ENVIU Environmental Impact Acquisition Corporation

RISK FACTORS

Investing in New GreenLight Common Stock involves a high degree of risk. Before you decide to invest in any of our securities, you should consider carefully the risks described below, together with the other information contained in this prospectus, including our consolidated financial statements and the related notes appearing at the end of this prospectus. We believe the risks described below are the risks that are material as of the date of this prospectus. If any of the following risks actually occur, our business, results of operations and financial condition would likely be materially and adversely affected. In these circumstances, the market price of New GreenLight Common Stock could decline, and you may lose part or all of your investment. This prospectus also contains forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. See “Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements.” Our actual results could differ materially and adversely from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements as a result of certain factors, including, but not limited to, those set forth below.

Risks Relating to Our Business and Industry

We are an early-stage biotechnology company without any products or services currently available for sale and we may not be able to successfully develop or bring products or services to market.

In our human health program, we have several pre-IND product candidates, while in our plant health program, we have seven product candidates we hope to bring to market by 2027; however, there is no assurance that we will succeed in bringing any of our product candidates to market or that such product candidates, if approved, or any of our other operations will generate any revenue. If we cannot develop a marketable product or generate sufficient revenues, we may be required to suspend or cease operations.

We have not generated any product revenues to date and expect to incur losses and negative cash flow for the foreseeable future.

We have generated substantial accumulated losses since inception. Our net losses were $53.3 million, $112.3 million and $90.1 million for the years ended December 31, 2020 and 2021 and the six months ended June 30, 2022, respectively. As of June 30, 2022, we had an accumulated deficit of $343.7 million. We will need to generate significant revenues to achieve profitability, and we may not be able to achieve and maintain profitability in the near future. We have derived substantially all of our revenues through license and collaboration agreements as well as grants and research partnerships with third parties and we are unable to accurately predict whether these sources of revenue will be available to us in the future. Our future success will depend on our ability to bring products to market for the first time and grow consistent revenue associated with those products. The research, testing and regulatory pathways for each of the products in our product pipeline are complex and we can offer no assurance that we will bring the products in our pipeline to market, that any of those products will be profitable or that we will generate overall profit or positive cash flow in the future. The net losses we incur may fluctuate significantly from year-to-year and quarter-to-quarter, such that a period-to-period comparison of our results of operations may not be a good indication of our future performance. These fluctuations may cause our stock to be volatile compared to other stocks in the market.

We will require substantial additional funds to complete our research and development activities, and, if additional funds are not available, we may need to significantly scale back or cease our business.

Between our founding and June 30, 2022, we raised net proceeds of $330.2 million from the sale of capital stock, and from 2020 to June 30, 2022, we raised $67.0 million from the issuance of debt and convertible notes (including approximately $13.5 million of the PIPE Prepayment) which we have dedicated to the development of our RNA platform, human health product pipelines and plant health product pipelines. As of June 30, 2022, we held approximately $44.1 million in cash and cash equivalents. On February 2, 2022, we consummated the Business Combination and raised aggregate gross proceeds of approximately $136.4 million, which included

11

funds held in ENVI’s trust account (after giving effect to redemptions of $194.9 million) and proceeds from the February 2022 PIPE Financing of $124.3 million (inclusive of the PIPE Prepayment), before deducting transaction expenses of $26.7 million. On August 11, 2022, we entered into the August 2022 PIPE Subscription Agreements with the August 2022 PIPE Investors, pursuant to which we sold 27,640,301 shares of common stock at a purchase price of $3.92 per share in a private placement, resulting in aggregate gross proceeds of approximately $108.3 million. We have invested and will continue to invest in property and equipment, and human capital and will require substantial funds to bring the current products in our product pipeline to market and to grow our business by researching, developing, and protecting products not currently in our product pipeline. Our current available funds are not sufficient for all of these activities and, as a result, there is substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern.

Based on our history of losses, we do not expect that we will be able to fund our longer-term capital and liquidity needs through our current cash balances and operating cash flow alone. To fund our longer-term capital and liquidity needs, we will need to secure additional capital. The amount of capital we will need will be subject to change depending on, among other things, the success of our efforts to grow revenue and our efforts to continue to effectively manage expenses.

When we raise additional funds through future issuances of equity or convertible debt securities, our existing stockholders could suffer significant dilution, and any new equity securities we issue could have rights, preferences and privileges superior to those of holders of our common stock. Any debt financing that we may secure in the future could involve restrictive covenants relating to our capital raising activities and other financial and operational matters, which may make it more difficult for us to obtain additional capital and to pursue business opportunities, including potential acquisitions. We may not be able to obtain additional financing on terms favorable to us, if at all. If we are unable to obtain adequate financing or financing on terms satisfactory to us when we require it, our ability to continue to support our business growth and to respond to business challenges and opportunities could be significantly impaired, and our business may be adversely affected.

Our financing needs may also increase substantially depending on the results of our research, trials and development for products and costs arising from additional regulatory approvals. We may not succeed in raising additional funds in a timely manner. The timing of our need for additional funds will depend on a number of factors, which are difficult to predict or may be outside of our control, including:

If our estimates and predictions relating to any of these factors are incorrect, we may need to modify our business plans.

Our ability to raise funds will depend upon many factors, including conditions in the debt and equity capital markets, as well as investor perception of our creditworthiness and prospects. If we are unable to raise funds on acceptable terms, we may not be able to execute our business plan, take advantage of future opportunities, or respond to competitive pressures or unanticipated requirements. This may seriously harm our business, financial condition and results of operations. If we are not able to continue operations, investors may suffer a complete loss of their investments in our securities.

12

Our strategy assumes that we will collaborate with larger companies to develop and commercialize the products in our pipeline and if those collaborations are not successful or available to us at all, we may not be able to successfully commercialize our products.

We are seeking and will continue to seek collaboration arrangements with third parties for the development or commercialization of our products. These arrangements are complex and time-consuming to negotiate, document, implement and maintain and, as a small company, we may not have the same bargaining power as the larger companies we seek to collaborate with and the terms of any collaborations or other arrangements that we may establish may not be favorable to us.

Due to our limited resources and access to capital, we must make decisions on the allocation of resources to certain programs and product candidates; these decisions may prove to be wrong and may adversely affect our business.

We have limited financial and human resources and intend to initially focus on research programs and product candidates for a limited set of indications. As a result, we may forgo or delay pursuit of opportunities with other product candidates or for other indications that later prove to have greater commercial potential or a greater likelihood of success. For example, we recently paused work on our early-stage research programs, including our gene therapy program for sickle cell disease and our programs for antibody therapy and supra-seasonal flu.

It is difficult to predict the time and cost of development of our pipeline products, which are produced by or based on a relatively novel and complex technology and are subject to many risks, any of which could prevent or delay revenue growth and adversely impact our market acceptance, business and results of operations. We may also determine not to pursue, or change the timing or order of, our product candidates.

Our company has product candidates with very complex and different sales and marketing channels, the development of which will put significant burdens on us and which we may not be able to develop as effectively as competitors.

We will have very different sales and marketing channels if the products in our pipeline are to reach customers in their respective markets, requiring us to develop distinct sales, marketing, and distribution methods. In particular, the human, agricultural and plant health markets have different customers and distribution channels. Building, managing and maintaining such a sales and marketing infrastructure will require us to hire experts in the field, implement complex systems, establish collaborations with third parties effectively across various geographies and understand disparate regulatory regimes. Our ability to effectively engage in these steps is untested, making it impossible for us to accurately predict the level of success we will achieve.

We have a limited operating history and funding, which may make it difficult to evaluate our product development, product prospects and overall likelihood of success.

We commenced operations in 2008. We have a limited operating history as a company, which makes it difficult to predict future operations. The product candidates and the markets we hope to serve have shifted since we commenced operations and as such, our operational experience with our current product pipeline and target markets is shorter than the full period of our operations. We have been operating our plant health product pipelines since 2016 and our human health product pipelines since 2019. Our approach to the discovery and development of product candidates had not been validated by the commercial introduction of products and we cannot guarantee that the products currently in our product pipeline, or any other products or services, will have future commercial value. Our programs will require substantial additional development and research, both in time and resources, before we are in a position to receive regulatory approvals and begin generating revenue in connection with the sale of product candidates. We have not yet demonstrated the ability to complete a large-scale, pivotal clinical trial, obtain regulatory approval for any product, manufacture a product at commercial

13

scale, or arrange for a third party to do so on our behalf, or conduct sales and marketing activities necessary for successful product commercialization. Consequently, predictions about our future success or viability may not be as accurate as they could be if we had a longer operating history or a history of successfully developing and commercializing products.

