A.[Reserved] B.Capitalization and indebtedness. Not applicable. C.Reasons for the offer and use of proceeds. Not applicable. D. Risk factors. An investment in our securities carries a significant degree of risk. In addition to the other information contained in this Annual Report on Form 20-F, including the matters addressed under the heading “Forward-Looking Statements,” you should carefully consider the following risk factors in deciding whether to invest in our securities. The occurrence of one or more of the events or circumstances described in these risk factors, alone or in combination with other events or circumstances, may have a material adverse effect relating to our business, financial condition, and results of operations and future prospects, in which event the market price of our securities could decline, and you could lose part or all of your investment. Additional risks and uncertainties of which we are not presently aware or that we currently deem immaterial could also affect our business operations and financial condition. Summary Risk Factors Our business is subject to a number of risks and uncertainties. If any of the following risks are realized, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected. You should carefully review and consider the full discussion of our risk factors in this section titled “Risk Factors” in Part I, Item 3.D. of this Annual Report. Set forth below is a summary list of the principal risk factors as of the date of the filing of this Annual Report: •We have incurred significant losses since inception and anticipate that we may continue to incur losses over the next several years and may never maintain profitability. •We have substantial indebtedness and expect to continue to use leverage in executing our business strategy, which could have important consequences on our business and adversely affect the return on our assets. •We may need to raise additional funding. This additional funding may cause dilution to our existing shareholders, restrict our operations or cause us to relinquish valuable rights, or may not be available on acceptable terms or at all. Failure to obtain such necessary capital when needed may force us to delay, limit or terminate our product development efforts or other operations. •The regulatory review and approval processes of the FDA, the EMA, the MHRA, and European Commission and comparable national or regional authorities are lengthy, time consuming and have uncertain outcomes. If we and our collaboration partners are unable to obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates, our business will be substantially harmed. We cannot give any assurance that marketing authorization applications for any of our product candidates will receive regulatory approval, which is necessary before they can be commercialized. •We received Complete Response Letters from the FDA on our BLAs for AVT03, AVT05, and AVT06, and if our resubmission of our BLAs for AVT03, AVT05, and AVT06 is not approved in accordance with our expected timeframe, our business could be materially and adversely affected. 3 •Our product candidates may cause unexpected side effects or have other properties that could delay or prevent their regulatory approval, limit the commercial profile of an approved label or result in significant negative consequences following regulatory approval, if granted. •Our commercial products will remain subject to continuous subsequent regulatory obligations and scrutiny. •We rely on third parties to conduct part of our nonclinical and clinical studies and perform other tasks. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties, meet expected deadlines or comply with regulatory requirements, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for or commercialize our product candidates and our business could be substantially harmed. •We are subject to a multitude of risks related to manufacturing. Any adverse developments affecting the manufacturing operations of our biosimilar products could substantially increase costs and limit supply. •Our biosimilar product candidates, if approved, will face significant competition from the reference products, other biosimilars, and from other medicinal products approved for the same indication(s) as the reference products. Our failure to effectively compete may prevent us from achieving significant market penetration and expansion. •We are dependent on our partners for the commercialization of our biosimilars and biosimilar candidates in certain major markets, and their failure to commercialize in those markets could have a material adverse effect on our revenue, business, and operating results. •If we or one of our partners infringes or is alleged to infringe the intellectual property rights of third parties, our business could be harmed. Avoiding and defending against infringement claims could be expensive and time consuming, which may in turn prevent or delay our development and commercialization efforts. •We have identified material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting. If we are unable to remediate these material weaknesses, or if we experience additional material weaknesses in the future or otherwise are unable to develop and maintain an effective system of internal controls in the future, we may not be able to produce timely and accurate financial statements or comply with applicable laws and regulations, which may adversely affect investor confidence in us and, as a result, the value of ordinary shares. •Measures to contain healthcare costs, including the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act, may reduce the addressable market for our products, affect the prices that our commercial partners are able to obtain and have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations. Risks Related to Our Financial Position and Need for Capital We have incurred significant losses since inception and anticipate that we may continue to incur losses for the immediate future. While we are a commercial-stage biotechnology company, we have incurred net losses in each year since our inception until the year ended 31 December 2025. Prior to 2025, we incurred recurring losses since our inception, including net loss of $231.9 million, and $551.7 million for the years ended 31 December 2024, and 2023, respectively. For the year ended 31 December 2025, we reported a net profit of $27.9 million, and we had an accumulated deficit of $2,409.8 million as of 31 December 2025. We have devoted substantially all of our financial resources to identify and develop our product candidates, including conducting, among other things, analytical characterization, process development and manufacture, formulation and clinical studies and providing general and administrative support for these operations. To date, we have financed our operations primarily through the sale of equity securities, debt financing and the issuance of bond instruments (convertible and non-convertible), as well as through revenue from product sales and milestone payments received under certain license and development agreements. The amount of our future net losses will depend, in part, on the rate of our future expenditures, the amount of our product revenue, terms of current and potential debt financings or received milestone payments and strategic collaborations. Biopharmaceutical product development is a highly speculative undertaking and involves a substantial degree of risk. We expect to continue to incur significant expenses, which could lead to increasing operating losses for the immediate future. We anticipate that our expenses will increase substantially if and as we: •prepare for and support commercial launch of our products which have received approval; •continue our analytical, nonclinical and clinical development of our product candidates; 4 •expand the scope of our current clinical studies for our product candidates; •advance our programs into more expensive clinical studies; •initiate additional analytical, nonclinical, clinical or other studies for our product candidates; •change or add contract manufacturers, clinical research service providers, testing laboratories, device suppliers, legal service providers or other vendors or suppliers; •establish a sales and marketing infrastructure; •seek to identify, assess, acquire and/or develop other biosimilar product candidates or products that may be complementary to our products; •make upfront, milestone, royalty or other payments under any license agreements; •seek to create, maintain, protect, expand and enforce our intellectual property portfolio; •engage legal counsel and technical experts to help evaluate and avoid infringing any valid and enforceable intellectual property rights of third parties; •engage in litigation, including patent litigation with reference product companies or others that may hold patents allegedly infringed by us; •seek to attract and retain skilled personnel; •create additional infrastructure to support our operations; and •experience any delays or encounters issues with any of the above, including but not limited to failed studies, conflicting results, safety issues, supply chain issues, and other delays, whether or not due to public health emergencies, litigation or regulatory challenges that may require longer follow-up of existing studies, additional major studies or additional supportive studies in order to obtain regulatory approval. Further, our financial results may fluctuate significantly from quarter-to-quarter and year-to-year such that a period-to-period comparison of our results of operations may not be a good indication of our future performance quarter-to-quarter and year-to-year due to factors including the timing of clinical studies, any litigation that we may file or that may be filed against us, the execution of collaboration, licensing or other agreements, and the timing of any payments we make or receive thereunder. We may never sustain profitability due to the significant risks and uncertainties inherent in developing, obtaining approval for, and commercializing our products and product candidates. Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with drug development, we are unable to accurately predict the timing or amount of revenue and expenses or when, or if, we will be able to achieve sustainable profitability. There can be no guarantee that we will receive regulatory approval for our product candidates in any country. Our ability to continue to generate revenue and achieve sustainable profitability will continue to depend on our ability and that of our strategic collaboration partners, to successfully commercialize our first approved biosimilars, AVT02 and AVT04 in the United States, European Economic Area ("EEA"), Canada, UK and Japan (AVT04 only), and our newly approved biosimilars AVT03, AVT05, and AVT06 in the EEA, UK and Japan, to complete the research and development of our other product candidates, and obtain the regulatory approvals necessary to commercialize such biosimilar candidates. We cannot predict if and when we will begin generating substantial product revenue from jurisdictions where our biosimilar is approved or from one or more additional biosimilar candidates, as this depends heavily on our success in many areas, including but not limited to: •launching and commercializing product candidates for which we obtain regulatory approval, either directly or with collaboration partners or distributors; •obtaining adequate third-party payor coverage and reimbursements for our approved products; •obtaining market acceptance of biosimilar pharmaceuticals as viable treatment options; •addressing any competing technological and market developments, including the development of new formulations of the originator biologic or new biologics which can be used to treat the indications for approved biosimilars or biosimilar candidates; •completing analytical, nonclinical and clinical development of our product candidates; 5 •developing and testing of our product formulations; •successfully executing our strategy regarding intellectual property claims made by reference product companies, or reaching adequate settlements with the reference product companies related for market entry; •obtaining and retaining regulatory approvals for product candidates for which we complete clinical studies; •developing a sustainable and scalable manufacturing process for any approved product candidates that is compliant with regulatory manufacturing requirements; •maintain approvals from regulators to manufacture and produce our existing products or product candidates; •establishing and maintaining supply and manufacturing relationships with third parties that can conduct the process and provide adequate (in amount and quality) products to support clinical development and the market demand for our product candidates, if approved; •identifying, assessing and developing (or acquiring/in-licensing) new product candidates; •negotiating favorable or commercially reasonable terms in any collaboration, licensing or other arrangements into which we may enter; •maintaining, protecting and expanding our portfolio of intellectual property rights, including patents, trade secrets and know-how; •attracting, hiring and retaining qualified personnel; and •the result of potential litigation including patent litigation with reference product companies or others that may allege infringement by us. We have received marketing authorization for AVT02 and AVT04 in over 30 countries. As of 31 December 2025, we have also received marketing authorization for AVT03, AVT05, and AVT06 in Japan, the UK and EEA. Our annual operating expenses may increase over the next several years as we incur additional commercialization expenses and continue our research and development expenses. Although we receive revenue from commercial product sales, we may incur substantial operating losses for the foreseeable future as we execute our operating plan. In addition, our revenue includes provision for a variety of sales deductions such as prompt pay discounts, shelf stock adjustments and applicable sales deductions attributable to various commercial arrangements, managed healthcare organizations, government programs, and co-pay arrangement. Provisions for sales deductions attributed to commercial arrangements are recognized when the related sales take place and measured using the expected value method. Provisions for unsettled sales deductions and product returns are estimated on the basis of a percentage of sales as defined by individual agreements and contracts, and for government rebates by individual state- and plan agreements. Further inputs to the calculations are based on payer channel mix, current contract prices under eligible programs and current inventory levels in the distribution channels. Inputs to the calculations are subject to estimation and assumptions and are based on historical experience and other factors that are relevant, and which are available at the reporting date. These estimates and assumptions are subject to material uncertainties and could result in outcomes that require a material adjustment in future periods. Even if product candidates that we develop are approved for commercial sale, we may incur significant costs in order to manufacture and commercialize any such product. Our expenses could increase beyond our expectations if we are required by the FDA, the MHRA, the European Commission, the European Medicines Agency (the "EMA"), other comparable foreign regulatory authorities, or by any unfavorable outcomes in intellectual property litigation filed against us, to change our manufacturing processes or assays or to perform clinical, nonclinical, analytical or other types of studies in addition to those that we currently anticipate. In cases where we are successful in obtaining regulatory approvals to market one or more of our product candidates (such as the approvals we have obtained for AVT02 and AVT04), our revenue will be dependent, in part, upon the size of the markets in the territories for which regulatory approval is granted, the accepted price for the product, the availability of competing products, the ability to get reimbursement for our products at any price and the extent of our royalty rights for that territory. If the number of patients suitable for our products or product candidates is not as significant as we estimate, the indication approved by regulatory authorities is narrower than we expect or the reasonably accepted population for treatment is narrowed by competition, physician choice, treatment guidelines or third-party payor restrictions, we may not generate significant revenue from the sale of such products or product candidates, even if approved. Limitations on our ability to generate revenue from commercial product sales or pursuant to up-front or milestone payments and royalties from collaboration partners would likely depress our market value and could impair our ability to raise capital, expand our business, discover or develop other products and product candidates or continue our operations. 6 If the market for our product candidates (or its share of that market) is not as significant as we expect, the regulatory approval is narrower in scope than we expect (e.g., for a narrow indication or set of indications) or the reasonably accepted population for treatment is narrowed by competition, physician´s choice or treatment guidelines, we may not generate significant revenue from sales of such products, even if approved. If we are unable to successfully complete development and obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates in significant markets, or if our market entry is delayed, for example because of issues related to facility inspections of our own facilities or those of our subcontractors, our business may suffer. Additionally, if we are not able to generate substantial revenue from the sale of any approved products or the costs necessary to generate revenues increase significantly, we may never become profitable. Possible future losses would have an adverse effect on our shareholders’ equity. Further, the net losses or net income we incur may fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter and year to year, such that a period-to-period comparison of our results of operations may not be a reliable indication of our future performance. We may need to raise additional funding. This additional funding may cause dilution to our existing shareholders, restrict our operations or cause us to relinquish valuable rights, or may not be available on acceptable terms or at all. Failure to obtain such necessary capital when needed may force us to delay, limit or terminate our product development efforts or other operations. Since our inception, most of our resources have been dedicated to our research and development and commercialization activities. Developing our product candidates is expensive, and we expect our research and development expenses to increase substantially in connection with our ongoing activities, particularly as we advance our product candidates through clinical studies. With cash and cash equivalents of $172.4 million as of 31 December 2025 and based on our current operating plan, management has determined that although there is an uncertainty, this uncertainty does not represent a material uncertainty and does not give rise to significant doubt over our ability to continue as a going concern. The audited consolidated financial statements appearing elsewhere in this Annual Report have been prepared on a going concern basis without adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty and the report of our independent registered public accounting firm thereon includes an explanatory paragraph to that effect. We may require additional funding to obtain regulatory approval for, and to successfully commercialize, our product candidates. In addition, our operating plans may change as a result of many factors that are currently unknown to us, and we may need to seek additional funding sooner than planned. Our future funding requirements will depend on many factors, including but not limited to: •the scope, rate of progress, results and cost of our analytical studies, clinical studies, nonclinical testing and other related activities; •the cost of manufacturing clinical supplies and establishing commercial supplies, of our product candidates and any products that we may develop; •the number and characteristics of product candidates that we pursue; •the cost, timing and outcomes of regulatory approvals; •the cost and timing of establishing sales, marketing and distribution capabilities and launching our products that have received regulatory approval; •the terms and timing of any collaborative, licensing and other arrangements that we may establish, including any milestone and royalty payments thereunder; •the cost, timing and outcomes of any litigation that we may file or that may be filed against us by third parties; and •the product revenue, if any, derived from our sales of approved products. Any additional fundraising efforts may divert our management from their day-to-day activities, which may adversely affect our ability to develop and commercialize our product candidates. In addition, we cannot guarantee that future financing will be available in sufficient amounts or on terms acceptable to us, if at all. Moreover, the terms of any financing may adversely affect the holdings or the rights of our shareholders, and the issuance of additional securities, whether equity or debt, by us or the possibility of such issuance may cause the market price of our shares to decline. The sale of additional equity or convertible securities would dilute the share ownership of our existing shareholders. The incurrence of indebtedness could result in increased fixed payment obligations, and we may be required to agree to certain restrictive covenants, such as limitations on our ability to incur additional debt, limitations on our ability to acquire, sell or 7 license intellectual property rights and other operating restrictions that could adversely impact our ability to conduct our business. We could also be required to seek funds through arrangements with collaborative partners or otherwise at an earlier stage than otherwise would be desirable and to relinquish rights to some of our technologies or product candidates or otherwise agree to terms unfavorable to us, any of which may have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results and prospects. Even if we believe we have sufficient funds for our current or future operating plans, we may seek additional capital if market conditions are favorable or for specific strategic considerations. If we seek additional financing to fund our business activities in the future and there remains doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern, investors or other financing sources may be unwilling to provide additional funding to us on commercially reasonable terms or at all. In addition, the perception that we may not be able to continue as a going concern may cause others to choose not to deal with us due to concerns about our ability to meet our contractual obligations. If we are unable to obtain sufficient funding on a timely basis and on acceptable terms and continue as a going concern, we may be required to significantly curtail, delay or discontinue one or more of our research or development programs or the commercialization of any product candidates or to otherwise reduce or discontinue our operations. In general, we may be unable to expand our operations or otherwise capitalize on business opportunities, and defend against and prosecute litigation necessary to commercialize our product candidates as desired, which could materially affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. If we are ultimately unable to continue as a going concern, we may have to seek the protection of bankruptcy laws or liquidate our assets and may receive less than the value at which those assets are carried on our audited financial statements, and it is likely that our security holders will lose all or a part of their investment. We may be unable to generate sufficient cash flow to satisfy our significant debt service obligations, which would adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations. Our ability to make principal and interest payments on and to refinance our indebtedness will depend on our ability to generate cash in the future. This, to a certain extent, is subject to general economic, financial, competitive, legislative, regulatory and other factors that may be beyond our control. If our business does not generate sufficient cash flow, if currently anticipated costs and revenues are not realized on schedule, in the amounts projected or at all, or if future borrowings are not available to us in amounts sufficient to enable us to pay our indebtedness or to fund our other liquidity needs, our financial condition and results of operations may be adversely affected. Furthermore, our debt obligations are secured by substantially all of our intellectual property. For example, in June 2024, we entered into a secured term loan credit agreement (the “Secured Loan Facility”), as amended, for term loan commitments in an aggregate principal amount of $965.0 million, bearing an interest rate of Secured Overnight Financing Rate ("SOFR") plus 6.0% per annum. In December 2025, we amended the Secured Loan Facility and entered into an additional $100 million senior secured term loan facility (the "Senior Term Loan Facility") bearing a fixed cash interest rate of 12.50% per annum and requiring a full bullet repayment at maturity on 31 December 2027. Such borrowing accelerates our near‑term refinancing needs. Because the facility is interest‑only and must be repaid in a single lump sum, our ability to satisfy these obligations will depend on our liquidity and capital markets access within a compressed timeframe. Also in December 2025, we issued $108 million of senior unsecured convertible bonds (the "2025 Convertible Bonds") due 2030 at a 6.875% fixed coupon. These bonds contain an embedded conversion derivative that is remeasured at fair value through profit or loss, which may create earnings volatility, and include bondholder puts upon certain “Relevant Events” (e.g., change of control, specified free‑float or listing triggers) that could require cash redemption at par plus accrued interest. If our operating cash flows, proceeds from collaborations, or financing activities are insufficient, we may be forced to refinance our indebtedness in adverse market conditions, seek additional capital on unfavorable terms, or pursue asset sale. If we cannot service our debt payments, the lenders may take possession, sell, exchange, license or otherwise dispose of our intellectual property, which we have pledged as collateral for the loan. If we cannot generate sufficient cash flow to make scheduled principal and interest payments on our debt obligations in the future, we may need to refinance all or a portion of our indebtedness on or before maturity, sell assets, delay capital expenditures or seek additional equity. If we are unable to refinance any of our indebtedness on commercially reasonable terms or at all or to effect any other action relating to our indebtedness on satisfactory terms or at all, we may be forced to reduce or discontinue operations or seek protection of the bankruptcy laws, our business may be harmed and our security holders may lose some or all of their investment. We have substantial indebtedness and expect to continue to use leverage in executing our business strategy, which could have important consequences on our business and adversely affect the return on our assets. As of 31 December 2025, we had $1,299.1 million in outstanding indebtedness, consisting of $1,031.6 million under the Secured Loan Facility, $96.7 million under the Senior Term Loan Facility, $68.4 million under the 2025 Convertible Bonds, and $102.4 million in bank loans, including the mortgage on our Reykjavik facility and loans to help finance equipment purchases. 8 In addition, we may incur additional indebtedness in order to finance our operations, make acquisitions or to repay existing indebtedness. Our board of directors will consider a number of factors when evaluating our level of indebtedness and when making decisions regarding the incurrence of new indebtedness, including the purchase price of assets to be acquired with debt financing, the estimated market value of our assets and the ability of particular assets, and our ability as a whole, to generate cash flow to cover the expected debt service. Our articles of incorporation do not contain a limitation on the amount of debt we may incur, and the board of directors may change our target debt levels at any time without the approval of shareholders. This substantial indebtedness, as well as any future indebtedness we may incur, could have important consequences for our business and holders of our securities, including: •making it more difficult for us to satisfy our obligations with respect to our debt or to our trade or other creditors; •causing us to pay higher interest rates upon refinancing indebtedness if interest rates rise; •increasing our vulnerability to adverse economic or industry conditions; •limiting our ability to obtain additional financing to fund capital expenditures and acquisitions, particularly when the availability of financing in the capital markets is limited; •requiring a substantial portion of our cash flows from operations for the payment of interest on our debt and reducing our ability to use our cash flows to fund working capital, capital expenditures, acquisitions, stock repurchases, and general corporate requirements; •limiting our flexibility in planning for, or reacting to, changes in our business and the pharmaceutical industry; and •placing us at a competitive disadvantage to less leveraged competitors. We cannot be certain that our business will generate sufficient cash flow from operations or that future borrowings will be available to us through capital markets financings or under our debt or credit facilities or otherwise in an amount sufficient to enable us to pay our indebtedness, or to fund our other liquidity needs. If we cannot service our debt, we may have to take actions such as selling assets, seeking additional debt or equity or reducing or delaying capital expenditures, strategic acquisitions, investments and alliances. We cannot assure you that any such actions, if necessary, could be effected on commercially reasonable terms, or at all, or on terms that would be advantageous to our security holders or on terms that would not require us to breach the terms and conditions of our existing or future debt agreements. Covenants under our existing debt instruments, and any future debt arrangements may result in the acceleration of outstanding indebtedness and limit the manner in which we operate. Our Secured Loan Facility contains customary terms and covenants, as well as customary events of default, including but not limited to defaults related to payment compliance, undertaking and covenant compliance, bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings, judgments against the Company, and delisting events. In addition, the Secured Loan Facility contains, and any future indebtedness we incur may contain, various negative covenants that restrict or may restrict, among other things, our ability to: •incur additional indebtedness, guarantee indebtedness or issue disqualified shares or preferred shares; •declare or pay dividends on, repurchase or make distributions in respect of, capital stock or make other restricted payments; •make certain investments or acquisitions; •create certain liens; •enter into agreements restricting certain subsidiaries’ ability to pay dividends or make other intercompany transfers; •consolidate, merge, sell or otherwise dispose of all or substantially all of our assets and the assets of our restricted subsidiaries; •enter into certain transactions with affiliates; •sell, transfer or otherwise convey certain assets; and 9 •conduct our business and may be unable to engage in favorable business activities, repurchase our ordinary shares or finance future operations or capital needs. The Secured Loan Facility also includes mandatory repayment provisions, requiring us to use certain excess cash flows and specified transaction proceeds to prepay outstanding amounts, and it imposes ongoing performance‑based requirements delivered with our compliance certificates. Failure to meet these obligations or financial thresholds could result in mandatory prepayments, restrictions on our operations, or acceleration of the facility. The Secured Loan Facility is secured by first‑priority liens and failure to comply with ongoing requirements could trigger defaults. Our 2025 Convertible Bonds include bondholder puts upon certain Relevant Events (e.g., change of control, free float and listing triggers as defined in the agreement) and issuer call and cleanup rights, which could lead to early redemption at par plus accrued interest if exercised or triggered. Our ability to make scheduled payments of the principal of, to pay interest on or to refinance our indebtedness depends on our future performance, which is subject to economic, financial, competitive and other factors beyond our control. Our business may not generate cash flow from operations in the future sufficient to service our debt and make necessary capital expenditures. If we are unable to generate such cash flow, we may be required to adopt one or more alternatives, such as selling assets, restructuring debt or obtaining additional equity capital on terms that may be onerous or highly dilutive. If we are unable to make our installment payments in cash, we may be forced to issue a significant number of ordinary shares which could dilute existing shareholders. Our ability to refinance our indebtedness will depend on the capital markets and our financial condition at such time. We may not be able to engage in any of these activities or engage in these activities on desirable terms, which could result in a default on our debt obligations. Our operating and financial results are subject to concentration risk. Our operational and financial results are subject to concentration risk. Our success will depend significantly on the development of a limited number of product candidates, their regulatory approval in a limited number of jurisdictions and their commercialization by a limited number of commercial partners. Even if we are successful in developing and commercializing all of these products, our revenue will be dependent on a limited number of products that would account for a significant majority of our revenues. Unfavorable changes or the non-occurrence of certain anticipated events with respect to any of these limited number of products, jurisdictions or commercial partners may disproportionally affect our global results. As of 31 December 2025, we have only generated product revenue through sales of AVT02 in the United States, Canada, Australia and select European markets through certain commercialization partners, and through sales of AVT04 in the United States, Canada, Japan and select European markets. In the last quarter of 2025 we also generated revenues from shipments of our newly approved biosimilars, AVT03, AVT05, and AVT06 in anticipation of launches in select markets where these products have been approved. See also “—We are dependent on our partners for the commercialization of our biosimilars and biosimilar candidates in certain major markets. Disagreements with our partners, for example about pricing, or failure of our partners to commercialize our approved products could have a material adverse effect on our revenue, business and operating results.” Risks Related to the Advancement and Approval of Our Product Candidates We received Complete Response Letters from the FDA on our Biologics License Applications for AVT03, AVT05, and AVT06, and if our resubmission of our BLAs for AVT03, AVT05, and AVT06 is not approved in accordance with our expected timeframe, our business could be materially and adversely affected. In January 2025, the FDA accepted our BLA for AVT05 as a proposed biosimilar to Simponi / Simponi Aria (golimumab) for the treatment of patients with inflammatory conditions, including rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, and ulcerative colitis. In February 2025, the FDA accepted our BLA for AVT06 as a proposed biosimilar to Eylea (aflibercept) for the treatment of patients with neovascular (wet) age‑related macular degeneration (AMD), macular edema, and diabetic retinopathy. In March 2025, the FDA accepted our BLA for AVT03 as a proposed biosimilar to Prolia (denosumab) for the treatment of osteoporosis in women after menopause who are at high risk for bone fracture and Xgeva (denosumab) a prescription biologic medicine used to prevent fracture, spinal cord compression, or the need for radiation or surgery to bone in patients with multiple myeloma and in patients with bone metastases from solid tumors. 