’s patent is invalid or unenforceable. If a claim of infringement is asserted against us and is successful, and therefore we are found to infringe, we could be required to pay damages for infringement, including treble damages if it is determined that we knew or became aware of such a patent and we failed to exercise due care in determining whether or not we infringed the patent. If we have supplied infringing products to third parties or have licensed third parties to manufacture, use or market infringing products, we may be obligated to indemnify these third parties for damages they may be required to pay to the patent holder and for any losses they may sustain.

We can also be prevented from selling or commercializing any of our products that use the infringing technology in the future unless we obtain a license from such third party. A license may not be available from such third party on commercially reasonable terms or may not be available at all. Any modification to include a non-infringing technology may not be possible, or if possible, may be difficult or time-consuming to develop, and require revalidation, which could delay our ability to commercialize our products. Any infringement action asserted against us, even if we are ultimately successful in defending against such action, would likely delay the regulatory approval process of our products, harm our competitive position, be expensive and require the time and attention of our key management and technical personnel.

RISKS RELATED TO OUR SECURITIES

The market price of our common stock has been, and may continue to be volatile and fluctuate significantly, which could result in substantial losses for investors and subject us to securities class action litigation.

The trading price for our common stock has been, and we expect it to continue to be, volatile. The price at which our common stock trades depends upon a number of factors, including our historical and anticipated operating results, our financial situation, announcements of technological innovations or new products by us or our competitors, our ability or inability to raise the additional capital we may need and the terms on which we raise it, and general market and economic conditions. Some of these factors are beyond our control. Broad market fluctuations may lower the market price of our common stock and affect the volume of trading in our stock, regardless of our financial condition, results of operations, business or prospect.

The closing price of our common stock as reported on The Nasdaq Capital MarketNASDAQ had a high price of $3.48 and a low price of $1.35 in the 52-week period ended December 31, 2018, a high price of $2.47 and a low price of $1.08 in the 52-week period ended December 31, 2019, a high price of $5.26 and a low price of $0.47 in the 52-week period ended December 31, 2020, and a high price of $1.73$2.81 and a low price of $0.72$0.79 from January 1, 20202021 through March 24, 2020. 18, 2021.

Among the factors that may cause the market price of our common stock to fluctuate are the risks described in this “Risk Factors” section and other factors, including:

In addition, the stock markets, in general, The Nasdaq Capital Market and the market for pharmaceutical companies in particular, may experience a loss of investor confidence. Such loss of investor confidence may result in extreme price and volume fluctuations in our common stock that are unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of our business, financial condition or results of operations. These broad market and industry factors may materially harm the market price of our common stock and expose us to securities class action litigation. Such litigation, even if unsuccessful, could be costly to defend and divert management’s attention and resources, which could further materially harm our financial condition and results of operations.

We may be unable to maintain compliance with The Nasdaq Marketplace Rules which could cause our common stock to be delisted from The Nasdaq Capital Market. This could result in the lack of a market for our common stock, cause a decrease in the value of an investment in us, and adversely affect our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

Our common stock is currently listed on The Nasdaq Capital Market. To maintain the listing of our common stock on The Nasdaq Capital Market, we are required to meet certain listing requirements, including, among others, a minimum closing bid price of $1.00 per share.

On October 13, 2020, we received notice from The Nasdaq Stock Market (“Nasdaq”) that the closing bid price for our common stock had been below $1.00 per share for the previous 30 consecutive business days, and that we are therefore not in compliance with the minimum bid price requirement for continued inclusion on The Nasdaq Capital Market under Nasdaq Listing Rule 5550(a)(2) (the “Rule”). Nasdaq’s notice had no immediate effect on the listing or trading of our common stock on The Nasdaq Capital Market. The notice indicated that we would have 180 calendar days, until April 12, 2021, to regain compliance with this requirement. To regain compliance with the $1.00 minimum bid listing requirement, the closing bid price of our common stock must be at least $1.00 per share for a minimum of ten (10) consecutive business days during the 180-day compliance period.

On February 3, 2021, the Company received written notice from the Listing Qualifications Staff of Nasdaq notifying the Company that, for the previous ten (10) consecutive business days, from January 20, 2021 to February 2, 2021, the closing bid price for the Company’s common stock was $1.00 per share or greater. Accordingly, the written notice stated that the Company has regained compliance with the minimum bid price listing requirement set forth under the Rule. If in the future we are unable to comply with one or more of the Nasdaq listing standards, we could receive a notice of non-compliance and, if we are not able to regain compliance within the requisite time period, Nasdaq could take action to delist us.

Future sales of our common stock in the public market could cause our stock price to fall.

Sales of a substantial number of shares of our common stock in the public market, or the perception that these sales might occur, could depress the market price of our common stock and could impair our ability to raise capital through the sale of additional equity securities. As of March 24, 2020,18, 2021, we had 29,257,10175,011,774 shares of common stock outstanding, all of which, other than shares held by our directors and certain officers, were eligible for sale in the public market, subject in some cases to compliance with the requirements of Rule 144, including the volume limitations and manner of sale requirements. In addition, all of the shares of common stock issuable upon exercise of warrants will be freely tradable without restriction or further registration upon issuance.

Our stockholders may experience significant dilution as a result of future equity offerings or issuances and exercise of outstanding options and warrants.

In order to raise additional capital or pursue strategic transactions, we may in the future offer, issue or sell additional shares of our common stock or other securities convertible into or exchangeable for our common stock, including the issuance of common stock in relation to the achievement, if any, of milestones triggering our payment of earn-out consideration in connection with the EGEN acquisition. Our stockholders may experience significant dilution as a result of future equity offerings or issuances. Investors purchasing shares or other securities in the future could have rights superior to existing stockholders. As of March 24, 2020,18, 2021, we have a significantthe following number of securities convertible into, or allowing the purchase of, our common stock, including 3,826,0982,636,899 shares of common stock issuable upon exercise of warrants outstanding, 4,786,7476,586,435 options to purchase shares of our common stock and restricted stock awards outstanding, and 4,15259,493 shares of common stock reserved for future issuance under our stock incentive plan.

Changes in tax law could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

The rules dealing with U.S. federal, state, and local income taxation are constantly under review by persons involved in the legislative process and by the Internal Revenue Service and the U.S. Treasury Department. Changes to tax laws (which changes may have retroactive application) could adversely affect us or holders of our common stock. In recent years, many such changes have been made and changes are likely to continue to occur in the future. For example, on March 27, 2020, former President Trump signed into law the “Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act” or the CARES Act, which included certain changes in tax law intended to stimulate the U.S. economy in light of the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic, including temporary beneficial changes to the treatment of net operating losses, interest deductibility limitations and payroll tax matters. Future changes in tax laws could have a material adverse effect on our business, cash flow, financial condition or results of operations. We urge investors to consult with their legal and tax advisers regarding the implications of potential changes in tax laws on an investment in our common stock.

The adverse capital and credit market conditions could affect our liquidity.

Adverse capital and credit market conditions could affect our ability to meet liquidity needs, as well as our access to capital and cost of capital. The capital and credit markets have experienced extreme volatility and disruption in recent years. Our results of operations, financial condition, cash flows and capital position could be materially adversely affected by continued disruptions in the capital and credit markets.

Our ability to use net operating losses to offset future taxable income are subject to certain limitations.

On December 22, 2017, the then President of the United StatesU.S. signed into law the Tax Reform Act. The Tax Reform Act significantly changes U.S. tax law by, among other things, lowering corporate income tax rates, implementing a quasi-territorial tax system, providing a one-time transition toll charge on foreign earnings, creating a new limitation on the deductibility of interest expenses and modifying the limitation on officer compensation. The Tax Reform Act permanently reduces the U.S. corporate income tax rate from a maximum of 35% to a flat 21% rate, effective January 1, 2018. We currently have significant net operating losses (NOLs) that may be used to offset future taxable income. In general, under Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the Code)“Code”), a corporation that undergoes an “ownership change” is subject to limitations on its ability to utilize its pre-change NOLs to offset future taxable income. During 2020, 2019 2018 and years prior, we performed analyses to determine if there were changes in ownership, as defined by Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code that would limit our ability to utilize certain net operating loss and tax credit carry forwards. We determined we experienced ownership changes, as defined by Section 382, in connection with certain common stock offerings in 2011, 2013, 2015, 2017, 2018 and 2018.2020. As a result, the utilization of our federal tax net operating loss carry-forwards generated prior to the ownership changes is limited. Future changes in our stock ownership, some of which are outside of our control, could result in an ownership change under Section 382 of the Code, which would significantly limit our ability to utilize NOLs to offset future taxable income.Future changes in tax laws could also impair our corporate tax rate and/or our ability to utilize our NOLs.

We have never paid cash dividends on our common stock in the past and do not anticipate paying cash dividends on our common stock in the foreseeable future.

We have never declared or paid cash dividends on our common stock. We do not anticipate paying any cash dividends on our common stock in the foreseeable future. We currently intend to retain all available funds and any future earnings to fund the development and growth of our business. As a result, capital appreciation, if any, of our common stock will be the sole source of gain for the foreseeable future for holders of our common stock.

Anti-takeover provisions in our charter documents and Delaware law could prevent or delay a change in control.

Our certificate of incorporation and bylaws may discourage, delay or prevent a merger or acquisition that a stockholder may consider favorable by authorizing the issuance of “blank check” preferred stock. This preferred stock may be issued by our Board of Directors on such terms as it determines, without further stockholder approval. Therefore, our Board of Directors may issue such preferred stock on terms unfavorable to a potential bidder in the event that our Board of Directors opposes a merger or acquisition. In addition, our staggered Board of Directors may discourage such transactions by increasing the amount of time necessary to obtain majority representation on our Board of Directors. Certain other provisions of our bylaws and of Delaware law may also discourage, delay or prevent a third party from acquiring or merging with us, even if such action were beneficial to some, or even a majority, of our stockholders.

None.

In July 2011, we entered into a lease with Brandywine Operating Partnership, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership for a 10,870 square foot premises located in Lawrenceville, New Jersey in connection with the relocation of our offices from Columbia, Maryland. In late 2015, Lenox Drive Office Park LLC, purchased the real estate and office building and assumed the lease. Under the current terms of the current lease, which was amended effective May 1, 2017, and is set to expire on September 1, 2022, we reduced the size of the premises to 7,565 square feet and are paying a monthly rent that ranges from approximately $18,900 in the first year to approximately $20,500 in the final year of the amendment. On February 1, 2019, we amended the current terms of the lease to increase the size of the premises by 2,285 square feet to 9,850 square feet and also extended the lease term by one year to September 1, 2023. In conjunction with the February 1, 2019 lease amendment, we agreed to modify our one-time option to cancel the lease as of the 36th month after the May 1, 2017 lease commencement date.