All of our products require rigorous, time-consuming and expensive regulatory examination and approval before they can be commercialized and some or all of our products may not receive this approval.

Any products that we are currently developing or may develop in the future will be subject to extensive governmental regulations relating to development, trials, manufacturing and commercialization. Rigorous studies, clinical trials and extensive regulatory licensure and approval processes are required to be successfully completed in the United States and in many foreign jurisdictions, such as South Africa, the European Union and Japan, before a new product may be offered and sold in any of these countries or regions. Satisfaction of these and other regulatory requirements is costly, time-consuming, uncertain and subject to unanticipated delays. We have experienced and may continue to experience additional unanticipated delays in our efforts to satisfy regulatory requirements relating to our product candidates. For example, in April 2022, we applied for a Clinical Trials Application, or CTA, with the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority, or SAHPRA, for a phase I/II single-vaccination booster study. That application was rejected on the basis that the application failed to identify specific benefits our testing efforts and a resulting vaccine would bring to South Africa considering the ready availability of other COVID-19 vaccines in that country. After further review and discussion with SAHPRA, we have decided not to amend or resubmit our CTA in South Africa in favor of identifying other countries in which to begin clinical trials and whether to do so in combination with a US-based Investigational New Drug, or IND, application with the FDA. We can offer no assurance that any clinical trial applications we may file will be accepted by regulatory authorities.

Studies and trials for regulatory licensure and approval are expensive and difficult to design and implement, in part because they are subject to rigorous regulatory requirements. Because many products that we develop in the future will be based on new technologies, we expect that they will require extensive research and development and necessitate substantial manufacturing and processing costs. In addition, costs to treat potential side effects that may result from a product we develop may be significant.

Please refer to risk factor sections on our human health and animal health products for more regulatory risk information.

We have yet to establish sales, marketing or distribution capabilities, and if we are unable to establish these capabilities, we may not be successful in commercializing our product candidates if they are approved.

We have not yet established a sales, marketing or product distribution infrastructure for our product candidates, which are still in various stages of development. To achieve commercial success for any product for which we obtain marketing approval, we will need to establish a sales and marketing organization within the United States and develop a strategy for sales outside of the United States. In addition, as we begin to commercialize our products, we will need to hire, develop, train personnel with expertise in marketing and selling products in each of those markets.

Our growth strategy requires us to introduce new products, in addition to those in our current pipeline, that achieve market acceptance.

In order to reach our growth objectives, we must introduce new products in addition to our current pipeline of product candidates, and future new products. Research, development and regulatory approval for our products involve risks of failure inherent in the development of novel and complex products. These risks include the possibility that:

14

Accordingly, if we experience any significant delays in the development or introduction of new products or if our new products do not achieve market acceptance, our business, operating results and financial condition would be adversely affected.

We will need to modify the size of our organization from time to time, and we may experience difficulties in managing these changes, which could disrupt operations.

As of August 1, 2022, we had 347 full-time employees, an increase in headcount of 61 since December 31, 2021, representing an increase of 21%. We have begun to and will continue to slow our hiring in the near future as we assess capacity, capital needs and the scope of our operations. The skills we seek are typically in high demand and we may have difficulty identifying, hiring, integrating, motivating and retaining additional employees, consultants, and contract personnel. Also, our management may need to divert a disproportionate amount of our attention away from our day-to-day activities and devote a substantial amount of time to simultaneously manage rightsizing and growth activities. We may not be able to effectively manage changes in the size of our operations, which may result in weaknesses in our infrastructure, give rise to operational mistakes, loss of business opportunities, loss of employees and reduced productivity among remaining employees. Any future growth could require significant capital expenditures and may divert financial resources from other projects, such as the development of product candidates. If our management is unable to effectively manage our rightsizing efforts while scaling the Company, our expenses may increase more than expected, our ability to generate and/or grow revenues could be reduced, and we may not be able to implement our business strategy. Our future financial performance and our ability to commercialize our product candidates and compete effectively will depend, in part, on our ability to effectively manage the size of our organization.

Many of the companies that we compete against for qualified personnel and consultants have greater financial and other resources, different risk profiles, more established brands and a longer history in the industry than we do. If we are unable to continue to attract, motivate, and retain high-quality personnel and consultants, the rate and success at which we can discover and develop product candidates and operate our business will be limited.

15

We use RNA-based molecular biology triggers for many of the products in our product pipeline and the successful commercialization of these products will depend on public perceptions of RNA-based products.

The successful commercialization of our product candidates depends, in part, on public acceptance of modern biotechnology techniques and the use of RNA to regulate the expression of genes and production of proteins in human health and agricultural products. Negative public perceptions about RNA and molecular regulation of gene expression can also affect the regulatory environment in the jurisdictions in which we are targeting the sale of our products and the commercialization of our product candidates. Any increase in such negative perceptions or any restrictive government regulations in response to RNA-based products could have a negative effect on our business and may delay or impair the sale of our products or the development or commercialization of our product candidates. Public pressure may lead to increased regulation and legislation for products produced using biotechnology and this could adversely affect our ability to sell our product or commercialize our product candidates.

Our accounting predecessor, GreenLight, has identified material weaknesses in its internal controls of financial reporting. If we are unable to remediate the material weaknesses, or if we identify additional material weaknesses or otherwise fail to maintain effective internal control over financial reporting, this may result in material misstatements or restatements of our consolidated financial statements or cause us to fail to meet our periodic reporting obligations.

As a public company, New GreenLight is required to maintain internal control over financial reporting. Management may be unable to effectively and timely implement controls and procedures that adequately respond to the increased regulatory compliance and reporting requirements of a public company. If we are unable to comply with the requirement to maintain internal control over financial reporting, we may be unable to maintain compliance with securities law requirements regarding timely filing of periodic reports or applicable stock exchange listing requirements, investors may lose confidence in our financial reporting, and our stock price may decline as a result.

Three material weaknesses have been identified in GreenLight’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2021. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over financial reporting such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of our annual or interim financial statements will not be prevented or detected on a timely basis. The three material weaknesses identified in GreenLight’s internal controls result from:

The first two material weaknesses were identified in connection with the preparation and audit of GreenLight’s financial statements as of December 31, 2020 (which audit was completed in September 2021), and had not been remediated as of December 31, 2021. The Company’s three material weaknesses are unremediated as of June 30, 2022.

We have begun implementation of a plan to remediate these material weaknesses. These remediation measures are ongoing and include hiring additional accounting and financial reporting personnel and selecting and implementing new systems for our financial and enterprise resource planning. These remediation measures may be time-consuming and costly, and there is no assurance that they will ultimately have the intended effects. If we identify any new material weaknesses or significant deficiencies in the future, any such newly identified

16

material weakness or significant deficiency could limit our ability to prevent or detect a material misstatement of our annual or interim financial statements.

Moreover, our independent registered public accounting firm is not required to attest to the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting until after we are no longer an “emerging growth company” as defined in the JOBS Act. At that time, our independent registered public accounting firm may issue an adverse report if it is not satisfied with the level at which our internal control over financial reporting is documented, designed, or operating.

Under applicable employment laws, we may not be able to enforce covenants not to compete.

Our employment agreements generally include covenants not to compete. These agreements prohibit our employees, if they cease working for us, from competing directly with us or working for our competitors for a limited period. We may be unable to enforce these agreements under the laws of the jurisdictions in which our employees work.

Our business may be affected by litigation and government investigations.

We may from time to time receive inquiries and subpoenas and other types of information requests from government authorities and others and we may become subject to claims and other actions related to our business activities. While the ultimate outcome of investigations, inquiries, information requests and legal proceedings is difficult to predict, defense of litigation claims can be expensive, time-consuming and distracting, and adverse resolutions or settlements of those matters may result in, among other things, modification of our business practices, costs and significant payments, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

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

Many of our employees, including our senior management, were previously employed at other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our potential competitors. Some of these employees may have executed proprietary rights, non-disclosure and non-competition agreements in connection with such previous employment. Although we try to ensure that our employees do not use the proprietary information or know-how of others in their work for us, we may be subject to claims that we or these employees have used or disclosed intellectual property, including trade secrets or other proprietary information, of any such employee’s former employer. We are not aware of any threatened or pending claims related to these matters or concerning the agreements with our senior management, but future litigation may be necessary to defend against such claims. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management.

We are exposed to a risk of substantial loss due to claims that may be filed against us in the future because our insurance policies may not fully cover the risk of loss associated with our operations.