10 In October 2025, November 2025 and December 2025, we received CRLs from the FDA regarding, respectively, the BLAs for AVT05, AVT06, and AVT03. The CRLs all stated that the FDA had identified deficiencies related to our Reykjavik manufacturing facility following the FDA’s pre‑license inspection in July 2025, which must be satisfactorily resolved before these BLAs may be approved. The FDA did not identify any other deficiencies with the applications. We plan to resolve the outstanding issues and continue to work with the FDA to bring AVT03, AVT05, and AVT06 to market in the United States. If we are unable to complete resubmissions to the FDA of the BLAs, or are unable to address the deficiencies to the FDA’s satisfaction, our ability to commercialize any of the new biosimilars AVT03, AVT05, or AVT06 in the United Sates will be further delayed, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations and may cause the market price of our securities to decline. The regulatory review and approval processes of the FDA, the EMA and European Commission and comparable national or regional authorities are lengthy, time consuming and have uncertain outcomes. If we and our collaboration partners are unable to obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates, our business can be substantially harmed. We cannot give any assurance that any of our product candidates will receive regulatory approval, which is necessary before the biosimilars can be commercialized. The regulatory review and approval processes of the FDA, the European Commission, the EMA, the MHRA and comparable regulatory authorities remain lengthy, resource‑intensive and subject to significant scientific and policy discretion. Although the regulatory environment continues to evolve—including major EU and UK reforms implemented or announced in 2025—these changes introduce additional uncertainty regarding the scope, timing and evidentiary requirements for marketing authorization applications. If we or our collaboration partners are unable to obtain or maintain approvals for our product candidates, our business, financial condition and prospects would be materially harmed. While AVT02 and AVT04 have already received marketing authorizations in several major markets, including the United States, the EEA, UK, and Canada and AVT04 was approved in Canada, by the end of 2025 we also received marketing approvals for three additional biosimilars in 2025. In Japan, our commercialization partner Fuji Pharma obtained marketing approval for AVT03 (denosumab), AVT05 (golimumab), and AVT06 (aflibercept) from the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. The European Commission and MHRA granted marketing authorizations for AVT06, respectively on 21 August 2025 and 28 August 2025, for all major Eylea (aflibercept) indications, paving the way for commercialization in the EEA and the UK. In addition, for AVT03 on 24 November 2025, as a biosimilar to Prolia and Xgeva across the EEA. Despite these approvals and positive opinions, significant regulatory risks remain for our programs. Additionally, several of our pipeline candidates—including those for which filings are planned or underway—remain subject to evolving regulatory expectations. The EMA’s April 2025 draft Reflection Paper proposed a tailored clinical approach in biosimilar development allowing greater reliance on analytical and pharmacokinetic data in certain biosimilar programs, potentially reducing or eliminating the need for comparative efficacy trials. This draft guidance, along with new EMA procedural requirements introduced in 2025, may materially alter the design, execution and data expectations for our ongoing and future submissions. Until finalized, these evolving frameworks introduce uncertainty around required evidence packages and may necessitate modifications to our clinical plans. Our product candidates also depend on reliable access to reference biologics for analytical testing and clinical studies; shortages or supply disruptions could cause delays, increase costs or require modifications to study designs. Marketing applications for our product candidates may be delayed or rejected for numerous reasons, including: •insufficient analytical, nonclinical or clinical evidence to demonstrate biosimilarity; •disagreements by regulators regarding study design, implementation or interpretation; •inability to justify indication extrapolation; •manufacturing or facility deficiencies identified by regulators; •competing exclusivity protections; and •changes in regulatory expectations, guidelines or data requirements. For example, in the last quarter of 2025, the FDA issued CRLs for our BLAs for AVT03, AVT05, and AVT06. In these letters, the agency identified deficiencies associated with the manufacturing facilities that must be resolved before the 11 applications may be approved. Even when approvals are granted, regulatory authorities may restrict indications, impose post‑approval study obligations, or limit labeling in ways that meaningfully reduce commercial potential. Regulatory developments in the UK following Brexit also continue to impact our operations. Under the Windsor Framework effective 1 January 2025, Northern Ireland transitioned fully to MHRA oversight, and the UK now operates a unified UK‑wide authorization pathway. The MHRA’s International Recognition Procedure, effective January 2024, enables reliance on approvals from trusted regulators including the European Commission, FDA and EEA authorities as well as opinions from the EMA. Updated MHRA biosimilar guidance issued in February 2025 and ongoing UK clinical‑trial regulatory reforms expected by 2026 may alter timing and evidentiary expectations for UK approval. However, medicinal products tested or released in the UK must still comply with EEA batch‑release requirements before they may be marketed in the EEA. Any delay or failure to obtain regulatory approvals in the U.S., EU, UK, Japan or other jurisdictions—or any loss or restriction of such approvals—would prevent or delay commercialization of our product candidates and adversely affect our ability to generate revenue. Additional duties, regulatory divergence or inconsistent standards among jurisdictions could increase operational complexity and costs. As a result, we may be forced to modify, scale back or delay commercialization plans, any of which could materially harm our business and prospects. If we are not able to demonstrate biosimilarity of our biosimilar product candidates to the satisfaction of regulatory authorities, we will not obtain regulatory approval for commercialization of our biosimilar product candidates and our future results of operations and ability to generate revenue would be adversely affected. Our future results of operations depend, to a significant degree, on our ability to obtain regulatory approval for and to commercialize our biosimilar product candidates. Any inability to obtain regulatory approval could impact and delay the development timeline of our product candidates. To obtain regulatory approval for the commercialization of these product candidates, we will be required to demonstrate to regulatory authorities, among other things, that our proposed products are highly similar to biological reference products already approved by the applicable regulatory authority pursuant to approved marketing applications/authorizations, notwithstanding minor differences in clinically inactive components, and that they have no clinically meaningful differences as compared to the marketed biological products in terms of the safety, purity and potency of the products. Each individual jurisdiction may apply different criteria to assess biosimilarity, based on the data that can be interpreted subjectively in some cases. It is uncertain whether regulatory authorities will grant the reference biosimilar product candidates the same labeling as the labeling approved for the reference product if the reference biosimilar product candidates are approved. For example, an infliximab (Remicade) biosimilar molecule was approved in the EEA with the same label as the reference product, but it did not receive approval initially for the same labeling reference in Canada. A similar outcome could occur with respect to one or more of our product candidates. In the event that the regulatory authorities require us to generate additional data, including by conducting additional clinical studies or other lengthy processes or otherwise change their criteria and requirements for the approval of biosimilar products, the approval and commercialization of our proposed biosimilar products could be delayed or prevented. Delays in the commercialization of or the inability to obtain regulatory approval for these products could adversely affect our operating results by restricting or significantly delaying the introduction of new biosimilars. Evolving FDA policies on interchangeability may affect market adoption of our biosimilars. Evolving U.S. regulatory policies regarding biosimilarity and interchangeability may create uncertainty in commercial uptake of our biosimilar products. In June 2024, the FDA issued updated draft guidance indicating that switching studies may generally no longer be needed to support a demonstration of interchangeability for biosimilar products, reflecting accumulated scientific evidence and experience with biosimilar switching outcomes. This shift may reduce development uncertainty for biosimilar products. It could also affect the competitive landscape if the distinction between “biosimilar” and an “interchangeable biosimilar” become less meaningful, potentially reducing or eliminating certain competitive or regulatory advantages currently afforded to interchangeable products, including those we market or are developing. Despite these policy changes, market adoption in the United States continues to depend heavily on payer, pharmacy benefit manager, and pharmacy substitution policies, and on state‑level substitution laws, which vary significantly. As these frameworks continue to evolve, we may face unpredictable adoption patterns, require increased investment in stakeholder education, or experience delays in achieving anticipated market penetration for our biosimilars. 12 The structure of complex proteins used in protein-based therapeutics is inherently variable and highly dependent on the processes and conditions used to manufacture them. If we are unable to develop manufacturing processes that demonstrate that our product candidates are highly similar to their reference products, and within a range of variability considered acceptable by regulatory authorities, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for our products. Protein-based therapeutics are inherently heterogeneous and their structures are highly dependent on the manufacturing process and other conditions. Products from one manufacturing facility can differ from those produced in another facility. Similarly, physicochemical differences can also exist among different lots produced within a single facility. The physicochemical complexity and size of biologic therapeutics can create significant technical and scientific challenges in the context of their replication as biosimilar products. There are extraordinary technical challenges in developing complex protein-based therapeutics that not only must achieve an acceptable degree of similarity to the reference product in terms of relevant quality attributes, but also the ability to develop manufacturing processes that can replicate the necessary structural characteristics within an acceptable range of variability sufficient to satisfy regulatory authorities. For example, the manufacturing process of our products may be susceptible to non-ideal product variability without well-characterized and well-controlled master and working cell banks. The quality of the manufactured biologic product is dependent on the quality of the cells used for its manufacturing, and having a sufficient supply of master and working cell banks is important for a consistent manufacturing process. Should our cell banks be compromised, we would be unable to produce usable products for patients in any market. Given the challenges caused by the inherent variability in protein production, we may not be successful in our application for approval of our products if regulators conclude that we have not demonstrated that our product candidates are highly similar to their reference products, or that the processes we use to manufacture our products are unable to produce the products within an acceptable range of variability (including situations where the reference product sponsor changes its manufacturing process and such changes impact the characteristics of the product). Additionally, the foregoing factors complicate scaling of our manufacturing capabilities. To the extent that we are unable to scale our manufacturing capabilities to produce sufficient quantities of our products at the required specifications and at an acceptable cost, we may be unable to meet demand for our approved product candidates and our business, financial condition, reputation and results of operations may suffer. Clinical drug development involves a lengthy and expensive process, and we may encounter substantial delays in our clinical studies or may fail to demonstrate safety, purity and efficacy/potency to the satisfaction of applicable regulatory authorities. Before obtaining regulatory approval from regulatory authorities for the sale of our product candidates, we (and/or our collaboration partners) must conduct clinical studies to demonstrate the safety, purity, and potency of our biologic product candidates in humans. Clinical studies are expensive and can take many years to complete, and their outcome is inherently uncertain. Failure can occur at any time during the clinical study process. The results of preclinical studies, including comparative analytical assessments of our product candidates, may not be predictive of the results of clinical studies. The success of clinical studies cannot be predicted. We cannot guarantee that any clinical studies will be conducted as planned or completed on schedule, if at all. As a result of public health emergencies, and/or the occurrence of unforeseen geopolitical events, and the resulting instability, timelines could be extended. A failure of one or more clinical studies can occur at any stage of testing. Events that may prevent successful or timely completion of clinical development include but are not limited to: •inability to generate sufficient preclinical, toxicology or other in vivo or in vitro data to support the initiation of human clinical studies; •delays in reaching a consensus with regulatory authorities on study design; •delays in reaching agreement on acceptable terms with prospective contract research organizations ("CROs"), and clinical study sites, the terms of which can be subject to extensive negotiation and may vary significantly among different CROs and clinical study sites; •delays in obtaining required Institutional Review Board ("IRB"), approval or Ethics Committee positive opinion as part of the single decision on the authorization of the clinical trial issued by EU Member States 13 including input from the national competent authorities and Ethics Committee in relation each clinical study site; •imposition of a clinical hold by regulatory authorities, after review of an investigational new drug ("IND"), application or amendment or equivalent application or amendment, or an inspection of its clinical study operations or study sites or as a result of adverse events reported during a clinical trial; •delays in administering studies as a result of adverse events or complaints; •delays in recruiting suitable or sufficient numbers of patients to participate in its clinical studies sponsored by us or our partners; •difficulty collaborating with patient groups and investigators; •failure by CROs, clinical study sites, other third parties or us to adhere to clinical study requirements; •failure to perform in accordance with the FDA’s good clinical practices requirements or applicable regulatory guidelines and good clinical practice requirements in other countries; •delays in having patients complete participation in a study or return for post-treatment follow-up, or patients dropping out of a study; •occurrence of adverse events associated with the product candidate that are viewed to outweigh its potential benefits; •difficulties justifying the scientific relevance of non-U.S. comparators for use in studies intended to support regulatory approval by FDA; •questions with regard to the scientific justification for extrapolation of findings across indications; •changes in regulatory requirements or policies that require amending or submitting new clinical protocols; •the cost of clinical studies of its product candidates being greater than what we anticipate; •clinical studies of our product candidates producing negative or inconclusive results, which may result in us deciding or regulators requiring us to conduct additional clinical studies or to abandon product development programs; •delays in manufacturing, testing, releasing, validating or importing/exporting and/or distributing sufficient stable quantities of our product candidates and reference products for use in clinical studies or the inability to do any of the foregoing; •staffing shortages and limitation on the movement of people as a result of public health emergencies, the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the conflicts in the Middle East, and the resulting instability in the regions, and local, national or international governmental restrictions imposed or enforced as a result of these or other health-related or geopolitical events; and •delays or interruptions to preclinical studies, clinical studies, our receipt of services from third-party service providers or our supply chain due to public health emergencies or the occurrence of unforeseen geopolitical events such as the Russia-Ukraine conflict and the conflicts in the Middle East, and the resulting instability in these regions, or otherwise. Any inability to successfully complete analytical, nonclinical, or clinical development could result in additional costs to us or impair our ability to achieve regulatory approval and generate revenue. Even if we are successful, the regulatory approval processes and action dates of the FDA, EMA and the European Commission and comparable foreign regulatory authorities may be delayed or continue to be delayed due to impact of public health emergencies or other emergencies in the world. As a result, we may be delayed in obtaining regulatory approvals for our products. In addition, if we make manufacturing or formulation changes to our product candidates, we may need to conduct additional studies to bridge our modified product candidates to earlier versions. If we intend to alter the manufacturing process for a particular product candidate, we will need to provide data to the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities demonstrating the comparability of the pre- and post-change product candidate. If we are unable to make that demonstration to the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, we could face significant delays or fail to obtain regulatory approval to market the product, which could significantly harm our business, prospects and financial condition. 14 Our product candidates may cause unexpected side effects or have other properties that could delay or prevent their regulatory approval, limit the commercial profile of an approved label or result in significant negative consequences following regulatory approval, if granted. As with most pharmaceutical products, use of our product candidates could be associated with side effects or adverse events which can vary in severity (from minor reactions to death) and frequency (infrequent or prevalent). Side effects or adverse events associated with the use of our product candidates may be observed at any time, including in clinical studies or when a product is commercialized. Undesirable or unexpected side effects caused by our product candidates that must be reported to the FDA or other regulators could cause us or regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay or halt clinical studies and could result in a more restrictive label or the delay or denial of regulatory approval by the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities. Results of our studies could reveal a high and unacceptable severity and prevalence of side effects or other safety issues and, if different from the severity and prevalence of side effects for the reference products, could preclude the demonstration of biosimilarity. Such adverse event findings also could require us or our collaboration partners to perform additional studies or halt development or sale of these product candidates or expose us to product liability lawsuits which will harm our business, prospects and financial condition. In such an event, we may be precluded from seeking licensure through the regulatory pathway for biosimilars, or could be required by the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities to conduct additional animal or human studies regarding the safety and efficacy of our product candidates which we have not planned or anticipated or our studies could be suspended, varied or terminated, and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities could order us to cease further development of or deny, vary, or withdraw approval of our product candidates for any or all intended indications. There can be no assurance that we will resolve any issues related to any product-related adverse events to the satisfaction of the FDA or any comparable foreign regulatory authority in a timely manner, if ever, which could harm our business, prospects and financial condition. Drug-related side effects could affect patient recruitment for clinical studies, the ability of enrolled patients to complete our studies or result in potential product liability claims against which we would need to mount a defense. We currently carry product liability insurance, and we are required to maintain clinical trial insurance pursuant to certain of our license agreements. We believe our product liability insurance coverage is sufficient in light of our current clinical programs; however, we may not be able to maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost or in sufficient amounts to protect us against losses due to liability. A successful product liability claim or series of claims brought against us could adversely affect the results of our operations and business. In addition, regardless of merit or eventual outcome, product liability claims may result in impairment of our business reputation, withdrawal of clinical study participants, costs due to related litigation, distraction of management’s attention from our primary business, initiation of investigations by regulators, substantial monetary awards to patients or other claimants, the inability to commercialize our product candidates and decreased demand for our product candidates, if approved for commercial sale. Additionally, if one or more of our product candidates receives regulatory approval, and we or others later identify undesirable side effects caused by such products (or caused by the reference products or other biosimilars based on the applicable reference products), a number of potentially significant negative consequences could result, including but not limited to: •regulatory authorities may suspend, withdraw or vary approvals of such product; •regulatory authorities may request or require that the product be recalled or removed from the market; •regulatory authorities may require additional warnings on the label or otherwise require labeling to be updated or narrowed; •we may be required to agree to a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (“REMS”), or a shared system REMS, or comparable foreign strategy, which could include a medication guide for distribution to patients outlining the risks of side effects, a communication plan for healthcare providers and/or other elements to assure safe use; •we could be sued and potentially held liable for harm caused to patients; and •our reputation may suffer. Any of these events could prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of the particular product candidate, if approved, and could significantly harm our business, prospects and financial condition. As our product candidates receive approval, regulatory authorities including the FDA, Health Canada, European Commission, EMA, National Competent Authorities of EEA countries and other comparable foreign regulatory authorities regulations will require that we regularly report certain information, including information about adverse events that may 15 have been caused by or contributed by those products. The timing of adverse event reporting obligations would be triggered by the date we become aware of the adverse event as well as the nature of the event. We may fail to report adverse events we become aware of within the prescribed timeframe especially if it is not reported to us as an adverse event or if it is an adverse event that is unexpected or removed in time from the use of our products. If we fail to comply with our reporting obligations, the FDA, Health Canada, European Commission, the EMA, the National Competent Authorities of EEA countries or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities could take action that may include criminal prosecution, the imposition of civil monetary penalties, seizure of our products, or suspension or variation of market approval, and delay in approval or clearance of future products. As a condition to granting marketing authorization or approval of a product, the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require additional clinical studies or other studies. The results generated in these trials could result in the loss of regulatory approval, changes in labeling, and/or new or increased concerns about the side effects, efficacy or safety. Regulatory authorities in countries outside the United States often have similar regulations and may impose comparable requirements. Post-marketing studies, whether conducted by us or by others, whether mandated by regulatory authorities or conducted voluntarily, and other emerging data about products, such as adverse event reports, may also adversely affect the availability or commercial potential of our products. Our reliance on certain participants for our clinical studies could cause delays in ongoing studies or the development of our products if such participants prove to be too limited or a substantial portion of participants in the studies withdraw. In order to be successful and pursue market authorization for our products in various countries, we must be able to gather health data on the basis of populations from around the world. To the extent participants in clinical studies are too limited to certain populations, our clinical research may be adversely affected. Additionally, we depend on the willingness of these volunteers to participate in studies, and there is always the risk that they may no longer be willing to participate or revoke the consents necessary for us to process their data. For example, due to reasons beyond our control, including public health emergencies, the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the conflict in the Middle East, and the resulting instability in respective regions, participants and our key employees and advisors may no longer be able to travel or cross country borders to participate in our studies. If, for any reason, a substantial portion of participants in the studies were to withdraw their consent or discontinue their participation, we may not be able to continue our clinical studies for some or all of our product candidates which may cause delays in the development or approval of our product candidates. If our ability to gather and use sufficient data is impaired, we also may not be able to fulfill some contractual obligations with our partners. The development, manufacture and commercialization of biosimilar products under various regulatory pathways pose unique risks related to regulatory approvals across various jurisdictions. We and our collaboration partners intend to pursue market authorization globally. In the United States, an abbreviated pathway for approval of biosimilar products was established by the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (“BPCIA”), as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (together, the “PPACA”). The BPCIA established this abbreviated pathway under section 351(k) of the Public Health Service Act (the “PHSA”) for biological products shown to be biosimilar to or interchangeable with an FDA-licensed reference biological product. Market success of biosimilar products will depend on demonstrating to patients, physicians, payors and relevant authorities that such products are similar in quality, safety and efficacy as compared to the reference product. If biosimilar product applications do not continue to be approved and the markets in which we operate do not widely accept the commercialization of biosimilar products, our business will be harmed. How the BPCIA is applied and interpreted by the FDA may have a material impact on our chances of obtaining FDA approval for our biosimilar product candidates, and our business operations after obtaining approval. We will continue to analyze and incorporate into our product development plans any additional final regulations issued by the FDA, pharmacy substitution policies enacted by state governments and other applicable requirements. The costs of development and approval, along with the probability of success for our biosimilar product candidates, will be dependent upon application of any laws and regulations issued by the relevant regulatory authorities. The costs of developing our products may increase due to uncertainties or changes in guidance provided by regulatory authorities like the FDA, and we may not have adequate funding and resources to pursue market authorization for all of our biosimilar products. Biosimilar products may also be subject to extensive patent clearances and patent infringement litigation, which may delay and could prevent the commercial launch of a product. Moreover, the PHSA prohibits the FDA from filing an application for a biosimilar candidate to a reference product for four years from the date of first licensure of the reference product by the FDA, and from approving an application for a biosimilar candidate for 12 years from the date of first 16 licensure of the reference product. For example, the FDA would not be able to approve a BLA submitted for a biosimilar that references a specific drug until 12 years after the date of first licensure of the BLA, i.e., the date that reference product BLA was approved. Interchangeable biosimilar approvals may also be blocked by periods of first interchangeable exclusivity ranging from 12 to 42 months in duration. The European Commission approved the first biosimilar medicinal product in 2006. Since then the European Commission and the EMA have acquired extensive experience in the review and approval of biosimilars, and developed guidelines related to the authorization procedure for these products, including data requirements needed to support approval. The EU provides opportunities for data and market exclusivity related to certain types of marketing authorizations. Upon grant of related marketing authorization, innovative medicinal products generally benefit from eight years of data exclusivity and 10 years of market exclusivity. Data exclusivity, if granted, prevents regulatory authorities in the EEA from referencing the innovator’s data to assess a generic application or biosimilar application for eight years from the date of authorization of the innovative product, after which a generic or biosimilar marketing authorization application can be submitted, and the innovator’s data may be referenced. The market exclusivity period prevents a successful generic or biosimilar applicant from commercializing its product in the EEA until 10 years have elapsed from the initial marketing authorization of the reference product in the EEA. The overall ten year period may, occasionally, be extended for a further year to a maximum of 11 years if, during the first eight years of those ten years, the marketing authorization holder obtains an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications which, during the scientific evaluation prior to their authorization, are held to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with existing therapies. However, there is no guarantee that a product will be considered by the EU’s regulatory authorities to be a new chemical/biological entity, and products may not qualify for data exclusivity. A new pharmaceutical form does not trigger a new data exclusivity. It could trigger orphan exclusivity, provided, however, that the targeted disease is a rare disease and that the new pharmaceutical form meets the high threshold for being considered as bringing a significant benefit to patients. Other regions, including Canada, China, Japan and Korea, also have their own legislation outlining a regulatory pathway for the approval of biosimilars. In some cases, other countries have either adopted European Union guidance (Singapore and Malaysia) or are following guidance issued by the World Health Organization (Cuba and Brazil). While there is overlap in the regulatory requirements across regions, there are also some areas of non-overlap. Additionally, we cannot predict whether countries that we may wish to market in, which do not yet have an established or tested regulatory framework could decide to issue regulations or guidance and/or adopt a more conservative viewpoint than other regions. Therefore, it is possible that even if we obtain agreement from one health authority to an accelerated or optimized development plan, we will need to defer to the most conservative view to ensure global harmonization of the development plan. Also, for regions where regulatory authorities do not yet have sufficient experience in the review and approval of a biosimilar product, these authorities may rely on the approval from another region (for example, the United States), which could delay its approval in that region. In addition, regulatory approval may be delayed as a result of laws in any applicable jurisdiction that provide for stay of regulatory approval related to patent coverage and subsequent litigation. Adverse events involving a reference product, or other biosimilars of such reference product, may result in negative publicity for our biosimilar product or ultimately result in the removal of our biosimilar product from the market. In the event that use of a reference product, or another biosimilar for such reference product, results in unanticipated side effects or other adverse events, it is likely that our biosimilar product candidate will be viewed comparably and may become subject to the same scrutiny and regulatory actions as the reference product or other biosimilar, as applicable. Accordingly, we may become subject to, for example, safety labeling change orders, clinical holds, voluntary or mandatory product recalls or other regulatory actions for matters outside of our control that affect the reference product, or other biosimilars, as applicable, potentially until we are able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of our regulators that our biosimilar product candidate is not subject to the same issues leading to the regulatory action as the reference product or other biosimilar, as applicable. Any recall or safety alert or safety labeling change relating to our product (either voluntary or required by regulatory bodies) could ultimately result in the removal of our product from the market. Any recall could result in significant cost as well as negative publicity that could reduce overall demand for our products. 