In connection with the Asset Purchase Agreement with EGEN in June 2014, we assumed the existing lease with another landlord for an 11,500 square foot premises located in Huntsville, Alabama. In January 2018, we entered into a new 60-month lease agreement for 9,049 square feet with rent payments of approximately $18,100 per month.

Following is a table of the leasefuture payments and maturity of our operating lease liabilities as of December 31, 2019:2020:

For the year ended December 31,2020, operating lease expense was $522,380 and cash paid for operating leases included in operating cash flows was $525,809. For 2019, operating lease expense was $522,380 and cash paid for operating leases included in operating cash flows was $485,848. For 2018, operating lease expense was $450,430 and cash paid for operating leases included in operating cash flows was $457,321.

We believe our existing facilities are suitable and adequate to conduct our business.

On September 20, 2019, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a derivative and putative class action lawsuit against the Company and certain officers and directors (the “Shareholder Action”). The Company was a defendant in this derivative and putative class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, filed by a shareholder against the Company (as both a class action defendant and nominal defendant), and certain of its officers and directors)directors (the “Individual Defendants”), with the captionO’Connor v. Braun et al., Docket No. MER-C-000068-19 (the “Shareholder Action”). The Shareholder Action allegesalleged breaches of the defendants’ fiduciary duties based on allegations that the Defendantsdefendants omitted or made or approved improper statements when seeking shareholder approval of the 2018 Stock Incentive Plan. The Shareholder Action seeks,sought, among other things, any damages sustained by the Company as a result of the defendants’ alleged wrongdoing, a declaratory judgment against all defendants invalidating the 2018 Stock Incentive Plan and declaring any awards made under the Plan invalid, rescinded, and subject to disgorgement, an order disgorging the equity awards granted to the individual defendantsIndividual Defendants under the 2018 Stock Incentive Plan, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

On April 24, 2020, the Company, the Individual Defendants, and the plaintiff (the “Parties”) entered into a Settlement Agreement and Release (the “Settlement Agreement”), which memorializes the terms of the Parties’ settlement of the Shareholder Action (the “Settlement”). The Settlement calls for repricing of certain stock options and payment of plaintiff legal fees of $187,500. On July 24, 2020, the Court issued an order approving the Parties’ proposed form of notice to shareholders regarding the Settlement. A hearing was held on September 8, 2020 whereby the Court issued a final approval approving the Settlement. Pursuant to the Settlement, the Company paid $187,500 on October 1, 2020. Without admitting the validity of any of the claims asserted in the Shareholder Action, or any liability with respect thereto, and expressly denying all allegations of wrongdoing, fault, liability, or damage against the Company and the Individual Defendants arising out of any of the conduct, statements, acts or omissions alleged, or that could have been alleged, in the Shareholder Action, the Company and the Individual Defendants concluded that it was desirable that the claims be settled on the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the Settlement Agreement. The Company and the Individual Defendants entered into the Settlement Agreement for settlement purposes only and solely to avoid the cost and disruption of further litigation.

On October 29, 2020, a putative securities class action was filed against the Company and certain of its officers and directors (the “Spar Individual Defendants”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned Spar v. Celsion Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-15228. The plaintiff alleges that the Company and Individual Defendants made false and misleading statements regarding one of the Company’s product candidates, ThermoDox^®, and brings claims for damages under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against all Defendants, and under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934 against the Spar Individual Defendants. The Company believes that the case is without merit and intends to defend it vigorously.

In February 2021, a derivative shareholder lawsuit was filed against the Company, as the nominal defendant, and certain of its directors and officers as defendants in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned Fidler v. Michael H. Tardugno et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-02662. The plaintiff alleges breach of fiduciary duty and other claims arising out of alleged statements made by certain of the Company’s directors and/or officers regarding ThermoDox^®. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to these claims and intends to vigorously contest this suit.

Not Applicable.

PART II

Market for Our Common Stock

Our common stock trades on The Nasdaq Capital Market under the symbol “CLSN”.

Record Holders

As of March 24, 2020,18, 2021, there were approximately 12,20055,000 stockholders of record of our common stock. The actual number of stockholders may be greater than this number of record stockholders and includes stockholders who are beneficial owners but whose shares are held in street name by brokers and other nominees. This number of stockholders of record also does not include stockholders whose shares may be held in trust by other entities.

Dividend Policy

We have never declared or paid any cash dividends on our common stock. We currently anticipate that we will retain all of our future earnings for use in the operation of our business and to fund future growth and do not anticipate paying any cash dividends in the foreseeable future. Any future determination to declare cash dividends will be made at the discretion of our Board of Directors, subject to applicable law, and will depend on our financial condition, results of operations, capital requirements, general business conditions and other factors that our Board of Directors may deem relevant.

Securities Authorized for Issuance Under Equity Compensation Plans

See “Item“Part III, Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matter-Equity Compensation Plan Information.”Information”.

Unregistered Shares of Equity Securities

NoneNone.

Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

None.

Not required.

The following discussions should be read in conjunction with our financial statements and related notes thereto included in this Annual Report. The following discussion contains forward-looking statements made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of Section 27A of the Securities Act and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements are based on our beliefs and expectations about future outcomes and are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from anticipated results. Factors that could cause or contribute to such differences include those described under“Part I, Item 1A - Risk Factors” appearing in this Annual Report and factors described in other cautionary statements, cautionary language and risk factors set forth in other documents that we file with the Securities and Exchange Commission. We undertake no obligation to publicly update forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

Overview

Celsion Corporation (“Celsion” and the “Company”) is ana fully integrated, development clinical stage oncology drugbiotechnology company focused on advancing a portfolio of innovative cancer treatments including DNA-based immunotherapies, next generation vaccines and directed chemotherapies DNA-mediatedthrough clinical trials and eventual commercialization. The Company’s product pipeline includes GEN-1, a DNA-based immunotherapy for the localized treatment of ovarian cancer and RNA-based therapies. Our lead product candidate is ThermoDox®, a proprietary heat-activated liposomal encapsulation of doxorubicin, currently in a Phase III clinical trialunder investigator-sponsored development for several cancer indications. Celsion has two feasibility stage platform technologies for the treatment of primary liver cancer (the “OPTIMA Study”). Second in our product pipeline is GEN-1, a DNA-mediated immunotherapy for the localized treatment of ovarian cancer. These investigational products are based on platform technologies that provide the basis for future development of a range of therapeutics, largely focused on difficult-to-treat forms of cancer. The first platform technology is Lysolipid Thermally Sensitive Liposomes, a heat sensitive liposomal based dosage form that is designed to target disease with known chemotherapeutics in the presence of mild heat. The second platform technology is TheraPlas, a novel nucleic acid-based investigational candidate under development for local transfection of therapeutic DNA plasmids. Employing these technologies, we are working to developimmunotherapies and commercialize more efficient, effective and targeted oncology therapies that maximize efficacy while minimizing side effects common to cancer treatments.

ThermoDox®

ThermoDox® is being evaluated in a Phase III clinical trial for primary liver cancer, which we call the OPTIMA Study, which was initiated in 2014. ThermoDox® is a liposomal encapsulation of doxorubicin, an approved and frequently used oncology drug for the treatment of a wide range of cancers. Localized heat at hyperthermia temperatures (greater than 40° Celsius) releases the encapsulated doxorubicin from the liposome enabling high concentrations of doxorubicin to be deposited preferentially in and around the targeted tumor.

The OPTIMA Study. The OPTIMA Study represents an evaluation of ThermoDox® in combination with a first line therapy, radio frequency ablation (“RFA”), for newly diagnosed, intermediate stage HCC patients. HCC incidence globally is approximately 755,000 new cases per year and is the third largest cancer indication globally. Approximately 30% of newly diagnosed patients can be addressed with RFA alone.

On February 24, 2014, we announced that the United States Food and Drug Administration (the “FDA”) provided clearance for the OPTIMA Study, which is a pivotal, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase III trial of ThermoDox®, in combination with standardized RFA, for the treatment of primary liver cancer. The trial design of the OPTIMA Study is based on the comprehensive analysis of data from an earlier clinical trial conducted by the Company called the HEAT Study (the “HEAT Study”). The OPTIMA Study is supported by a hypothesis developed from an overall survival analysis of a large subgroup of 285 patients from the HEAT Study.

Post-hoc data analysis from our earlier Phase III HEAT Study suggest that ThermoDox® may substantially improve OS, when compared to the control group, in patients if their lesions undergo a 45-minute RFA procedure standardized for a lesion greater than 3 cm in diameter. Data from nine OS sweeps have been conducted since the top line progression free survival (“PFS”) data from the HEAT Study were announced in January 2013, with each data set demonstrating substantial improvement in clinical benefit over the control group with statistical significance. On August 15, 2016, we announced updated results from its final retrospective OS analysis of the data from the HEAT Study (the “HEAT Study subgroup”). These results demonstrated that in a large, well bounded, subgroup of patients with a single lesion (n=285, 41% of the HEAT Study patients), treatment with a combination of ThermoDox® and optimized RFA provided an average 54% risk improvement in OS compared to optimized RFA alone. The Hazard Ratio (“HR”) at this analysis is 0.65 (95% CI 0.45 - 0.94) with a p-value of 0.02. Median OS for the ThermoDox® subgroup has been reached which translates into a two-year survival benefit over the optimized RFA subgroup (projected to be greater than 80 months for the ThermoDox® plus optimized RFA subgroup compared to less than 60 months projection for the optimized RFA only subgroup).

While this information should be viewed with caution since it is based on a retrospective analysis of a subgroup, we also conducted additional analyses that further strengthen the evidence for the HEAT Study subgroup. We commissioned an independent computational model at the University of South Carolina Medical School. The results unequivocally indicate that longer RFA heating times correlate with significant increases in doxorubicin concentration around the RFA treated tissue. In addition, we conducted a prospective preclinical study in 22 pigs using two different manufacturers of RFA and human equivalent doses of ThermoDox® that clearly support the relationship between increased heating duration and doxorubicin concentrations.