We are exposed to the risk of having claims seeking monetary damages being filed against us for loss or harm suffered by participants of our preclinical and clinical studies or for loss or harm suffered by users of any products that may receive approval for commercialization in the future, or in connection with loss or harm from any other product, for example, agricultural products, that may be tested or receive approval for commercialization in the future. In either event, the FDA, EPA or the regulatory authorities of other countries or regions may commence investigations of the safety and effectiveness of any such trial or commercialized product, the manufacturing processes and facilities or marketing programs utilized in respect of any such trial or products, which may result in mandatory or voluntary recalls of any commercialized product or other significant

17

enforcement action such as limiting the indications for which any such product may be used, or suspension or withdrawal of approval for any such product. Similar risks exist in connection with the testing, use, or sale of any product we may develop or commercialize. If our products are used for an application they are not intended for, become adulterated or mislabeled we may need to recall such products. A widespread product recall could result in significant losses due to the costs of a recall, the destruction of product inventory, and lost sales due to the unavailability of product for a period of time. We could also suffer losses from a significant product liability judgment against us. A significant product recall or product liability case could also result in adverse publicity, damage to our reputation, and a loss of confidence in our products, which could have an adverse effect on our business,

Significant disruptions of information technology systems or security breaches could adversely affect our operations.

We are increasingly dependent upon information technology systems, infrastructure and data to operate our business ourselves and on vendors who operate aspects of our technology infrastructure for us. In the ordinary course of business, we collect, store and transmit large amounts of confidential information (including, among other things, trade secrets or other intellectual property, proprietary business information and personal information). It is critical that we do so in a secure manner to maintain the confidentiality and integrity of such confidential information.

Attacks on information technology systems are increasing in their frequency, levels of persistence, sophistication and intensity, and they are being conducted by increasingly sophisticated and organized groups that include state actors, criminal organizations and individuals who can bring significant resources and expertise to bear. Public reports indicate that state actors have specifically targeted companies developing COVID-19 vaccines with the intent of stealing trade secrets or disabling information technology systems associated with vaccine development and we may be unable to defend against these state actors who have significantly more resources at their disposal than we do.

Our information technology systems, and those of third-party vendors with whom we contract are also vulnerable to service interruptions, security breaches from inadvertent or intentional actions by our employees, third-party vendors, and/or business partners, or from cyber-attacks by malicious third parties. Cyber-attacks could include the deployment of harmful malware, ransomware, denial-of-service attacks, social engineering and other means to affect service reliability, and could threaten the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of information. For example, we recently experienced a ransomware attack that briefly interrupted access to two of our servers. Although in this instance we were able to rely our backup systems to restore access promptly, without making a ransom payment and without loss of data, our defenses against future cyber-attacks may not be successful.

Significant disruptions of our information technology systems, or those of our third-party vendors, or security breaches could adversely affect our business operations and/or result in the loss, adulteration, misappropriation and/or unauthorized access, use or disclosure of, or the prevention of access to, confidential information, including, among other things, trade secrets or other intellectual property, proprietary business information and personal information, and could result in financial, legal, business, and reputational harm to us.

Any failure or perceived failure by us or any third-party collaborators, service providers, contractors or consultants to comply with our privacy, confidentiality, data security or similar obligations to third parties, or any data security incidents or other security breaches that result in the unauthorized access, release or transfer of sensitive information, including personally identifiable information, may result in governmental investigations, enforcement actions, regulatory fines, litigation or public statements against us, could cause third parties to lose trust in us or could result in claims by third parties asserting that we have breached our privacy, confidentiality, data security, or similar obligations, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our reputation, business, financial condition, or results of operations. Moreover, data security incidents and other security

18

breaches can be difficult to detect, and any delay in identifying them may lead to increased harm. While we have implemented data security measures intended to protect our information technology systems and infrastructure, there can be no assurance that such measures will successfully prevent service interruptions or data security incidents.

We are subject to anti-corruption, anti-bribery and anti-money laundering laws and regulations in various jurisdictions around the world which are subject to rigorous enforcement, and we can face serious consequences for violations.

We expect our non-U.S. activities to increase over time and to include countries that have more prevalent corruption than found in the U.S., increasing our exposure to anti-corruption, anti-bribery and anti-money laundering laws and regulations. These include the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, and as amended, the U.S. domestic bribery statute contained in 18 U.S.C. § 201, the U.S. Travel Act, the U.K. Bribery Act and possibly other anti-corruption, anti-bribery and anti-money laundering laws and regulations in the jurisdictions in which we do business, both domestic and abroad. The FCPA and other anti-corruption laws generally prohibit companies, their employees, agents, representatives, business partners and third-party intermediaries from corruptly promising, authorizing, offering, or providing, directly or indirectly, anything of value to government officials, political parties, or candidates for public office for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business or securing an improper business advantage. The UK Bribery Act and other anti-corruption laws also prohibit commercial bribery not involving government officials, and requesting or accepting bribes; and anti-money laundering laws prohibit engaging in certain transactions involving criminally-derived property or the proceeds of criminal activity.

We and third parties we do business with, as well as our representatives and agents, will have direct or indirect interactions with officials and employees of government agencies or state-owned or affiliated universities or other entities (for example, to obtain necessary permits, licenses, patent registrations and other regulatory approvals), which increases our risks under the FCPA and other anti-corruption laws. We also engage contractors, consultants and other third parties from time to time to conduct business development activities abroad. We may be held liable for the corrupt or other illegal activities of our employees or third parties even if we do not explicitly authorize such activities.

The FCPA also requires that we keep accurate books and records and maintain a system of adequate internal controls. We have recognized several material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting, which may compromise our ability to detect inappropriate payments (see the risk factor associated with “material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting”). Furthermore, we cannot assure you that our employees, agents, representatives, business partners or third-party intermediaries will always comply with our policies and applicable law, for which we may be ultimately held responsible.

Any allegations or violation of the FCPA or other applicable anti-bribery, anti-corruption laws and anti-money laundering laws may result in whistleblower complaints, sanctions, settlements, investigations, prosecution, enforcement actions, substantial criminal fines and civil penalties, disgorgement of profits, imprisonment, debarment, tax reassessments, breach of contract and fraud litigation, loss of export privileges, suspension or debarment from U.S. government contracts, adverse media coverage, reputational harm and other consequences, all of which may have an adverse effect on our reputation, business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Responding to an investigation or action can also result in a materially significant diversion of management’s attention and resources and significant defense costs and other professional fees.

19

Risks Related to Our Manufacturing Platform

We are designing an mRNA commercial manufacturing process in parallel with our product and process development. We currently intend to use contract development and manufacturing organizations (“CDMOs”), such as Samsung Biologics Co., Ltd., to produce material for our COVID-19 product candidate for late-stage clinical trials and commercial launch. There is risk that the final manufacturing process and facility could be incompatible with the CDMO facility, requiring modification and resulting in delays and inefficient deployment of capital.

In an effort to bring our mRNA-related product candidates, particularly our pre-clinical COVID-19 vaccine candidate, to market more quickly, we are designing some aspects of our manufacturing process in parallel with selecting the exact manufacturing equipment and CDMO for that process. Steps to build the infrastructure include design, engineering, site selection and equipment procurement.

As we seek to increase the manufacturing output for commercial production and particular programs from the smaller quantities needed for IND-enabling studies to the larger quantities needed for commercial production, we intend to seek to continuously improve the manufacturability of our product candidates. Accordingly, we may change our manufacturing processes for a particular program during the course of development. However, any change in the manufacturing process may require resupplying clinical material to trial sites, which could increase our expenses, delay completion of clinical trials or otherwise adversely affect commercialization of the product.

We plan to acquire additional laboratory, manufacturing and other space to accommodate our expected growth. If we are not able to access appropriate or sufficient space at reasonable cost, our business and results of operations could be adversely affected.

Our business and results of operations are dependent on locating and successfully negotiating leases for adequate access to laboratory and office space and suitable physical infrastructure, including electrical, plumbing, HVAC and network infrastructure, to conduct our operations and accommodate our growth. These resources are constrained and expensive in the areas in which we operate. If we are unable to access enough space or experience failures of our physical infrastructure, our business and results of operations could be adversely affected.

In order to properly conduct our business, we need access to sufficient laboratory space and equipment to perform the activities necessary to advance and complete our programs. Additionally, we need to ensure that our laboratories and corporate offices remain operational at all times, which includes maintaining suitable physical infrastructure, including electrical, plumbing and HVAC, logistics and transportation systems and network infrastructure. We lease our laboratories and office spaces, and we rely on the landlords for basic maintenance of our leased laboratories and office buildings. If one of our landlords has not maintained a leased property sufficiently, we may be forced into an early exit from the facility, which could be disruptive to our business.