17 Risks Related to Our Reliance on Third Parties We rely, in part, on third parties to manufacture clinical and commercial supplies of our approved products and for our product candidates and to store critical components of our approved products and product candidates (including procuring and providing reference product). Our business could be harmed if those third parties fail to provide us with sufficient quantities of product candidates or fail to do so at acceptable quality levels, prices and agreed upon time frame. We partly rely on third-party manufacturers (contract manufacturing organizations, or “CMOs”) to manufacture and supply our product candidates for our preclinical and clinical studies. We also rely on third parties to manufacture nonclinical and clinical supplies of our product candidates, to store critical components of our product candidates and perform various services related to the product candidates’ compliance with regulatory requirements. Successfully transferring complicated manufacturing techniques to CMOs and scaling up these techniques for commercial quantities is time consuming, and we may not be able to achieve such transfer or do so in a timely manner. Moreover, the availability of contract manufacturing services for protein-based therapeutics is highly variable and there are periods of relatively abundant capacity alternating with periods in which there is little available capacity. If our need for CMO services increases during a period of industry-wide production capacity shortage, we may not be able to produce our product candidates on a timely basis or on commercially viable terms. Moreover, our manufacturing processes utilize single-use processing technology to manufacture drug substance and drug product. Although we will plan accordingly and generally does not begin a clinical study unless we believe we have a sufficient supply of a product candidate to complete such study, any significant delay, whether due to supply chain interruptions in connection with public health emergencies or otherwise, or discontinuation in the supply of a product candidate for an ongoing clinical study due to the need to replace a third-party manufacturer could considerably delay completion of our clinical studies, product testing and potential regulatory approval of our product candidates, which could harm our business and results of operations. Reliance on third-party manufacturers entails additional risks, including reliance on the third party for regulatory compliance and quality assurance, the possible breach of the manufacturing agreement by the third party and the possible termination or nonrenewal of the agreement by the third party at a time that is costly or inconvenient for us. In addition, commercial manufacturing must be produced in compliance with Good Manufacturing Practices (“cGMP”) regulations. Failure to comply by any CMO may require us to generate new data, repeat clinical studies, and potentially undergo re-inspection, which would delay the regulatory approval process. In addition, if a CMO does not comply with cGMP, our failure or the failure of our third-party manufacturers to comply with applicable regulations could result in sanctions being imposed on us, including fines, injunctions, civil penalties, delays, license suspension or revocation, seizures or recalls of products, operating restrictions and criminal prosecutions, any of which could significantly and adversely affect supplies of our product candidates or any other product candidates or products that we may develop. Any failure or refusal to supply the components for our product candidates that we may develop could delay, prevent or impair our clinical development or commercialization efforts. If our contract manufacturers were to breach or terminate their manufacturing arrangements with us, the development or commercialization of the affected products or product candidates could be delayed, which could have an adverse effect on our business. Any change in our manufacturers could be costly because the commercial terms of any new arrangement could be less favorable and the expenses relating to the transfer of necessary technology and processes could be significant. In addition, any changes in our manufacturers could necessitate generation of new data and pre-license facility inspections. Changes made during the pendency of a BLA before FDA, or during the marketing authorization application, could result in delay in approval of the BLA or the marketing authorization. For our commercial products and for any of our product candidates that are approved, we will need to produce the quantities necessary to meet anticipated market demand. Any contract manufacturer that we engage may need to increase manufacturing capacity to meet these demands. If we are unable to produce our approved products in sufficient quantities to meet the requirements for the launch of these products or to meet future demand, our revenue and gross margins could be adversely affected. Although we believe that we will not have any material supply issues, we cannot be certain that we will be able to obtain long-term supply arrangements for our product candidates that receive approval or materials used to produce them on acceptable terms, if at all. If we are unable to arrange for third-party manufacturing, or to do so on commercially reasonable terms, we may not be able to complete development or commercialization of or products. In addition, we engage external transport companies to ship our products between the different supply points used to manufacture the finished product. Delays in shipment, damage of materials during shipment or any other events leading to late delivery or not full amount of ordered quantities could have a significant impact on project timelines, stock on markets and sales. From time to time we, or our suppliers located in Europe, may require materials and equipment originating in Asia. Conflicts in the Middle East may impact the supply chain, including shipments through the Suez Canal, that may cause 18 delays or cause the cost of materials originating in Asia to rise unexpectedly. This may cause delays or disruption in our operations or impair the ability of our suppliers to ship materials and equipment to us on time and on budget. We rely on third parties to conduct our nonclinical and clinical studies and perform other tasks. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties, meet expected deadlines or comply with regulatory requirements, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for or commercialize our product candidates and our business could be substantially harmed. We have relied upon and plan to continue to rely upon third-party CROs to monitor and manage data for our ongoing nonclinical and clinical programs. We rely on these parties for execution of our nonclinical and clinical studies and control only certain aspects of their activities. Nevertheless, we are responsible for ensuring that each of our studies is conducted in accordance with the applicable protocol, legal, regulatory and scientific standards and our reliance on the CROs does not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities. We, our CROs and other vendors are required to comply with relevant practices that may include cGMP, current good clinical practices (“cGCP”) and Good Laboratory Practices (“GLP”), which are regulations and guidelines required by the FDA, and comparable foreign regulatory authorities for all of our product candidates in clinical development. Regulatory authorities monitor these regulations through periodic inspections of study sponsors, principal investigators, study sites and other contractors. If we, any of our CROs, service providers or investigators fail to comply with applicable regulations or cGCPs, the data generated in our nonclinical and clinical studies may be deemed unreliable and the FDA, Health Canada, European Commission, EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require us to perform additional nonclinical and clinical studies before approving our marketing applications. We cannot provide assurance that upon inspection by a given regulatory authority, such regulatory authority will determine that any clinical investigator for any of our clinical studies comply with cGCP regulations. In addition, our clinical studies must be conducted with product produced in compliance with cGMP regulations. Failure to comply with these regulations by us or any of the participating parties may require us to generate new data, repeat clinical studies, and potentially undergo re-inspection, which would delay the regulatory approval process. Further, if any accidents occur or there are process mistakes at the facilities of CROs or other vendors that handle reference products, there may be product loss which could further delay our nonclinical and clinical programs. Moreover, our business may be implicated if our CRO or any other participating parties violate federal or state fraud and abuse or false claims laws and regulations or healthcare privacy and security laws whether in the United States or equivalent foreign laws and obligations. If any of our relationships with these third-party CROs terminate, we may not be able to enter into arrangements with alternative CROs or do so on commercially reasonable terms. In addition, our CROs are not our employees, and except for remedies available to us under the agreements with such CROs, we cannot control whether or not they devote sufficient time and resources to our on-going nonclinical and clinical programs. If CROs do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or obligations or meet expected deadlines, if they need to be replaced or if the quality or accuracy of the data they obtain is compromised due to the failure to adhere to protocols, regulatory requirements, delays caused by public health emergencies or for other reasons, our clinical studies may be extended, delayed or terminated and we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for or successfully commercialize our product candidates. CROs may also generate higher costs than anticipated. As a result, the results of operations and the commercial prospects for our product candidates would be harmed, our costs could increase and our ability to generate revenue could be delayed. Switching or adding additional CROs involves additional costs and requires management time and focus. In addition, there is a natural transition period when a new CRO commences work. As a result, delays occur, which can materially impact our ability to meet desired clinical development timelines. There can be no assurance that we will not encounter similar challenges or delays in the future or that these delays or challenges will not have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition and prospects. We are dependent on our partners for the commercialization of our biosimilars and biosimilar candidates in certain major markets. Disagreements with our partners, for example on pricing, or failure of our partners to commercialize our approved products could have a material adverse effect on our revenue, business and operating results. We do not currently have direct sales, marketing, and distribution capabilities. Instead, we have chosen to market and commercialize our products through partnerships with multiple regional partners. Pursuant to the commercialization agreements with our partners, we supply our partners with our approved products at transfer prices set under our agreements. Our revenues and margins depend on our ability to negotiate and maintain commercially viable supply prices. Our partners may seek price reductions, for example due to regulatory or market constraints, which may include competitive pressures, reimbursement changes, tender outcomes, or currency fluctuations, 19 or due to changes in their commercial priorities. Reductions in the price of our supply to our commercialization partners may significantly impact our financial results. In addition, we and our commercialization partners may disagree, for example over pricing methodologies, cost assumptions, or adjustment mechanisms. Such disagreements could lead to disputes, delayed product supply or late payments, or affect our partners’ willingness to promote the product. If we cannot maintain good relationship with our commercialization as a result of such disagreements, our sales volume under those partnerships may decrease, which could significantly impact our financial results. If our commercial partners fail to exercise commercially reasonable efforts to market and sell our products in their respective licensed jurisdictions (timely or at all) or are otherwise ineffective in doing so, our business will be harmed and we may not be able to adequately remedy the harm through negotiation, litigation, arbitration or termination of the license agreements. Moreover, any disputes with our collaboration partners concerning the adequacy of their commercialization efforts will substantially divert the attention of our senior management from other business activities, and will require us to incur substantial legal costs to fund litigation or arbitration proceedings, and perhaps lead to delayed license-related payments to us. We have entered into collaborations with third parties in connection with the development of certain of our product candidates. Even if we believe that the development of our technology and product candidates is promising, our partners may choose not to proceed with such development if we materially deviate from the original program timelines, the contractual terms, or breach the contractual terms. We have or may have future collaborations with various partners for the development of some of our biosimilar candidates. Our existing and future agreements with our collaboration partners are generally subject to termination by the counterparty under certain circumstances. Accordingly, even if we believe that the development of certain product candidates is worth pursuing, our partners may choose not to continue with such development, if we materially deviate from the original program timelines, the contractual terms, or breach the contractual terms. If any of our collaborations are terminated, we may be required to devote additional resources to the development of our product candidates or seek a new collaboration partner, and the terms of any additional collaborations or other arrangements that we establishes may not be favorable to us, available under commercially reasonable terms or available at all. We are also at risk that our collaborations or other arrangements may not be successful. Factors that may affect the success of our collaborations include the following: •our collaboration partners may incur financial, legal or other difficulties that force them to limit or reduce their participation in our joint projects; •our collaboration partners may be pursuing alternative technologies or developing alternative products that are competitive to our technology and products, either on their own or in partnership with others; •our collaboration partners may terminate the collaborations, which could make it difficult for us to attract new partners or adversely affect our reputation in the business and financial communities; and •our collaboration partners may pursue higher priority programs or change the focus of their development programs, which could affect their commitment to us. If we cannot maintain successful collaborations, our business, financial condition and operating results may be adversely affected. In the future, we may also find it necessary to form alliances or joint ventures with major pharmaceutical companies to jointly develop and/or commercialize other biosimilar product candidates in which our collaboration partners would provide substantial capabilities in clinical development, manufacturing, regulatory affairs, sales and marketing. We may not be successful in entering into any such alliances on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Even if we do succeed in securing such alliances, we may not be able to maintain them if, for example, development or approval of a product candidate is delayed or sales of an approved product are disappointing. If we are unable to secure or maintain such alliances we may not have the capabilities necessary to continue or complete development of our product candidates and bring them to market, which may have an adverse effect on our business. 20 We currently engage single-source suppliers for some manufacture, clinical study services, formulation development and product testing of our product candidates. The loss of any of these suppliers or vendors could materially and adversely affect our business. The biologic drug substance used in all of our programs is currently manufactured at our facility in Reykjavik, Iceland. However, we rely on certain single-source third-party suppliers for certain services, such as safety device assembly and associated finished packaging. Although we believe that there are alternate sources for these services, we cannot be certain that identifying and establishing relationships for these services would not result in significant delay or increased cost in the development of our product candidates or manufacture of our commercial supply of approved products. Additionally, we may not be able to enter into arrangements with alternative vendors on commercially reasonable terms or at all. A halt in manufacturing, a delay in the commercialization or the development of our product candidates, or having to enter into a new agreement with a different third-party on less favorable terms than what we have with our current suppliers could negatively impact upon on our business. We and our collaboration partners and contract manufacturers are subject to significant regulation with respect to manufacturing our product candidates. The manufacturing facilities on which we rely may not meet or continue to meet regulatory requirements or may not be able to meet supply demands. All parties involved in the preparation of therapeutics for clinical studies or commercial sale, including our existing contract manufacturers for our product candidates, are subject to extensive regulation. Components of a finished therapeutic product approved for commercial sale or used in late-stage clinical studies must be manufactured in accordance with cGMP. These regulations govern manufacturing processes and procedures (including record keeping) and the implementation and operation of quality systems to control and assure the quality of investigational products and products approved for sale. Poor control of production processes can lead to the introduction of contaminants or to inadvertent changes in the properties or stability of our product candidates that may not be detectable in final product testing. We, our collaboration partners or our contract manufacturers must supply all necessary documentation in support of a market application on a timely basis and must adhere to GLP and cGMP regulations enforced by the FDA and other comparable foreign regulatory authorities through their facilities inspection program. Not all contractors supporting our product candidates may be registered or approved for commercial pharmaceutical production. The facilities and quality systems of some or all of our collaboration partners and third-party contractors must pass a pre-approval inspection for compliance with the applicable regulations as a condition of regulatory approval of our product candidates. In addition, the regulatory authorities may, at any time, audit or inspect a manufacturing facility involved with the preparation of our product candidates or the associated quality systems for compliance with the regulations applicable to the activities being conducted. Although we oversee our contract manufacturers, we cannot control the implementation of the manufacturing process by the contract manufacturing partners. If these facilities do not pass a pre-approval plant inspection, regulatory approval of our products may not be granted or may be substantially delayed until any violations are corrected to the satisfaction of the regulatory authority, if ever. The regulatory authorities also may, at any time following approval of a product for sale, audit the manufacturing facilities of our collaboration partners and third-party contractors to monitor and ensure compliance with cGMP. Despite our efforts to audit and verify regulatory compliance, one or more of our third-party manufacturing vendors may be found on regulatory inspection by the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities to be noncompliant with cGMP regulations. If any such inspection or audit identifies a failure to comply with applicable regulations or if a violation of our product specifications or applicable regulations occurs independent of such an inspection or audit, we or the relevant regulatory authority may require remedial measures that may be costly and/or time consuming for us or a third party to implement and that may include the invalidation of drug product lots or processes, the temporary or permanent suspension of a clinical study or commercial sales or import or the temporary or permanent closure of a facility and that may require re-inspection thereby causing delays. In some cases, a product recall may be warranted or required, which would materially affect our ability to supply and market products. Any such remedial measures imposed upon us or third parties with whom we contract could materially harm our business, prospects and financial condition. If we, our collaboration partners or any of our third-party manufacturers fail to maintain regulatory compliance, the FDA or other applicable foreign regulatory authority can impose regulatory sanctions including, among other things, refusal to approve a pending application for a new biologic product, or suspension, variation or revocation of an approval. As a result, our business, financial condition and results of operations may be materially harmed. Additionally, if supply from one approved manufacturer is interrupted, registration of an alternative manufacturer would require submissions of variations to the marking authorization which could result in further delay. The regulatory 21 authorities may also require additional studies if a new manufacturer is relied upon for commercial production. Switching manufacturers may involve substantial costs and prior regulatory approval and is likely to result in a delay in our desired clinical and commercial timelines. These factors could incur higher costs and cause the delay or termination of clinical studies, regulatory submissions, required approvals or commercialization of our product candidates. Furthermore, if our suppliers fail to meet contractual requirements and we is unable to secure one or more replacement suppliers capable of production at a substantially equivalent cost, our clinical studies may be delayed or we could lose potential revenue from sales of an approved product. Our reliance on third parties requires us to share our trade secrets, which increases the possibility that a competitor will discover them or that our trade secrets will be misappropriated or disclosed. Because we rely on third parties to develop and manufacture our product candidates, we must, at times, share trade secrets with them. We seek to protect our proprietary technology in part by entering into confidentiality agreements and, if applicable, material transfer agreements, collaborative research agreements, consulting agreements or other similar agreements with our collaboration partners, advisors, employees and consultants prior to beginning research or disclosing proprietary information, such as trade secrets. These agreements typically limit the rights of the third parties to use or disclose our confidential information, such as trade secrets. Despite the contractual provisions employed when working with third parties, the need to share trade secrets and other confidential information increases the risk that such trade secrets become known by our competitors, are inadvertently incorporated into the technology of others or are disclosed or used in violation of these agreements. Given that our proprietary position is based, in part, on our know-how and trade secrets, a competitor’s discovery of our trade secrets or other unauthorized use or disclosure would impair our competitive position and may have a material adverse effect on our business. We rely on certain significant shareholders and affiliated entities for certain key services in the execution of our strategy and business operations. We have entered into various service agreements with our direct and indirect significant shareholders and related entities, such as Alvogen, Aztiq, Adalvo Ltd. (“Adalvo”) and Floki Invest ehf. (“Floki”). These services include, among others, IT services, corporate administrative, legal, financial, facility management, portfolio and market intelligence research, regulatory compliance, quality audit, and certain administrative and financial services related to our Reykjavik facility. These services are key to our ability to continue to execute on our business strategy and to keep our business operations uninterrupted. Any interruption in the provision of these services may materially harm our business. In addition, because the providers of the services are direct or indirect significant shareholders and related entities, we may not be able or willing to enforce our contractual rights under the service agreements the same way we would if the service providers were unrelated third-party providers. Risks Related to Our Competition and Industry Our biosimilar product candidates, if approved, will face significant competition from the reference products, other biosimilars, and from other medicinal products approved for the same indication(s) as the reference products. Our failure to effectively compete may prevent us from achieving significant market penetration and expansion. We expect to enter highly competitive markets with many of our biosimilars. We have already met significant competition for our first biosimilars to Humira (AVT02) and Stelara (AVT04) and anticipate significant competition for our biosimilars to Prolia/Xgeva (AVT03), Eylea (AVT06), and, to a lesser degree, Simponi/Simponi Aria (AVT05). Our next wave of biosimilars is expected to include Xolair (AVT23), Entyvio (AVT16/AVT80), Eylea HD (AVT29), and Keytruda (AVT32). They are also expected to meet biosimilars competition from more than one entrant and the originator. If our competitors gain approval and successfully commercialize biosimilars against the same reference products ahead of our entry, we may never achieve significant market share for these products, our revenue will be reduced and, as a result, our business, prospects and financial condition can suffer. The manufacturers of the reference products for our biosimilars are also adopting strategies to meet increased competition, including lowering prices preemptively before biosimilars have entered the market, offering payors and retailers discounts on the reference product if they agree to buy other products as well or by offering unbranded versions of the originator biologic at a lower price than a branded version. 22 Successful competitors in the market have demonstrated the ability to effectively discover, obtain patents, develop, test and obtain regulatory approvals for products, as well as an ability to effectively commercialize, market and promote approved products. Numerous companies are engaged in developing, patenting, manufacturing and marketing of biosimilars competitive with the products that we are developing. Many of these potential competitors are large, experienced pharmaceutical companies that enjoy significant competitive advantages, such as substantially greater financial, research and development, manufacturing, personnel and marketing resources. These companies also have greater brand recognition and more experience in conducting preclinical testing and clinical studies of product candidates and obtaining FDA and other regulatory approvals of products. If an improved version of a reference product is developed or if the market for the reference product significantly declines, sales or potential sales of our biosimilar product candidates may suffer. Companies may develop improved versions, treatment regimes, combinations and/or doses of a reference product as part of a life cycle extension strategy and may obtain regulatory approval of the improved version under a new or supplemental BLA, or equivalent foreign procedure, filed with the applicable regulatory authority. Should the company manufacturing the reference product for any of our candidate products succeed in obtaining approval of an improved biologic product, it may capture a significant share of the market for the reference product in the applicable jurisdiction and significantly reduce the market for the reference product and thereby the potential size of the market for our biosimilar product candidates. In addition, the improved product may be protected by additional regulatory exclusivity or patent rights that may subject our follow-on biosimilar to claims of infringement. Biologic reference products may also face competition as technological advances are made that may offer patients a more convenient form of administration or increased efficacy or as new products are introduced. As new products are approved that compete with the reference product for our biosimilar product candidates, sales of the reference products may be adversely impacted or rendered obsolete. If the market for the reference product is impacted, we may lose significant market share or experience limited market potential for our approved biosimilar products or product candidates, and the value of our product pipeline could be negatively impacted. As a result of the above factors, our business, prospects and financial condition could suffer. If efforts by manufacturers of reference products to prevent, delay or limit the use of biosimilars are successful, our business may be negatively affected, including but not limited to the sales of our biosimilar products. Many manufacturers of reference products have increasingly used legislative, regulatory and other means to prevent or delay regulatory approval and to seek to restrict competition from manufacturers of biosimilars. These efforts may include or have included: •settling patent lawsuits with biosimilar companies, resulting in such patents remaining an obstacle for biosimilar approval by others; •submitting Citizen Petitions to request the FDA Commissioner to take administrative action with respect to prospective and submitted biosimilar applications or to elaborate or amend the standard of review for such biosimilar applications; •appealing denials of Citizen Petitions in U.S. federal district courts and seeking injunctive relief to reverse approval of biosimilar applications; •restricting access to reference brand products for equivalence and biosimilarity testing that interferes with timely biosimilar development plans; •attempting to influence potential market share by conducting medical education with physicians, payors, regulators and patients claiming that biosimilar products are too complex for biosimilar approval or are too dissimilar from reference products to be trusted as safe and effective alternatives; •implementing payor market access tactics that benefit their brands at the expense of biosimilars; •seeking state law restrictions on the substitution of biosimilar products at the pharmacy without the intervention of a physician or through other restrictive means such as excessive recordkeeping requirements or patient and physician notification; •seeking federal or state regulatory restrictions, or equivalent foreign restrictions, on the use of the same non-proprietary name as the reference brand product for a biosimilar or interchangeable biologic; •seeking changes to the U.S. Pharmacopeia, an industry recognized compilation of drug and biologic standards, or equivalent international or foreign standards; 23 •obtaining new patents covering existing products or processes which could extend patent exclusivity for a number of years or otherwise delay the launch of biosimilars; •originator could compete with us by manufacturing or commercializing their own proprietary biosimilar product to the reference product they sponsor; and •influencing legislatures so that they attach special patent extension amendments to unrelated federal legislation. In 2012, Abbott Laboratories filed a Citizen Petition with the FDA asking the agency to refrain from accepting biosimilar applications under the BPCIA arguing that to approve such applications, without compensation to the reference product sponsor, would constitute an unconstitutional taking of a reference company’s valuable trade secrets under the fifth amendment of the U.S. constitution. The FDA denied this citizen petition in 2016. Other reference companies may file Citizen Petitions in an effort to restrict or prevent the introduction of biosimilars. If the FDA or a federal court determines that biosimilar applications under the BPCIA should be limited, our business may be negatively impacted. We face intense competition and rapid technological changes and the possibility that our competitors and originators may develop therapies that are similar, more advanced or more effective than ours, which may adversely affect our financial condition and the ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates. We have competitors both in the United States and internationally, including major multinational pharmaceutical companies, specialty pharmaceutical companies or biotechnology companies. Some of the pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies developing biosimilars we expect to compete with include companies such as Celltrion Healthcare Co., Ltd. (“Celltrion”), Amgen, Samsung Bioepis, Ltd. (“Samsung Bioepis”), Biocon Pharma, Ltd. (“Biocon”), and Sandoz International GmbH (“Sandoz”), as well as others. These companies may develop biosimilars or other products in the same therapeutic space as our products. For example, in the market for AVT02, our biosimilar to Humira (adalimumab), we compete against AbbVie (the originator), Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH, Biocon, Celltrion, Fresenius Kabi, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, Coherus, and Sandoz; in the market for AVT04, our biosimilar to Stelara (ustekinumab), we compete against Janssen (the originator), Amgen, Celltrion, Bio-Thera, Formycon, Dong-A/Meiji Seika, Samsung Bioepis, and Biocon. For our new biosimilars entering the market in Japan, the UK, and EEA in 2026, we anticipate AVT03, our biosimilar to Prolia/Xgeva (denosumab), to compete against products from Amgen (the originator), Sandoz, Celltrion, Fresenius Kabi, Samsung Bioepis, Gedeon Richter, mAbxience, Biocon, Henlius and Teva; while for AVT05, our biosimilar to Simponi/Simponi Aria (golimumab), we expect to compete against Janssen (the originator), and Bio-thera; and for AVT06, our biosimilar to Eylea (aflibercept), we anticipate competition from Regeneron/Bayer Health Care (the originators), Amgen, Celltrion, Formycon, Sam Chun Dang, Samsung Bioepis, Sandoz, and Biocon; and for AVT23, our biosimilar to Xolair (omalizumab), we anticipate competition from Celltrion and Teva. For products in our late-stage pipeline, including AVT32, our proposed biosimilar to Keytruda (pembrolizumab), we also anticipate significant competition when they come to market. Some of our competitors have substantially greater financial, technical and other resources, such as larger research and development team and experienced marketing and manufacturing organizations. Additional mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical industry may result in even more resources being controlled by our competitors. As a result, these companies may obtain regulatory approval more rapidly than we are able to and may be more effective in selling and marketing their products than us. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large, established companies. Our competitors may succeed in developing, acquiring or licensing on an exclusive basis, products that are more effective or less costly than any product candidate that we may develop; they may also obtain patent protection that could block our products; and they may obtain regulatory approval, product commercialization and market penetration earlier than we do. Additionally, our competitors may have more resources in order to effectively pursue, defend against or settle with regard to potential or ongoing litigation. Biosimilar product candidates developed by our competitors may render our potential product candidates uneconomical, less desirable or obsolete, and we may not be successful in marketing our product candidates against competitors. Competitors may also assert in their marketing or medical education programs that their biosimilar products demonstrate a higher degree of biosimilarity to the reference products than do our or other competitor’s biosimilar products, thereby seeking to influence health care practitioners to select their biosimilar products, versus those of us or other competitors. Our competitors may also succeed in developing, acquiring or licensing on an exclusive basis, products that are more effective or less costly than our biosimilar candidates. They may also obtain exclusivity by regulators that could block or limit the marketability of our products for shorter or longer periods of time; and they may obtain regulatory approval, achieve commercialization and significant market penetration earlier than we do. 24 Furthermore, our competitors may develop products that are easier to administer than our products, which could adversely affect our results. Many of our biosimilar candidates need to be administered by a physician. Patients may demonstrate a preference for medications which can be administered by the patient at home or for pharmaceuticals that can be administered more rapidly in the clinic. Our competitors could develop proprietary technology that we are unable to replicate by allowing competing medications to be self-administered or injected sub-cutaneously. Development of such alternative and competitive technologies and products may limit our success in commercializing our products. Competing products may gain faster or greater market acceptance than our products, if any, and medical advances or rapid technological development by competitors, including increased use of artificial intelligence-based technologies, may result in our product candidates becoming non-competitive or obsolete before we are able to recover our research and development and commercialization expenses. If we or our product candidates do not compete effectively, it may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. If we are unable to establish effective sales and marketing capabilities in jurisdictions for which we choose to retain commercialization rights or if we are unable to enter into agreements with third parties to market and sell our product candidates, and we are unable to establish and maintain a marketing and sales organization, we may be unable to generate substantial or any revenue. We currently have no marketing or sales organization. We have no experience selling and marketing our product candidates directly to healthcare providers or patients. To successfully commercialize any products that may result from our development programs, we will need to develop these capabilities, or partner with others that have these capabilities. As of the date hereof, we have not entered into agreements for the commercialization of some of our late-stage biosimilar candidates in some major markets, including AVT32, our proposed biosimilar to Keytruda (pembrolizumab). We may not be able to enter into a commercial agreement, on commercially acceptable terms or at all, for the marketing and sales of our biosimilar candidates. We might establish a sales and marketing organization with technical expertise and supporting distribution capabilities to commercialize our product candidates in major markets where we may choose to retain commercialization rights. Doing so will be expensive, difficult and time consuming. Any failure or delay in the development of our internal sales, marketing and distribution capabilities would adversely impact commercialization of our products. Further, given our lack of prior experience in marketing and selling biopharmaceutical products, our initial estimate of the size of the required sales force may be materially more or less than the size of the sales force actually required to effectively commercialize our product candidates. As such, we may be required to hire substantially more sales representatives to adequately support the commercialization of our product candidates or we may incur excess costs as a result of hiring more sales representatives than necessary. With respect to certain geographical markets, we may enter into collaborations with other entities to utilize their local marketing and distribution capabilities, but we may be unable to enter into such agreements on favorable terms, if at all. If our future collaboration partners do not commit sufficient resources to commercialize our future products, if any, and we are unable to develop the necessary marketing capabilities on our own, we will be unable to generate sufficient product revenue to sustain our business. Without an internal team or the support of a third-party to perform marketing and sales functions, we may be unable to compete successfully against these more established companies. The commercial success of any current or future product candidate will depend upon the degree of market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors and others in the medical community. Even with the requisite approvals from the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities, the commercial success of our product candidates will depend in part on the medical community, patients and third-party payors accepting our product candidates as medically useful, cost-effective and safe. Any product that we bring to the market may not gain market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors and others in the medical community. The degree of market acceptance of any of our product candidates, if approved for commercial sale, will depend on a number of factors, including: •the safety and efficacy of the product as demonstrated in clinical studies and through the demonstration of biosimilarity; •any potential advantages over competing biosimilars and/or other treatments in the same therapeutic space(s); •the prevalence and severity of any side effects, including any limitations or warnings contained in a product’s approved labeling; •the clinical indications for which approval is granted; 25 •the possibility that a competitor may achieve interchangeability in the United States, and we may not; •relative convenience and ease of administration; •the extent to which our product may be more or less similar to the reference product than competing biosimilar product candidates; •policies and practices governing the naming of biological product candidates; •prevalence of the disease or condition for which the product is approved; •the cost of treatment, particularly in relation to competing treatments; •the willingness of the target patient population to try new therapies and of physicians to prescribe these therapies; •the strength of marketing and distribution support and timing of market introduction of competitive products; •publicity concerning our products or competing products and treatments; •the extent to which third-party payors provide adequate third-party coverage and reimbursement for our product candidates, if approved; •patients’ willingness to pay out-of-pocket in the absence of such coverage and adequate reimbursement; and •our ability to maintain compliance with regulatory requirements. Even if a potential biosimilar product is expected to have a highly similar efficacy and safety profile to the reference product, as demonstrated through analytical, nonclinical, and clinical studies, market acceptance of the product will not be fully known until after it is launched and may be negatively affected by a potential poor safety experience and the track record of other biosimilar product candidates. Our efforts to educate the medical community and third-party payors on the benefits of the product candidates may require significant resources, may be under-resourced compared to large well-funded pharmaceutical entities and may never be successful. If our product candidates are approved but fail to achieve an adequate level of acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors and others in the medical community, we will not be able to generate sufficient revenue to become or remain profitable. The third-party coverage and reimbursement status of newly-approved products is uncertain. Failure of our third-party commercial partners to obtain or maintain adequate coverage and reimbursement for new or current products could limit our ability to market those products and generate revenue. Pricing, coverage and reimbursement of our biosimilar product candidates, if approved, may not be adequate to support our commercial infrastructure. Our per-patient prices may not be sufficient to recover our development and manufacturing costs and potentially achieve profitability. Accordingly, the availability and adequacy of coverage and reimbursement by governmental and private payors are essential for most patients to be able to afford expensive treatments such as our products, if approved. Sales of our product candidates will depend substantially, both domestically and abroad, on the extent to which the costs of our product candidates will be paid for by health maintenance, managed care, pharmacy benefit and similar healthcare management organizations or reimbursed by government authorities, private health insurers and other third-party payors. If coverage and reimbursement are not available, or are available only to limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize our product candidates. Even if coverage is provided, the approved reimbursement amount may not be adequate to allow us to establish or maintain pricing sufficient to realize a return on investment. There is significant uncertainty related to third-party coverage and reimbursement of newly approved products. In the United States, third-party payors, including private and governmental payors such as the Medicare and Medicaid programs, play an important role in determining the extent to which new drugs and biologics will be covered and reimbursed. The Medicare and Medicaid programs increasingly are used as models for how private payors and other governmental payors develop their coverage and reimbursement policies for drugs and biologics. It is difficult to predict at this time what third-party payors will decide with respect to the coverage and reimbursement for our biosimilar product candidates, if approved. In addition, in the United States, no uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for biologics exists among third-party payors. Therefore, coverage and reimbursement for biologics can differ significantly from payor to payor. As a result, the process for obtaining favorable coverage determinations often is time-consuming and costly and may require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of our products to each payor separately, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be obtained. Further, coverage policies and third-party payor reimbursement rates may change at any time. Therefore, even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future. 26 Outside the United States, pharmaceutical companies, products and distributors are generally subject to extensive governmental price controls and other market regulations. We believe the increasing emphasis on cost-containment initiatives in EEA, Canada and other countries has and will continue to put pressure on the pricing and usage of our product candidates. In many countries, the prices of medical products are subject to varying price control mechanisms as part of national health systems. Other countries allow companies to fix their own prices for medical products but monitor and control company profits. Additional foreign price controls or other changes in pricing regulation could restrict the amount that we are able to charge for our product candidates. Accordingly, in markets outside the United States, the reimbursement for our products may be reduced compared with the United States and may be insufficient to generate commercially reasonable revenue and profits. Moreover, increasing efforts by governmental and third-party payors in the United States and abroad to control healthcare costs may cause such organizations to limit both coverage and the level of reimbursement for new products approved and, as a result, they may not cover or provide adequate payment for our product candidates. For example, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) imposes rebates on many Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D products to penalize price increases that outpace inflation on an annual basis. Certain cost containment practices may adversely affect our product sales. Significant reductions to Medicare Maximum Fair Prices (“MFPs”) for certain reference biologics, coupled with aggressive tender dynamics in Europe and other markets, may create downward pricing pressure on biosimilars across therapeutic areas. If payers or tender authorities adopt reference pricing models influenced by the U.S. MFP system or other emerging pricing mechanisms, we may experience less favorable tender outcomes, increased pricing volatility, or reduced margins in key markets. We expect to experience pricing pressures in connection with the sale of any of our product candidates due to the trend toward managed healthcare, the increasing influence of health maintenance organizations and additional legislative changes. If our third-party commercial partners are unable to establish or sustain coverage and adequate reimbursement for any of our product candidates from third-party payors, the adoption of those products and sales revenue will be adversely affected, which, in turn, could adversely affect our ability to market or sell those product candidates, if approved. Measures to contain healthcare costs, including the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act and potential tariffs on pharmaceuticals imported into the U.S. or implementation of Most Favored Nations (MFN) rules , may reduce the addressable market for our products, affect the prices that our commercial partners are able to obtain and have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations. A number of legislative initiatives and executive orders, in particular in the U.S. market, may impact the ability of our commercial partners to successfully commercialize our products. In the U.S., the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), requires manufacturers of certain single-source biologics that have been on the market for at least 11 years to engage in price negotiations with Medicare, with prices that can be negotiated subject to a cap (the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program). In 2023, HHS added Stelara, the reference product for AVT04, to the list of drugs for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) Medicare price negotiations. On 15 August 2024, Stelara became subject to a 66% discount, with a negotiated price of $4,695 under the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program. It is currently unclear how the IRA legislation will work and what impact it will have on the market for biosimilars in the near future. Any reduction in reimbursement for reference products from Medicare, other government programs in the U.S. or similar cost reimbursement systems in other countries, may result in a price reduction for biosimilars. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may therefore prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability or commercialize our product candidates. In the EU, similar political, economic, and regulatory developments may affect our ability to profitably commercialize our product candidates, if approved. In markets outside of the United States and EU, reimbursement and healthcare payment systems vary significantly by country, and many countries have instituted price ceilings on specific products and therapies. In 2025 the U.S. government threatened to impose tariffs on imported pharmaceuticals from countries which did not reach a bilateral trade agreement with the U.S. Currently pharmaceuticals, including non-patented pharmaceuticals such as biosimilars, originating in Iceland are not subject to a U.S. import tariff. If a tariff is imposed on our biosimilars imported to the U.S. but our competitors which manufacture their products in continental Europe, India and South-Korea do not face a similar tariff, our ability to compete in the U.S. may be impaired. Our biosimilar product candidates, if approved, could face price competition from other biosimilars of the same reference products for the same indication. This price competition could exceed our capacity to respond, detrimentally 27 affecting its market share and revenue as well as adversely affecting the overall financial health and attractiveness of the market for the biosimilar. We expect to enter highly competitive biosimilar markets. Successful competitors in the biosimilar market have the ability to effectively compete on price through payors and their third-party administrators who exert downward pricing pressure. It is possible our biosimilar competitors’ compliance with price discounting demands in exchange for market share could exceed our capacity to respond in kind and reduce market prices beyond our expectations. Such practices may limit our and our collaboration partners’ ability to increase market share and will also impact profitability. We may not be successful in our efforts to identify, develop or commercialize additional product candidates. Although a substantial amount of our effort will focus on the continued testing, potential approval and commercialization of our existing product candidates, the success of our business also depends upon our ability to identify, develop and commercialize additional product candidates (in addition to the lead candidates). Research programs to identify new product candidates require substantial technical, financial and human resources. We may focus our efforts and resources on potential programs or product candidates that ultimately prove to be unsuccessful. Our development efforts may fail to yield additional product candidates suitable for development and/or commercialization for a number of reasons, including but not limited to the following: •we may not be successful in identifying potential product candidates that pass our strict screening criteria; •we may not be able to overcome technological hurdles to development or a product candidate may not be capable of producing commercial quantities at an acceptable cost or at all; •we may not be able to assemble sufficient resources to acquire or discover additional product candidates; •our product candidates may not succeed in analytical, nonclinical, or clinical testing; •our potential product candidates may fail to show biosimilarity to reference products; •we may not be successful in overcoming intellectual property obstacles in a timely manner or at all; and •competitors may develop alternatives that render our product candidates obsolete or less attractive or the market for a product candidate may change such that a product candidate may not justify further development. If any of these events occur, we may be forced to abandon our development efforts for a program or programs or we may not be able to identify, develop or commercialize additional product candidates, which would have a material adverse effect on our business and could potentially cause us to cease operations. Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property If we or one of our partners infringes or is alleged to infringe the intellectual property rights of third parties, our business could be harmed. Avoiding and defending against infringement claims could be expensive and time consuming, which may in turn prevent or delay our development and commercialization efforts. Our commercial success depends in large part on avoiding infringement of the valid and enforceable patents and proprietary rights of third parties and invalidating or rendering unenforceable other patent and proprietary rights of third parties. There have been many lawsuits and other proceedings involving patent and other intellectual property rights in the pharmaceutical industry, including patent infringement lawsuits, interferences, oppositions and reexamination proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), and corresponding foreign patent offices. Numerous U.S. and foreign issued patents and pending patent applications, which are owned by third parties, exist in the fields in which we are developing product candidates. As the pharmaceutical industry expands and more patents are issued, the risk increases that our product candidates may be subject to claims of infringement of the patent rights, or other intellectual property rights, of third parties. Our research, development and commercialization activities may be claimed or held to infringe or otherwise violate patents owned or controlled by other parties. The companies that originated the products for which we intend to introduce biosimilar versions, such as AbbVie, Amgen, Janssen, Genentech and Regeneron as well as other competitors (including other companies developing biosimilars) often have developed worldwide patent portfolios of varying sizes and breadth, many of which are in fields relating to our business, and it may not always be clear to industry participants, including us, which patents cover various types of products, methods of use, methods of manufacturing, etc. 28 Third parties may assert that we are employing their proprietary technology without authorization. There may be third-party patents or patent applications with claims to compositions, formulations, methods of manufacture or methods for treatment related to the use or manufacture of our product candidates. While we have conducted freedom to operate analyses with respect to our lead product candidates, we cannot guarantee that any of our analyses will ensure that claims will not be brought or won against us, nor can we be sure that we have identified each and every patent and pending application in the United States and abroad that is relevant or necessary to the commercialization of our product candidates. Moreover, because patent applications can take up to 18 months after initial priority filing date to publish and issue, there may be currently pending patent applications with claims not yet filed that may later result in issued patents covering our product candidates. We have not yet completed a freedom-to-operate analysis on products we are evaluating for inclusion in our future biosimilar product pipeline, and therefore we do not know whether or to what extent that development of these products may be influenced by unexpired patents and pending applications. There may also be patent applications that have been filed but not published and if such applications issue as patents, they could be asserted against us. For example, in most cases, a patent filed today would not become known to industry participants for at least 18 months given patent rules applicable in most jurisdictions which typically do not publish patent applications until 18 months from the application’s prior date. Moreover, we may face claims from non-practicing entities that have no relevant product revenue and against whom our own patent portfolio may have no deterrent effect. In addition, coverage of patents is subject to interpretation by the courts, and the interpretation is not always uniform. If we are sued for patent infringement, we would need to convince a judicial authority that our product candidates, products or methods either do not infringe the patent claims of the relevant patent or that the patent claims are invalid and/or unenforceable, and we may not be able to do this. Proving to a judicial authority that a patent claim is invalid or unenforceable can be difficult. For example, in the United States, proving invalidity requires a showing of clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption of validity enjoyed by issued patents. Also in proceedings before courts in Europe, the burden of proving invalidity of the patent usually rests on the party alleging invalidity. Further, proving the invalidity or unenforceability of a patent claim in the jurisdictions in which we operate may also depend on changes in the relevant law. Attempts to resolve intellectual property disputes may require substantial efforts including, but not limited to, validity challenges in patent offices, court litigation and arbitration. Even if we are successful in these proceedings, we may incur substantial costs and the time and attention of our management and scientific personnel could be diverted in pursuing these proceedings, which could have a material adverse effect on us. In addition, we may not have sufficient resources to bring these actions to a desired conclusion. Third parties could bring claims against us that would cause us to incur substantial expenses to defend against and, if successful against us, could cause us to pay substantial monetary damages if our product candidate is on the market. Further, if a patent infringement suit were brought against us, we could be forced to stop or delay research, development, manufacturing or sales of the product or product candidate that is the subject of the suit. Ultimately, we could be prevented from commercializing a product or be forced to cease some aspect of our business operations, if, as a result of actual or threatened patent infringement claims, We are unable to enter into licenses on commercially acceptable terms or at all. If, as a result of patent infringement claims or to avoid potential claims, we choose or is required to seek licenses from third parties, these licenses may not be available on acceptable terms or at all. Even if we are able to obtain a license, the license may obligate us to pay substantial license fees or royalties or both, and the rights granted to us might be nonexclusive, which could result in our competitors gaining access to the same intellectual property. Parties making claims against us may obtain injunctive or other equitable relief, which could effectively delay or block our ability to further develop and commercialize one or more of our product candidates. For example, companies that originated the products for which we intend to introduce biosimilar versions may seek damages for their loss of profits and/or market share. Defense of these claims, regardless of their merit, would likely involve substantial litigation expense and would likely be a substantial diversion of employee resources from our business. In the event of a successful claim of infringement against us, we may, in addition to being blocked from the market, have to pay substantial monetary damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees for willful infringement, pay royalties, redesign our infringing products or obtain one or more licenses from third parties, which may be impossible or require substantial time and monetary expenditure. In addition to infringement claims against us, we may become a party to other patent litigation and other proceedings, including interference, derivation or post-grant proceedings declared or granted by the USPTO and similar proceedings in foreign countries, regarding intellectual property rights with respect to our current or future products. An unfavorable outcome in any such proceedings could require us to delay or cease using the related technology or to attempt to license rights to it from the prevailing party or could cause us to lose valuable intellectual property rights. Our business could be harmed if the prevailing party does not offer us a license on commercially reasonable terms, if any license is offered at all. Litigation or other proceedings may fail and, even if successful, may result in substantial costs and distract our management and other employees. We may also become involved in disputes with others regarding the ownership of intellectual property rights. For example, we may jointly develop intellectual property with certain parties, and disagreements may therefore arise as to the ownership of the intellectual property developed pursuant to these relationships. If we are unable to resolve these disputes, we could lose valuable intellectual property rights. 29 BLA holders may submit applications for patent term extensions in the United States or other jurisdictions where similar extensions are available and/or Supplementary Protection Certificates in the EEA countries, and an equivalent process in Switzerland, seeking to extend certain patent protection which, if approved, may interfere with or delay the launch of one or more of our biosimilar products. Further, patent laws in the various jurisdictions in which we do business are subject to change and any future changes in patent laws may be less favorable for us. The cost of any patent litigation or other proceeding, even if resolved in our favor, could be substantial. Patent litigation and other proceedings may fail, and even if successful, may result in substantial costs and distract our management and other employees. The companies that originated the products for which we intend to introduce biosimilar versions, as well as other competitors (including other biosimilar companies) may be able to sustain the costs of such litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their substantially greater financial resources. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings (either filed against Alvotech or one of its partners) could impair our ability to compete in the applicable marketplace. So called “submarine” patents may be granted to our competitors that may significantly alter our launch timing expectations, reduce our projected market size, cause us to modify our product or process or block us from the market altogether. The term “submarine” patent has been used in the pharmaceutical industry and in other industries to denote a patent issuing from an application that was not published, publicly known or available (including unfiled continuation, continuation-in-part, and divisional applications, and the like) at a critical time during which development and/or commercial decisions are made. Submarine patents add uncertainty to our business, e.g., because key decisions may be made during a period of time during which a pending applications has not yet published and such applications may only become known after those key decisions have already been made and perhaps even acted on. Submarine patents may issue to our competitors covering key aspects of our biosimilar product candidates or our pipeline candidates and thereby cause significant market entry delay, lead to unexpected licensing fees, defeat our ability to market our products or cause us to abandon development and/or commercialization of a molecule. The issuance of one or more submarine patents may harm our business by causing substantial delays in our ability to introduce a biosimilar candidate into the U.S. market. We may not timely identify, or identify at all, relevant patents or may incorrectly interpret the relevance, scope or expiration of a patent which might adversely affect our ability to develop and market our products. We cannot guarantee that any of our patent searches or analyses, including but not limited to the identification of relevant patents, the scope of patent claims or the expiration of relevant patents, are 100% accurate and/or exhaustive, nor can we be certain that we have identified each and every patent and pending application in the United States and abroad that is relevant to or necessary for the commercialization of our product candidates in any jurisdiction (timely or at all). The scope of a patent claim is determined by a judicial authority’s interpretation under controlling law. Our interpretation of the relevance or the scope of a patent or a pending application may be incorrect and/or different from that of a judicial authority, which may negatively impact our ability to market our products or pipeline molecules. We may determine that our products are not covered by a third-party patent, but a judicial authority may hold otherwise. Many patents may cover a marketed product, including but not limited to the composition of the product, methods of use, formulations, cell line constructs, vectors, growth media, production processes and purification processes. The identification of all patents and their expiration dates relevant to the production and sale of a reference product is extraordinarily complex and requires sophisticated legal knowledge in the relevant jurisdiction and interactive monitoring and analyzing of the patent landscape. It may be impossible to identify all patents in all jurisdictions relevant to a marketed product. Our determination of the expiration date of any patent in the United States or abroad that we consider (timely or at all) relevant may be incorrect which may negatively impact our ability to develop and market our products. Our failure to identify and correctly interpret relevant patents may negatively impact our ability to develop and market our products. Legal proceedings that carry risk may occur from time to time, and their outcome may be uncertain. We have been, and may in the future be involved, directly or through our partners, in various legal proceedings, including patent litigation and challenges, other intellectual property disputes, product liability and other product-related litigation, including personal injury, consumer, off-label promotion, securities, antitrust and breach of contract claims, commercial, environmental, government investigations, employment, tax litigation and other legal proceedings that arise from time to time in the ordinary course of our business. Examples of such proceedings are described elsewhere in this 30 Annual Report. Litigation is inherently unpredictable, and excessive verdicts do occur. We could incur judgments and/or enter into settlements, which could require us to make payments to the proceedings’ counterparties or limit or discontinue certain of our activities, or could otherwise have a material adverse effect on our business operations. In addition, even if such legal proceedings are ultimately resolved in our favor, they may be costly and time-consuming to conduct, which may materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. The cost and resource requirements, including management attention, associated with conducting such legal proceedings may lead us to settle certain actions on terms that are materially adverse to us, even if we believe that the ultimate resolution of the proceedings is likely to be favorable. An unfavorable outcome could require us to cease using the related technology or to attempt to license rights to it from the prevailing party. Recently, some courts have been open to issuing cross-border injunctions that could impact our ability to manufacture and market products concurrently in multiple jurisdictions. Our business could be harmed if we cannot obtain a license from the prevailing party on commercially reasonable terms. Our defense of litigation proceedings may fail and, even if successful, may result in substantial costs and distract our management and other employees. In addition, the uncertainties associated with litigation could have a material adverse effect on our ability to raise the funds necessary to continue our clinical studies, continue our research programs, license necessary technology from third parties or enter into development partnerships that would help us bring our product candidates to market. We may be involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce our patents or other intellectual property rights, which could be expensive, time consuming and unsuccessful. We may discover that competitors are infringing one or more of our patents after they issue. Expensive and time-consuming litigation may be required to abate such infringement. Although we are not currently involved in any litigation to enforce patents, if we or one of our collaboration partners, such as Teva Pharmaceuticals International Ltd. ("Teva") or Stada Arzneimittel AG ("STADA"), were to initiate legal proceedings against a third-party to enforce a patent covering one of our product candidates, the defendant could counterclaim that the patent covering our product candidate is invalid and/or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity and/or unenforceability are commonplace. Grounds for a validity challenge could be an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, including but not limited to lack of novelty, obviousness, written description or non-enablement. Grounds for an unenforceability assertion could include an allegation that someone involved in the prosecution of the patent withheld relevant or material information related to the patentability of the invention from the USPTO or made a misleading statement during prosecution. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, and although there are protections in place, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during any litigation we initiate to enforce our patents. There could also be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments. If securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, they could have a material adverse effect on the price of Ordinary Shares. We may be subject to claims that our employees, consultants, or independent contractors have wrongfully used or disclosed confidential information of third parties or that our employees have wrongfully used or disclosed alleged trade secrets of their former employers or third parties. We employ individuals, retain independent contractors and consultants and members on our board of directors or scientific advisory board who were previously employed at universities or other pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. Although we have several mechanisms in place to ensure that our employees, consultants and independent contractors do not use the proprietary information or know-how of others in their work for us, we may in the future be subject to such claims. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. If we fail in defending against any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel, which could adversely impact our business. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs or delay and be a distraction to management and other employees. If we are unable to obtain and maintain effective intellectual property rights, including patent rights, for our product candidates or any future product candidates, we may not be able to prevent competitors from using technologies we consider important to successful development and commercialization of our product candidates, resulting in loss of any potential competitive advantage our intellectual property rights may have otherwise afforded us. While our principal focus in matters relating to intellectual property is to avoid infringing the valid and enforceable rights of third parties, we also rely upon a combination of intellectual property protection and confidentiality agreements to protect our own intellectual property related to our development programs. Our ability to enjoy any competitive advantages 31 afforded by our own intellectual property depends in large part on our ability to obtain and maintain patents and other intellectual property protection in the United States and in other countries with respect to various proprietary elements of our product candidates, such as, for example, our product formulations and processes for manufacturing our products and our ability to maintain and control the confidentiality of trade secrets and confidential information critical to our business. We have sought to protect our proprietary position by filing patent applications in the United States and abroad related to our products that are important to our business. This process is expensive and time consuming, and we may not be able to file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner. It is also possible that we will fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development output before it is too late to obtain patent protection. There is no guarantee that any patent application we file will result in an issued patent having claims that protect our products. Additionally, while the basic requirements for patentability are similar across jurisdictions, each jurisdiction has its own specific requirements for patentability. We cannot guarantee that we will obtain identical or similar, or any, patent protection covering our products in all jurisdictions where we file patent applications. The patent positions of biopharmaceutical companies generally are highly uncertain and involve complex legal and factual questions for which legal principles remain unresolved. As a result, the patent applications that we own or licenses may fail to result in issued patents with claims that cover our product candidates in the United States or in other foreign countries for many reasons. There is no assurance that all potentially relevant prior art relating to our patents and patent applications have been found, considered or cited during patent prosecution, which can be used to invalidate a patent or prevent a patent from issuing from a pending patent application. Even if patents do successfully issue, and even if such patents cover our product candidates, third parties may challenge their validity, enforceability or scope, which may result in such patent claims being narrowed, found unenforceable or invalidated. Furthermore, even if they are unchallenged, our patents and patent applications may not adequately protect our intellectual property, provide exclusivity for our product candidates or prevent others from designing around our claims. Any of these outcomes could impair our ability to prevent competitors from using the technologies claimed in any patents issued to us, which may have an adverse impact on our business. Patents granted by the European Patent Office may be opposed by any person within nine months from the publication of their grant and, in addition, may be challenged before national courts at any time. From time to time, we may be involved in these anonymous or “straw man” oppositions. Furthermore, even if they are unchallenged, our patents and patent applications may not adequately protect our intellectual property or prevent others from designing around our claims. If the breadth or strength of protection provided by the patents and patent applications we hold, license or pursue with respect to our product candidates is threatened, it could threaten our ability to prevent third parties from using the same technologies that we use in our product candidates. In addition, changes to the patent laws of the United States provide additional procedures for third parties to challenge the validity of issued patents based on patent applications filed after 15 March 2013. If the breadth or strength of protection provided by the patents and patent applications we hold or pursue with respect to our current or future product candidates is challenged, then it could threaten our ability to prevent competitive products using our proprietary technology. Further, because patent applications in the United States and most other countries are confidential for a period of time, typically for 18 months after filing, we cannot be certain that we were the first to either (i) file any patent application related to our product candidates or (ii) invent any of the inventions claimed in our patents or patent applications. Furthermore, for applications filed before 16 March 2013 or patents issuing from such applications, an interference proceeding can be provoked by a third-party or instituted by the USPTO to determine who was the first to invent any of the subject matter covered by the patent claims of our applications and patents. As of 16 March 2013, the United States transitioned to a “first-inventor-to-file” system for deciding which party should be granted a patent when two or more patent applications claiming the same invention are filed by different parties. A third-party that files a patent application in the USPTO before us could therefore be awarded a patent covering our invention. The change to “first-inventor-to-file” from “first-to-invent” is one of the changes to the patent laws of the United States resulting from the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, signed into law on 16 September 2011. Among some of the other significant changes to the patent laws are changes that limit where a patentee may file a patent infringement suit and provide opportunities for third parties to challenge any issued patent in the USPTO. We have filed patent applications, which are in various stages of prosecution/issuance, and plan to pursue additional applications, covering various aspects of our product candidates (e.g., formulations and bioprocesses). We cannot offer any assurances about which or where, if any, patents will issue, the breadth of any such patent or whether any issued patents will be found invalid and unenforceable or will be threatened or infringed by third parties. Any successful actions by third parties to challenge the validity or enforceability of any patents which may issue to us could deprive us the ability to prevent others from using the technologies claimed in such issued patents. Further, if we encounter delays in regulatory approvals, the period of time during which we could market a product candidate under patent protection could be reduced. Our business is based primarily on the timing of our biosimilar product launches to occur after the expiration of relevant patents and/or regulatory exclusivity. We file patent applications directed to our proprietary formulations for our 32 product candidates when we believe securing such patents may afford a competitive advantage. We cannot guarantee that our proprietary formulations will avoid infringement of third-party patents, or that the patent applications filed on our proprietary formulations will be found patentable and/or upheld as valid. Moreover, because competitors may be able to develop their own proprietary product formulations, it is uncertain whether issuance of any of our pending patent applications, would cover the formulations of any competitors. We do not consider it necessary for us or our competitors to obtain or maintain a proprietary patent position in order to engage in the business of biosimilar development and commercialization. Hence, while our ability to secure patent coverage on our own proprietary developments may improve our competitive position with respect to the product candidates we intend to commercialize, we do not view our own patent filings as a necessary or essential requirement for conducting our business nor do we rely on patent filings or the potential for any commercial advantage they may provide us as a basis for our success. Obtaining and maintaining our patent protection depends on compliance with various procedural requirements, document submissions, actions within prescribed deadlines, overcoming substantial and procedural examination requirements, fee payments and other requirements imposed by governmental patent agencies. Our patent protection could be reduced or eliminated for non-compliance with these requirements. The USPTO and various foreign governmental patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other provisions during the patent process. In many cases, an inadvertent lapse can be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules. However, there are situations in which noncompliance can result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. In such an event, competitors might be able to enter the market earlier than would otherwise have been the case. We may not be able to adequately protect our intellectual property rights throughout the world. Filing, prosecuting, defending and enforcing patents on product candidates in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and our intellectual property rights in some countries outside the United States can be less extensive than those in the United States. In addition, the laws of some countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as federal and state laws in the United States. Further, licensing partners may choose not to file patent applications in certain jurisdictions in which we may obtain commercial rights (to the extent those partners have a contractual right to do so), thereby precluding the possibility of later obtaining patent protection in these countries. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in all countries outside the United States or importing products made using our inventions into the United States or other jurisdictions. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to develop their own products and may also export infringing products to territories where we have patent protection, but the ability to enforce our patents is not as strong as that in the United States. These products may compete with our products and our patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing. Many companies have encountered significant problems in obtaining, protecting and defending intellectual property rights in certain non-U.S. jurisdictions. The legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents, trade secrets and other intellectual property protection, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patents or marketing of competing products in violation of our proprietary rights generally. Proceedings to enforce our patent rights in foreign jurisdictions, whether or not successful, could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, could put our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and our patent applications at risk of not issuing and could provoke third parties to assert claims against us. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that it initiates and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. Governments of some foreign countries may force us to license our patents to third parties on terms that are not commercially reasonable or acceptable to us (not timely or not at all). Accordingly, our efforts to enforce our intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop or license in certain jurisdictions. Changes in the patent laws of the United States and other jurisdictions in which we do business could diminish the value of patents obtainable in such jurisdictions, thereby impairing our ability to protect our products. As is the case with other biopharmaceutical companies, our success for any given product could be heavily dependent on intellectual property, particularly patents. Obtaining and enforcing patents in the biopharmaceutical industry 33 involves both technological and legal complexity. Therefore, obtaining and enforcing biopharmaceutical patents is costly, time consuming and inherently uncertain. Depending on future actions by the U.S. Congress, the federal courts and the USPTO, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that would weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce our existing patents and patents that we might obtain in the future. Similarly, future actions in non-U.S. jurisdictions may similarly impact laws and regulations governing patents in unpredictable ways. If we are unable to maintain effective (non-patent) proprietary rights for our product candidates or any future product candidates, we may not be able to compete effectively in our markets. While we have filed patent applications to protect certain aspects of our own proprietary formulation and process developments, we also rely on trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect proprietary scientific, business and technical information and know-how that is not or may not be patentable or that we elect not to patent. However, confidential information and trade secrets can be difficult to protect. Moreover, the information embodied in our trade secrets and confidential information may be independently and legitimately developed or discovered by third parties without any improper use of or reference to information or trade secrets. We seek to protect the scientific, technical and business information supporting our operations, as well as the confidential information relating specifically to our product candidates by entering into confidentiality agreements with parties to whom we need to disclose our confidential information, for example, our employees, consultants, scientific advisors, board members, contractors, potential collaborators and financial investors. However, we cannot be certain that such agreements have been entered into with all relevant parties, or that any such agreements would not be violated. We also seek to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of our data and trade secrets by maintaining physical security of our premises and physical and electronic security of our information technology systems, but it is possible that these security measures could be breached. While we have confidence in these individuals, organizations and systems, agreements or security measures may be breached, and we may not have adequate remedies for any breach. Further, from time-to-time we may be subject to anonymous Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), requests. To the extent the company needs to respond to such requests, our management’s attention and the company’s resources may be diverted from normal business operations. As a result of either security breaches or FOIA requests, our confidential information and trade secrets thus may become known by our competitors in ways we cannot prevent or remedy. Although we require all of our employees and consultants to assign their inventions to us, and all of our employees, consultants, advisors and any third parties who have access to our proprietary know-how, information or technology to enter into confidentiality agreements, we cannot provide any assurances that all such agreements have been duly executed. We cannot guarantee that our trade secrets and other confidential proprietary information will not be disclosed or that competitors will not otherwise gain access to our trade secrets or independently develop substantially equivalent information and techniques. For example, any of these parties may breach the agreements and disclose our proprietary information, including our trade secrets, and we may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for such breaches. Misappropriation or unauthorized disclosure of our trade secrets could impair our competitive position and may have a material adverse effect on our business. Additionally, if the steps taken to maintain our trade secrets are deemed inadequate, we may have insufficient recourse against third parties for misappropriating the trade secret. We cannot guarantee that our employees, former employees or consultants will not file patent applications claiming our inventions. Because of the “first-to-file” laws in the United States (and in other jurisdictions), such unauthorized patent application filings may defeat our attempts to obtain patents on our inventions. We may be subject to claims challenging the inventorship or ownership of our patent filings and other intellectual property. Although we are not currently aware of any claims challenging the inventorship of our patent applications or ownership of our intellectual property, we may in the future be subject to claims that former employees, collaborators or other third parties have an interest in our patent applications or patents we may be granted or other intellectual property as an inventor or co-inventor. For example, we may have inventorship or ownership disputes arise from conflicting obligations of consultants or others who are involved in developing our product candidates, or which result from an improper assignment of ownership. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these and other claims challenging inventorship or ownership. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights, such as exclusive ownership of or right to use valuable intellectual property. Such an outcome could have a material adverse effect on our business. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management and other employees. 34 We may not be successful in obtaining or maintaining necessary intellectual property rights to our product candidates through acquisitions and in-licenses. We currently have or are pursuing rights to certain intellectual property, through licenses from third parties for various technologies relevant to the manufacture and commercialization of biologics. Because we may find that our programs require the use of proprietary rights held by third parties, the growth of our business may depend in part on our ability to acquire, in-license or use these proprietary rights. We may be unable to acquire or in-license compositions, methods of use, processes or other third-party intellectual property rights from third parties that we identify as necessary for our product candidates. The licensing and acquisition of third-party intellectual property rights is a competitive area, and a number of more established companies are also pursuing strategies to license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights that we may consider attractive. These established companies may have a competitive advantage over us due to their size, financial resources and greater clinical development and commercialization capabilities. In addition, companies that perceive us to be a competitor may be unwilling to assign or license rights to us. We also may be unable to license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights on terms that would allow us to make an appropriate return on investment. If we are unable to successfully obtain rights to required third-party intellectual property rights or maintain the existing intellectual property rights we have, our business and financial condition could suffer. Our ability to market our products in the United States may be significantly delayed or prevented by the BPCIA patent information exchange mechanism. The BPCIA created an elaborate and complex, private, pre-litigation patent information exchange mechanism for biosimilars to focus issues for patent litigation and/or facilitate dispute resolution with the reference product sponsor before litigation commences/ends. The BPCIA provides for a detailed and complex mechanism for exchange of confidential and business-sensitive information between a reference product sponsor and a biosimilar candidate (pre-approval) that is demanding, time-sensitive and, to date, not fully tested and therefore unpredictable. This pre-litigation private information exchange is colloquially known as the “patent dance.” The patent dance requires the biosimilar applicant to disclose not only the regulatory application but also the applicant’s manufacturing process before litigation (and therefore significantly earlier than would normally be required in patent litigation), has the potential to afford the reference product sponsor an easier path than traditional infringement litigation for developing any factual grounds they may require to support allegations of infringement. The rules established in the BPCIA’s patent dance procedures could place biosimilar firms at a significant disadvantage by affording the reference product sponsor a much easier mechanism for factual discovery, thereby increasing the risk that a biosimilar product could be blocked from the market more quickly than under traditional patent infringement litigation processes and in certain cases could outweigh advantages provided to biosimilar firms by the patent dance. Preparing for and conducting the patent information exchange, briefing and negotiation process under the BPCIA will require sophisticated legal counseling and extensive planning, all under extremely tight deadlines. We cannot guarantee the outcome of the patent dance will be a successful path to commercialization of our biosimilar products. It is possible for a biosimilar firm to skip the patent dance before any corresponding patent litigation. But this too could place a biosimilar firm at a significant disadvantage by ceding all control of the number of patents and the timing for the start of litigation to the reference product sponsor, thereby increasing the uncertainty before approval and launch and increasing the chances for possible delays. In certain circumstances, the advantages of participating in the patent dance could outweigh the advantages of skipping the patent dance. Regardless of whether a biosimilar firm chooses to participate in the patent dance, the BPCIA’s information disclosure procedure adds significantly to expense, complexity, uncertainty, and risk. For example, a biosimilar firm may be subject to an allegation of violating the BPCIA independent of the patent issues, given that what could be a violation still has not been fully vetted. Moreover, the complexity of the patent dance and subsequent biosimilar litigation requires highly qualified law firms and the conflict space for such firms is very crowded, with biosimilar firms competing not only with other biosimilar firms but also with reference product sponsors for the engagement of suitable law firms. It may be difficult for us to secure such legal support if large, well-funded references have already entered into engagements with highly qualified law firms or if the most highly qualified law firms choose not to represent biosimilar applicants due to their long-standing relationships with references. 35 Our Canadian partner, JAMP, is involved in legal proceedings adverse to AbbVie that may have an impact on our AVT02 product in Canada. While our legal proceedings adverse to AbbVie related to our biosimilar adalimumab product, AVT02, have been settled or otherwise resolved in the United States, the Netherlands, and Japan, and before the European Patent Office, proceedings between our Canadian partner JAMP and AbbVie are pending in Canada. On 31 March 2021, AbbVie filed four actions in the Federal Court of Canada (T-557-21, T-559-21, T-560-21 and T-561-21, collectively, the “NOC Actions”) against JAMP Pharma Corporation (“JAMP Pharma”), which is our exclusive Canadian partner for AVT02 (adalimumab solution for injection). No Alvotech entity is a named party in the NOC Actions. AbbVie is seeking declarations pursuant to the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations and the Patent Act that JAMP Pharma’s adalimumab solution for subcutaneous injection (the “JAMP Pharma Products”) would directly or indirectly infringe the asserted claims of Canadian Patent Nos. 2,898,009; 2,904,458; 2,504,868; 2,847,142; 2,801,917 and 2,385,745. JAMP Pharma counterclaimed, in each of the four actions, alleging that the asserted claims of each of the six patents are invalid. On 6 April 2021, JAMP Pharma commenced four actions in the Federal Court of Canada (T-572-21, T-573-21, T-577-21 and T-581-21, collectively, the “Impeachment Actions”) seeking declarations that all claims of Canadian Patent Nos. 2,898,009; 2,904,458; 2,504,868; 2,847,142; 2,801,917 and 2,385,745 are invalid, void and of no force or effect, and declarations that the making, using or selling of the JAMP Pharma Products by JAMP Pharma in Canada will not infringe any valid claim of Canadian Patent Nos. 2,898,009; 2,904,458; 2,504,868; 2,847,142; 2,801,917 and 2,385,745. No Alvotech entity is a named party in the Impeachment Actions. On 4 June 2021, JAMP Pharma amended its Statements of Claim in the Impeachment Actions to only seek declarations that the specific claims asserted in the NOC Actions are invalid, void and of no force or effect, and declarations that the making, using or selling of the JAMP Pharma Products by JAMP Pharma in Canada will not infringe the asserted claims. AbbVie has counterclaimed for declarations that the asserted claims of the patents are valid and that they will be infringed by JAMP Pharma. The trial of the Impeachment Actions and the NOC Actions commenced on 14 November 2022, and concluded with closing arguments on 14 December 2022. During the course of the proceedings, the patents-at-issue were limited to Canadian Patent Nos. 2,904,458; 2,504,868; and 2,801,917. In November 2023, Justice McVeigh issued her trial decision, which invalidated AbbVie’s 868 Patent (dosing to treat Crohn’s disease and UC) and 917 Patent (dosing to treat HS). While AbbVie’s 458 Patent (bufferless formulation) was held to be valid and infringed by JAMP Pharma, Justice McVeigh declined to issue a permanent injunction and instead determined that JAMP Pharma could continue to market AVT02 in Canada and compensate AbbVie by way of a running royalty (to be determined by way of a future trial). AbbVie appealed the trial decision and JAMP Pharma cross-appealed (regarding the validity/infringement of the 458 Patent). The appeal and cross-appeal are in the early stages and are unlikely to be heard before the fourth quarter of 2026. Even if JAMP Pharma is successful in defending against AbbVie’s patent infringement claims, litigation could result in substantial cost and distraction to management and other employees. In the event that an appellate court finds in AbbVie’s favor, then market access of SIMLANDI in Canada may be impacted. Alvotech and our partner Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories are involved in legal proceedings adverse to Amgen that may have an impact on our AVT 03 product in the United States. In November 2025, Amgen brought suit against Alvotech and its commercial partner Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging that AVT03 infringes several Amgen patents. AVT03 was developed by Alvotech as denosumab products that are biosimilars of Amgen’s Prolia and XGEVA products. Alvotech and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories have answered that the patents asserted by Amgen are not infringed, invalid, or unenforceable. The litigation remains ongoing with trial scheduled to occur in May 2028. Alvotech and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories are vigorously defending the litigation. However, in the event that the court finds in Amgen’s favor, then market access of AVT03 in the United States may be impacted. Patent conflicts regarding AVT06 have been resolved by settlement with Regeneron and Bayer. 36 In December 2025, Alvotech and Teva reached a settlement and license agreement with Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. concerning the launch of AVT06, Alvotech’s proposed biosimilar to Eylea® (aflibercept) in the United States. The settlement grants a license entry date for AVT06 in the United States in the fourth quarter of 2026, or earlier under certain circumstances. In Japan, in October 2025, Regeneron and Bayer brought a petition for provisional disposition against Alvotech’s commercial partner Fuji Pharma based on Japanese patent no. 7733706. Fuji Pharma denied that Regeneron and Bayer were entitled to any relief and vigorously defended itself in the litigation. In Europe, Alvotech defended itself in several actions brought by Regeneron and Bayer related to AVT06. Regeneron and Bayer brought challenges to Alvotech’s SPC waiver requests in Iceland, the United Kingdom, and Belgium. Alvotech obtained decisions in the first instance that those challenges were without merit. In December 2025, Regeneron brought an action for a preliminary injunction against Alvotech and its commercial partners Advanz Pharma and STADA in the Munich 1 Regional Court. After a hearing that was conducted on January 8, 2026, the court entered an injunction against Alvotech, Advanz Pharma and STADA. In January 2026, Alvotech entered into a settlement agreement with Regeneron and Bayer to market and sell the biosimilar as of January 1, 2026 in the UK and Canada as well as Japan (excluding the diabetic macular edema indication) starting May 1 in the European Economic Area and all other countries in the world (other than the U.S.), and from November 1, 2026 in Japan with all approved indications. The settlement agreement also resolved all remaining patent disputes related to AVT06 worldwide. Alvotech has filed a petition for Post Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 12,168,036 in the USPTO. In September 2025, Alvotech filed a petition for Post Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 12,168,036. This patent purports to claim a pharmaceutical formulation that contains at least 8 mg of aflibercept with other additional requirements. Alvotech argued that the patent claims were obvious in view of certain prior art, and that they also lacked written description in the patent’s specification. The patent owner argued that the USPTO should exercise its discretion to deny institution of the post grant review, and also submitted a preliminary response arguing that the claims were not invalid. The USPTO has rejected the patent owner’s request for discretionary denial. In March 2026, the USPTO instituted the PGR proceeding. In general, a final written decision in the PGR will be rendered no more than one year from the institution of the PGR proceedings. If the USPTO were to find in the patent owner’s favor, then market access to biosimilar versions of Eylea High-Dose, including Alvotech’s AVT29 product, in the United States may be impacted. Alvotech, directly or through our partners, may become involved in legal proceedings adverse to other originators or market participants. Risks Related to Government Regulations Our commercial products will remain subject to continuous subsequent regulatory obligations and scrutiny. If our product candidates are approved, they will be subject to ongoing regulatory requirements for pharmacovigilance, manufacturing, labeling, packaging, storage, advertising, promotion, sampling, record-keeping, conduct of post-marketing studies (if any) and submission of other post-market information, including both federal and state requirements in the United States and equivalent requirements of comparable foreign regulatory authorities. Manufacturers and manufacturers’ facilities are required to comply with extensive FDA, and comparable foreign regulatory authority requirements, including ensuring that quality control and manufacturing procedures conform to current cGMP, regulations. As such, we and our contract manufacturers will be subject to continual review and inspections to assess compliance with cGMP and adherence to commitments made in any marketing authorization application. Accordingly, we and others with whom we work must continue to expend time, money and effort in all areas of regulatory compliance, including manufacturing, production and quality control. Any regulatory approvals that we or our collaboration partners receive for our product candidates may be subject to limitations on the approved conditions of use for which the product may be marketed or to the conditions of approval or 37 may contain requirements for potentially costly additional data generation, including clinical studies. We will be required to report certain adverse reactions and production problems, if any, to the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities, and to conduct surveillance to monitor the safety and efficacy of the product candidate. Any new legislation addressing drug safety or biologics or biosimilars issues could result in delays in product development, approval or commercialization or increased costs to assure compliance. We will have to comply with requirements concerning advertising and promotion for our products. Promotional communications with respect to prescription drugs are subject to a variety of legal and regulatory restrictions that vary throughout the world and must be consistent with the information in the product’s approved label. As such, we may not promote our products in ways that are not consistent with FDA-approved labeling, e.g., for indications or uses for which they do not have approval. Equivalent limitations are provided both at EU level and national level in the individual EU Member States. If our product candidates are approved, the company must submit new or supplemental applications and obtain prior approval for certain changes to the licensed approved, therapeutic indications, product labeling and manufacturing process. These changes may require submission of substantial data packages that may include clinical data. If a regulatory authority discovers previously unknown problems with a biosimilar product (or with the reference product or related biosimilars) such as adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or if there are problems with the facility where the product is manufactured or the regulatory authority disagrees with the advertising, promotion, marketing or labeling of a product, such regulatory authority may impose restrictions on that product or us. If we fail to comply with applicable regulatory requirements, a regulatory authority such as FDA may, among other things: •issue warning or untitled letters; •refer a case to the U.S. Department of Justice, or comparable authorities, to impose civil or criminal penalties; •begin proceedings to suspend or withdraw regulatory approval; •issue an import alert; •suspend our ongoing clinical studies or put our on clinical hold; •refuse to approve pending applications (including supplements to approved applications) submitted by us; •ask us to initiate a product recall; or •refer a case to the U.S. Department of Justice, or comparable authorities, to seize and forfeit products or obtain an injunction imposing restrictions on our operations. Failure to comply with EU and EU Member State laws that govern conduct of clinical studies, manufacturing approval, marketing authorization of medicinal products and marketing of such products, both before and after grant of the marketing authorization, or with other applicable regulatory requirements may result in administrative, civil or criminal penalties. These penalties could include delays or refusal to authorize the conduct of clinical studies, or to grant marketing authorization, product withdrawals and recalls, product seizures, suspension, withdrawal or variation of the marketing authorization, total or partial suspension of production, distribution, manufacturing or clinical studies, operating restrictions, injunctions, suspension of licenses, fines and criminal penalties. Any government investigation of alleged violations of law or regulations could require us to expend significant time and resources in response and could generate negative publicity. Any failure to comply with ongoing regulatory requirements may significantly and adversely affect our ability to commercialize and generate revenue from our products. If regulatory sanctions are applied or if regulatory approval is withdrawn, our value and our operating results will be adversely affected. We may become subject to the sustainability disclosure requirements set out in the EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive and the disclosure requirements set out in the EU Taxonomy Regulation. As a European public company with limited liability, with our registered office in Luxembourg and securities admitted to trading on an EEA‑regulated market, we remain subject to the evolving sustainability reporting and due‑diligence framework in the European Union. Although the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (“CSRD”) entered into force in January 2023, the EU adopted the “Stop‑the‑Clock” Directive in April 2025, which postpones CSRD reporting by two years for companies scheduled to begin reporting in 2026 and 2027 (“wave 2” and “wave 3” entities), and delays the Corporate Sustainability 38 Due Diligence Directive (“CSDDD”) transposition and first‑phase application by one year to 2027 and 2028, respectively. Luxembourg has since amended its draft CSRD legislation to align with this EU‑level delay and clarified that companies with financial years beginning in 2024 and ending before the law’s entry into force are not required to publish sustainability information for that year, unless they elect to do so voluntarily. In December 2025, European policymakers reached a political agreement to substantially narrow the scope of CSRD to companies that exceed both 1,000 employees and €450 million in net turnover, and to reduce the number of required disclosures under the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (“ESRS”). In parallel, the EU Taxonomy Regulation (Article 8) remains in force, with the Commission issuing new interpretative guidance in 2024 and draft Notice updates in 2025, as well as a 2025 Omnibus Delegated Act aimed at simplifying certain taxonomy‑related disclosures and technical screening criteria, all of which may alter required methodologies or KPIs without reducing our obligation to report Taxonomy‑eligible and Taxonomy‑aligned proportions of turnover, capital expenditure and operational expenditure. The CSDDD, which entered into force in July 2024, imposes extensive value‑chain due‑diligence obligations and a climate transition‑plan requirement on companies meeting updated thresholds (including ≥1,000 employees and ≥€450 million net worldwide turnover), with application now deferred to July 2028 for the largest companies under the Stop‑the‑Clock Directive; however, the scope may be further reduced as negotiations on additional amendments continue. As a result of these ongoing EU and national legislative developments, there remains material uncertainty regarding whether and when we will be required to report under the CSRD, the extent of data we must collect and assure under the ESRS and EU Taxonomy, and whether we will fall within the scope of the CSDDD once final thresholds and Luxembourg transposition measures are adopted. Even if we ultimately fall outside the scope for certain reporting years, investor expectations, lender requirements and market practice may still require us to provide sustainability disclosures comparable to CSRD or CSDDD standards. Implementing and maintaining systems to collect reliable sustainability data across our operations and value chain, conducting double‑materiality assessments, preparing compliant disclosures, and obtaining third‑party assurance will continue to require significant investments of time, resources and expertise, and further amendments or delays to EU legislation may require repeated adjustments to our compliance approach. Any failure to comply with applicable sustainability reporting or due‑diligence obligations once in force could expose us to regulatory enforcement, administrative penalties, reputational damage, and adverse investor or customer reactions, any of which could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. Recently enacted and future legislation, including healthcare legislative reform measures, may have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations. In the United States and in a number of foreign jurisdictions, legislative and regulatory initiatives intended to reduce healthcare expenditures continue to evolve and may adversely affect the pricing, reimbursement and market access of biologic and biosimilar medicines. These measures could limit the amounts that public and private payers are willing to reimburse, suppress net prices, restrict coverage, or otherwise reduce the commercial potential of our approved products and product candidates. More broadly, the policies of regulatory authorities—including the FDA, EMA, European Commission, MHRA and other national authorities—with respect to clinical studies, market authorization procedures, post‑approval requirements and exclusivity frameworks continue to evolve. New or amended regulations, including the full implementation of the EU clinical studies Regulation and various modernization initiatives in the UK, may impact the timing, design and cost of our clinical development programs. If we are slow to adapt to changes in existing requirements, fail to comply with newly adopted requirements, or cannot anticipate how future legislative or policy developments will affect the markets in which we operate, our development plans, commercialization strategy and ability to generate revenue could be adversely affected. We may be subject to federal and state healthcare laws, including those governing fraud and abuse, false claims, physician payment transparency and health information privacy and security laws, and comparable foreign law equivalents. If we are unable to comply or have not fully complied with such laws, we could face substantial penalties 39 including administrative, civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, and exclusion from participation in government health care programs. Our operations may be subject to various civil and criminal fraud and abuse laws. In the United States, federal fraud and abuse laws include, without limitation, the False Claims Act (“FCA”), the Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”), the Exclusions Law, and the Civil Monetary Penalties Law (“CMPL”). Many states have similar state laws. These laws may impact, among other things, our research activities as well as our proposed sales, marketing and education programs. In addition, we may be subject to patient privacy regulation by both the federal government and the states in which we conduct our business. The laws that may affect our ability to operate include: •the federal AKS Statute, which prohibits, among other things, any individual or entity from knowingly and willfully soliciting, offering or paying remuneration, directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, in cash or in kind, to induce another individual or entity to : (a) refer an individual to a person for the furnishing (or arranging for the furnishing) of any item or service for which payment may be made under a federal health care program; (b) purchase or order any covered item or service; (c) arrange for the purchase or order of any covered item or service; or (d) recommend the purchase or order of any covered item or service; •federal civil and criminal false claims laws and civil monetary penalties laws, including the FCA and the CMPL, which prohibit, among other things, individuals or entities from knowingly presenting or causing to be presented false, fictitious, or fraudulent claims for payment to the U.S. government; •the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”), which created new federal criminal statutes that prohibit, among other things, executing a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program and making false statements relating to healthcare matters; •HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (“HITECH”), and its implementing regulations, which imposes certain requirements relating to the privacy, security and transmission of health information that allows identification of individual patients on covered entities, including certain healthcare providers, health plans, and healthcare clearinghouses, and their business associates, independent contractors of a covered entity that perform certain services involving the use or disclosure of individually identifiable health information, as well as their covered subcontractors; •Federal and state transparency laws and regulations, such as the federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act. The federal Physician Payment Sunshine Act which requires certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologics and medical supplies to report annually to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services information related to payments and other transfers of value made by such manufacturers to physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors), other healthcare professionals (such as physicians assistants and nurse practitioners), and teaching hospitals, as well as ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members in such manufacturers; and •state and foreign law equivalents of each of the above federal laws, such as anti-kickback and false claims laws that may apply to items or services reimbursed by any third-party payor, including commercial insurers, state laws that require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the national or federal government or otherwise restrict payments that may be made to healthcare providers and other potential referral sources; national or state laws that require drug manufacturers to report information related to payments and other transfers of value to physicians and other healthcare providers or marketing expenditures and national or state laws governing the privacy and security of health information in certain circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and may not have the same effect, thus complicating compliance efforts. Outside the United States, interactions between pharmaceutical companies and healthcare professionals are also governed by strict laws, such as national anti-bribery laws of European countries, national sunshine rules, regulations, industry self-regulation codes of conduct and physicians’ codes of professional conduct. Failure to comply with these requirements could result in reputational risk, public reprimands, administrative penalties, fines or imprisonment. Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of the statutory exceptions and safe harbors available, it is possible that some of our business activities could be subject to challenge under one or more of such laws. In addition, health care reform legislation has strengthened these laws. For example, in the United States the PPACA, among other things, amended the intent requirement of the federal anti-kickback and criminal healthcare fraud statutes, such that a person or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of this statute or specific intent to violate it. Moreover, the 40 PPACA provides that the government may assert that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the federal anti-kickback statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the False Claims Act. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of the laws described above or any other governmental regulations that apply to us, we may be subject to significant penalties, including administrative, civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, exclusion from participation in government health care programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, imprisonment, integrity oversight and reporting obligations, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations. Moreover, one or more of our commercial partners may be subject to the above law and may be investigated or sued for any one or more of the previous concerns which may in turn materially impact us by virtue of our association with such commercial partner(s). We are subject to anti-corruption laws and regulations, export and import controls, and sanctions laws and regulations of the United States and other countries. Compliance with these legal standards could impair our ability to compete in international markets. We could face criminal liability and other serious consequences for violations, which could harm our business, prospects and financial condition. We are subject to the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, as amended, the U.S. domestic bribery statute contained in 18 U.S.C. § 201, the U.S. Travel Act, and other state and national anti-bribery laws in jurisdictions in which we may conduct activities. Anti-corruption laws are interpreted broadly and prohibit companies and their employees, agents, CROs, contractors and other collaborators and partners from authorizing, promising, offering, providing, soliciting or receiving, directly or indirectly, improper payments or anything else of value improperly to or from recipients in the public or private sector. We have engaged third parties for clinical studies outside of the United States, to sell our products abroad once we enter a commercialization phase, and/or to obtain necessary permits, licenses, patent registrations and other regulatory approvals. We have direct or indirect interactions with officials and employees of government agencies or government-affiliated hospitals, universities and other organizations. We can be held liable for the corrupt or other illegal activities of our employees, agents, CROs, contractors and other collaborators and partners, even if we do not explicitly authorize or have actual knowledge of such activities. In addition, the FCPA imposes accounting standards and requirements on publicly traded U.S. corporations and their foreign affiliates, which requires such companies to maintain complete and accurate books and records and maintain a system of internal accounting controls. We are also subject to export control and import laws and regulations, including the U.S. Export Administration Regulations, U.S. Customs regulations, and various economic and trade sanctions regulations administered by the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control, as well as by comparable import, export, and sanctions laws and regulations in other jurisdictions. Compliance with applicable regulatory requirements regarding the import and export of our products may create delays in the introduction of our products in international markets or, in some cases, prevent the export of our products to some countries or persons altogether. Furthermore, U.S. export control laws and economic sanctions prohibit the shipment of certain products and services to countries, governments, and persons targeted by U.S. sanctions. Any changes in the laws and regulations described above, shift in the enforcement or scope of existing laws and regulations, or change in the countries, governments, persons, or technologies targeted by such laws and regulations, could result in decreased ability to export our product candidates internationally. Any violations of the laws and regulations described above may result in substantial civil and criminal fines and penalties, imprisonment, the loss of export or import privileges, debarment, tax reassessments, breach of contract and fraud litigation, reputational harm and other consequences. We and our service providers may be subject to evolving data protection and security laws, regulations, rules, contractual obligations, industry standards, policies, and other obligations regulations, in relation to data privacy and security. The actual or perceived failure to comply with such laws could lead to regulatory investigations or actions, litigations, fines, or penalties, harm our financial condition and operating results and involve distraction from other aspects of our business, or other adverse business consequences. In the ordinary course of business, we may process personal data and other sensitive data. We are also subject to various laws and regulations globally regarding privacy and data protection, including laws and regulations relating to the collection, storage, handling, use, disclosure, transfer, and security of personal data. The legislative and regulatory environment regarding privacy and data protection is continuously evolving and developing and the subject of significant attention globally. For example, in the EEA we are subject to the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (“EU GDPR”), which became effective in 2018, and in the United Kingdom, to the United Kingdom’s GDPR (“UK GDPR”). Both regulations impose strict obligations and restrictions on the ability to collect, analyze and transfer personal data, including 41 health data from clinical studies and adverse event reporting and which provides for substantial penalties for non-compliance. In the United States, federal, state, and local governments have enacted numerous data privacy and security laws, including data breach notification laws, personal data privacy laws, consumer protection laws (e.g., Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act), and other similar laws (e.g., wiretapping laws). For example, the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”), as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (“HITECH”), imposes specific requirements relating to the privacy, security, and transmission of individually identifiable protected health information. Numerous U.S. states have enacted comprehensive privacy laws that impose certain obligations on covered businesses, including providing specific disclosures in privacy notices and affording residents with certain rights concerning their personal data. As applicable, such rights may include the right to access, correct, or delete certain personal data, and to opt-out of certain data processing activities, such as targeted advertising, profiling, and automated decision-making. The exercise of these rights may impact our business and ability to provide our products and services. Certain states also impose stricter requirements for processing certain personal data, including sensitive information, such as conducting data privacy impact assessments. These state laws allow for statutory fines for noncompliance. For example, the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (“CCPA”) applies to personal data of consumers, business representatives, and employees who are California residents, and requires businesses to provide specific disclosures in privacy notices and honor requests of such individuals to exercise certain privacy rights. The CCPA provides for fines and allows private litigants affected by certain data breaches to recover significant statutory damages. The CCPA and other comprehensive U.S. state privacy laws exempt some data processed in the context of clinical studies, but these developments may further complicate compliance efforts, and increase legal risk and compliance costs for us, the third parties with whom we work. Similar laws are being considered in several other states, as well as at the federal and local levels, and we expect more states to pass similar laws in the future. Other jurisdictions where we operate have enacted or proposed similar legislation and/or regulations. Failure to comply with these current and future laws could result in significant penalties, liability for damages incurred by individuals whose privacy is violated, and could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations. Data privacy and security laws are rapidly evolving, becoming increasingly stringent, and creating regulatory uncertainty. Additionally, related obligations may be subject to interpretations which may vary from one country to another. Preparing for and complying with these obligations requires us to devote significant resources, which may necessitate changes to our services, information technologies, systems, and practices and to those of any third parties that process personal data on our behalf. Although there are currently various mechanisms that may be used to transfer personal data from the EEA and UK to the United States, such as the EEA standard contractual clauses, the UK’s International Data Transfer Agreement / Addendum, and the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework and the UK extension thereto (”DPF”) (which allows for transfers to relevant U.S.-based organizations who self-certify compliance and participate in the DPF), these mechanisms are subject to legal challenges, and there is no assurance that we can satisfy or rely on these measures to lawfully transfer personal data to the United States. If there would be no lawful manner for us to transfer personal data from the EEA, the UK or other jurisdictions to the United States, or if the requirements for a legally-compliant transfer are too onerous, we could face significant adverse consequences, including the interruption or degradation of our operations, the need to relocate part of or all of our business or data processing activities to other jurisdictions at significant expense, increased exposure to regulatory actions, substantial fines and penalties, the inability to transfer data and work with partners, vendors and other third parties, and injunctions against our processing or transferring of personal data necessary to operate our business. Additionally, companies that transfer personal data out of the EEA and UK to other jurisdictions, particularly to the United States, are subject to increased scrutiny from regulators, individual litigants, and activist groups. Some European regulators have ordered companies to suspend or permanently cease certain transfers out of Europe for allegedly violating the EU GDPR’s cross-border data transfer limitations. Additionally, the U.S. Department of Justice issued a rule entitled the Preventing Access to U.S. Sensitive Personal Data and Government-Related Data by Countries of Concern or Covered Persons, which places additional restriction on certain data transactions involving countries of concern (e.g., China, Russia, Iran) and covered persons (i.e., individuals and entities who are designated as such by the U.S. Attorney General or considered “foreign persons” and are majority owned by, organized under the laws of, a primary resident in, or a contractor of, a covered person or country of concern, as applicable) that may impact certain business activities such as vendor engagements, sale or sharing of data, employment of certain individuals, and investor agreements. Violations of the rule could lead to significant civil and criminal fines and penalties. The rule applies regardless of whether data is anonymized, key-coded, pseudonymized, de-identified or encrypted. 42 We are also bound by contractual obligations related to data privacy and security, and our efforts to comply with such obligations may not be successful. For example, certain privacy laws, such as the GDPR, require our customers to impose specific contractual restrictions on their service providers. We also publish privacy policies, marketing materials, whitepapers, and other statements, such as statements related to compliance with certain certifications or self-regulatory principles, concerning data privacy, and security. Regulators in the United States are increasingly scrutinizing these statements, and if these policies, materials or statements are found to be deficient, lacking in transparency, deceptive, unfair, misleading, or misrepresentative of our practices, we may be subject to investigation, enforcement actions by regulators or other adverse consequences. In addition, because of the hybrid work policies we implemented, information that is normally protected, including company confidential information, may be less secure. Cybersecurity and data security threats continue to evolve and raise the risk of an incident that could affect our operations or compromise our business information or sensitive personal data. If we or our third-party partners fail to comply or are alleged to have failed to comply with data protection and privacy laws and regulations, or if we were to experience a data breach involving personal data, we could face significant consequences, including but not limited to: government enforcement actions (e.g., investigations, fines, penalties, audits, inspections, and similar); litigation (including class-action claims) and mass arbitration demands; additional reporting requirements and/or oversight; bans or restrictions on processing personal data; orders to destroy or not use personal data; and/or imprisonment of company officials. In addition, under the GDPR, companies may face private litigation related to processing of personal data brought by classes of data subjects or consumer protection organizations authorized at law to represent their interests. Any associated claims, inquiries, or investigations or other government actions could lead to unfavorable outcomes that have a material impact on our business including through significant penalties or fines, monetary judgments or settlements including criminal and civil liability for us and our officers and directors, increased compliance costs, interruptions or stoppages in our business operations (including clinical studies), delays or impediments in the development of new products, negative publicity, loss of customers, increased operating costs, diversion of management time and attention, or other remedies that harm our business, including orders that we modify or cease existing business practices. If we fail to comply with environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, we could become subject to fines or penalties or incur costs that could have a material adverse effect on the success of our business. Our research and development activities and our third-party manufacturers’ and suppliers’ activities involve the controlled storage, use and disposal of hazardous materials, including the components of our product candidates and other hazardous compounds. We and our manufacturers and suppliers are subject to laws and regulations governing the use, manufacture, storage, handling and disposal of these hazardous materials. In some cases, these hazardous materials and various wastes resulting from their use are stored at our facilities and our manufacturers’ facilities pending their use and disposal. We cannot eliminate the risk of contamination, which could cause an interruption of our commercialization efforts, research and development efforts and business operations, environmental damage resulting in costly clean-up and liabilities under applicable laws and regulations governing the use, storage, handling and disposal of these materials and specified waste products. Although we believe that the safety procedures utilized by us and our third-party manufacturers for handling and disposing of these materials generally comply with the standards prescribed by these laws and regulations, we cannot guarantee that this is the case or eliminate the risk of accidental contamination or injury from these materials. In such an event, we may be held liable for any resulting damages and such liability could exceed our resources and state or federal or other applicable authorities may curtail our use of certain materials and/or interrupt our business operations. Furthermore, environmental laws and regulations are complex, change frequently and have tended to become more stringent. We cannot predict the impact of such changes and cannot be certain of our future compliance. We do not currently carry biological or hazardous waste insurance coverage. Iceland’s implementation of EEA rules may not be comprehensive or may be delayed, which may result in certain risks and uncertainty for us and our business. We have significant assets, including our subsidiary Alvotech hf., in Iceland. Many of our assets and material agreements are therefore governed by Icelandic law and subject to the jurisdiction of the Icelandic courts. As an EEA country, Iceland is obligated to implement important parts of EU law relating to the “four freedoms” within the EU single market. Certain aspects of our operations are subject to laws originating from such implementation. If the Icelandic state fails to draft national legislation which conforms with such EU rules, Icelandic individuals and legal persons may not be able to rely on the relevant EU rules and the Icelandic courts could be restricted from applying them unless the Icelandic legislation can be interpreted in a way which conforms with EU rules. This could negatively affect us or other individuals or legal persons who conduct business with us in Iceland. 43 We have identified material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting. If we are unable to remediate these material weaknesses, or if we experience additional material weaknesses in the future or otherwise are unable to develop and maintain an effective system of internal controls in the future, we may not be able to produce timely and accurate financial statements or comply with applicable laws and regulations, which may adversely affect investor confidence in us and, as a result, the value of ordinary shares. We previously identified material weaknesses in the operating effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting {"ICFR"), including weaknesses related to (i) the sufficiency of trained personnel with appropriate internal control knowledge and experience, (ii) consistent and timely execution and documentation of controls, including adequate review procedures and evaluation of the completeness and accuracy of information used in control execution, and (iii) segregation of duties and certain information technology general controls, including user access and monitoring of service organizations. Certain business process controls that relied on these IT general controls were also deemed ineffective. During 2025, we continued our multi‑year remediation efforts and made progress in strengthening our control environment, enhancing documentation and review procedures, and improving our information technology and access‑related controls. Although the number and severity of identified deficiencies decreased, the material weaknesses were not fully remediated as of 31 December 2025, and additional time is required to demonstrate sustained, effective operation of certain controls, including in areas such as inventory and human resources/payroll. In addition, while management implemented mitigating procedures and improvements to access governance, certain segregation‑of‑duties and user access conflicts remained open at year‑end. We continue to implement measures intended to remediate the remaining material weaknesses, including enhancements to the design and execution of controls, improvements to documentation and review processes, strengthened monitoring activities, and ongoing evaluation and refinement of our internal control framework. However, we cannot assure you that the steps we have taken, or expect to take, will be sufficient to remediate the material weaknesses, nor can we assure you that we will not identify additional material weaknesses in the future. If we are unable to remediate the material weaknesses in a timely manner, or if we are unable to conclude that our internal control over financial reporting is effective, we may be required to devote significant resources to additional remediation efforts, and our independent registered public accounting firm may be unable to issue an unqualified opinion regarding the effectiveness of our ICFR. Any of these outcomes could result in loss of investor confidence in our financial reporting, increased regulatory scrutiny or investigations by the stock exchanges on which our securities are listed, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC"), or other regulatory authorities, potential litigation from investors and shareholders, and a decline in the market price of our ordinary shares. Regulators may challenge our critical accounting estimates which could lead to the need to change our accounting practices and restate our historical financial statements. Our financial statements are prepared in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards (“IFRS”) as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board (“IASB”), which comprise all standards and interpretations approved by the IASB, and as adopted by the European Union. The preparation of IFRS-compliant financial statements requires the use of critical accounting judgments and material estimates to be made by us that involve a high degree of complexity and uncertainty. These estimates and judgments include, but are not limited to, the recognition of revenue, the valuations of derivative financial liabilities, the valuation of restricted share units, and the valuation of deferred tax assets. Regulatory bodies, including the SEC and the Luxembourg Commission de Surveillance du Secteur Financier (the “CSSF”), regularly review companies’ annual reports and financial statements that are filed in their jurisdictions and, in doing so, will assess the accounting practices and estimates used by companies listed in the United States and European Union. These regulators have the authority to challenge our accounting estimates and judgments if they deem it appropriate to do so. If the regulators were to challenge our critical accounting estimates, it could lead to: •Changes in accounting practices: we may be required to adopt different accounting policies or practices, which could affect our reported financial results and may not be in line with our historical accounting practices. •Restatements of financial statements: such challenges, if concluded to represent misstatements, could lead to restatements of our previously issued financial statements, which may have adverse effects on our financial condition, operating results, and stock price. 44 •Increased compliance costs: addressing regulatory challenges and implementing changes in accounting practices could lead to increased compliance costs and require additional resources, which could adversely affect our financial performance. •· Reputational damage: regulatory scrutiny and the resulting changes in accounting practices could negatively impact our reputation and investor confidence, potentially affecting our market value and access to capital. While we continuously review and update our accounting practices to ensure compliance with applicable regulations and accounting standards, there can be no assurance that we will not face regulatory challenges and that any changes in accounting estimates resulting from such challenges will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. Risks Related to our Business Operations, Employee Matters and Managing Growth We or the third parties upon whom we depend may be adversely affected by earthquakes or other natural disasters, and our business continuity and disaster recovery plans may not adequately protect from a serious disaster. Our manufacturing facility and inventories are located in Reykjavik, Iceland and any severe natural or other disaster or disruption at this site could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. Our corporate headquarters, manufacturing site and a large part of our research and development (“R&D”) division are located in Reykjavik, Iceland. Iceland is geographically isolated and has in the past experienced severe earthquakes and other natural disasters, such as volcanic eruptions. Earthquakes or other natural disasters could severely disrupt our operations or those of our collaboration partners and have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition 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 the manufacturing facilities of our third-party providers of power or water supplies) 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. The disaster recovery and business continuity plans we have in place currently are limited and are unlikely to prove adequate 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, particularly when taken together with our current lack of business continuity insurance, could have a material adverse effect on our business. Moreover, as owners of our manufacturing and research facility in Reykjavik, Iceland, we are responsible for the maintenance, upkeep and improvements of the facility, for obtaining and maintaining all permits related to the facility and activities therein, and a significant disruption at the facility, whether it be due to fire, natural disaster, power loss, intentional acts of vandalism, climate change, war, terrorism, insufficient quality, or cyber-attacks could materially and adversely affect our business. In addition, failure to make timely payments under the loan facility with our financing partners may lead disruptions of our manufacturing facility and to the loss of the facility and equipment therein. We are subject to a multitude of risks related to manufacturing. Any adverse developments affecting the manufacturing operations of our biosimilar products could substantially increase costs and limit supply. The process of manufacturing our products is complex, highly regulated and subject to several risks, including but not limited to: •raw material and/or consumable shortages from external suppliers; •product loss due to contamination, equipment failure, or operator error; •equipment installation and qualification failures, equipment breakdowns, labor shortages, natural disasters, power failures and numerous other factors associated with the manufacturing facilities in which our products are produced; •disruption of supply chains for critical and specialized raw materials, delays in regulatory inspections of supplies, manufacturing and testing facilities; and •inventory shortages, lack of spare parts, or reduced manufacturing capacities due to local or global events such as disruptions of air traffic, maritime transport, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, pandemics and international conflict. Even minor deviations from normal manufacturing processes for any of our products could result in reduced production yields, product defects and other supply disruptions; additionally, FDA will inspect our manufacturing facilities for these issues, and ensure that the processes are satisfactory, before it licenses a BLA made at these facilities. For example, during the last quarter of 2025, FDA issued CRLs for our BLAs for AVT03, AVT05, and AVT06. In these 45 letters, the agency identified deficiencies associated with the manufacturing facilities that must be resolved before the applications may be approved. If microbial, viral or other contaminations are discovered in our products or in the manufacturing facilities in which our products are made, manufacturing facilities for an extended period of time to investigate and remedy the contamination, and any such findings pre-licensure could impact FDA’s ability to license a BLA. Further, any defects or contaminations, or inadequate disclosure relating to the risk of using our products post-approval could lead to recalls or safety alerts, or other enforcement action by regulatory authorities. Any adverse developments affecting manufacturing operations for our products may result in shipment delays, inventory shortages, lot failures, withdrawals or recalls or other interruptions in the supply of our products. We may also have to take inventory write-offs and incur other charges and expenses for products that fail to meet specifications, undertake costly remediation efforts or seek more costly manufacturing alternatives. Our failure to obtain or renew certain approvals, licenses, permits and certificates required may result in our inability to continue our operations or may result in enforcement actions with the respective regulatory authorities which would materially and adversely affect our business. We are required to obtain and maintain various approvals, licenses, permits and certificates from relevant authorities to operate our business. Any failure to obtain any approvals, licenses, permits and certificates necessary for our operations may result in enforcement actions thereunder, including the relevant regulatory authorities ordering us to cease operations, implement potentially costly corrective measures or any other action which could materially disrupt our business operations. In addition, some of these approvals, permits, licenses and certificates are subject to periodic renewal and/or reassessment by the relevant authorities, and the standards of such renewal and/or reassessment may change from time to time. We cannot give reassurance that we will be able to successfully procure such renewals and/or reassessment when due, and any failure to do so could severely disrupt our business. Furthermore, if the interpretation or implementation of existing laws and regulations changes or new regulations come into effect requiring us to obtain any additional approvals, permits, licenses or certificates that were previously not required to operate our existing businesses, we cannot provide assurance that we will successfully obtain them, which in turn could restrict the scope of permitted business activities and constrain our drug development and revenue generation capability. Any of the above developments could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. We are highly dependent on the services of our key executives and personnel, and if we are not able to retain these members of our management or recruit additional management, clinical and scientific personnel, our operations and future performance will suffer. We are highly dependent on the principal members of our management and scientific and technical staff. The loss of service of any of our management or key scientific and technical staff could harm our business, prospects and financial condition. In addition, we will need to expand and effectively manage our managerial, scientific, operational, financial and other resources in order to successfully pursue our clinical development and commercialization efforts. The pharmaceutical industry has experienced a high rate of turnover of management personnel in recent years. If we are not able to retain our management and to attract, retain and motivate on acceptable terms, additional qualified personnel necessary for the continued development of our business, we may not be able to sustain our operations or grow. Our future performance will also depend, in part, on our ability to successfully integrate newly hired executive officers into our management team and our ability to develop an effective working relationship among senior management. Our failure to integrate these individuals and create effective working relationships among them and other members of management could result in inefficiencies in the development and commercialization of our product candidates, harming future regulatory approvals, sales of our product candidates and results of operations. Any change in senior leadership, involves uncertainty and may divert management attention during the transition period. Our ability to maintain stability during this transition, to develop effective working relationships between members of senior management, and to ensure continuity across our development and commercialization efforts cannot be assured. Failure to do so could adversely affect 46 our business, prospects and financial condition. We do not currently maintain “key person” life insurance on the lives of our executives or any of our employees. Our business could be materially disrupted by strikes, work stoppages or other labor actions in Iceland or elsewhere. Under applicable Icelandic labor laws, members of a labor union are required to participate in a strike called by the labor union or work stoppage called by an employers association. As many of our employees in Iceland are members of Icelandic labor unions, we may be faced with strikes, work stoppages or other labor actions in Iceland which may materially disrupt our business at our headquarters, manufacturing site, and the local part of our R&D division. Work stoppages, strikes or other labor actions at other companies or industries within Iceland, including international