The OPTIMA Study was designed with extensive input from globally recognized HCC researchers and expert clinicians. The FDA also provided formal written feedback to the Company on the study protocol and trial design. The OPTIMA Study was designed to enroll up to 550 patients globally at approximately 65 clinical sites in the U.S., Canada, European Union (EU), Chinanext generation vaccines and other countriesanti-cancer DNA or RNA therapies. Both are novel synthetic, non-viral vectors with demonstrated capability in the Asia-Pacific region and will evaluate ThermoDox® in combination with standardized RFA, which will require a minimum of 45 minutes across all investigators and clinical sites for treating lesions three to seven centimeters, versus standardized RFA alone. The primary endpoint for this clinical trial is overall survival (“OS”), and the secondary endpoints are progression free survival and safety. The statistical plan calls for two interim efficacy analyses by an independent Data Monitoring Committee (“DMC”).nucleic acid cellular transfection.

We completed enrollment of 556 patients in the Phase III OPTIMA Study in August 2018. Data for the study will be reviewed as it matures up to two interim analyses expected to be conducted in the second half of 2019 and in mid-2020. We expect that the final efficacy analysis, if necessary, will be completed in early 2021. ThermoDox® has received U.S. FDA Fast Track Designation and has been granted orphan drug designation for primary liver cancer in both the U.S. and the EU. Additionally, the U.S. FDA has provided ThermoDox® with a 505(b)(2) registration pathway. Subject to a successful trial, the OPTIMA Study has been designed to support registration in all key primary liver cancer markets. We fully expect to submit registrational applications in the U.S., Europe and China. We expect to submit and believe that applications will be accepted in South Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam, three other significant markets for ThermoDox® if it were to receive approval in Europe, China or the U.S.

On December 18, 2018, we announced that the DMC for the OPTIMA Study completed its last scheduled review of all patients enrolled in the trial and unanimously recommended that the OPTIMA Study continue according to protocol to its final data readout. The DMC’s recommendation was based on the Committee’s assessment of safety and data integrity of all patients randomized in the trial as of October 4, 2018. The DMC reviewed study data at regular intervals throughout the patient enrollment period, with the primary responsibilities of ensuring the safety of all patients enrolled in the study, the quality of the data collected, and the continued scientific validity of the study design. As part of its review of all 556 patients enrolled into the trial, the DMC evaluated a quality matrix relating to the total clinical data set, confirming the timely collection of data, that all data are current as well as other data collection and quality criteria.

On August 5, 2019, the Company announced that the prescribed number of OS events had been reached for the first prespecified interim analysis of the OPTIMA Phase III Study. Following preparation of the data, the first interim analysis was conducted by the DMC on November 1, 2019. This timeline was consistent with the Company’s stated expectations and is necessary to provide a full and comprehensive data set that may represent the potential for a successful trial outcome. In accordance with the statistical plan, this initial interim analysis has a target of 118 events, or 60% of the total number required for the final analysis. At the time of the data cutoff, the Company received reports of 128 events. The hazard ratio for success at 128 events is approximately 0.63, which represents a 37% reduction in the risk of death compared with RFA alone and is consistent with the 0.65 hazard ratio that was observed in the prospective HEAT Study subgroup, which demonstrated a two-year overall survival advantage and a median time to death of more than seven and a half years.

On November 4, 2019, the Company announced that the DMC unanimously recommended the OPTIMA Study continue according to protocol. The recommendation was based on a review of blinded safety and data integrity from 556 patients enrolled in the Company’s multinational, double-blind, placebo-controlled pivotal Phase III OPTIMA Study. The DMC’s pre-planned interim efficacy review followed 128 patient events, or deaths, which occurred in August 2019. Data presented demonstrated that PFS and OS data appear to be tracking with patient data observed at a similar point in the Company’s subgroup of patients followed prospectively in the earlier Phase III HEAT Study, upon which the OPTIMA Study is based.

The data review demonstrated the following:

While the Company has not unblinded the study to report a hazard ratio, PFS and OS are tracking similarly to the subgroup of patients who received more than 45 minutes of RFA in our HEAT Study and followed prospectively for more than three years. This subgroup in the HEAT Study demonstrated a 2-year overall survival advantage and a median time to death of more than 7 ½ years. This tracking appears to bode well for success at the second of two pre-planned interim efficacy analysis, which is intended after a minimum of 158 patient deaths and is projected to occur during the second quarter of 2020. The hazard ratio for success at 158 events is 0.70. This is below the hazard ratio of 0.65 observed in the HEAT Study subgroup of patients treated with RFA > 45 minutes.

The HEAT Study. On January 31, 2013, we announced that ThermoDox^® in combination with radio frequency ablation (“RFA”) did not meet the primary endpoint of progression free survival (“PFS”) for the 701-patient clinical trial in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), also known as primary liver cancer (the HEAT Study). We determined, after conferring with the HEAT Study’s independent DMC, that the HEAT Study did not meet the goal of demonstrating persuasive evidence of clinical effectiveness, that being a clinically meaningful improvement in progression free survival (PFS), that could form the basis for regulatory approval. In the trial, ThermoDox^® was well-tolerated with no unexpected serious adverse events. Following the announcement of the HEAT Study results, we continued to follow patients for overall survival (OS), the secondary endpoint of the HEAT Study. We have conducted a comprehensive analysis of the data from the HEAT Study to assess the future strategic value and development strategy for ThermoDox^®.

Findings from the HEAT Study post-hoc data analysis suggest that ThermoDox^® may substantially improve overall survival, when compared to the control group, in patients if their lesions undergo a 45-minute RFA procedure standardized for a lesion greater than 3 cm in diameter. Data from nine OS sweeps have been conducted since the top line PFS data from the HEAT Study were announced in January 2013, with each data set demonstrating progressive improvement in clinical benefit and statistical significance. On August 15, 2016, the Company announced the most recent post-hoc OS analysis from the HEAT Study. These results demonstrated that in a large, well bounded subgroup of patients with a single lesion (n=285, 41% of the HEAT Study patients), the combination of ThermoDox® and optimized RFA provided an average 54% risk improvement in OS compared to optimized RFA alone. The Hazard Ratio at this latest OS analysis is 0.65 (95% CI 0.45 - 0.94) with a p-value of 0.02. Median OS for the ThermoDox® group has been reached which translates into a two-year survival benefit over the optimized RFA group (projected to be greater than 80 months for the ThermoDox® plus optimized RFA group compared to less than 60 months projection for the optimized RFA only group). These data continue to strongly suggest that ThermoDox^® may significantly improve Overall Survival compared to an RFA control in patients whose lesions undergo optimized RFA treatment for 45 minutes or more as well as support the protocol for our Phase III OPTIMA Study as described below.

Findings from the HEAT Study post-hoc data analysis have shown to be well balanced and not diminished in anyway by other factors. Supplementary computational modeling and prospective preclinical animal studies have shown additional support the relationship between heating duration and clinical outcomes. These data have been presented, without objection, at multiple scientific and medical conferences in 2013 through 2016 by key HEAT Study investigators and leading liver cancer experts.

On October 16, 2017, the Company announced the publication of the manuscript, “Phase III HEAT STUDY Adding Lyso-Thermosensitive Liposomal Doxorubicin to Radiofrequency Ablation in Patients with Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma Lesions,” inClinical Cancer Research, a peer-reviewed medical journal. The article reports on one of the largest controlled studies in hepatocellular carcinoma. It provides a comprehensive review of ThermoDox^® for the treatment of primary liver cancer. The article details learnings from the Company’s 701 patient HEAT Study and includes results from computer simulation studies and includes findings from a post hoc subgroup analysis, all of which are consistent with each other and which - when examined together - suggests a clearer understanding of a key ThermoDox® heat-based mechanism of action: the longer the target tissue is heated, the greater the doxorubicin tissue concentration. Additionally, the article explores a new hypothesis prompted by these findings: ThermoDox® when used in combination with Radiofrequency Ablation (RFA) standardized to a minimum dwell time of 45 minutes (sRFA > 45 minutes), may increase the overall survival (OS) of patients with HCC. The lead author is Won Young Tak, M.D., Ph.D., Professor Internal Medicine, Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Kyungpook National University Hospital Daegu, Republic of Korea, and there are 22 HEAT Study co-authors along with Nicholas Borys, M.D., Celsion’s senior vice president and chief medical officer.

IMMUNO-ONCOLOGY Program

On June 20, 2014, wethe Company completed the acquisition of substantially all of the assets of EGEN, a private company located in Huntsville, Alabama. Pursuant to the Asset Purchase Agreement, CLSN Laboratories acquired all of EGEN’s right, title and interest in and to substantially all of the assets of EGEN, including cash and cash equivalents, patents, trademarks and other intellectual property rights, clinical data, certain contracts, licenses and permits, equipment, furniture, office equipment, furnishings, supplies and other tangible personal property. A key asset acquired from EGEN was the TheraPlas Technology Platform and thetechnology platform. The first drug candidate developed from itthis technology platform is GEN-1.

THERAPLAS Technology Platform

TheraPlas is a technology platform for the delivery of DNA and mRNA therapeutics via synthetic non-viral carriers and is capable of providing cell transfection for double-stranded DNA plasmids and large therapeutic RNA segments such as mRNA. There are two components of the TheraPlas system, a plasmid DNA or mRNA payload encoding a therapeutic protein, and a delivery system. The delivery system is designed to protect the DNA/RNAmRNA from degradation and promote trafficking into cells and through intracellular compartments. We designed the delivery system of TheraPlas by chemically modifying the low molecular weight polymer to improve its gene transfer activity without increasing toxicity. We believe that TheraPlas ismay be a viable alternative to current approaches to gene delivery due to several distinguishing characteristics, including enhanced molecular versatility that allows for complex modifications to potentially improve activity and safety.

The design of the TheraPlas delivery system is based on molecular functionalization of polyethyleneimine (PEI), a cationic delivery polymer with a distinct ability to escape from the endosomes due to heavy protonation. The transfection activity and toxicity of PEI is tightly coupled to its molecular weightweight; therefore the clinical application of PEI is limited. We have used molecular functionalization strategies to improve the activity of low molecular weight PEIs without augmenting their cytotoxicity. In one instance, chemical conjugation of a low molecular weight branched BPEI1800 with cholesterol and polyethylene glycol (PEG) to form PEG-PEI-Cholesterol (PPC) dramatically improved the transfection activity of BPEI1800 following in vivo delivery. Together, the cholesterol and PEG modifications produced approximately 20-fold enhancement in transfection activity. Biodistribution studies following intraperitoneal or subcutaneous administration of DNA/PPC nanocomplexes showed DNA delivery localized primarily at the injection site with only small amount escaping into the systemic circulation. PPC is the delivery component of our lead TheraPlas product, GEN-1, which is in clinical development for the treatment of ovarian cancer and in preclinical development for the treatment of glioblastoma.cancer. The PPC manufacturing process has been scaled up from bench scale (1-2 g) to 0.6Kg, and several cGMPcurrent Good Manufacturing Practice (“cGMP”) lots have been produced with reproducible quality.