Our dsRNA and mRNA product candidates are based on innovative technologies and any product candidates we develop may be more complex and more difficult to manufacture than initially anticipated. We may encounter difficulties with manufacturing processes, manufacturing at higher volumes, product releases, product shelf life and storage, supply chain management, or shipping for any of our medicines, for both our agricultural or human health product candidates, including our COVID-19 vaccine. If we or any of our third-party vendors encounter such difficulties, our ability to supply commercial product or material for clinical trials could be delayed or stopped.

The manufacturing processes for our product candidates using our dsRNA and mRNA platforms are innovative and complex. There are no mRNA medicines currently manufactured at commercial scale utilizing our manufacturing process. Due to the nature of this technology and our limited experience at commercial scale production, we could encounter difficulties with manufacturing processes, manufacturing at higher volumes, product releases, product shelf life and storage, supply chain management, or shipping.

20

These difficulties could be due to any number of reasons including, but not limited to, complexities of producing batches at any volume, equipment failure, choice and quality of raw materials and excipients, analytical testing technology, and product instability. In an effort to optimize product features, we may make changes to a product candidate in our manufacturing and stability formulation and conditions, which may result in our having to resupply batches for pre-clinical or clinical activities when there is insufficient product stability during storage and insufficient supply. Insufficient stability or shelf life of our product candidates could materially delay our or our strategic collaborators’ ability to continue the clinical trial for that product candidate or require us to begin a new clinical trial with a newly formulated drug product, due to the need to manufacture additional pre-clinical or clinical supply.

Due to the nature of our products and manufacturing platform, there may also be a high degree of technological change that can negatively impact product comparability during and after clinical development. Furthermore, technology changes may drive the need for changes in, modification to, or the sourcing of new manufacturing infrastructure or may adversely affect third-party relationships.

The process to generate dsRNA or mRNA product candidates encapsulated in LNPs is complex and, if not developed and manufactured under well-controlled conditions, can adversely impact pharmacological activity and may result in one or more of our product candidates’ failure.

We have limited experience in manufacturing or commercializing proposed product candidates and may encounter difficulties, delays or other unanticipated hurdles before we are able to begin manufacturing our product candidates in the quantities needed to achieve our business plans.

We have limited experience in manufacturing or commercializing our proposed product candidates. As we increase manufacturing volume, we may encounter unexpected difficulties and delays that require adjustments or changes to our manufacturing process. Changes in our manufacturing processes may lead to failure of batches, which could lead to a substantial delay in pre-clinical studies and clinical trials or the delivery of commercial product. Any such changes could adversely affect clinical or commercial supply of our products. Such changes might also cause delays in or increase the cost of commissioning our facility and adversely affect our commercialization plans.

We have increased the batch size for our mRNA production to accommodate the supply requirements of some of our current and anticipated pre-clinical and clinical programs. However, in some cases, we may have to utilize multiple batches of substance and product to meet the clinical supply requirement of a single clinical trial. If we or our contract manufacturers fail to successfully and consistently produce mRNA at larger batch sizes, it could lead to a substantial delay in our clinical trials or in the commercialization of any products that may receive regulatory approval.

If our cell-free manufacturing platform does not perform as expected, or if our competitors develop and market technologies or products more rapidly than we do or that are more effective, outperform, safer or less expensive than our manufacturing platform technology, our commercial opportunities will be negatively impacted.

It is anticipated that we will face increased competition in the future as new companies enter the markets and as scientific developments progress. If we are unable to compete effectively, our opportunity to discover new products or generate revenue from the sale of such new products or our existing product candidates could be adversely affected.

We have established laboratory, clean room, and manufacturing facilities in Massachusetts, North Carolina and New York to support our activities, which is resulting in the incurrence of significant investment with no assurance that such investment will be recouped.

In order to support our future growth and our agriculture and human health product pipeline, we have invested in facilities to develop products or produce materials. This investment has significantly increased our

21

capital and operating expenses. Moreover, based on our current business plan, we anticipate that in the future we will need to expand our facilities for research and development and production capacity, which we currently expect to accomplish by expanding the capacity of existing facilities. We may need to, or decide to, build additional commercial mRNA manufacturing facilities using our platform technology in the U.S. and in countries outside of the U.S. There can be no assurance that any additional manufacturing capacity that we may acquire will be necessary or that this investment will be recouped.

If we are unable to adequately and timely manufacture and supply our products and product candidates or if we do not fully utilize our manufacturing facilities, our business may be adversely affected. Charges resulting from excess capacity would have a negative effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

We will depend on relationships with third parties for revenues, and for the development, regulatory approval, commercialization and marketing of certain of our products and product candidates, which are outside of our full control.

We rely on a number of third-party relationships for our leases, construction of our facilities, and the development, regulatory approval and commercialization of certain of our product candidates. Certain aspects of our regulatory affairs and clinical development relating to our products and product candidates are also outsourced to third parties. Reliance on third parties subjects us to a number of risks, including:

Given these risks, there is considerable uncertainty regarding the success of current and future collaborative efforts. If these efforts fail, our product development or commercialization of product candidates could be

22

delayed, revenues from products could decline and/or the anticipated benefits of these arrangements may not be realized.

Manufacturing issues could substantially increase costs, limit supply of products and/or reduce revenues.

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

Any adverse developments affecting manufacturing operations or the operations of third-party suppliers and manufacturers may result in shipment delays, inventory shortages, lot failures, product withdrawals or recalls or other interruptions in the commercial supply of our products. Additionally, we may also have to take inventory

23

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. Such developments could increase manufacturing costs, cause revenue loss or loss of market share as patients and physicians turn to competing therapeutics, diminish profitability or damage our reputation.

In addition, although we have business continuity plans to reduce the potential for manufacturing disruptions or delays and reduce the severity of a disruptive event, there is no guarantee that these plans will be adequate, which could adversely affect our business and operations.

Risks Related to the Production of dsRNA and mRNA

Our proposed products are temperature sensitive and may have other attributes that lead to limited shelf life. These attributes may pose risks to supply, inventory and waste management and increased cost of goods.

Our mRNA and dsRNA product candidates may prove to have a stability profile that leads to a lower than desired shelf life of the final approved mRNA medicine. This poses risk in supply requirements, product obsolescence, wasted stock, and higher cost of goods.

Our products and product candidates are temperature sensitive, and we may learn that any or all of our product candidates are less stable than desired. It is also possible that we may find that transportation conditions negatively impact product quality. This may require changes to the formulation or manufacturing process for one or more of our product candidates and result in delays or interruptions to clinical or commercial supply. In addition, the cost associated with such transportation services and the limited pool of vendors may also add additional risks of supply disruptions.

We have established a number of analytical assays, and may have to establish several more, to assess the quality of our dsRNA and mRNA product candidates. We may identify gaps in our analytical testing strategy that might prevent release of product or could require product withdrawal or recall. For example, new impurities that have an impact on product safety, efficacy, or stability may be discovered. This may lead to an inability to release mRNA product candidates until the manufacturing or testing process is rectified.

Risks Related to Raw Materials and Reliance on Third Parties

The materials used in the processes by which we manufacture RNA and our derivative products, such as dsRNA or mRNA, may become difficult to obtain in the quality or quantity required for our business plans or at the prices that are currently projected.

Many of our processes and products rely on materials purchased from third parties and should these materials increase in prices, have supply constraints, or become unavailable, it could impact our ability to develop products or bring them to market either on time, at competitive prices or at all. For example, our dsRNA processes use specific yeast microbial RNA, the most effective forms of which are sourced from suppliers in China. Should that particular yeast become unavailable, it could impair the effectiveness, yield or availability of the dsRNA produced for the agricultural markets.

Moreover, some enzymes that are used in our RNA platform and our down-stream products are specific in nature and sourced from third parties, some of whom have proprietary processes which give them an advantage in cost or effectiveness that they pass on to us. Some materials come from single sources, such as LNPs, which are licensed from a third party and which are used to produce mRNA. We may need to license other materials from third parties, and if we are unable to do so on reasonable terms, or at all, it could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Some of the raw materials are being employed in an innovative manner and may not be scaled to a level to support commercial supply and we could experience unexpected manufacturing or testing failures, or supply shortages. Such issues with raw materials and excipients could cause delays or interruptions to clinical and commercial supply of products or product candidates.

24

Single or limited sources for some materials may impact our ability to secure supply.

Our dependence on single-source, limited-source or preferred suppliers exposes us to certain risks, such as:

Should any of the above risks, or should any consequences of unpredictable risks, come to fruition, such events could have a material adverse effect on operations.

We rely on highly specialized equipment and consumables for the production of RNA and our derivative products, dsRNA and mRNA, and any disruption to the supply chain or any malfunction of that equipment may adversely impact our operations.