air traffic, could also have an adverse effect on our ability to operate and may impact earnings and other key business metrics. In addition, work stoppages, strikes or other labor actions of our employees outside of Iceland may affect our operations at those sites outside of Iceland, and work stoppages, strikes or other labor actions of employees of our vendors, suppliers or partners may affect the performance of our partners, our supply chain, our ability to sell our products and our operations generally. We have been and will need to continue to expand our organization, and we may experience difficulties in managing this growth, which could disrupt our operations. As of 31 December 2025, we had 1,460 employees, including 24 contractors. Additionally, we rely on a number of temporary workers from time to time, as needed. As our development and commercialization plans and strategies develop, we expect to need additional managerial, operational, sales, marketing, financial, legal and other resources. Our management may need to divert a disproportionate amount of its attention away from its day-to-day activities and devote a substantial amount of time to managing these growth activities. We may not be able to effectively manage the expansion of our operations, which may result in weaknesses in our infrastructure, operational mistakes, loss of business opportunities, loss of employees and reduced productivity among remaining employees. In addition, our success depends on our ability to attract and retain a talented workforce with a specialized set of skills. A significant part of our employees are expatriates and may need to obtain work visas in the country of operations. Changes to immigration laws or other restrictions on the movement of persons might make it more difficult for us to attract and retain talented employees. Our expected growth could also require significant capital expenditures and may divert financial resources from other projects, such as the development of our current and potential future product candidates. If our management is unable to effectively manage our growth, our expenses may increase more than expected and our ability to generate and/or grow revenue could be reduced and our ability to implement business strategy may suffer. Our future financial performance and our ability to commercialize product candidates and compete effectively will depend, in part, on our ability to effectively manage any future growth. A breakdown, cyberattack or information security breach could compromise the confidentiality, integrity and availability of our confidential information in internal systems or those used by third party collaborator partners or other contractors or consultants, could compromise the confidentiality, integrity and availability of our confidential information in information technology systems, network-connected control systems and/or our data, interrupt the operation of our business, result in regulatory investigations or actions, litigation, fines, or penalties, and/or affect our reputation. To achieve our business objectives, we rely on information technology systems, including software, mobile applications, cloud services and network-connected control systems, some of which are managed, hosted, provided, or serviced by third parties. Internal or external events that compromise the confidentiality, integrity and availability of our systems and data can significantly interrupt the operation of our business, result in significant costs, result in government enforcement actions (for example, investigations, fines, penalties, audits, and inspections), result in restrictions on processing sensitive information (including personal data); result in litigation (including class claims); indemnification obligations; and/or adversely affect our reputation and/or place us at a competitive disadvantage resulting from the improper disclosure or theft of confidential information or intellectual property. Our information technology systems are highly integrated into our business, including our R&D efforts, our clinical and commercial manufacturing processes and our product sales and distribution processes. Further, as certain employees are working remotely, our reliance on our and third-party information technology systems has increased substantially and is expected to continue to increase. The complexity and interconnected nature of our systems make them potentially 47 vulnerable to breakdowns or other service interruptions. Our systems are subject to frequent attempted cyberattacks. As the cyber-threat landscape evolves, these attacks are growing in frequency, sophistication and intensity and are becoming increasingly difficult to detect. Such attacks could include the use of malware, including ransomware or other denials of service, that can be deployed through various means, including the software supply chain, e-mail, malicious websites and/or the use of social engineering. In particular, severe ransomware attacks are becoming increasingly prevalent and can lead to significant interruptions in our operations, ability to provide our products or services, loss of sensitive data and income, reputational harm, and diversion of funds. Extortion payments may alleviate the negative impact of a ransomware attack, but we may be unwilling or unable to make such payments due to, for example, applicable laws or regulations prohibiting such payments. In addition, supply-chain attacks have increased in frequency and severity, and we cannot guarantee that third parties’ infrastructure in our supply chain or that of the third parties with whom we work have not been compromised. Attacks such as those experienced by governmental entities (including those that approve and/or regulate our products, such as the FDA, the European Commission or EMA) and other multi-national companies, including some of our peers, could leave us unable to utilize key business systems or access or protect important data, and could have a material adverse effect on our ability to operate our business, including developing, gaining regulatory approval for, manufacturing, selling and/or distributing our products. Our systems and possibly those of permissible third parties also collect, receive, contain, process, generate, utilize, transfer, disclose, make accessible, protect, secure, dispose of, transmit, and share (collectively, “process”) a high volume of sensitive data, including intellectual property, trade secrets, financial information, regulatory information, strategic plans, sales trends and forecasts, litigation materials and/or personal information (such as health related data) belonging to us, our staff, customers and/or other parties. In some cases, we and/or permissible third parties use third-party service providers to process, store, manage or transmit such data, which may increase our risk. Intentional or inadvertent data privacy or security breaches (including cyberattacks) or lapses by employees, service providers (including providers of information technology-specific services), nation states (including groups associated with or supported by foreign intelligence agencies), organized crime organizations, “hacktivists” or others, could result in a security incident and cause misuse, disclosure, access, acquisition, loss, or damage to sensitive data, information systems, or other nosiness interruptions. We rely on third parties to operate critical business systems to process sensitive information in a variety of contexts, including, without limitation, cloud services, data center facilities, employee email, content delivery to customers, and other functions. Further, Domestic and global government regulators, our business partners, suppliers with whom it does business, vendors and law firms that host our documents and information in connection with transactions or proceedings, companies that provide us or our partners with business services and companies that we may acquire may face similar risks, and security breaches of their systems could adversely affect our security, leave us without access to important systems, products, raw materials, components, services or information or expose our confidential data. As a part of our business, we share confidential information with third parties, such as commercial partners, consultants, advisors, and vendors. We are at risk of our confidential data being disclosed without our consent or lost if these third parties’ servers or databases experience security breaches of their systems. Our ability to monitor these third parties’ information security practices is limited, and these third parties may not have adequate information security measures in place. If the third parties with whom we work experience a security incident or other interruption, we could experience adverse consequences. While we may be entitled to damages if the third parties with whom we work fail to satisfy their privacy or security-related obligations to us, any award may be insufficient to cover our damages, or we may be unable to recover such award. Future or past business transactions (such as acquisitions or integrations) could expose us to additional cybersecurity risks and vulnerabilities, as our systems could be negatively affected by vulnerabilities present in acquired or integrated entities’ systems and technologies. Furthermore, we may discover security issues that were not found during due diligence of such acquired or integrated entities, and it may be difficult to integrate companies into our information technology environment and security program. We have experienced system downtime and attacks, but we do not believe such downtime and attacks have had, either individually or in the aggregate, a material adverse effect on our business or results of operations. We continue to invest in the monitoring, protection, and resilience of our critical and/or sensitive data and systems and have a Security Operations Center ("SOC") provider and 24/7 monitoring of our systems. However, there can be no assurances that our efforts will detect, prevent or fully recover systems or data from all breakdowns, service interruptions, attacks, and/or breaches of our systems that could adversely affect our business and operations and/or result in the loss or exposure of critical, proprietary, private, confidential or otherwise sensitive data, which could result in material financial, legal, business or reputational harm or negatively affect our share price. While we maintain cyber-liability insurance, our insurance is not sufficient to cover it against all losses that could potentially result from a service interruption, breach of our systems or loss of critical or sensitive data. We also cannot be sure that such coverage will continue to be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all or that such coverage will pay future claims. 48 In addition to experiencing a security incident, third parties may gather, collect, or infer sensitive information about us from public sources, data brokers, or other means that reveals competitively sensitive details about our organization and could be used to undermine our competitive advantage or market position. Additionally, our sensitive data could be leaked, disclosed, or revealed as a result of or in connection with our employees’, personnels’, or vendors’ use of generative artificial intelligence (“AI”) technologies. Our IT Governance ("ITG") and Information Security Management System ("ISMS") may not be sufficient to ensure the effective and efficient use of IT in enabling the organization to achieve business objectives and secure the confidentiality, integrity and availability of critical information technology systems and data. We take steps designed to detect, mitigate, and remediate vulnerabilities in our information technology systems (such as our hardware and/or software, including that of third parties with whom we work), including through our ITG and ISMS. We may not, however, detect and remediate all such vulnerabilities including on a timely basis. Further, we may experience delays in developing and deploying remedial measures and patches designed to address identified vulnerabilities. Vulnerabilities could be exploited and result in a security incident. We have established procedures for IT business continuity and disaster management, with restore tests conducted quarterly. However, there is no guarantee that our business continuity and disaster management procedures will be effective in the event of an actual disaster. Some of our critical systems and data are hosted on premises in one data center, without a secondary data center for redundancy. Force majeure events impacting the data center such as fire, flood, earthquake, or power outage can therefore pose a risk to our operation and may compromise the confidentiality, integrity and availability of those systems and data. While we have invested, and continue to invest, in ITG and ISMS, there can be no assurance that our efforts will be sufficient to ensure the effective and efficient use of IT, which could adversely affect our business and operations and/or result in the loss of critical or sensitive data, which could result in financial, legal, business or reputational harm. Our ISMS may be subject to security breaches or other incidents that could result in misappropriation of funds, disruption to operations, disclosure of commercially or personally sensitive information, legal or regulatory breaches and liability, as well as other costs and reputational damage. Given the increasing sophistication and evolving nature of these threats, the possibility of security breaches occurring in the future cannot be ruled out. An extended failure of critical system components, caused by accidental or malicious actions, including those resulting from a cybersecurity attack, could result in a significant commercial loss, interruption to operations, loss of access to critical data or systems, unfavorable publicity, damage to reputation, regulatory investigations, fines or penalties, litigation or other claims by affected parties and possible financial obligations for liabilities and damages related to the theft or misuse of our information and other business delays or disruptions, any of which could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and reputation. Further, we may be forced to expend significant financial and operational resources in response to a security breach, including repairing system damage, increasing security protection costs by deploying additional personnel and modifying or enhancing protection technologies, investigating and remediating any information security vulnerabilities and defending against and resolving legal and regulatory claims, all of which could divert resources and the attention of management and key personnel away from business operations and adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. See also “A breakdown, cyberattack or information security breach could compromise the confidentiality, integrity and availability of our confidential information in internal systems or those used by third party collaborator partners or other contractors or consultants, could compromise the confidentiality, integrity and availability of our confidential information in information technology systems, network-connected control systems and/or our data, interrupt the operation of our business, result in regulatory investigations or actions, litigation, fines, or penalties, and/or affect our reputation.” The international aspects of our business expose us to business, regulatory, political, operational, financial and economic risks. We conduct operations and maintain collaborations in multiple jurisdictions, which exposes us to a range of risks that could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. Accordingly, our future results could be harmed by a variety of factors, including: • economic weakness, including inflation, or political instability in particular non-U.S. economies and markets; 49 • differing and changing regulatory requirements for product approvals; •differing jurisdictions could present different issues for securing, maintaining or obtaining freedom to operate in such jurisdictions; • potentially reduced protection for intellectual property and proprietary rights; • difficulties in compliance with different, complex and changing laws, regulations and court systems of multiple jurisdictions and compliance with a wide variety of foreign laws, treaties and regulations; • changes in global regulations and customs, tariffs and trade barriers; • foreign‑exchange fluctuations, particularly in EUR, GBP, ISK and CHF, and currency controls; • changes in a specific country’s or region’s political or economic environment; • trade protection measures, import or export licensing requirements or other restrictive actions by governments; • differing reimbursement regimes and price controls in certain non-U.S. markets; • negative consequences from changes in tax laws; • compliance with tax, employment, immigration and labor laws for employees living or traveling abroad, including, for example, the variable tax treatment in different jurisdictions of options or restricted share units granted under our share option schemes or equity incentive plans; • workforce uncertainty in countries where labor unrest is more common than in the United States; • litigation or administrative actions resulting from claims against us by current or former employees or consultants individually or as part of class actions, including claims of wrongful terminations, discrimination, misclassification or other violations of labor law or other alleged conduct; • difficulties associated with staffing and managing international operations, including differing labor relations; • production shortages resulting from any events affecting raw material supply or manufacturing capabilities abroad; and • business interruptions resulting from geo-political actions, including war and terrorism, or natural disasters including earthquakes, typhoons, floods and fires. International activities further subject us to compliance risks under anti‑corruption, sanctions and trade‑control laws, as well as exposure to tariffs, trade restrictions and other protectionist measures. Since August 2025, the United States has implemented a 15% import tariff on goods originating from Iceland, but all pharmaceuticals remain exempt including our biosimilars. Any of these international risks, individually or in combination, could materially and adversely affect our operations, increase our costs, or limit our ability to commercialize our products globally. Risks Related to Ownership of our ordinary shares and Warrants and our Status as a Public Company The market price and trading volume of our ordinary shares and warrants may be volatile and could decline significantly. The stock markets, including Nasdaq on which ordinary shares and Warrants are listed under the symbols ALVO and ALVOW, respectively, have from time to time experienced significant price and volume fluctuations. The market price of ordinary shares and Warrants may be volatile and could decline significantly. In addition, the trading volume in ordinary shares and warrants may fluctuate and cause significant price variations to occur. Additionally, any substantial amount of trading or sales in ordinary shares could make it difficult for us to raise capital through the issuance of debt or equity securities in the future. Generally, securities of biopharmaceutical companies tend to be volatile and experience significant price and volume fluctuations. We cannot guarantee that the market price of ordinary shares and Warrants will not fluctuate widely or decline significantly in the future in response to a number of factors, including, among others, the following: •the realization of any of the risks presented in this Annual Report; •actual or anticipated differences in our estimates, or in the estimates of analysts, for our revenues, results of operations, liquidity or financial condition; •regulatory decisions with respect to our product candidates; 50 •additions and departures of key personnel; •failure to comply with the requirements of Nasdaq U.S., Nasdaq Iceland Main Market, and Nasdaq Stockholm Market; •announcements of regulatory approval or a complete response letter to our product candidates, or specific label indications or patient populations for use, or changes or delays in the regulatory review process; •failure to comply with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act or other laws or regulations in the United States, Luxembourg, Iceland, and Sweden; •future issuances, sales or resales, or anticipated issuances, sales or resales, of ordinary shares; •publication of research reports about us; •the performance and market valuations of other similar companies; •broad disruptions in the financial markets, including sudden disruptions in the credit markets; •material and adverse impact of public health emergencies and other world emergencies on the markets and the broader global economy; •speculation in the press or investment community; •actual, potential or perceived control, accounting or reporting problems; and •changes in accounting principles, policies and guidelines. In the past, securities class-action litigation has often been instituted against companies following periods of volatility in the market price of their shares. This type of litigation could result in substantial costs and divert our management’s attention and resources, which could have a material adverse effect on us. The dual listing of ordinary shares may adversely affect the liquidity and value of those ordinary shares. Our ordinary shares are listed on both the Nasdaq in the United States and Nasdaq Iceland Main Market in Iceland, and our SDRs are listed on the Nasdaq Stockholm Main Market in Sweden. The trading of ordinary shares and SDRs in these markets takes place in different currencies (U.S. dollars on Nasdaq, Icelandic Krona on Nasdaq Iceland Main Market, and Swedish Crona on Nasdaq Stockholm Main Market), at different times (resulting from different time zones, different trading days and different public holidays in the United States, Iceland, and Sweden) and with different settlement mechanics. The trading prices of ordinary shares and SDRs on these markets may differ due to these and other factors. Any decrease in the price of ordinary shares on Nasdaq Iceland Main Market could cause a decrease in the trading price of ordinary shares on Nasdaq, or the trading price of SDRs on Nasdaq Stockholm Main Market, and vice versa. Investors could seek to sell or buy ordinary shares or SDRs to take advantage of any price differences between the markets through a practice referred to as arbitrage. Any arbitrage activity could create unexpected volatility in both the trading prices on one exchange and ordinary shares or SDRs available for trading on the other exchange. Further, the triple listing of ordinary shares and SDRs may reduce the liquidity of these securities in one or both markets and may adversely affect the development of an active trading market for ordinary shares in the United States. The listing of ordinary shares on Nasdaq Iceland Main Market and SDRs on Nasdaq Stockholm Main Market in addition to our listing in the United States on Nasdaq may result in increased additional compliance risk or may delay or discourage a takeover attempt. Our ordinary shares are listed on both the Nasdaq and Nasdaq Iceland Main Market, and our SDRs are listed on Nasdaq Stockholm Main Market. Nasdaq Iceland Main Market is a regulated market in Iceland operated by Nasdaq Iceland, the Icelandic stock exchange. Nasdaq Stockholm Main Market is a regulated market in Sweden operated by Nasdaq Stockholm AB, the Swedish stock exchange. Issuers on Nasdaq Iceland Main Market and on Nasdaq Stockholm Main Market are subject to the rules of Nasdaq Iceland Main Market and the rules of Nasdaq Stockholm Main Market, respectively, and the relevant rules and regulations given the fact that the securities of the issuer are admitted to trading on a regulated market. As a triple-listed Luxembourg company listed on Nasdaq, Nasdaq Iceland Main Market, and Nasdaq Stockholm Main Market, we are subject to reporting requirements and certain other applicable requirements under Luxembourg law, U.S. law, Icelandic law, and Swedish law, including, but not limited to, Regulation (EU) No 596/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014, on market abuse, as amended (“MAR”), the Directive 2004/109/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2004 on the harmonization of transparency requirements in relation to information about issuers whose securities are admitted to trading on a regulated market, as amended (the 51 “Transparency Directive”), the Luxembourg law of 23 December 2016, on market abuse, as amended (“Luxembourg Market Abuse Law”), the Luxembourg law of 11 January 2008 on transparency requirements for issuers, as amended (the “Luxembourg Transparency Law”), the Grand-Ducal regulation of 11 January 2008, on transparency requirements for issuers of securities, as amended (the “Luxembourg Transparency Regulation”), Directive 2004/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004, on takeover bids, as amended (the “Takeover Directive”) and the Luxembourg law of 19 May 2006, on takeover bids, as amended (the “Luxembourg Takeover Law”). Transparency Regime Holders of shares and other financial instruments may be subject to notification obligations pursuant to the Luxembourg Transparency Law. The following description summarizes these obligations. Holders are advised to consult with their own legal advisors to determine whether the notification obligations apply to them. The Luxembourg Transparency Law and Luxembourg Transparency Regulation provide that, once the shares are admitted to listing and trading on Nasdaq Iceland Main Market, if a person acquires or disposes of a shareholding in the Company, and if following the acquisition or disposal the proportion of voting rights held by the person reaches, exceeds or falls below one of the thresholds of 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 33 1/3%, 50% and 66 2/3% (each a “Relevant Threshold”) of the total voting rights existing when the situation giving rise to a declaration occurs, such person must simultaneously notify the Company and the CSSF of the proportion of voting rights held by it further to such event. A person must also notify the Company and the CSSF of the proportion of his or her voting rights if that proportion reaches, exceeds or falls below a Relevant Threshold as a result of events changing the breakdown of voting rights and on the basis of the information disclosed by the Company. The same notification requirements apply to a natural person or legal entity to the extent he/she/it is entitled to acquire, to dispose of, or to exercise voting rights in any of the cases or a combination of them stated in Article 9 of the Luxembourg Transparency Law. The notification requirements set out above also apply to a natural person or legal entity that holds, directly or indirectly: (i) financial instruments that, on maturity, give the holder, under a formal agreement, either the unconditional right to acquire or the discretion as to his or her right to acquire the ordinary shares, to which voting rights are attached, already issued by the Company; or (ii) financial instruments which are not included in point (i) but which are referenced to the ordinary shares referred to in that point and with an economic effect similar to that of the financial instruments referred to in that point, whether or not they confer a right to a physical settlement. The number of voting rights shall be calculated as specified in Article 12 and 12a of the Luxembourg Transparency Law. The notification to the Company and the CSSF must be effected promptly, but not later than four trading days after the date on which the shareholder, or the natural person or legal entity referred to above learns of the acquisition or disposal or of the possibility of exercising voting rights, or on which, having regard to the circumstances, should have learned of it, regardless of the date on which the acquisition, disposal or possibility of exercising voting rights takes effect, as specified in the Luxembourg Transparency Law and the related guidelines of the CSSF. Upon receipt of the notification, but not later than three trading days thereafter, the Company must make public all the information contained in the notification as regulated information within the meaning of the Luxembourg Transparency Law. As long as the notifications have not been made to the Company in the manner prescribed, the exercise of voting rights relating to the shares exceeding the fraction that should have been notified is suspended. The suspension of the exercise of voting rights is lifted as of the moment the shareholder makes the notification. Where within the fifteen days preceding the date for which the general meeting has been convened, the Company receives a notification or becomes aware of the fact that a notification has to be or should have been made in accordance with the Luxembourg Transparency Law, the board of directors may postpone the general meeting. Market Abuse Regime The rules on preventing market abuse set out in the MAR and the Luxembourg Market Abuse Law are applicable to the Company, persons discharging managerial responsibilities within the Company (including the members of the board of directors) (the “PDMRs”), persons closely associated with PDMRs, other insiders and persons performing or conducting 52 transactions in the Company’s financial instruments. Certain important market abuse rules set out in the MAR and the Luxembourg Market Abuse Law that are relevant for investors are described hereunder. The Company is required to make inside information public. Pursuant to the MAR, inside information is information of a precise nature, which has not been made public, relating, directly or indirectly, to the Company or to one or more financial instruments, and which, if it were made public, would be likely to have a significant effect on the prices of those financial instruments or on the price of related derivative financial instruments. Unless an exception applies, the Company must without delay publish the inside information by means of a press release and post and maintain it on its website for at least five years. The Company must also provide Nasdaq Iceland and the CSSF with its press release that contains inside information at the time of publication. It is prohibited for any person to make use of inside information by acquiring or disposing of, for its own account or for the account of a third party, directly or indirectly, financial instruments to which that information relates, as well as an attempt thereto (insider dealing). In addition, it is prohibited for any person to disclose inside information to anyone else (except where the disclosure is made in the normal exercise of an employment, profession or duties) or, whilst in possession of inside information, to recommend or induce anyone to acquire or dispose of financial instruments to which the information relates. Furthermore, it is prohibited for any person to engage in or attempt to engage in market manipulation, for instance by conducting transactions which give, or are likely to give, false or misleading signals as to the supply of, the demand for or the price of a financial instrument. Non-compliance with the notification obligations under the Market Abuse Regulation, set out in the paragraphs above, is an economic offense and could lead to the imposition of criminal prosecution, administrative fines, imprisonment or other sanctions. Nasdaq Iceland Main Market may impose administrative penalties or a cease-and-desist order under penalty for non-compliance. If criminal charges are pressed, Nasdaq Iceland Main Market is no longer allowed to impose administrative penalties and vice versa, Nasdaq Iceland Main Market is no longer allowed to seek criminal prosecution if administrative penalties have been imposed. Pursuant to Article 19 of the MAR and the Luxembourg Market Abuse Law, PDMRs must notify the CSSF and the Company of any transactions conducted for his or her own account relating to shares or any debt instruments of the Company or to derivatives or other financial instruments linked thereto. A PDMR within the Company shall not conduct any transactions on its own account or for the account of a third party, directly or indirectly, relating to the ordinary shares or debt instruments of the Company or to derivatives or other financial instruments linked to them during a closed period of 30 calendar days before the announcement of an interim financial report or a year-end report which must be made publicly available. In addition, pursuant to the MAR and the regulations promulgated thereunder as well as the Luxembourg Market Abuse Law, certain persons who are closely associated with persons discharging managerial responsibilities (PDMRs) as defined in Article 1 (26) of the MAR, are also required to notify the CSSF and the Company of any transactions conducted for their own account relating to shares or any debt instruments of the Company or to derivatives or other financial instruments linked thereto in accordance with MAR. Takeover Regime and Squeeze-out and Sell-out Procedures The Takeover Directive has been implemented in Luxembourg in the Luxembourg Takeover Law. The Luxembourg Takeover Law provides that if a person, acting alone or in concert, acquires shares in a company which, when added to any existing holdings of a company’s shares, result in such person having voting rights representing at least 33 1/3% of all of the voting rights attached to the issued and outstanding shares in a company, this person is obliged to make a mandatory takeover bid, at a fair price, for the remaining shares in the company. Where the aforementioned percentage-threshold is met, the person acquiring such voting rights will be deemed to have control over the Issuer in accordance with Luxembourg Takeover Law. The Luxembourg Takeover Law provides that, when a mandatory or voluntary takeover offer is made to all holders of voting shares in a company and after such offer the offeror holds at least 95% of the capital of that company carrying voting rights and 95% of the voting rights of the company, the offeror may require the holders of the remaining shares to sell those shares to the offeror. The price offered for such shares must be a fair price. The price offered in a voluntary offer would be considered a fair price in the squeeze-out proceedings if 90% of the shares of the company carrying voting rights were acquired in such a voluntary offer, in accordance with Luxembourg Takeover Law. The price paid in a mandatory takeover offer is deemed to be a fair price pursuant to Luxembourg Takeover Law. 53 The Luxembourg Takeover Law provides that, when a mandatory or voluntary takeover bid is made to all holders of voting shares in a company and if after such offer the offeror (together with any person acting in concert with the offeror) holds shares carrying more than 90% of the voting rights, the remaining shareholders may require that the offeror purchase the remaining shares. The price offered in a voluntary offer would be considered a fair price in the sell-out proceedings if 90% of the shares of the company carrying voting rights were acquired in such a voluntary takeover offer, in accordance with Luxembourg Takeover Law. Where the offeree company has issued more than one class of shares, the right of squeeze-out and sell-out referred to above can be exercised only in the class in which the relevant threshold has been reached. Even if there has not been an offer pursuant to the Luxembourg Takeover Law, the Luxembourg law of 21 July 2012 on the squeeze-out and sell-out of securities of companies admitted or having been admitted to trading on a regulated market or which have been subject to a public offer (the “Luxembourg Mandatory Squeeze-Out and Sell-Out Law”) provides that if any individual or legal entity, acting alone or in concert with another, becomes the direct or indirect holder (otherwise than by way of a voluntary or mandatory takeover bid pursuant to the Luxembourg Takeover Law) of shares or other voting securities representing at least 95% of the voting share capital and 95% of the voting rights of a company, (i) such shareholder may require the holders of the remaining shares or other voting securities to sell those remaining securities; and (ii) the holders of the remaining shares or securities may require such shareholder to purchase those remaining shares or other voting securities (the “Mandatory Sell-Out”). The Mandatory Squeeze-Out and the Mandatory Sell-Out must be exercised at a fair price according to objective and adequate methods applying to asset disposals in accordance with the Luxembourg Mandatory Squeeze-Out and Sell-Out Law. Adherence to the requirements of these rules and regulations may increase our legal, accounting and financial compliance costs, make certain activities more difficult, time consuming and costly, place additional strain on resources and divert management’s attention away from other business matters. In addition, the applicable legal requirements or the interpretation of such requirements by regulators and courts in each of these jurisdictions may differ or conflict which could expose us to additional costs, sanctions and/or fines. Any of these factors could have a material effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. The issuance or resale of a substantial number of ordinary shares in the public market could occur at any time. These issuances and sales, or the perception in the market that these issuances or sales may occur, could increase the volatility of the market price of ordinary shares or result in a significant decline in the public trading price of ordinary shares. The sale and issuance of our ordinary shares to investors, holders of warrants or convertible bonds will cause dilution to our existing shareholders, and the sale of ordinary shares acquired by them, or the perception that such sales may occur, could cause the price of our ordinary shares to drop. In December 2025, we issued $108 million of the 2025 Convertible Bonds. These bonds are due 2030, carry a 6.875% coupon and include a conversion right into SDRs at an initial conversion price of $5.9224 per share, subject to antidilution adjustments and a one‑time conversion price reset in connection with certain qualifying equity raises. If the holders of the 2025 Convertible Bonds elect to convert their bonds, we will be required to issue a variable number of additional ordinary shares, resulting in dilution to existing shareholders. In connection with the Convertible Bonds, a concurrent “Delta Placement” of approximately $56 million of existing SDRs was undertaken to facilitate hedging activity by bondholders. In addition, a stock‑lending facility was established to provide shares for hedging purposes for the duration of the bonds. Although we did not receive proceeds from the Delta Placement, these arrangements increase the number of shares available for trading, which may place downward pressure on the price of our ordinary shares or increase share‑price volatility. Given the number of ordinary shares underlying SDRs expected to be issued to bondholders in connection with the conversion of the Convertible Bonds, the sale of shares by the bondholders, or the perception in the market that the holders of a large number of shares intend to sell their shares, could increase the volatility of the market price of ordinary shares or result in a significant decline in the public trading price of ordinary shares. Our Warrants are exercisable for ordinary shares, the exercise of which would increase the number of shares eligible for future resale in the public market and result in dilution to our shareholders. 