We believe that TheraPlas has emerged as a viable alternative to current approaches due to several distinguishing characteristics such as strong molecular versatility that allowsmay allow for complex modifications to potentially improve activity and safety with little difficulty. The biocompatibility of these polymers reduces the risk of adverse immune response, thus allowing for repeated administration. Compared to naked DNA or cationic lipids, TheraPlas is generally safer, more efficient, and cost effective. We believe that these advantages place Celsion in a strong position to capitalize on this technology.technology platform.

GEN-1

GEN-1 is a DNA-based immunotherapeutic product for the localized treatment of ovarian and brain cancers by intraperitoneally administering an Interleukin-12 (“IL-12”) plasmid formulated with our proprietary TheraPlas delivery system. In this DNA-based approach, the immunotherapy is combined with a standard chemotherapy drug, which can potentially achieve better clinical outcomes than with chemotherapy alone. We believe that increases in IL-12 concentrations at tumor sites for several days after a single administration could create a potent immune environment against tumor activity and that a direct killing of the tumor with concomitant use of cytotoxic chemotherapy could result in a more robust and durable antitumor response than chemotherapy alone. We believe the rationale for local therapy with GEN-1 are based on the following:

Ovarian Cancer Overview

Ovarian cancer is the most lethal of gynecological malignancies among women with an overall five-year survival rate of 45%. This poor outcome is due in part to the lack of effective prevention and early detection strategies. There were approximately 22,000 new cases of ovarian cancer in the U.S. in 2014 with an estimated 14,000 deaths. Mortality rates for ovarian cancer declined very little in the last forty years due to the unavailability of detection tests and improved treatments. Most women with ovarian cancer are not diagnosed until Stages III or IV, when the disease has spread outside the pelvis to the abdomen and areas beyond causing swelling and pain, where the five-year survival rates are 25 - 41 percent and 11 percent, respectively. First-line chemotherapy regimens are typically platinum-based combination therapies. Although this first line of treatment has an approximate 80 percent response rate, 55 to 75 percent of women will develop recurrent ovarian cancer within two years and ultimately will not respond to platinum therapy. Patients whose cancer recurs or progresses after initially responding to surgery and first-line chemotherapy have been divided into one of the two groups based on the time from completion of platinum therapy to disease recurrence or progression. This time period is referred to as platinum-free interval. The platinum-sensitive group has a platinum-free interval of longer than six months. This group generally responds to additional treatment with platinum-based therapies. The platinum-resistant group has a platinum-free interval of shorter than six months and is resistant to additional platinum-based treatments. Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, topotecan, and Avastin are the only approved second-line therapies for platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. The overall response rate for these therapies is 10 to 20 percent with median overall survival (“OS”) of eleven to twelve months. Immunotherapy is an attractive novel approach for the treatment of ovarian cancer particularly since ovarian cancers are considered immunogenic tumors. IL-12 is one of the most active cytokines for the induction of potent anti-cancer immunity acting through the induction of T-lymphocyte and natural killer cell proliferation. The precedence for a therapeutic role of IL-12 in ovarian cancer is based on epidemiologic and preclinical data.

GEN-1 Immunotherapy

GEN-1 is a DNA-based immunotherapeutic product candidate for the localized treatment of ovarian cancer by intraperitoneally administering an Interleukin-12 (“IL-12”) plasmid formulated with our proprietary TheraPlas delivery system. In this DNA-based approach, the immunotherapy is combined with a standard chemotherapy drug, which can potentially achieve better clinical outcomes than with chemotherapy alone. We believe that increases in IL-12 concentrations at tumor sites for several days after a single administration could create a potent immune environment against tumor activity and that a direct killing of the tumor with concomitant use of cytotoxic chemotherapy could result in a more robust and durable antitumor response than chemotherapy alone. We believe the rationale for local therapy with GEN-1 is based on the following:

GEN-I OVATION I Study. In February 2015, we announced that the FDAU.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) accepted, without objection, the Phase I dose-escalation clinical trial of GEN-1 in combination with the standard of care in neoadjuvant ovarian cancer (the “OVATION I Study”). On September 30, 2015, we announced enrollment of the first patient in the OVATION I Study. The OVATION I Study was designed to (i) identify a safe, tolerable and potentially therapeutically active dose of GEN-1 by recruiting and maximizing an immune response; (ii) to enroll three to six patients per dose level and will evaluate safety and efficacy and (iii) attempt to define an optimal dose for a follow-on Phase I/II study. to:

In addition, the OVATION I Study establishesestablished a unique opportunity to assess how cytokine-based compounds such as GEN-1, directly affect ovarian cancer cells and the tumor microenvironment in newly diagnosed ovarian cancer patients. The study was designed to characterize the nature of the immune response triggered by GEN-1 at various levels of the patients’ immune system, including:

We initiated the OVATION I Study at four clinical sites at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, Oklahoma University Medical Center, Washington University in St. Louis, and the Medical College of Wisconsin. During 2016 and 2017, we announced data from the first fourteen patients in the OVATION Study, who completed treatment.I Study. On October 3, 2017, we announced final clinicaltranslational research and translational researchclinical data from the OVATION I Study.

Key translational research findings from all evaluable patients are consistent with the earlier reports from partial analysis of the data and are summarized below:

The Company also reported positive clinical data from the first fourteen patients who completed treatment in the OVATION I Study. GEN-1 plus standard chemotherapy produced positive clinical results, with no dose limiting toxicities and positive dose dependent efficacy signals which correlate well with positive surgical outcomes as summarized below:

On March 2, 2019, the Company announced final PFSprogression free survival (“PFS”) results from the OVATION I Study. Median progression-free survival (PFS)PFS in patients treated per protocol (n=14) was 21 months and was 17.1 months for the intent-to-treat (“ITT”) population (n=18) for all dose cohorts, including three patients who dropped out of the study after 13 days or less, and two patients who did not receive full NAC and GEN-1 cycles. Under the current standard of care, in women with Stage III/IV ovarian cancer undergoing NAC, thetheir disease progresses within about 12 months on average. The results from the OVATION I Study support continued evaluation of GEN-1 based on promising tumor response, as reported in the PFS data, and the ability for surgeons to completely remove visible tumor at interval debulking surgery. GEN-1 was well tolerated, and no dose-limiting toxicities were detected. Intraperitoneal administration of GEN-1 was feasible with broad patient acceptance.

GEN-1 OVATION 2 Study. The Company held an Advisory Board Meeting on September 27, 2017 with the clinical investigators and scientific experts including those from Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Vanderbilt University Medical School, and M.D. Anderson Cancer Center to review and finalize clinical, translational research and safety data from the Phase IB OVATION I Study in order to determine the next steps forward for our GEN-1 immunotherapy program.

On November 13, 2017, the Company filed its Phase I/II clinical trial protocol with the U.S. Food and Drug AdministrationFDA for GEN-1 for the localized treatment of ovarian cancer. The protocol is designed with a single dose escalation phase to 100 mg/m² to identify a safe and tolerable dose of GEN-1 while maximizing an immune response. The Phase I portion of the study will be followed by a continuation at the selected dose in 130approximately 110 patients randomized Phase II study. On November 5, 2019, the Company announced that the independent Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) completed its safety review of data from the first eight patients enrolled in the ongoing Phase I/II OVATION 2 Study. Based on the DSMB’s recommendation, the study will continue as planned and the Company will proceed with completing enrollment in the Phase I portion of the trial.

In the OVATION 2 Study, patients in the GEN-1 treatment arm will receive GEN-1 plus chemotherapy pre- and post-interval debulking surgery.surgery (“IDS”). The OVATION 2 Study will include up to 130110 patients with Stage III/IV ovarian cancer, with 12 to 15 patients in the Phase I portion and up to 11895 patients in Phase II. The study is powered to show a 33% improvement in the primary endpoint, PFS, when comparing GEN-1 with neoadjuvant + adjuvant chemotherapy versus neoadjuvant + adjuvant chemotherapy alone. The PFS primary analysis will be conducted after at least 80 events have been observed or after all patients have been followed for at least 16 months, whichever is later.

Developed with extensive input from the Company’s Medical Advisory Board, the OVATION 2 Study builds on promising clinical and translational research data from the Phase IB dose-escalation OVATION I Study, in which enrolled patients received escalating weekly doses of GEN-1 up to 79 mg/m² for a total of eight treatments in combination with NACT, followed by IDS. In addition to exploring a higher dose of GEN-1 in the OVATION 2 study, patients will continue to receive GEN-1 after their IDS in combination with adjuvant chemotherapy.

The latest DSMB review of GEN-1 at 100 mg/m² has confirmed that there were no dose limiting toxicities detected in any of the five patients dosed with GEN-1 and that intraperitoneal administration is well tolerated even when given with standard NACT. Of the eight patients treated in the Phase I portion of the OVATION 2 Study, five patients were treated with GEN-1 plus NACT and three patients were treated with NACT only.

In March 2020, the Company announced highly encouraging initial clinical data from the first 15 patients enrolled in the ongoing Phase I/III portion of the OVATION 2 Study for patients newly diagnosed with Stage III and IV ovarian cancer. The OVATION 2 Study combines GEN-1, the Company’s IL-12 gene-mediated immunotherapy, with standard-of-care neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). Following NACT, patients undergo interval debulking surgery (IDS), followed by three additional cycles of chemotherapy.

GEN-1 plus standard NACT produced positive dose-dependent efficacy results, with no dose-limiting toxicities, which correlates well with successful surgical outcomes as summarized below:

On March 23, 2020, the Company announced that the European Medicines Agency (the “EMA”) Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products (“COMP”) has recommended that GEN-1 be designated as an orphan medicinal product for the treatment of ovarian cancer. GEN-1 is an IL-12 DNA plasmid vector encased in a non-viral nanoparticle delivery system, which enables cell transfection followed by persistent, local secretion of the IL-12 protein. GEN-1 previously received orphan designation from the FDA.