The equipment and consumables used to produce RNA and our derivative products, dsRNA and mRNA, are currently supply constrained across all suppliers, which may cause delays in development, testing or marketing of our human health products and may require us to ultimately increase prices should our products become available to consumers.

Additionally, we will be dependent on a number of equipment providers and CMOs who are also implementing innovative technology. If such equipment malfunctions or if we encounter unexpected performance issues, we could encounter delays or interruptions to clinical and commercial supply. Due to the number of different programs, we may have cross contamination of product candidates inside of our factories, CROs, suppliers, or in the clinic that affect the integrity of our product candidates.

Delay or unavailability of products, services, or equipment provided by suppliers could require us to change the design of our research, development, and manufacturing processes based on the functions, limitations, features, and specifications of the replacement items or seek out a new supplier to provide these items. Additionally, as we grow, our existing suppliers may not be able to meet our increasing demand, and additional suppliers may need to be found. We may not be able to secure suppliers who provide lab supplies at, or equipment and services to, the specification, quantity, and quality levels that we demand (or at all) or be able to negotiate acceptable fees and terms of services with such suppliers.

Risks Related to Market Acceptance

Even if any of the product candidates we develop receives regulatory approval, we may nonetheless fail to achieve the degree of market acceptance by physicians, patients, healthcare payors, and others in the medical community necessary for commercial success.

The commercial success of any of our product candidates will depend upon its degree of market acceptance by physicians, patients, third party payors, and others in the medical community. Even if any product candidates

25

we develop receives regulatory approval, they may nonetheless fail to gain sufficient market acceptance by physicians, patients, healthcare payors, and others in the medical community. The degree of market acceptance of any product candidates we may develop, if approved for commercial sale, will depend on a number of factors, including:

If any product candidates developed by us does not achieve an adequate level of acceptance by physicians, healthcare payors, patients and the medical community, we will not be able to generate significant revenue, and may not become or remain profitable. The failure of any product candidates to find market acceptance could harm our business prospects.

Legal requirements as well as ethical and social concerns about synthetic biology and genetic engineering could limit or prevent the use of our technologies and limit revenues.

Our platform technology, including how dsRNA and mRNA is extracted, includes the use of synthetic biology and genetic engineering. In some countries, drugs made using genetically modified organisms may be subject to a more stringent legal regime, which could prove to be complex and very challenging. For example, in the European Union, the rules on genetically modified organisms could apply in addition to the general rules on medicinal products or cosmetic products. The rules on advanced therapy medicinal products may also apply.

Additionally, public perception about the safety and environmental hazards of, and ethical concerns over, synthetic biology and genetic engineering could influence public acceptance of our technologies, product candidates and processes, particularly in the case of human medicines such as our COVID-19 vaccine product candidate. If we, our collaborators or other third parties are not able to overcome the legal challenges as well as the social concerns relating to synthetic biology and genetic engineering, our technologies, product candidates and processes may not be accepted. These challenges and concerns could result in increased expenses, regulatory

26

scrutiny and increased regulation, trade restrictions on imports of our product candidates, delays or other impediments to our programs or the public acceptance and commercialization of our products. We design and produce product candidates with characteristics comparable or superior to those found in naturally occurring organisms or enzymes in a controlled laboratory; however, the release of such organisms into uncontrolled environments could have unintended consequences. Any adverse effect resulting from such a release could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations, and may expose us to liability for any resulting harm.

Risks Related to Global Expansion

Our planned manufacturing, sales and operations are subject to the risks of doing business internationally.

In the future, we intend to expand the reach of our platform technology into international markets, including certain countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America where the need for locally produced vaccines is high, subjecting us to many risks that could adversely affect our business and revenues. There is no guarantee that our efforts and strategies to expand manufacturing and sales in international markets will succeed. Emerging market countries may be especially vulnerable to periods of global and local political, legal, regulatory and financial instability and may have a higher incidence of corruption and fraudulent business practices. Certain countries may require local clinical trial data as part of the drug registration process in addition to global clinical trials, which can add to overall drug development and registration timelines. We may also be required to increase our reliance on third-party agents and unfamiliar operations and arrangements previously utilized by companies we collaborate with or acquire in emerging markets.

Our manufacturing, sales and operations are subject to the risks of doing business internationally, including:

27

In addition, our future potential international operations are subject to regulation under U.S. law, and non-compliance with those laws may subject us to severe criminal and civil penalties. For example, the FCPA prohibits U.S. companies and their representatives from paying, offering to pay, promising to pay or authorizing the payment of anything of value to any foreign government official, government staff member, political party or political candidate for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business or to otherwise obtain favorable treatment or influence a person working in an official capacity. In many countries, the health care professionals with whom we may regularly interact may meet the FCPA’s definition of a foreign government official. Failure to comply with domestic or foreign laws could result in various adverse consequences, including possible delay in approval or refusal to approve a product, recalls, seizures or withdrawal of an approved product from the market, disruption in the supply or availability of our products or suspension of export or import privileges, the imposition of civil or criminal sanctions, the prosecution of executives overseeing our international operations and damage to our reputation. Any significant impairment of our ability to sell products outside of the U.S. could adversely impact our business and financial results.

Our goal of expanding outside the U.S. will depend on our ability to successfully manage the complexity of multiple global supply chains in countries with poor infrastructure, in which we have limited experience.

Logistics, regulatory environments, business customs, local and geopolitical concerns and end user markets differ country by country. As we expand globally to enable the production of our dsRNA and mRNA products in countries outside the U.S., we will face material risks that could cause us to expend significant resources. There can be no guarantee when such efforts will be successful, if at all. As we expand our platform globally, we will have to familiarize ourselves with the regulatory environment in that country, which could significantly diverge from the regulatory regimes in the U.S. and which may not necessarily approve our product candidates, even if such product candidates achieve regulatory approval in the U.S.

In each country in which we intend to utilize our manufacturing platform, it may also be necessary to create partnerships with local enterprises, which come with inherent risks, including corruption, violation of U.S. laws and regulations relating to anti-corruption laws, intellectual property theft, divergence from our quality and health standards and a number of unknown risks that could delay or cause our international expansion to fail entirely.

We will have to become familiar with these and other factors in order to be effective; however, our ability to do so is untested as is our ability to obtain and retain experts in these areas to implement an international supply chain serving any facility other than those in the United States. Moreover, any of our suppliers could go out of business, lose operating licenses, be subject to regulatory actions and be unable to supply us, which could result in production delays or stoppages.

Risks Related to Competition

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

We believe one of our key competitive advantages is the cost and quality at which we can make RNA and recover dsRNA from it for use in agricultural products or mRNA for use in human health products. Should other processes match or beat that cost or quality, we could lose a key competitive advantage as an RNA producer

28

which could in turn have negative effects on the products in our pipeline which depend on the quality and cost of the RNA produced by us to be competitive. Fermentation is currently the most popular method competing with our process for the production of RNA. While we believe fermentation is currently more expensive and tends to produce more down-stream impurities than our proprietary process, innovation or scale in the fermentation process could cause these drawbacks to be overcome to produce a product that is cost competitive with ours. Conventional cell-free processes, such as in-vitro transcription are cost prohibitive for agricultural applications and require special inputs. New innovations in cell-free processes could outperform our cell-free processes and make our technology obsolete.

Rapidly changing technology and emerging competition in the biotechnology industry could make the platform, programs, and products we are developing obsolete or non-competitive unless development of our platform and pursuit of new market opportunities continues.

The biotechnology industry is still emerging and is characterized by rapid and significant technological changes, frequent new product introductions and enhancements, and evolving industry demands and standards. Our future success will depend on our ability to develop, manufacture and commercialize our product candidates on a timely and cost-effective basis.

Our competitors, either alone or together with collaborators, may have significantly greater financial, manufacturing, marketing, drug development, technical and human resources and commercial expertise than we do. Our competitors may also have more experience:

Risks Related to our Human Health Program

Even if we successfully design and complete our preclinical studies, our preclinical human health product candidates, and similar products in the future, must still go through clinical studies, which may reveal significant adverse events, including negative immune system responses, and may result in a safety profile that could prevent or delay regulatory approval or licensure or market acceptance of candidate products.

There is typically an extremely high rate of attrition for product candidates across categories of medicines proceeding through clinical trials. These product candidates may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy profile in later stages of clinical trials despite having progressed through nonclinical studies and initial clinical trials. A number of companies in the biopharmaceutical industry have suffered significant setbacks in later stage clinical trials due to lack of efficacy or unacceptable safety profiles, notwithstanding promising results in earlier trials. Most investigational medicines that commence clinical trials are never approved as products and there can be no assurance that any of our current or future clinical trials will ultimately be successful or support further clinical development of any of our investigational medicines. Certain aspects of our investigational medicines may induce immune reactions from either the mRNA or the lipid as well as adverse reactions within liver pathways or degradation of the mRNA or the lipid nanoparticle LNP, any of which could lead to significant adverse events in one or more of our clinical trials. Many of these types of side effects have been seen for previously developed LNPs. There may be resulting uncertainty as to the underlying cause of any such adverse event, which would make it difficult to accurately predict side effects in future clinical trials and would result in significant delays in our programs.