54 As a result of the business combination between Alvotech Holdings S.A., Oaktree Acquisition Corp. II and Alvotech (the “Business Combination”) on 15 June 2022 (the “Closing Date”), we have outstanding Warrants to purchase an aggregate of 10,916,647 ordinary shares that are exercisable in accordance with the terms of the warrant agreement, dated 21 September 2020 by and between Oaktree Acquisition Corp. II ("OACB") and Continental Stock Transfer & Trust Company, as warrant agent, governing OACB’s outstanding warrants, which was assigned to and assumed by Alvotech pursuant to that certain Assignment, Assumption and Amendment Agreement dated as of 15 June 2022 (the “Warrant Agreement”). These warrants became exercisable on 15 July 2022. The exercise price of these warrants is $11.50 per share, or approximately $125.5 million, assuming none of the warrants are exercised through “cashless” exercise. To the extent such warrants are exercised, additional ordinary shares will be issued, which will result in dilution to the holders of ordinary shares and increase the number of shares eligible for resale in the public market. On 2 March 2026, there were 9,943,434 warrants entitling the holders to acquire one ordinary share at a price of $11.50 (the "Warrants") outstanding, the last reported sales price of our ordinary shares was $3.96 per share and the last reported sales price of our Warrants was $0.56 per warrant. Sales of substantial numbers of such shares in the public market or the fact that such warrants may be exercised could adversely affect the market price of ordinary shares. See “—The Warrants may never be in the money, and they may expire worthless and the terms of the Warrants may be amended in a manner adverse to a holder if holders of at least 50% of the then outstanding Warrants approve of such amendment.” The Warrants may never be in the money, and they may expire worthless and the terms of the Warrants may be amended in a manner adverse to a holder if holders of at least 50% of the then outstanding Warrants approve of such amendment. There is no guarantee that the warrants will ever be in the money and, as such, the Warrants may expire worthless. For example, between 1 January 2025 and 2 March 2026, the last reported sales prices of our ordinary shares on Nasdaq fluctuated between $13.52 on 10 January 2025 and $3.96 on 2 March 2026. The Warrant Agreement provides that the terms of the Warrants may be amended without the consent of any holder to cure any ambiguity, correct any defective provision or correct any mistake, amend the definition of “Ordinary Cash Dividend” or add or change any provisions with respect to matters or questions arising under the Warrant as the parties may deem necessary or desirable and that the parties deem shall not adversely affect the rights of the warrant holders, but requires the approval by the holders of at least 50% of the then-outstanding Warrants, other than the private placement warrants so long as they are held by Oaktree Acquisition Holdings II, L.P. (the “Private Placement Warrants”), to make any change that adversely affects the interests of the registered holders of Warrants. Accordingly, we may amend the terms of the Warrants in a manner adverse to a holder if holders of at least 50% of the then-outstanding Public Warrants approve of such amendment and, solely with respect to any amendment to the terms of the Private Placement Warrants or any provision of the warrant agreement with respect to the Private Placement Warrants, 50% of the number of the then outstanding Private Placement Warrants. Although our ability to amend the terms of the Warrants with the consent of at least 50% of the then-outstanding warrants is unlimited, examples of such amendments could be amendments to, among other things, increase the exercise price of the Warrants, convert the Warrants into cash, shorten the exercise period or decrease the number of ordinary shares purchasable upon exercise of a Warrant. We may redeem the Warrants prior to their exercise at a time that is disadvantageous to the holder, thereby making such warrants worthless. We may redeem the Warrants prior to their exercise at a time that is disadvantageous to the holder, thereby making such Warrants worthless. We have the ability to redeem outstanding Warrants at any time after they become exercisable and prior to their expiration, at a price of $0.01 per warrant, provided that the closing price of ordinary shares equals or exceeds $18.00 per share (as adjusted for share subdivisions, share capitalizations, reorganizations, recapitalizations and the like) for any 20 trading days within a 30 trading day period ending on the third trading day prior to the date on which a notice of redemption is sent to the warrant holders. We will not redeem the Warrants as described above unless a registration statement under the Securities Act covering ordinary shares issuable upon exercise of such Warrants is effective and a current prospectus relating to those ordinary shares is available throughout the 30-day redemption period. If and when the Warrants become redeemable by us, we may exercise our redemption right even if we are unable to register or qualify the underlying securities for sale under all applicable state securities laws. Redemption of the outstanding Warrants could force holders (i) to exercise the Warrants and pay the exercise price therefor at a time when it may be disadvantageous to do so, (ii) to sell the Warrants at the then-current market price when holders might otherwise wish to hold the Warrants, or (iii) to accept the nominal redemption price which, at the time the outstanding warrants are called for redemption, is likely to be substantially less than the market value of the Warrants. 55 In addition, we will have the ability to redeem the outstanding Warrants at any time after they become exercisable and prior to their expiration, at a price of $0.10 per warrant if, among other things, the closing price of ordinary shares equals or exceeds $10.00 per share (as adjusted for share sub-divisions, share dividends, rights issuances, subdivisions, reorganizations, recapitalizations and the like) on the trading day prior to the date on which a notice of redemption is sent to the warrant holders. Recent trading prices for ordinary shares have exceeded the $10.00 per share threshold at which the Warrants would become redeemable. In such a case, the holders will be able to exercise their Warrants prior to redemption for a number of ordinary shares determined based on the redemption date and the fair market value of ordinary shares. The value received upon exercise of the Warrants (1) may be less than the value the holders would have received if they had exercised their Warrants at a later time when the underlying share price is higher and (2) may not compensate the holders for the value of the Warrants. Risks Related to Investment in a Luxembourg Company and Our Status as a Foreign Private Issuer As a foreign private issuer, we are exempt from a number of U.S. securities laws and rules promulgated thereunder and is permitted to publicly disclose less information than U.S. public companies must. This may limit the information available to holders of ordinary shares. We qualify as a “foreign private issuer,” as defined in the SEC’s rules and regulations, and, consequently, we are not subject to all of the disclosure requirements applicable to public companies organized within the United States. For example, we are exempt from certain rules under the Exchange Act that regulate disclosure obligations and procedural requirements related to the solicitation of proxies, consents or authorizations applicable to a security registered under the Exchange Act. In addition, our officers and directors are exempt from the “short-swing” profit recovery provisions of Section 16 of the Exchange Act and related rules with respect to their purchases and sales of our securities. Moreover, we are not required to file periodic reports and financial statements with the SEC as frequently or as promptly as U.S. public companies. We are also not subject to Regulation FD under the Exchange Act, which prohibits companies from selectively disclosing material nonpublic information to certain persons without concurrently making a widespread public disclosure of such information. Accordingly, as the exemptions might suggest, there may be less publicly available information concerning Alvotech than there is for U.S. public companies but the European rules have independent requirements for disclosure and, in most cases, result in similar disclosure as a U.S. public company. As a foreign private issuer, we will file an Annual Report on Form 20-F within four months of the close of each fiscal year ended December 31 and furnish reports on Form 6-K relating to certain material events promptly after we publicly announce these events. However, because of the above exemptions for foreign private issuers, which we rely on, our shareholders are not afforded the same information generally available to investors holding shares in public companies that are not foreign private issuers. As a foreign private issuer, we are also permitted to follow home country practice in lieu of certain corporate governance rules of the Nasdaq, including those that require listed companies to have a majority of independent directors and independent director oversight of executive compensation, nomination of directors and corporate governance matters. As of 31 December 2025, four of our seven directors are independent as defined in Nasdaq listing standards and applicable SEC rules. As long as we rely on the foreign private issuer exemption, a majority of our board of directors will not be required to be independent directors and our compensation committee will not be required to be composed entirely of independent directors. Accordingly, holders of our securities may not have the same protections afforded to shareholders of listed companies that are subject to all of the applicable corporate governance requirements. We may lose our foreign private issuer status in the future, which could result in significant additional costs and expenses. This would subject us to U.S. GAAP reporting requirements which may be difficult for us to comply with. As a “foreign private issuer,” we are not required to comply with all of the periodic disclosure and current reporting requirements of the Exchange Act and related rules and regulations. Under those rules, the determination of foreign private issuer status is made annually on the last business day of an issuer’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter, and, accordingly, the next determination will be made with respect to our status on 30 June 2026. In the future, we could lose our foreign private issuer status if a majority of our ordinary shares are held by residents in the United States and any of the following three circumstances applies: (1) the majority of our executive officers or directors are U.S. citizens or residents; (2) more than 50% of our assets are located in the United States; or (3) our business is administered principally in the United States. Although we intend to follow certain practices that are consistent with U.S. 56 regulatory provisions applicable to U.S. companies, our loss of foreign private issuer status would make such provisions mandatory. The regulatory and compliance costs to us under U.S. securities laws if we are deemed a U.S. domestic issuer may be significantly higher. If we are not a foreign private issuer, we will be required to file periodic reports on U.S. domestic issuer forms with the SEC, which are more detailed and extensive than the forms available to a foreign private issuer. For example, we would become subject to the Regulation FD, aimed at preventing issuers from making selective disclosures of material information. We also may be required to modify certain policies to comply with good governance practices associated with U.S. domestic issuers. Such conversion and modifications will involve additional costs. In addition, we may lose our ability to rely upon exemptions from certain corporate governance requirements of Nasdaq that are available to foreign private issuers. For example, Nasdaq’s corporate governance rules require listed companies to have, among other things, a majority of independent board members and independent director oversight of executive compensation, nomination of directors, and corporate governance matters. As a foreign private issuer, we are permitted to follow home country practice in lieu of the above requirements. We intend to follow Luxembourg practice with respect to quorum requirements for shareholder meetings in lieu of the requirement under Nasdaq Listing Rules that the quorum be not less than 33 1/3% of the outstanding voting shares. Under our articles of association, at an ordinary general meeting, there is no quorum requirement and resolutions are adopted by a simple majority of validly cast votes. In addition, under our articles of association, for any resolutions to be considered at an extraordinary general meeting of shareholders, the quorum shall be at least one half of our issued share capital unless otherwise mandatorily required by law and resolutions are adopted with a majority of at least two thirds of the validly cast votes. As long as we rely on the foreign private issuer exemption to certain of Nasdaq’s corporate governance standards, a majority of the directors on our board of directors are not required to be independent directors, our remuneration committee is not required to be comprised entirely of independent directors, and we will not be required to have a nominating and corporate governance committee. Also, we would be required to change our basis of accounting from IFRS to United States generally accepted accounting principles (“U.S. GAAP”), which may be difficult and costly for us to comply with. If we lose our foreign private issuer status and fail to comply with U.S. securities laws applicable to U.S. domestic issuers, we may have to de-list from Nasdaq and could be subject to investigation by the SEC, Nasdaq and other regulators, among other materially adverse consequences. We are organized under the laws of Luxembourg and a substantial amount of our assets are not located in the United States. It may be difficult to obtain or enforce judgments or bring original actions against us or the members of our board of directors in the United States. We are organized under the laws of Luxembourg. In addition, a substantial amount of our assets are located in Iceland and elsewhere outside the United States. Furthermore, some of the members of our board of directors and officers reside outside the United States and a substantial portion of our assets are located in Iceland and elsewhere outside the U.S. Investors may not be able to effect service of process within the United States upon us or these persons or enforce judgments obtained against us or these persons in U.S. courts, including judgments in actions predicated upon the civil liability provisions of the U.S. federal securities laws. Likewise, it also may be difficult for an investor to enforce in U.S. courts judgments obtained against us or these persons in courts located in jurisdictions outside the United States, including judgments predicated upon the civil liability provisions of the U.S. federal securities laws. Awards of punitive damages in actions brought in the United States or elsewhere are generally not enforceable in Luxembourg. As there is no treaty in force on the reciprocal recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters between the United States and Luxembourg other than arbitral awards rendered in civil and commercial matters, courts in Luxembourg will not automatically recognize and enforce a final judgment rendered by a U.S. court. A valid judgment obtained from a court of competent jurisdiction in the United States may be entered and enforced through a court of competent jurisdiction in Luxembourg, subject to the applicable enforcement procedures (exequatur) as set out in the relevant provisions of the Luxembourg New Civil Procedure Code and in Luxembourg case law. Pursuant to Luxembourg case law, the granting of exequatur is subject to the following requirements: •the judgment of the U.S. court is final and enforceable (exécutoire) in the United States and has not been fully enforced in the United States and/or in any other jurisdiction; •the U.S. court had full jurisdiction over the subject matter leading to the judgment (that is, its jurisdiction was in compliance both with Luxembourg private international law rules and with the applicable domestic U.S. federal or state jurisdictional rules); •the U.S. court applied to the dispute the substantive law which is designated by the Luxembourg conflict of laws rules or, at least, such court’s order must not contravene the principles underlying those rules (based on 57 recent case law and legal doctrine, it is not certain that this condition would still be required for an exequatur to be granted by a Luxembourg court); •the judgment was granted following proceedings where the counterparty had the opportunity to appear and, if it appeared, to present a defense, and the decision of the foreign court must not have been obtained by fraud, but in compliance with the rights of the defendant; •the U.S. court acted in accordance with its own procedural laws; •the judgment of the U.S. court does not contradict an already issued judgment of a Luxembourg court, and •the decisions and the considerations of the U.S. court must not be contrary to Luxembourg international public policy rules (as such term is interpreted under the laws of Luxembourg) or have been given in proceedings of a tax or criminal nature or rendered subsequent to an evasion of Luxembourg law (fraude à la loi). Awards of damages made under civil liabilities provisions of the U.S. federal securities laws, or other laws, which are classified by Luxembourg courts as being of a penal or punitive nature (for example, fines or punitive damages), might not be recognized by Luxembourg courts. Ordinarily, an award of monetary damages would not be considered as a penalty, but if the monetary damages include punitive damages, such punitive damages may be considered a penalty and therefore not enforceable in Luxembourg. Similarly, as Alvotech hf., a subsidiary of Alvotech, has significant assets in Iceland, investors may seek to enforce judgments obtained in the United States against Alvotech in Iceland. As there is no treaty in force on the reciprocal recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters between the United States and Iceland other than arbitral awards entered in civil and commercial matters, courts in Iceland will not automatically recognize and enforce a final judgment rendered by a U.S. court. Based on recent Icelandic case law, a valid judgment obtained from a court of competent jurisdiction in the United States will not be directly recognized and enforceable in Iceland. Instead, the judgment creditor would need to issue fresh legal proceedings against the judgment debtor in Iceland in which the U.S. judgment would serve as evidence, in addition to other evidence and legal arguments regarding the merits of the case, which will be adjudicated by the Icelandic courts. If an original action is brought in Luxembourg or Iceland, without prejudice to specific conflict of law rules, Luxembourg courts or Icelandic courts may refuse to apply the designated law (i) if the choice of such foreign law was not made bona fide or (ii) if the foreign law was not pleaded and proved or (iii) if pleaded and proved, such foreign law is contrary to mandatory Luxembourg or Icelandic laws or incompatible with Luxembourg or Icelandic public policy rules. In an action brought in Luxembourg or Iceland on the basis of U.S. federal or state securities laws, Luxembourg courts or Icelandic courts may not have the requisite power to grant the remedies sought. Also, an exequatur may be refused by a Luxembourg court in respect of punitive damages. In practice, Luxembourg courts tend not to review the merits of a foreign judgment, although there is no clear statutory prohibition of such review. A contractual provision allowing the service of process against a party to a service agent could be overridden by Luxembourg or Icelandic statutory provisions allowing the valid serving of process against a party in accordance with applicable laws at the domicile of the party. Further, in the event any proceedings are brought in a Luxembourg court in respect of a monetary obligation payable in a currency other than the Euro, a Luxembourg court would have the power to give judgment as an order to pay the obligation in a currency other than the Euro. However, enforcement of the judgment against any party in Luxembourg would be available only in Euros and, for such purposes, all claims or debts would be converted into Euros. Similarly, in the event any proceedings are brought in an Icelandic court in respect of a monetary obligation payable in a currency other than the Icelandic Krona, an Icelandic court would have the power to give judgment as an order to pay the obligation in a currency other than the Icelandic Krona. In addition, actions brought in a Luxembourg court against Alvotech, the members of our board of directors, our officers, or the experts named herein to enforce liabilities based on U.S. federal securities laws may be subject to certain restrictions. In particular, Luxembourg courts generally do not award punitive damages. Litigation in Luxembourg also is subject to rules of procedure that differ from the U.S. rules, including, with respect to the taking and admissibility of evidence, the conduct of the proceedings and the allocation of costs. Proceedings in Luxembourg would have to be conducted in the French or German language, and all documents submitted to the court would, in principle, have to be translated into French or German. For these reasons, it may be difficult for a U.S. investor to bring an original action in a Luxembourg court predicated upon the civil liability provisions of the U.S. federal securities laws against Alvotech, the members of our board of directors, our officers, or the experts named herein. In addition, even if a judgment against Alvotech, the non-U.S. members of our board of directors, our officers, or the experts named in this Annual Report based on the civil liability provisions of the U.S. federal securities laws is obtained, a U.S. investor may not be able to enforce it in United States or Luxembourg courts. 58 Our directors and officers might enter into indemnification agreements with Alvotech. Under such agreements, the directors and officers could be entitled to indemnification from Alvotech to the fullest extent permitted by Luxemburg law against liability and expenses reasonably incurred or paid by him or her in connection with any claim, action, suit, or proceeding in which he or she would be involved by virtue of his or her being or having been a director or officer and against amounts paid or incurred by him or her in the settlement thereof. Luxembourg law permits us to keep directors indemnified against any expenses, judgments, fines and amounts paid in connection with liability of a director towards Alvotech or a third-party for management errors i.e., for wrongful acts committed during the execution of the mandate (mandat) granted to the director by Alvotech, except in connection with criminal offenses, gross negligence or fraud. The rights to and obligations of indemnification among or between Alvotech and any of our current or former directors and officers are generally governed by the laws of Luxembourg and subject to the jurisdiction of the Luxembourg courts, unless such rights or obligations do not relate to or arise out of such persons’ capacities listed above. Although there is doubt as to whether U.S. courts would enforce this indemnification provision in an action brought in the United States under U.S. federal or state securities laws, this provision could make it more difficult to obtain judgments outside Luxembourg or from non-Luxembourg jurisdictions that would apply Luxembourg law against our assets in Luxembourg. Luxembourg, Icelandic and European Union insolvency and bankruptcy laws are substantially different from U.S. insolvency and bankruptcy laws and may offer our shareholders less protection than they would have under U.S. insolvency and bankruptcy laws. As a company organized under the laws of Luxembourg and with its registered office in Luxembourg, we are subject to Luxembourg insolvency and bankruptcy laws in the event any insolvency proceedings are initiated against us including, among other things, Council and European Parliament Regulation (EU) 2015/848 of May 20, 2015, on insolvency proceedings (recast). Should courts in another EU Member State determine that the insolvency and bankruptcy laws of that country apply to us in accordance with and subject to such EU regulations, the courts in such EU Member State could have jurisdiction over the insolvency proceedings initiated against us. We are the parent company of Alvotech hf., our main operating subsidiary. As a company organized under the laws of Iceland and with its registered office in Iceland, Alvotech hf. is subject to Icelandic insolvency and bankruptcy laws in the event any insolvency proceedings are initiated against it. Insolvency and bankruptcy laws in Luxembourg, Iceland or the relevant other EU Member State, if any, may offer our shareholders less protection than they would have under U.S. insolvency and bankruptcy laws and make it more difficult for them to recover the amount they could expect to recover in a liquidation under U.S. insolvency and bankruptcy laws. The rights of our shareholders and responsibilities of our directors and officers are governed by Luxembourg or Icelandic law and differ in some respects from the rights and responsibilities of shareholders under other jurisdictions, including jurisdictions in the United States or Iceland. Our corporate affairs are governed by our articles of association, and by the laws governing companies incorporated in Luxembourg, including the Luxembourg law of 10 August 1915 on commercial companies, as amended (the “Luxembourg Company Law”). The rights of our shareholders and the responsibilities of our directors and officers under Luxembourg law differ in some respects from those of a company incorporated under other jurisdictions, including jurisdictions in the U.S. corporate laws governing Luxembourg companies may not be as extensive as those in effect in U.S. jurisdictions and the Luxembourg Company Law in respect of corporate governance matters might not be as protective of shareholders as the corporate law and court decisions interpreting the corporate law in Delaware, where the majority of U.S. public companies are incorporated. Further, under Luxembourg law there may be less publicly available information about us than would otherwise be published by or about U.S. issuers. In addition, we anticipate that all of our shareholder meetings will take place in Luxembourg. Our shareholders may have more difficulty in protecting their interests in connection with actions taken by our directors and officers or our principal shareholders than they would as shareholders of a corporation incorporated in a jurisdiction in the United States. If securities or industry analysts do not publish or cease publishing research or reports about us, our business, or our market, or if they change their recommendations regarding ordinary shares and warrants adversely, then the price and trading volume of ordinary shares and warrants could decline. The trading market for ordinary shares and warrants is influenced by the research and reports that industry or securities analysts may publish about us, our business, our market, or our competitors. If any of the analysts who may cover us change their recommendation regarding ordinary shares and Warrants adversely, cease to provide coverage or 59 provide more favorable relative recommendations about our competitors, the price of ordinary shares and warrants would likely decline. Only two majority shareholders may have significant influence over the outcome of matters submitted to shareholders for approval, which may prevent us from engaging in certain transactions. As of the date hereof, our two largest shareholders, Alvogen Lux Holdings S.à r.l. (“Alvogen”) and Aztiq Pharma Partners SARL ("Aztiq"), own approximately 62.2% of our ordinary shares. As a result of their ownership interest and other contractual rights, these shareholders exercise significant influence over all matters requiring shareholder approval, including the appointment of directors and the approval of significant corporate transactions. Such corporate action might be taken even if other shareholders oppose them. This ownership and control may also have the effect of delaying or preventing a future change in control, impeding a merger, consolidation, takeover or other business combination that may be in the best interest of us and any other shareholder. This ownership and control may be used to prevent us from raising additional funds through the sale of equity which may make it more difficult for us to finance our operations. Risks Related to Taxation If we are treated as a “passive foreign investment company” for any taxable year, U.S. investors could be subject to adverse U.S. federal income tax consequences. A non-U.S. corporation generally will be treated as a “passive foreign investment company” (“PFIC”) for U.S. federal income tax purposes if either (i) at least 75% of its gross income in a taxable year, including its pro rata share of the gross income of any corporation in which it is considered to own at least 25% of the shares by value, is passive income or (ii) at least 50% of its assets in a taxable year (ordinarily determined based on fair market value and averaged quarterly over the year), including its pro rata share of the assets of any corporation in which it is considered to own at least 25% of the shares by value, are held for the production of, or produce, passive income. Passive income generally includes dividends, interest, rents and royalties (other than rents or royalties derived from the active conduct of a trade or business), and gains from the disposition of passive assets. Based on our analysis of our income, assets, activities and market capitalization, we believe that we were not treated as a PFIC for our taxable year ended 31 December 2025. However, the determination of whether a non-U.S. corporation is a PFIC is a fact-intensive determination made on an annual basis and the applicable law is subject to varying interpretation. In particular, the characterization of our assets as active or passive may depend in part on our current and intended future business plans, which are subject to change. In addition, the total value of our assets for PFIC testing purposes may be determined in part by reference to the market price of ordinary shares from time to time, which may fluctuate considerably. As a result, there can be no assurance with respect to our status as a PFIC for any taxable year, and our U.S. counsel expresses no opinion with respect to our PFIC status for any taxable year. If we are treated as a PFIC, U.S. investors may be subject to certain adverse U.S. federal income tax consequences, including additional reporting requirements. For further discussion of the PFIC rules and the adverse U.S. federal income tax consequences in the event we are classified as a PFIC, as well as certain elections that may be available to U.S. investors, see “Item 10.E Taxation-Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Considerations for U.S. Holders.” U.S. investors should consult their tax advisors regarding the application of the PFIC rules in their particular circumstances. Changes in tax laws and unanticipated tax liabilities could adversely affect us. We are subject to tax in Luxembourg and in other jurisdictions, and significant judgment is required in determining our provision for income taxes. Likewise, we are subject to audit by tax authorities in various jurisdictions. In such audits, our interpretation of tax legislation may be challenged and there would be a potential risk of an adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements. The integrated nature of our worldwide operations can produce conflicting claims from tax authorities in different countries as to the profits to be taxed in the individual countries, including potential disputes relating to the prices our subsidiaries charge one another for intercompany transactions, known as transfer pricing. Most of the jurisdictions in which we operate have double tax treaties with other foreign jurisdictions, which provide a framework for mitigating the impact of double taxation, although such mechanisms for resolving such conflicting claims can be expected to be very lengthy. Our tax liabilities could be adversely affected in the future by a number of factors, including changes in accounting standards, changes in the valuation of deferred tax assets and liabilities, and changes in tax laws such as corporate income tax rates and changes in tax treatment of specific items. 60 New income, sales, use or other tax laws, statutes, rules, regulations or ordinances could be enacted at any time, which could affect the tax treatment of our domestic and foreign earnings. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act enacted in 2025 (the “OBBBA”), the IRA, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act enacted in 2020 (the “CARES Act”), and the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act enacted in 2017 (the “TCJA”) made many significant changes to the U.S. Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. Future guidance from the Internal Revenue Service and other tax authorities with respect to any legislation may affect us, and certain aspects of such legislation could be repealed or modified in future legislation or sunset in future years. Changes in or interpretations under the OBBBA, the TCJA, the IRA, or other tax legislation, or the enactment of new tax legislation, could increase our future tax liability, which could in turn adversely impact our business and future profitability. Other international tax measures, such as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (“OECD”) base erosion and profit shifting (“BEPS”) project and the global minimum taxation regime (“Pillar two”) contribute to increased uncertainty and may adversely affect our tax provision. The BEPS project contemplates changes to numerous international tax principles, as well as national tax incentives, and these changes, when adopted by individual countries, could adversely affect our provision for income taxes. Pillar two, was announced by the EU Council on 12 December 2022, and introduces the minimum taxation component of 15% as part of the OECD’s reform of international taxation. Multinational groups are subjected to these rules upon meeting certain criteria, and we continuously monitor whether compliance with these rules becomes applicable. These rules are fairly new and further guidance is progressively sought, as a result of which it remains difficult to predict the magnitude of the eventual effect of such new rules on our financial results. We may not be able to fully utilize some of our Icelandic NOL carryforwards. As of 31 December 2025, Alvotech hf., the Icelandic operational entity, had net operating loss (“NOL”) carryforwards. There can be no certainty that we will generate revenues, in the foreseeable future, if ever, and we may never achieve profitability. These NOL carryforwards could expire unused and be unavailable to offset future income tax liabilities. In the absence of their utilization, any increased liabilities could adversely affect our business, results of operations, financial position and cash flows. Termination or expiration of governmental programs or tax benefits, could adversely affect us. Some entities forming part of the group benefit from governmental programs or tax benefits. The termination, change or expiration of governmental programs or tax benefits, or a change in our business, could adversely affect our overall effective tax rate.