On March 26, 2020, the Company announced with Medidata, a Dassault Systèmes company, that examining matched patient data provided by Medidata in a synthetic control arm (“SCA”) with results from the Company’s completed Phase Ib dose-escalating OVATION I Study showed positive results in progression-free survival (“PFS”). The hazard ratio (“HR”) was 0.53 in the ITT group, showing strong signals of efficacy. Celsion believes these data may warrant consideration of strategies to accelerate the clinical development program for GEN-1 in newly diagnosed, advanced ovarian cancer patients by the FDA. In its March 2019 discussion with Celsion, the FDA noted that preliminary findings from the Phase Ib OVATION I Study were exciting but lacked a control group to evaluate GEN-1’s independent impact on impressive tumor response, surgical results and PFS. The FDA encouraged the Company to continue its GEN-1 development program and consult with FDA with new findings that may have a bearing on designations such as Fast Track and Breakthrough Therapy.

SCAs have the potential to revolutionize clinical trials in certain oncology indications and some other diseases where a randomized control is not ethical or practical. SCAs are formed by carefully selecting control patients from historical clinical trials to match the demographic and disease characteristics of the patients treated with the new investigational product. SCAs have been shown to mimic the results of traditional randomized controls so that the treatment effects of an investigational product can be visible by comparison to the SCA. SCAs can help advance the scientific validity of single arm trials, and in certain indications, reduce time and cost, and expose fewer patients to placebos or existing standard-of-care treatments that might not be effective for them.

On July 27, 2020, the Company announced the randomization of the first two patients in the Phase II portion of the OVATION 2 Study with GEN-1 in advanced ovarian cancer. The Company anticipates completing enrollment of up to 110 patients in the second half of 2021. Because this is an open-label study, the Company intends to provide clinical updates throughout the course of treatment including response rates and surgical resection scores.

On February 22, 2021, the Company announced that it has received Fast Track designation from the FDA for GEN-1, its DNA-mediated IL-12 immunotherapy currently in Phase II development for the treatment of advanced ovarian cancer.

On February 25, 2021, the Company provided an update on the OVATION 2 Study. The Company reported that approximately one-third, or 34 patients, of the anticipated 110 patients had been enrolled into the OVATION 2 Study, of which 20 are in the treatment arm and 14 are in the control. Currently, 27 patients have had their interval debulking surgery with the following results:

The Company further reported that 22 clinical sites in the U.S. and Canada have been initiated, with three more sites expected to be added by the end of the first quarter. Clinical investigators met in early February 2021 in a virtual meeting and expressed excitement about the potential for GEN-1 to treat advanced ovarian cancer and, despite the challenges and earlier delays posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, they remain committed to completing enrollment in the study during the second half of 2021.

PLACCINE DNA VACCINE TECHNOLOGY PLATFORM

In January 2021, the Company announced the filing of a provisional U.S. patent application for a novel DNA-based, investigational vaccine for preventing or treating infections from a broad range of infectious agents including the coronavirus disease using its PLACCINE DNA vaccine technology platform (“PLACCINE”). The provisional patent covers a family of novel composition of multi-cistronic vectors and polymeric nanoparticles that comprise the PLACCINE DNA vaccine platform technology for preventing or treating infectious agents that have the potential for global pandemics, including the SARS-CoV-2 virus and its variations, using the Company’s platform technology.

Celsion’s PLACCINE DNA vaccine technology platform is characterized by a single multi-cistronic DNA plasmid vector expressing multiple pathogen antigens along with a potent immune modifier and delivered with a synthetic delivery system. It is easily adaptable to creating vaccines for a multitude of pathogens, including emerging pathogens leading to pandemics as well as infectious diseases that have yet to be effectively addressed with current vaccine technologies. This flexible vaccine platform is well supported by an already established supply chain to produce any plasmid vector and its assembly into a respective vaccine formulation.

PLACCINE is an extension of the Company’s synthetic, non-viral TheraPlas delivery technology currently in a Phase II trial for the treatment of late-stage ovarian cancer with GEN-1. Celsion’s proprietary multifunctional DNA vaccine technology concept is built on the flexible PLACCINE technology platform that is amenable to rapidly responding to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, as well as possible future mutations of SARS-CoV-2, other future pandemics, emerging bioterrorism threats, and novel infectious diseases. Celsion’s extensive experience with TheraPlas suggests that the PLACCINE-based nanoparticles are stable at storage temperatures of 4^oC to 25^oC, making vaccines developed on this platform easily suitable for broad world-wide distribution.

Celsion’s vaccine approach is designed to optimize the quality of the immune response dictating the efficiency of pathogen clearance and patient recovery. Celsion has taken a multivalent approach in an effort to generate an even more robust immune response that not only results in a strong neutralizing antibody response, but also a more robust and durable T-cell response. Delivered with Celsion’s synthetic polymeric system, the proprietary DNA plasmid is protected from degradation and its cellular uptake is facilitated.

COVID-19 Vaccine Overview

Emerging data from the recent literature indicates that the quality of the immune response as opposed to its absolute magnitude is what dictates SARS-CoV-2 viral clearance and recovery and that an ineffective or non-neutralizing enhanced antibody response might actually exacerbate disease. The first-generation COVID-19 vaccines were developed for rapid production and deployment and were not optimized for generating cellular responses that result in effective viral clearance. Though early data has indicated some of these vaccines to be over 95% effective, these first-generation vaccines were primarily designed to generate a strong antibody response and, while they have been shown to provide prophylactic protection against disease, the durability of this protection is currently unclear. The vast majority of these vaccines have been specifically developed to target the SARS-CoV-2 Spike (S) protein (antigen), though it is known that restricting a vaccine to a sole viral antigen creates selection pressure that can serve to facilitate the emergence of viral resistance. Indeed, even prior to full vaccine rollout, it has been observed that the S protein is a locus for rapid evolutionary and functional change as evidenced by the D614G, Y453F, 501Y.V2, and VUI-202012/01 mutations/deletions. This propensity for mutation of the S protein leads to future risk of efficacy reduction over time as these mutations accumulate.

Our Next Generation Vaccine Initiative

Celsion’s next generation vaccine initiative stands at the confluence of immunotherapy and immunogenicity and envisions delivery, on a single plasmid, multiple SARS-CoV-2 antigens in conjunction with a potent immune modifier, interleukin-12 (IL-12), which directs a TH-1 immune response, stimulates T-cell immunity, and also promises the promotion of humoral immunity (antibody response). While most COVID-19 vaccines in late-stage clinical development are monovalent (S protein antigen only), Celsion has taken this multivalent approach in an effort to generate an even more robust immune response that not only results in a strong neutralizing antibody response, but also a more robust and durable T-cell response.

Celsion’s vaccine candidate approach comprises a single plasmid vector containing the DNA sequence encoding the cytokine IL-12 and multiple SARS-CoV-2 antigens, including S antigen in combination with the membrane (M) or nucleocapsid (N) antigen. Delivery will be evaluated intramuscularly, intradermally, or subcutaneously with a non-viral synthetic DNA delivery carrier that facilitates vector delivery into the cells of the injected tissue and has potential immune adjuvant properties. Unique designs and formulations of Celsion vaccine candidates may offer several potential key advantages.

Future vaccine technology will need to address viral mutations and the challenges of efficient manufacturing, distribution, and storage. We believe an adaptation of our TheraPlas technology, PLACCINE, has the potential to meet these challenges. Our approach is described in our provisional patent filing and is summarized as a DNA vaccine technology platform characterized by a single plasmid DNA with multiple coding regions. The plasmid vector is designed to express multiple pathogen antigens along with a potent immune modifier. It is delivered via a synthetic delivery system and has the potential to be easily modified to create vaccines against a multitude of infectious diseases, addressing:

We are conducting preliminary research associated with our recently announced proprietary DNA vaccine platform provisional patent filing. At the same time, we are redoubling our efforts and R&D resources in our immuno-oncology and next generation vaccine program.

THERMODOX^® - DIRECTED CHEMOTHERAPY

Liposomes are manufactured submicroscopic vesicles consisting of a discrete aqueous central compartment surrounded by a membrane bilayer composed of naturally occurring lipids. Conventional liposomes have been designed and manufactured to carry drugs and increase residence time, thus allowing the drugs to remain in the bloodstream for extended periods of time before they are removed from the body. However, the current existing liposomal formulations of cancer drugs and liposomal cancer drugs under development do not provide for the immediate release of the drug and the direct targeting of organ specific tumors, two important characteristics that are required for improving the efficacy of cancer drugs such as doxorubicin. A team of research scientists at Duke University developed a heat-sensitive liposome that rapidly changes its structure when heated to a threshold minimum temperature of 39.5º to 42º Celsius. Heating creates channels in the liposome bilayer that allow an encapsulated drug to rapidly disperse into the surrounding tissue. This novel, heat-activated liposomal technology is differentiated from other liposomes through its unique low heat-activated release of encapsulated chemotherapeutic agents. We are able to use several available focused-heat technologies, such as radiofrequency ablation (“RFA”), microwave energy and high intensity focused ultrasound (“HIFU”), to activate the release of drugs from our novel heat sensitive liposomes.

AcquisitionTHERMODOX^® for the Treatment of EGEN AssetsPrimary Liver Cancer

Primary Liver Cancer Overview

Hepatocellular carcinoma (“HCC”) is one of the most common and deadliest forms of cancer worldwide. It ranks as the third most common solid tumor cancer. It is estimated that up to 90% of liver cancer patients will die within five years of diagnosis. The incidence of primary liver cancer is approximately 35,000 cases per year in the U.S., approximately 65,000 cases per year in Europe and is increasing at approximately 2-3% per year worldwide. Global incidence (per 2017 GLOBALCAN statistics) is reported at 755,000 cases. The World Health Organization (the “WHO”) has projected that HCC will be the most prevalent form of cancer by 2030. HCC is commonly diagnosed in patients with longstanding hepatic disease and cirrhosis (primarily due to hepatitis C in the U.S., Japan and Europe and hepatitis B in Asia).

At an early stage, the standard first line treatment for liver cancer is surgical resection of the tumor. Up to 80% of patients are ineligible for surgery or transplantation at time of diagnosis because early-stage liver cancer generally has few symptoms and when finally detected the tumor frequently is too large for surgical resection. There are few alternative treatments since radiation therapy and chemotherapy are largely ineffective in treating liver cancer. For tumors generally up to 5 centimeters in diameter, RFA has emerged as the standard of care treatment which directly destroys the tumor tissue through the application of high temperatures administered by a probe inserted into the core of the tumor. Local recurrence rates after RFA directly correlate to the size of the tumor. For tumors 3 cm or smaller in diameter the recurrence rate has been reported to be 10 – 20%; however, for tumors greater than 3 cm, local recurrence rates of 40% or higher have been observed.