If unacceptable side effects, including materialized risks of immunogenicity, arise in the development of our product candidates, the FDA, a comparable foreign regulatory authority or the Institutional Review Boards

29

(IRBs) at the institutions in which its studies are conducted, or the Data Safety Monitoring Board, if constituted for its clinical studies could recommend a suspension or termination of our clinical studies, or the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities could order us to cease further development of or deny licensure or approval of a product candidate. In addition, side effects could affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled patients to complete a trial or result in potential product liability claims. In addition, these side effects may not be appropriately recognized or managed by the treating medical staff. We expect to have to train medical personnel using our product candidates to understand the side effect profiles for our clinical studies and upon any commercialization of any of our product candidates. Inadequate training in recognizing or managing the potential side effects of our product candidates could result in patient injury or death.

Even if such side effects do not preclude the drug from obtaining or maintaining marketing approval, any such approval may be for a more narrow indication than we seek or an unfavorable benefit risk ratio may inhibit market acceptance of the approved product due to its tolerability versus other therapies. In addition, regulatory authorities may not approve the labeling claims that are necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of any product candidates we develop. Consequently, the commercial prospects of such product candidates may be harmed, and our ability to generate product revenues from any of these product candidates may be delayed or eliminated. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly.

Additionally, if one or more of our product candidates receives marketing licensure and/or approval, and we or others later identify undesirable side effects caused by such products, a number of potentially significant negative consequences could result, including:

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

Our human health markets are highly competitive. If we are unable to compete effectively with existing products, new treatment methods, new technologies or supply chain efficiencies, we may be unable to commercialize any products that we may develop in the future.

The biotechnology market is highly competitive, is subject to rapid technological change and is significantly affected by existing rival products and medical procedures, new product introductions and the market activities of other participants. Pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, academic institutions, governmental agencies and other public and private research organizations may pursue the research and development of technologies, products or other therapeutic products for the treatment of some or all of the diseases that we target. We also may face competition from products that have already been approved or licensed and accepted by the

30

medical community for the treatment of these same indications. Our competitors may develop products more rapidly or more effectively than us. Many of our competitors have:

In addition, many of these companies, in contrast to us, are well-capitalized. As a result of any of the foregoing factors, our competitors may develop or commercialize products with significant advantages over any product that we may develop in the future. If our competitors are more successful in commercializing their products than us, their success could adversely affect our competitive position and harm our business prospects.

If we encounter difficulties enrolling patients in our clinical studies, including due to COVID-19, our clinical development activities could be delayed or otherwise adversely affected.

We may experience difficulties in patient enrollment in our clinical studies for a variety of reasons. The timely completion of clinical studies in accordance with their protocols depends, among other things, on our ability to enroll a sufficient number of patients who remain in the trial until its conclusion. The enrollment of patients depends on many factors, including:

Further, timely enrollment in clinical studies is reliant on clinical study sites, which may experience delays or otherwise be adversely affected by disruptions due to global health matters, including COVID-19 and other pandemics.

31

If successfully released for sale, our COVID-19 vaccine candidate may fail to gain market acceptance.

Even if our mRNA vaccine for COVID-19 successfully completes clinical trials and is approved for commercial marketing, it may fail to meet the same high level of efficacy demonstrated by competitors and our ability to obtain revenues from the vaccine may be diminished or eliminated altogether. Moreover, the addressable market for our COVID-19 candidate may be limited if competing products have saturated some or all markets, particularly the most profitable markets. Further, any delays in commercialization may result in any approved COVID-19 vaccine becoming obsolete as the COVID-19 virus continues to mutate, which in turn may require us to obtain the production resources for replacement material, redevelop the material and restart the regulatory approval process or cancel the development of that product candidate.

We may incur additional costs or experience delays in completing the development and commercialization of our product candidates.

Clinical testing is expensive, difficult to design and implement, can take many years to complete and is uncertain as to timing and outcome. A failure of one or more clinical studies can occur at any stage in the process. We may experience delays in initiating or completing clinical studies. We may also experience numerous unforeseen events during, or as a result of, any future clinical studies that could delay or prevent our ability to receive marketing licensure and approval to commercialize our product candidates, including:

32

Our product development costs will increase if we experience additional delays in clinical testing or in obtaining marketing approvals or licensure. We do not know whether any of our clinical studies will begin as planned, will need to be restructured or will be completed on schedule, or at all. If we do not achieve our product development goals in the time-frames we announce and expect, the approval, licensure, and commercialization of our product candidates may be delayed or prevented entirely. Significant clinical study delays also could shorten any periods during which we may have the exclusive right to commercialize our product candidates and may allow our competitors to bring products to market before we do, potentially impairing our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates and harming our business and results of operations. Any delays in our clinical development programs may harm our business, financial condition and results of operations significantly.

The time and expense required to obtain regulatory approvals for our preclinical and clinical trials could be significantly greater than for more conventional therapeutic technologies or products. If clinical trials of any product candidates fail to demonstrate safety and efficacy to the satisfaction of regulatory authorities, do not otherwise produce positive results or are for other reasons not satisfactory to those authorities, we may incur additional costs or experience delays in completing, or ultimately be unable to complete, the development and commercialization of such product candidates.

In the United States, the products that we intend to develop and market are regulated by the FDA under its drug and biologic development and review processes. Before such products can be marketed, we must obtain multiple authorizations and licensures from the FDA, first through submission and authorization of an investigational new drug application, or IND, then through successful completion of human testing under three phases of clinical trials and finally through submission of a biologics license application, or BLA. Even after successful completion of clinical testing, there is a risk that the FDA may refuse to file our BLA submissions, request further information from us, disagree with our findings, undertake a lengthy review of our BLA submissions or deny our application.

The time required to obtain approval or licensure by the FDA and other comparable regulatory authorities is unpredictable but typically takes many years following the commencement of clinical trials, if at all, and depends upon numerous factors, including the substantial discretion of the regulatory authorities. In addition, approval and licensure policies, regulations or the type and amount of clinical data necessary to gain approval or licensure may change during the course of a product candidate’s clinical development and may vary among jurisdictions. We have not obtained marketing approval or licensure for any product candidate, and it is possible that none of our existing product candidates, or any product candidates we may seek to develop in the future, will ever obtain approval for clinical trials, marketing approval or licensure.

Our product candidates could fail to receive regulatory approval for clinical trials, marketing or licensure in the United States or other countries for many reasons, including the following:

33

This lengthy licensure process as well as the unpredictability of future clinical trial regulatory approvals and results may result in our failing to obtain licensure to market any of our product candidates, which would significantly harm our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects. The FDA and its counterparts in other countries have substantial discretion in approving clinical trials, granting licenses and determining when or whether regulatory licensure will be obtained for any of our product candidates. Even if we believe the data collected from clinical trials of our product candidates are promising, such data may not be sufficient to support licensure.

In addition, even if we were to obtain licensure, regulatory authorities may approve any of our product candidates for fewer or more limited indications than we request, may not approve the price we intend to charge for our products, may grant a license contingent on the performance of costly post marketing clinical trials, or may approve or license a product candidate with a label that does not include the labeling claims necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of that product candidate. Any of the foregoing scenarios could materially harm the commercial prospects for our product candidates.

If we decide to market any product that we develop in jurisdictions in addition to the United States, we may incur the same costs or more in satisfying foreign regulatory requirements governing the conduct of preclinical and clinical trials, manufacturing and marketing and commercialization of any product that we develop in the future. Approval or licensure by the FDA by itself does not assure approval by regulatory authorities outside the United States. Each of these foreign regulatory approval processes includes all of the risks associated with the FDA approval or licensing process, as well as risks attributable to having to satisfy local regulations within each of these foreign jurisdictions and the possibility that our management team will be unfamiliar with that country’s regulatory regime. Our inability to obtain regulatory approval outside the United States may also adversely compromise our business prospects.

We may have difficulties convincing the medical community and third-party payors to accept and use any product that we are able to develop in the future even following our receipt of regulatory approval or licensure for commercialization. Key participants in pharmaceutical marketplaces, such as distributors, physicians, third-party payors and consumers, may not accept a product that we develop and we may be unable to compete with multiple-product or portfolio discounts larger competitors may offer. Even if such a product is accepted by these participants, the medical community may not consider effectiveness and safety alone as a sufficient basis for prescribing such as product in lieu of other alternative treatment methods and medications that are available.