Celsion’s Approach

While RFA uses extremely high temperatures (greater than 90° Celsius) to ablate the tumor, it may fail to treat micro-metastases in the outer margins of the ablation zone because temperatures in the periphery may not be high enough to destroy cancer cells. Our ThermoDox® treatment approach is designed to utilize the ability of RFA devices to ablate the center of the tumor while simultaneously thermally activating our ThermoDox® liposome to release its encapsulated doxorubicin to kill any remaining viable cancer cells throughout the heated region, including the ablation margins. This novel treatment approach is intended to deliver the drug directly to those cancer cells that survive RFA. This approach is designed to increase the delivery of the doxorubicin at the desired tumor site while potentially reducing drug exposure distant to the tumor site.

OPTIMA Study

The OPTIMA Study represents an evaluation of ThermoDox^® in combination with a first line therapy, RFA, for newly diagnosed, intermediate stage HCC patients. The OPTIMA Study was designed to enroll up to 550 patients globally at approximately 65 clinical sites in the U.S., Canada, European Union (EU), China and other countries in the Asia-Pacific region and will evaluate ThermoDox^® in combination with standardized RFA, which will require a minimum of 45 minutes across all investigators and clinical sites for treating lesions three to seven centimeters, versus standardized RFA alone. The primary endpoint for the OPTIMA Study is OS, and the secondary endpoints are progression free survival and safety. The statistical plan calls for two interim efficacy analyses by an independent Data Monitoring Committee (“DMC”).

On June 20,February 24, 2014, we completedannounced that the acquisitionFDA provided clearance for the OPTIMA Study, which is a pivotal, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase III trial of substantially allThermoDox^®, in combination with standardized RFA, for the treatment of primary liver cancer. The trial design of the assetsOPTIMA Study is based on the comprehensive analysis of EGEN, which has changeddata from an earlier Phase III clinical trial called the HEAT Study (the “HEAT Study”). The OPTIMA Study is supported by a hypothesis developed from an OS analysis of a large subgroup of patients from the HEAT Study.

Post-hoc data analysis from our earlier Phase III HEAT Study suggests that ThermoDox^® may substantially improve OS, when compared to the control group, in patients if their lesions undergo a 45-minute RFA procedure standardized for a lesion greater than 3 cm in diameter. Data from nine OS sweeps have been conducted since the top line progression free survival PFS data from the HEAT Study were announced in January 2013, with each data set demonstrating substantial improvement in clinical benefit over the control group with statistical significance. On August 15, 2016, we announced updated results from its company name to EGWU, Inc. after the closingfinal retrospective OS analysis of the acquisition, pursuant to an asset purchase agreement (the “Asset Purchase Agreement”) dated asdata from the HEAT Study. These results demonstrated that in a large, well bounded, subgroup of June 6, 2014, by and between EGEN and Celsion. We acquired all of EGEN’s right, title and interest in and to substantially allpatients with a single lesion (n=285, 41% of the assetsHEAT Study patients), treatment with a combination of EGEN, including cashThermoDox^® and cash equivalents, patents, trademarks and other intellectual property rights, clinical data, certain contracts, licenses and permits, equipment, furniture, office equipment, furnishings, supplies and other tangible personal property. In addition, CLSN Laboratories assumed certain specified liabilitiesoptimized RFA provided an average 54% risk improvement in OS compared to optimized RFA alone. The HR at this analysis is 0.65 (95% CI 0.45 - 0.94) with a p-value of EGEN, including the liabilities arising out of the acquired contracts and other assets relating to periods after the closing date. The total purchase price0.02. Median OS for the asset acquisition is up to $44.4 million, including potential future earnout payments of up to $30.4 million contingent upon achievement of certain earnout milestones set forth in the Asset Purchase Agreement. At the closing, we paid approximately $3.0 million in cash after the expense adjustment and issued 193,728 shares of our common stock to EGEN. The shares of common stock were issued in a private transaction exempt from registration under the Securities Act, pursuant to Section 4(2) thereof. In addition, the Company issued the Holdback Shares on June 16, 2017. On March 28, 2019, the Company and EGWU, Inc, entered into the Amended Asset Purchase Agreement. Pursuant to the Amended Asset Purchase Agreement, payment of the earnout milestone liability related to the Ovarian Cancer Indication of $12.4 millionThermoDox^® group has been modified. The Company hasreached which translates into a two-year survival benefit over the optionoptimized RFA group (projected to makebe greater than 80 months for the payment as follows:ThermoDox^® plus optimized RFA group compared to less than 60 months projection for the optimized RFA only group). This information should be viewed with caution since it is based on a retrospective analysis of a subgroup.

We also conducted additional analyses that further strengthen the evidence for the HEAT Study subgroup.

On August 13, 2019, the Company announced that results from an independent analysis of the Company’s ThermoDox^® HEAT Study conducted by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) were published in the peer-reviewed publication, Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology. The analysis was conducted by the intramural research program of the NIH and the NIH Center for Interventional Oncology, with the full data set from the Company’s HEAT Study. The analysis evaluated the full data set to determine if there was a correlation between baseline tumor volume and RFA heating time (minutes/tumor volume in milliliters), with or without ThermoDox^® treatment, for patients with HCC. The NIH analysis was conducted under the direction of Dr. Bradford Wood, MD, Director, NIH Center for Interventional Oncology and Chief, NIH Clinical Center Interventional Radiology.

The article titled, “RFA Duration Per Tumor Volume May Correlate with Overall Survival in Solitary Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients Treated with RFA Plus Lyso-thermosensitive Liposomal Doxorubicin,” discussed the NIH analysis of results from 437 patients in the HEAT Study (all patients with a single lesion representing 62.4% of the study population). The key finding was that increased RFA heating time per tumor volume significantly improved OS in patients with single-lesion HCC who were treated with RFA plus ThermoDox^®, compared to patients treated with RFA alone. A one-unit increase in RFA duration per tumor volume was shown to result in about a 20% improvement in OS for patients administered ThermoDox^®, compared to RFA alone. The authors conclude that increasing RFA heating time in combination with ThermoDox^® significantly improves OS and establishes an improvement of over two years versus the control arm when the heating time per milliliter of tumor is greater than 2.5 minutes. This finding was consistent with the Company’s own results, which defined the optimized RFA procedure as a 45-minute treatment for tumors with a diameter of 3 centimeters. Thus, the NIH analysis lent support to the hypothesis underpinning the OPTIMA Study.

In August 2018, the Company announced that the OPTIMA Study was fully enrolled. On August 5, 2019, the Company announced that the prescribed number of OS events had been reached for the first prespecified interim analysis of the OPTIMA Phase III Study. Following preparation of the data, the first interim analysis was conducted by the DMC. The DMC’s pre-planned interim efficacy review followed 128 patient events, or deaths, which occurred in August 2019. On November 4, 2019, the Company announced that the DMC unanimously recommended the OPTIMA Study continue according to protocol. The recommendation was based on a review of blinded safety and data integrity from 556 patients enrolled in the OPTIMA Study. Data presented demonstrated that PFS and OS data appeared to be tracking with patient data observed at a similar point in the Company’s subgroup of patients followed prospectively in the earlier Phase III HEAT Study, upon which the OPTIMA Study was based.

On April 15, 2020, the Company announced that the prescribed minimum number of events of 158 patient deaths had been reached for the second pre-specified interim analysis of the OPTIMA Phase III Study. The hazard ratio for success at 158 deaths is 0.70, which represents a 30% reduction in the risk of death compared with RFA alone. On July 13, 2020, the Company announced that it has received a recommendation from the DMC to consider stopping the global OPTIMA Study. The recommendation was made following the second pre-planned interim safety and efficacy analysis by the DMC on July 9, 2020. The DMC analysis found that the pre-specified boundary for stopping the trial for futility of 0.900 was crossed with an actual value of 0.903. However, the 2-sided p-value of 0.524 for this analysis provides uncertainty, subsequently, the DMC has left the final decision of whether or not to stop the OPTIMA Study to Celsion. There were no safety concerns noted during the interim analysis. The Company followed the advice of the DMC and considered its options either to stop the study or continue to follow patients after a thorough review of the data, and an evaluation of our probability of success. Timing for this decision is made less urgent by the fact that the OPTIMA Study has been fully enrolled since August 2018 and that the vast majority of the trial expenses have already been incurred.

On August 4, 2020, the Company issued a press release announcing it would continue following patients for OS, noting that the unexpected and marginally crossed futility boundary, suggested by the Kaplan-Meier analysis at the second interim analysis on July 9, 2020, may be associated with a data maturity issue. On October 12, 2020, the Company provided an update on the ongoing data analysis from its Phase III OPTIMA Study with ThermoDox^® as well as growing interest among clinical investigators in conducting studies with ThermoDox^® as a monotherapy or in combination with other therapies.

The

On February 11, 2021, the Company provided EGWU, Inc. 200,000 warrants to purchase common stock at a strike price of $0.01 per warrant share as consideration for entering into this amended agreement. The warrant shares have no expiration and were fair valued at $2.00 using the closing price of a share of Celsion stockfinal update on the date of issuance offset byPhase III OPTIMA Study and the exercise price and recorded as a non-cash expensedecision to stop following patients in the income statementStudy. Independent analyses conducted by a global biometrics contract research organization and were classifiedthe NIH, did not find any evidence of significance or factors that would justify continuing to follow patients for OS. Therefore, the Company notified all clinical sites to discontinue following patients. The OPTIMA Study database of 556 patients will now be frozen at 185 patient deaths. While the analyses did identify certain patient subgroups that appear to have had a clinical benefit, the Company concluded that it would not be in its best interest to pursue these retrospective findings as equity on the balance sheet.regulatory hurdles supporting further discussion will be significant.

Our obligationsInvestigator-Sponsored Studies with ThermoDox^®

Celsion continues working closely and supporting investigations by others throughout the world in breast cancer, pancreatic cancer and in solid tumors in children. Following inquiries from the NIH, we intend to makerenew our Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) with the earnout paymentsInstitute at a nominal cost, one goal of which is to pursue their interest in a study of ThermoDox^® to treat patients with bladder cancer. Importantly, Celsion is developing a business model to support these investigator-sponsored studies in a manner that will terminatenot interfere with the Company’s focus on the eight anniversaryour GEN-1 program and vaccine development initiative.

Below are summaries of several investigator-sponsored studies using ThermoDox®:

Because of the closing date. Inrisks and uncertainties discussed in this Annual Report, among others, we are unable to estimate the acquisition, we purchased GEN-1, a DNA-based immunotherapy for the localized treatmentduration and completion costs of ovarian and brain cancers, and two platform technologies for the development of treatments for those suffering with difficult-to-treat forms of cancer, novel nucleic acid-based immunotherapies and other anti-cancer DNA or RNA therapies, including TheraPlas and TheraSilence.

Acquired in-processour research and development (“IPR&D”) consistsprojects or when, if ever, and to what extent we will receive cash inflows from the commercialization and sale of EGEN’s drug technology platforms: TheraPlas and TheraSilence. The fair value of the IPR&D drug technology platforms was estimateda product. Our inability to be $24.2 million as of the acquisition date. As of the closing of the acquisition, the IPR&D was considered indefinite lived intangible assets and will not be amortized. IPR&D is reviewed for impairment at least annually ascomplete any of our third quarter ended September 30,research and whenever eventsdevelopment activities, preclinical studies or changesclinical trials in circumstances indicate thata timely manner or our failure to enter into collaborative agreements when appropriate could significantly increase our capital requirements and could adversely impact our liquidity. While our estimated future capital requirements are uncertain and could increase or decrease as a result of many factors, including the carrying valueextent to which we choose to advance our research, development activities, preclinical studies and clinical trials, or if we are in a position to pursue manufacturing or commercialization activities, we will need significant additional capital to develop our product candidates through development and clinical trials, obtain regulatory approvals and manufacture and commercialize approved products, if any. We do not know whether we will be able to access additional capital when needed or on terms favorable to us or our stockholders. Our inability to raise additional capital, or to do so on terms reasonably acceptable to us, would jeopardize the future success of the assets might not be recoverable. On December 31, 2016, the Company determined one of its IPR&D assets related to its RNA delivery system was impaired and wrote off its fair value, incurring a non-cash charge of $1.4 million during 2016. During its annual assessments on September 30, 2017 and 2018, the Company determined its IPR&D asset related to its glioblastoma multiforme cancer (GBM) product candidate, originally fair valued at $9.4 million on the date of acquisition, was impaired and wrote this asset’s carrying value down to $2.4 million collectively after those two assessments, incurring non-cash charges of $2.5 million and $4.5 million during 2017 and 2018, respectively. On September 30, 2019, the Company evaluated its IPR&D of the (GBM) product candidate and concluded that it is not more likely than not that the asset is further impaired. On September 30, 2019 and 2018, the Company evaluated its IPR&D of the ovarian cancer indication and concluded that it is not more likely than not that the asset is impaired. As no other indicators of impairment existed during the fourth quarter of 2019, the Company concluded none of the other IPR&D assets were impaired at December 31, 2019. The carrying amount of the ovarian cancer indication was $13.3 million at December 31, 2019 and 2018.our business.

Covenant Not to Compete (CNTC)

Pursuant to the EGEN Purchase Agreement, EGEN provided certain covenants (“Covenant Not Toto Compete”) to the Company whereby EGEN agreed, during the period ending on the seventh anniversary of the closing date of the acquisition on June 20, 2014, not to enter into any business, directly or indirectly, which competes with the business of the Company nor will it contact, solicit or approach any of the employees of the Company for purposes of offering employment.

Business Plan

As a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company, our business and our ability to execute our strategy to achieve our corporate goals are subject to numerous risks and uncertainties. Material risks and uncertainties relating to our business and our industry are described in “Part“Part I, Item 1A. Risk Factors” in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

WeSince inception, the Company has incurred substantial operating losses, principally from expenses associated with the Company’s research and development programs, clinical trials conducted in connection with the Company’s product candidates, and applications and submissions to the U.S. FDA. The Company has not generated significant revenue and has incurred significant net losses in each year since our inception. As of December 31, 2020, the Company has incurred approximately $312 million of cumulative net losses and we had $16.7approximately $17.2 million in cash investments, interest receivable and deferred income tax assetcash equivalents. We have substantial future capital requirements to continue our research and development activities and advance our product candidates through various development stages. The Company believes these expenditures are essential for the commercialization of its technologies.

The Company expects its operating losses to continue for the foreseeable future as it continues its product development efforts, and when it undertakes marketing and sales activities. The Company’s ability to achieve profitability is dependent upon its ability to obtain governmental approvals, manufacture, and market and sell its new product candidates. There can be no assurance that the Company will be able to commercialize its technology successfully or that profitability will ever be achieved. The operating results of December 31, 2019, as well as $6.4 million wethe Company have raised thus farfluctuated significantly in the past.

The actual amount of funds the Company will need to operate is subject to many factors, some of which are beyond the Company’s control. These factors include the following:

On July 13, 2020, under the 2019 Aspire Purchase Agreement andCompany announced that it has received a recommendation from the February 2020 Offering.independent DMC to consider stopping the global Phase III OPTIMA Study of ThermoDox^® in combination with RFA for the treatment of HCC, or primary liver cancer. The recommendation was made following the second pre-planned interim safety and efficacy analysis by the DMC on July 9, 2020. The DMC’s analysis found that the pre-specified boundary for stopping the trial for futility of 0.900 was crossed with an actual value of 0.903. The Company has approximately $15followed the advice of the DMC and considered its options to either stop the study or continue to follow patients after a thorough review of the data, and an evaluation of the probability of success. On February 11, 2021, the Company issued a letter to shareholders stating that the Company was notifying all clinical sites to discontinue following patients in the OPTIMA Study.

As more fully discussed below, in June 2020 and as updated in September 2020, the Company filed an application with the New Jersey Economic Development Authority to sell substantially all of its remaining State of New Jersey net operating losses totaling $2.0 million available under the program. On February 12, 2021, the New Jersey Economic Development Authority approved the full amount of the Company’s application. In February 2021, the Company entered into an agreement to sell the net operating losses from the 2020 application and expects to receive net proceeds of approximately $1.85 million by the end of the first quarter of 2021.

As more fully discussed in Note 10 to our Consolidated Financial Statements contained in this Form 10-K, during 2021 through the date of the filing of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, the Company has raised $6.9 million in gross proceeds from the use of its JonesTrading Capital on Demand Agreement^TM financing facility, $35 million in gross proceeds from a registered direct financing completed in January 2021 and approximately $1.5 million in net proceeds through warrant exercises.

With $17.2 million in cash and cash equivalents, coupled with JonesTrading International Services LLC. Given our development plans, we anticipate our current cashapproximately $43 million of gross proceeds received from the sale of equity thus far in 2021 and up to $1.85 million in expected net proceeds from the sale of its State of New Jersey net operating losses it applied for in 2020, the Company believes it has sufficient capital resources will be sufficient to fund ourits operations and financial commitments through mid-2021. On March 5, 2020, we terminated the 2019 Aspire Purchase Agreement. Other2023.

The Company has based its estimates on assumptions that may prove to be wrong. The Company may need to obtain additional funds sooner or in greater amounts than the Capital on Demand Agreement with Jones Trading that provides us the ability to sell equity securities in the future, we have no other committedit currently anticipates. Potential sources of additional capitalfinancing include strategic relationships, public or private sales of the Company’s shares or debt, the sale of the Company’s State of New Jersey net operating losses and there is uncertainty whether additional funding will be available when needed on terms that will be acceptable to it, or at all.other sources. If the Company would notraises funds by selling additional shares of common stock or other securities convertible into common stock, the ownership interest of existing stockholders may be able to obtain financing when needed, it could be unable to carry out the business plan and may have to significantly limit its operations and its business and its financial condition and results of operations could be materially harmed. The extent to which the recent global Covid-19 pandemic impacts our business will depend on future developments, which are highly uncertain and cannot be predicted, including new information that may emerge concerning the severity of COVID-19 and the actions to contain or treat its impact, among others. Any significant infectious disease outbreak, including the COVID-19 pandemic, could result in a widespread health crisis that could adversely affect the economies and financial markets worldwide, resulting in an economic downturn that could impact our business, financial condition and results of operations, including our ability to obtain additional funding, if needed.

diluted.

Financing Overview

Equity, Debt and Other Forms of Financing

As more fully discussed in Note 9 of the Financial Statement included in this Annual Report, during the fourth quarter ofDuring 2020, 2019 and 2018, the Company received eligibility fromsubmitted applications to sell a portion of the Company’s State of New Jersey net operating losses as part of the Technology Business Tax Certificate Program sponsored by The New Jersey Economic Development Authority. Under the program, emerging biotechnology companies with unused NOLs and unused research and development credits are allowed to sell these benefits to other New Jersey-based companies. In 2018 and 2019, the Company sold NOLs totaling $13 million receiving net proceeds of $12.2 million. In June 2020 and as updated in September 2020, the Company filed an application with the New Jersey Economic Development Authority to sell and did sell, $11.1 millionsubstantially all of its unusedremaining State of New Jersey net operating losses totaling $2.0 million available under the Technology Business Tax Certificate Program, receiving $10.4 million of non-dilutive funding in the process. During the fourth quarter of 2019, the Company received approval fromprogram. On February 12, 2021, the New Jersey Economic Development Authority to sell $1.9 million its New Jersey net operating losses.approved the full amount of the Company’s application. In early 2020,February of 2021, the Company entered into an agreement to sell thesethe net operating losses from the 2020 application and expects to receive net proceeds of approximately $1.8$1.85 million by the end of the first quarter of 2021. Beginning in 2021, the New Jersey State Legislature increased the maximum lifetime benefit per company from $15 million to $20 million, which will allow the Company to participate in this innovative funding program in future years.

In June 2018, the Company entered into a Credit Agreement with Horizon Technology Finance Corporation (“Horizon”) that provided $10 million in capital (the “Horizon Credit Agreement”). The obligations under the second quarterHorizon Credit Agreement are secured by a first-priority security interest in substantially all assets of 2020.Celsion other than intellectual property assets. Payments under the loan agreement are interest only (calculated based on one-month LIBOR plus 7.625%) for the first twenty-four (24) months through July 2020, followed by a 24-month amortization period of principal and interest starting on August 1, 2020 and ending through the scheduled maturity date. On August 28, 2020, in connection with an Amendment to the Horizon Credit Agreement, Celsion repaid $5 million of the $10 million loan and $0.2 million in related end of term charges, and the remaining $5 million in obligations were restructured as more fully discussed in Note 8 to our Consolidated Financial Statements contained in this Form 10-K.