We may not be successful in our efforts to identify, develop, or commercialize potential product candidates.

The success of our business depends primarily upon our ability to identify, develop, and commercialize products based on our mRNA platform. 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. As our development candidates and investigational

34

medicines progress, we or others may determine that: certain of our risk allocation decisions were incorrect or insufficient; we made platform level technology mistakes; individual programs or our mRNA science in general have technology or biology risks that were unknown or under-appreciated; our choices on how to develop our infrastructure to support our needs would likely result in an inability to manufacture our investigational medicines for clinical trials or would otherwise impair our manufacturing; or we have allocated resources in such a way that large investments would not be recovered and capital allocation would not be subject to rapid re-direction. All of these risks may relate to our current and future programs sharing similar science (including mRNA science) and infrastructure, and in the event material decisions in any of these areas turn out to have been incorrect or under-optimized, we may experience a material adverse impact on our business and ability to fund our operations and we may never realize what we believe is the potential of mRNA. If any of these events occur, we may be forced to abandon our development efforts for one or more programs, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

The successful commercialization of our human health product candidates will depend in part on the extent to which third-party insurers and payors establish adequate coverage, reimbursement levels and pricing policies. Failure to obtain or maintain coverage and adequate reimbursement for our product candidates, if approved, could limit our ability to market those products and decrease our ability to generate revenue.

The availability and extent of coverage and adequate reimbursement by third-party payors, including government health administration authorities, private health coverage insurers, managed care organizations and other third-party payors is essential for most patients to be able to afford expensive treatments. Sales of any of our product candidates that receive marketing approval will depend substantially, both in the United States and internationally, on the extent to which the costs of such product candidates will be covered and reimbursed by third-party payors. If reimbursement is not available, or is 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 high enough to allow us to establish or maintain pricing sufficient to realize an adequate return on our investment. Coverage and reimbursement may impact the demand for, or the price of, any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval. If coverage and reimbursement are not available or reimbursement is available only to limited levels, we may not successfully commercialize any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval.

There is significant uncertainty related to third-party payor coverage and reimbursement of newly approved products. In the United States, for example, principal decisions about reimbursement for new products are typically made by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, an agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. CMS decides whether and to what extent a new product will be covered and reimbursed under Medicare, and private third-party payors often follow CMS’s decisions regarding coverage and reimbursement to a substantial degree. However, one third-party payor’s determination to provide coverage for a product candidate does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage for the product candidate. Further, no uniform policy for coverage and reimbursement exists in the United States, and coverage and reimbursement can differ significantly from payor to payor. As a result, the coverage determination process is often time-consuming and costly. This process will require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of our products to each third-party payor separately, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be applied consistently or obtained in the first instance.

We cannot predict the likelihood, nature, or extent of health reform initiatives that may arise from future legislation or administrative action,

Changes in healthcare policy could increase our costs, decrease our revenue and impact sales of and reimbursement for our future products, if approved. We expect to experience pricing pressures in connection with the sale of our product candidates due to the trend toward managed health care, the increasing influence of health maintenance organizations and additional legislative changes. The United States, through the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, and some foreign jurisdictions are considering or have enacted a number of legislative

35

and regulatory proposals to change the healthcare system in ways that could affect our ability to sell our products profitably once approved. Among policy makers and payors in the United States and elsewhere, there is significant interest in promoting changes in healthcare systems with the stated goals of containing healthcare costs, improving quality or expanding access. Current and future legislative proposals to further reform healthcare or reduce healthcare costs may limit coverage of or lower reimbursement for the procedures associated with the use of our product candidates once approved and, as a result, they may not cover or provide adequate payment for our product candidates. The downward pressure on healthcare costs in general, particularly prescription drugs and biologics and surgical procedures and other treatments, has become intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products. The cost containment measures that payors and providers are instituting and the effect of any healthcare reform initiative implemented in the future could impact our revenue from the sale of our products once approved.

We believe that there will continue to be proposals by legislators at both the federal and state levels, regulators and third-party payors to reduce costs and potentially affect individual healthcare benefits. Certain of these changes could impose additional limitations on the rates we will be able to charge for any future products or the amounts of reimbursement available for any future products from governmental agencies or third-party payors.

We are and will continue to be dependent on third parties for strategically important tasks, and our ability to develop our products, obtain regulatory approval or bring products to market may fail if these third parties do not perform as we expect.

We are subject to risks related to our reliance on third parties in that we will:

The activities performed by these third parties may be delayed or suspended in light of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, which may impact our ability to successfully develop and test our product candidates and research programs in a timely manner.

Our reliance on these third parties for research and development activities will reduce our control over these activities but will not relieve us of our responsibilities. For example, we will remain responsible for ensuring that each of our clinical trials is conducted in accordance with the general investigational plan and protocols for the trial. Moreover, the FDA requires us to comply with standards, commonly referred to as Good Clinical Practices, or GCPs, for conducting, recording, and reporting the results of clinical trials to assure that data and reported results are credible and accurate and that the rights, integrity, and confidentiality of trial participants are protected. We also are required to register ongoing clinical trials and post the results of completed clinical trials on a government-sponsored database, ClinicalTrials.gov, within certain timeframes. Failure to comply with these responsibilities can result in fines, adverse publicity, and civil and criminal sanctions.

The FDA enforces GCP regulations through periodic inspections of clinical trial sponsors, principal investigators, and trial sites. If we or our CROs fail to comply with applicable GCPs, the clinical data generated in our clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may

36

require us to perform additional clinical trials before approving our marketing applications. We cannot assure you that, upon inspection, the FDA will determine that any of our future clinical trials will comply with GCPs. In addition, our clinical trials must be conducted with investigational medicines produced in accordance with the requirements in cGMP regulations. Our failure or the failure of our CROs to comply with these regulations may require us to repeat clinical trials, which would delay the regulatory approval process and could also subject us to enforcement action.

Communicating with outside parties can also potentially lead to mistakes as well as difficulties in coordinating activities. Furthermore, these third parties may also have relationships with other entities, some of which may be our competitors.

If any of these third parties, or others we have business relationships with, fail to meet their obligations to us it will increase our expenses, damage our reputation and could result in the delay or shutdown of the projects they support and result in our inability to bring some or all of our products to market.

Our collaboration arrangements may restrict or prevent our future business activity in certain markets or industries, which could harm our ability to grow our business.

We will seek to enter into collaborations by which, in exchange for funding of infrastructure, development or marketing of our products, we will grant to other parties exclusive rights to the development, production, marketing or distribution of selected products in specific geographies. For example, in March 2022 we granted Serum Institute of India Private Limited (“SIIPL”) an exclusive, sub-licensable, royalty-bearing license to use our proprietary technology platform to develop, manufacture and commercialize an mRNA shingles product and up to two other mRNA products in all territories other than the United States, the 27 member states of the European Union, the United Kingdom, Australia, Japan, New Zealand, Canada, South Korea, China, Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan. These rights may keep us from entering into alternative collaborations which may keep us from using capital effectively and limit our ability to grow our business. Any failure on the part of our collaboration partners to comply with applicable laws, regulatory requirements and/or applicable contractual obligations or to fulfill any responsibilities they may have to protect and enforce any intellectual property rights underlying product candidates could harm our reputation, including with regulatory authorities, have an adverse effect on revenues, as well as give rise to possible legal proceedings. Moreover, the failure or perceived failure by us to comply with our obligations under a collaboration agreement with any of our collaboration partners could cause the partner to make public statements against us or could result in litigation asserting that we have breached our obligations, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our reputation, business, financial condition, or results of operations.

If we bring our human health products to market as planned, our relationships with customers and third-party payors will be subject to applicable anti-kickback, fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations, which could expose us to criminal sanctions, civil penalties, program exclusion, contractual damages, reputational harm and diminished profits and future earnings.

Healthcare providers, physicians and third-party payors play a primary role in the recommendation of any product for which we obtain marketing licensure or approval. Our future arrangements with third-party payors and customers may expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations that may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we market, sell and distribute products for which we obtain marketing approval. Efforts to ensure that our business arrangements with third parties comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations will involve substantial costs. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices may not comply with current or future statutes, regulations or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of these laws or any other governmental regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines and exclusion from government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and

37

the curtailment or restructuring of our operations. If any of the physicians or other providers or entities with whom we expect to do business are found not to be in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government-funded healthcare programs.

We are subject to significant regulation with respect to manufacturing our products. The manufacturing facilities on which we will rely may not continue to meet regulatory requirements and have limited capacity.