During 20182019 and 2019,2020, we issued a total of 5.121.1 million shares of common stock as discussed below for an aggregate $9.4$32.8 million in gross proceeds. During the first quarter of 2020,2021, the Company has issued a total of 5.6an additional 34.3 million shares of common stock for an aggregate of $6.4$43.4 million in gross proceeds as discussed in more detail below. In June 2018, we entered a $10 million loan facility with Horizon Technology Finance Corporation (“Horizon”).

Please refer to Note 2 of theto our Consolidated Financial Statements contained in this Form 10-K.10-K. Also refer toPart II, Item IA, Risk Factors, including, but not limited to, “We will need to raise substantial additional capital to fund our planned future operations, and we may be unable to secure such capital without dilutive financing transactions. If we are not able to raise additional capital, we may not be able to complete the development, testing and commercialization of our product candidates.”

Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates

Our financial statements, which appear at Part II, Item 8 to this Annual Report,8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the U.S., which require that we make certain assumptions and estimates and, in connection therewith, adopt certain accounting policies. Our significant accounting policies are set forth in Note 1 to our financial statements.Consolidated Financial Statements contained in this Form 10-K. Of those policies, we believe that the policies discussed below may involve a higher degree of judgment and may be more critical to an accurate reflection of our financial condition and results of operations.

Revenue Recognition

In May 2014, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2014-09 “Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606),” which supersedes all existing revenue recognition requirements, including most industry-specific guidance. The new standard requires a company to recognize revenue when it transfers goods or services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration that the company expects to receive for those goods or services. ASU 2014 - 09 was originally going to be effective on January 1, 2017; however, the FASB issued ASU 2015-14, “Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606) - Deferral of the Effective Date,” which deferred the effective date of ASU 2014-09 by one year to January 1, 2018. In March 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016 - 8, “Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606): Principal versus Agent Considerations. The amendments in this ASU do not change the core principle of ASU No. 2014 - 09 but the amendments clarify the implementation guidance on reporting revenue gross versus net. The effective date for the amendments in this ASU is the same as the effective date of ASU No. 2014-09. In April 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-10, “Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Identifying Performance Obligations and Licensing),” to clarify the implementation guidance on identifying performance obligations and licensing (collectively “the new revenue standards”). The new revenue standards allow for either “full retrospective” adoption, meaning the standard is applied to all periods presented, or “modified retrospective” adoption, meaning the standard is applied only to the most current period presented in the financial statements. The new revenue standard became effective for us on January 1, 2018. Under the new revenue standards, we recognize revenue following a five-step model prescribed under ASU No. 2014-09; (i) identify contract(s) with a customer; (ii) identify the performance obligations in the contract; (iii) determine the transaction price; (iv) allocate the transaction price to the performance obligations in the contract; and (v) recognize revenues when (or as) we satisfy the performance obligation. As further described in Note 16, the Company currently has only one contract subject to the new revenue standards. After performance of the five-step model discussed above, the Company concluded the adoption of the new revenue standards as of January 1, 2018 did not change our revenue recognition policy nor does it have an effect on our financial statements using either the full retrospective or the modified retrospective adoption methods.

In-Process Research and Development, Other Intangible Assets and Goodwill

During 2014, the Company acquired certain assets of EGEN, Inc. As more fully described in Note 5 to our Consolidated Financial Statements contained in this Form 10-K., the acquisition was accounted for under the acquisition method of accounting which required the Company to perform an allocation of the purchase price to the assets acquired and liabilities assumed. Under the acquisition method of accounting, the total purchase price is allocated to net tangible and intangible assets and liabilities based on their estimated fair values as of the acquisition date.

Lease Accounting

In February 2016, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) No. 2016-02, “Leases” - Topic 842 (ASC Topic 842), which requires that lessees recognize assets and liabilities for leases with lease terms greater than twelve months in the statement of financial position. Leases will be classified as either finance or operating, with classification affecting the pattern of expense recognition in the income statement. This update also requires improved disclosures to help users of financial statements better understand the amount, timing and uncertainty of cash flows arising from leases. The update became effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2018, including interim reporting periods within that reporting period. The FASB subsequently issued the following amendments to ASC Topic 842, which have the same effective date and transition date of January 1, 2019:

We adopted Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) Topic ASC 842 effective January 1, 2019 and elected to apply the available practical expedients and implement internal controls to enable the preparation of financial information on adoption. We have identified all of our leases which consist of the New Jersey corporate office lease and the Alabama lab facility lease and we estimate the adoption of this standard will result in the recognition of right-of-use assets of approximately $1.4 million, related operating lease liabilities of $1.5 million and reduced other liabilities by approximately $0.1 million on the consolidated balance sheets as of January 1, 2019 of approximately $1.5 million related to our operating lease commitments, with no material impact to the opening balance of retained earnings. See Note 15 to our Consolidated Financial Statements contained in this Form 10-K for further discussions regarding the adoption of ASC Topic 842.

Statements of Stockholders’ Equity

In August 2018, the SECFASB issued a final ruleASU No. 2018-13, Fair Value Measurement: Disclosure Framework – Changes to simplifythe Disclosure Requirements for Fair Value Measurement, which adds and modifies certain disclosure requirements. In addition,requirements for fair value measurements. Under the amendments expandednew guidance, entities will no longer be required to disclose the disclosure requirements on the analysisamount of stockholders’ equityand reasons for interim financial statements. In Augusttransfers between Level 1 and September 2018, further amendments were issued to provide implementation guidance on adoptionLevel 2 of the SEC rulefair value hierarchy, or valuation processes for Level 3 fair value measurements. However, public companies will be required to disclose the range and transition guidanceweighted average of significant unobservable inputs used to develop Level 3 fair value measurements, and related changes in unrealized gains and losses included in other comprehensive income. This update is effective for the newannual periods beginning after December 15, 2019, and interim stockholders’ equity disclosure. We adopted this amended guidance in the first quarter of 2019.periods within those periods. The adoption of this amended guidance resultedstandard did not have an impact on the Company’s condensed consolidated financial statements.

In December 2019, the FASB issued ASU No. 2019-12, Income Taxes (Topic 740). The standard simplifies the accounting for incomes taxes by removing certain exceptions to the general principles in us disclosingTopic 740 related to the Condensed Consolidated Statementsapproach for intra-period tax allocation and the recognition of Changesdeferred tax liabilities for outside basis differences. The standard also clarifies the accounting for transactions that result in Stockholders’ Equitya step-up in eachthe tax basis of goodwill. The standard also improves consistent application of and simplifies GAAP for other areas of Topic 740 by clarifying and amending existing guidance. The amendment is effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those fiscal years, beginning after December 15, 2020. Early adoption is permitted. The Company does not believe the quarterly reporting period starting in 2019.adoption of this standard will have a material impact on its condensed consolidated financial statements.

We review our financial reporting and disclosure practices and accounting policies on an ongoing basis to ensure that our financial reporting and disclosure system provides accurate and transparent information relative to the current economic and business environment. As part of the process, the Company reviews the selection, application and communication of critical accounting policies and financial disclosures. The preparation of our financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the U.S. requires that our management make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. We review our estimates and the methods by which they are determined on an ongoing basis. However, actual results could differ from our estimates.

Results of Operations

Comparison of Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 20192020 and Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2018.2019.

For the year ended December 31, 2019,2020, our net loss was $16.9$21.5 million compared to a net loss of $11.9$16.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2018.2019. The Company recognized $1.8$1.85 million and $10.4$1.82 million in tax benefits from the sale of its New Jersey net operating losses under the Technology Business Tax Certificate Program in each of the fourth quarters of 20192020 and 2018,2019, respectively. With $16.7$17.2 million in cash investments, interest receivable and deferred income tax asset at December 31, 2019cash equivalents, coupled with the $6.4approximately $43 million of additional capital raised duringgross proceeds received from the sale of equity in the first quarter of 2021 and up to $1.85 million in expected proceeds from the sale of the State of New Jersey net operating losses it applied for in 2020, the Company believes it has sufficient capital resources to fund its operations through mid-2021.2023.

Technology Development and Licensing Revenue

In January 2013, we entered into a technology development contract with Hisun, pursuant to which Hisun paid us a non-refundable technology transfer fee of $5.0 million to support our development of ThermoDox®ThermoDox^® in the China territory. The $5.0 million received as a non-refundable payment from Hisun in the first quarter 2013 has been recorded to deferred revenue and will be amortized over the ten-year term of the agreement; therefore, we recognized revenue of $500,000 in each of the years 20192020 and 2018.

2019.

Research and Development Expenses

Research and development (“R&D”) expenses increased $1.2decreased $1.8 million or 10% from $11.9 million in 2018 to $13.1 million in 2019.2019 to $11.3 million in 2020. Costs associated with the Phase III OPTIMA Study were $2.2 million in 2020 compared to $4.1 million in 2019 compared to $4.7 million in 2018. The prior year period was favorably impacted by a $0.8 million credit resulting from cost concessions negotiated with2019. In July 2020, the Company’s lead contract research organization (CRO) forCompany unblinded the OPTIMA Study. Excluding this one-time credit, clinical development costs forStudy at the Phase III OPTIMA Study decreased $1.4 million in 2019,recommendation of the DMC to halt the study due to the completion of enrollment of the study in August 2018. The Company continues to follow patients on the study through the two preplanned efficacy analyses and the final efficacy analysis after 197 OS events.futility. Costs associated with the OVATION 2 Study were $1.3 million in 2020 compared to $0.6 million in 2019 compared to $0.4 millionas the Company initiated enrollment in 2018.the Phase 2 portion of the study during the third quarter of 2020. Regulatory costs were $0.6 million in 2020 compared to $1.1 million in 2019 compared to $0.3 million in 2018.2019. Other clinical costs were $2.0 million in 2020 compared to $2.5 million in each of 2019 and 2018.2019. Costs associated with the production of ThermoDox® were $2.1 million during 2020 compared to $1.5 million during 2019 compared to $1.1 million in 2018 as the Company is preparing registration batches at its three CMOs assuming a successful outcome of the OPTIMA Study.2019. R&D costs associated with the development of GEN-1 to support the OVATION program increaseddecreased by $0.5$0.2 million to $3.1 million in 2020 compared to $3.3 million in 2019 compared to $2.8 million in 2018.2019.