All entities involved in the preparation of vaccines and products for clinical studies or commercial sale, including other contract manufacturers we have used or may use, are subject to extensive regulation. Components of a finished therapeutic product approved or licensed for commercial sale or used in late-stage clinical studies must be manufactured in accordance with applicable good manufacturing practice requirements, or GMP. 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 or licensed for sale. Poor control of production processes can lead to the introduction of adventitious agents or other contaminants, or to inadvertent changes in the properties or stability of our product candidates that may not be detectable in final product testing. We or our contract manufacturers must supply all necessary documentation in support of a BLA on a timely basis and must adhere to the FDA’s good laboratory practices, or GLP, and GMP regulations enforced by the FDA through its facilities inspection program. Our facilities and quality systems and the facilities and quality systems of some or all our third-party contractors must pass a pre-approval inspection for compliance with the applicable regulations as a condition of regulatory licensure and 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 GMP and other regulations applicable to the activities being conducted. If these facilities do not pass a pre-approval plant inspection or do not have a GMP compliance status acceptable for the FDA, FDA approval or licensure of the products will not be granted.

As product candidates proceed through preclinical studies to late-stage clinical trials towards potential approval and commercialization, various aspects of the development program, such as manufacturing methods and formulation, are commonly altered along the way in an effort to optimize processes and results. Such changes carry the risk that they will not achieve these intended objectives. Any of these changes could cause our product candidates to perform differently and affect the results of planned clinical trials or other future clinical trials conducted with the materials manufactured using altered processes. Such changes may also require additional testing, FDA notification or FDA approval. This could delay or prevent completion of clinical trials, require conducting bridging clinical trials or the repetition of one or more clinical trials, increase clinical trial costs, delay or prevent approval of our product candidates and jeopardize our ability to commence sales and generate revenue.

The regulatory authorities also may, at any time following licensure or approval of a product for sale, audit our manufacturing facilities or those of our third-party contractors. 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 temporary or permanent suspension of a clinical study or commercial sales or the temporary or permanent closure of a facility. Any such remedial measures imposed upon us or third parties with whom we contract could materially harm our business.

If we or any of our third-party manufacturers fail to maintain regulatory compliance with applicable GMP requirements, the FDA can impose regulatory sanctions including, among other things, refusal to approve a pending application for a new product or biologic product, or revocation of a pre-existing 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, there could be a significant disruption in commercial supply. An alternative manufacturer would need to be qualified through a BLA

38

supplement which could result in further delay. The regulatory agencies may also require additional studies if a new manufacturer is relied upon for commercial production. Switching manufacturers may involve substantial costs and is likely to result in a delay in our desired clinical and commercial timelines.

These factors could cause the delay of clinical studies, regulatory submissions, required approvals or commercialization of our product candidates, cause us to incur higher costs and prevent us from commercializing our products successfully. Furthermore, if our suppliers fail to meet contractual requirements, and we are 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.

If we, or if our service providers or any third-party manufacturers, fail to comply with regulatory requirements, we or they could be subject to enforcement actions, which could adversely affect our ability to market and sell a product we develop in the future.

We have a limited ability to manufacture materials for our research programs and preclinical studies and we do not operate any significant manufacturing facilities. We primarily rely on third-party contract manufacturing organizations (“CMOs”) for the manufacture of our materials for preclinical and clinical studies and expect to continue to do so and for commercial supply of any product candidates that we develop and for which we or our collaborators obtain marketing approval. Additionally, the activities performed by our CMOs may be delayed or suspended in light of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, which may impact our ability to successfully develop and test our product candidates, including in clinical trials, and research programs in a timely manner.

Reliance on third-party manufacturers entails additional risks, including: the possible breach of the manufacturing agreement by the third party; the possible termination or nonrenewal of the agreement by the third party at a time that is costly or inconvenient for us; and reliance on the third party for regulatory compliance, quality assurance, safety, and pharmacovigilance and related reporting. Third-party manufacturers may not be able to comply with cGMP regulations or similar regulatory requirements outside the United States.

If we, or if our service providers or any third-party manufacturers, fail to comply with applicable federal, state or foreign laws or regulations, we could be subject to enforcement actions, which could adversely affect our ability to successfully develop, market and sell a product we develop in the future and could harm our reputation. These enforcement actions may include:

Risks related to creating a new class of mRNA products

Relatively few mRNA-based therapeutic product candidates have been tested in animals or humans, and the data underlying the feasibility of developing mRNA-based therapeutic products is both preliminary and limited. We have not yet succeeded and may not succeed in demonstrating the efficacy and safety of any of our product candidates in clinical trials or in obtaining marketing approval thereafter. We have not yet completed a clinical trial of any product candidate and we have not yet assessed safety of any product candidate in humans. As such, there may be adverse effects from treatment with any of our current or future product candidates that we cannot predict at this time.

39

Other than the approvals of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine and the Moderna Spikevax COVID-19 Vaccine, and the previous Emergency Use Authorizations for these COVID-19 vaccines, no mRNA medicines have been granted EUA or have been granted full approval or licensure to date by the FDA or other regulatory agencies. Moreover, it is possible that FDA and other regulators will decline to accept new EUA submissions for COVID-19 vaccine candidates if it is determined that the underlying health emergency no longer exists or warrants such authorization. Successful discovery and development of other mRNA medicines by us or our strategic collaborators is highly uncertain and depends on numerous factors, many of which are beyond our or their control. We have made and will continue to make a series of business decisions and take calculated risks to advance our development efforts and pipeline, including those related to mRNA technology, delivery technology, and manufacturing processes, which may be shown to be incorrect based on further work by us, our strategic collaborators, or others. Our products that appear promising in the early phases of development may fail to advance, experience delays in the clinic, experience clinical holds, or fail to reach the market for many reasons, including:

Currently, mRNA is considered a gene therapy product by the FDA. Unlike certain gene therapies that irreversibly alter cell DNA and could act as a source of side effects, mRNA-based medicines are designed to not

40

irreversibly change cell DNA; however, side effects observed in gene therapy could negatively impact the perception of mRNA medicines despite the differences in mechanism. In addition, because no product in which mRNA is the primary active ingredient has been approved without first being authorized for emergency use, the regulatory pathway for approval is uncertain. The number and design of the clinical trials and preclinical studies required for the approval of these types of medicines have not been established, may be different from those required for gene therapy products, or may require safety testing like gene therapy products. Moreover, the length of time necessary to complete clinical trials and to submit an application for marketing approval for a final decision by a regulatory authority varies significantly from one pharmaceutical product to the next, and may be difficult to predict.

Adverse events in clinical trials of our investigational medicines or in clinical trials of others developing similar products and the resulting publicity, as well as any other adverse events in the field of mRNA medicine, or other products that are perceived to be similar to mRNA medicines, such as those related to gene therapy or gene editing, could result in a decrease in the perceived benefit of one or more of our programs, increased regulatory scrutiny, decreased confidence by patients and clinical trial collaborators in our investigational medicines, and less demand for any product that we may develop. In addition, responses by U.S., state, or foreign governments to negative public perception may result in new legislation or regulations that could limit our ability to develop any investigational medicines or commercialize any approved products, obtain or maintain regulatory approval, or otherwise achieve profitability. More restrictive statutory regimes, government regulations, or negative public opinion would have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects and may delay or impair the development of our investigational medicines and commercialization of any approved products or demand for any products we may develop.

Risks Related to Our Plant Health Program

Our inability to obtain regulatory approvals, or to comply with ongoing and changing regulatory requirements, could delay or prevent sales of the products we are developing and commercializing.

The field testing, manufacture, sale and use of crop protection, plant health and plant nutrition products are extensively regulated by the EPA and other state, local and foreign governmental authorities. These regulations substantially increase the time and cost associated with bringing our products to market. If we do not receive the necessary governmental approvals to test, manufacture and market our products, or if regulatory authorities revoke our approvals, do not grant approvals in a timely manner or grant approvals subject to restrictions on their use, we may be unable to sell our products in the United States or other jurisdictions, which could result in a reduction in our future revenues.

As we introduce new formulations of and applications for our products, we may need to seek EPA approval prior to commercial sale. For any such approval, the EPA may require us to fulfill certain conditions within a specified period of time following initial approval. We will also be required to obtain regulatory approval from other state and foreign regulatory authorities before we market our products in their jurisdictions, some of which have taken, and may take, longer than anticipated.

Some of these states and foreign countries may apply different criteria than the EPA in their approval processes. Although federal pesticide law preempts separate state and local pesticide registration requirements to some extent, state and local governments retain authority to control pesticide use within their borders.

There can be no assurance that we will be able to obtain regulatory approval for marketing our additional products or new product formulations and applications we are developing. Although the EPA has in place a registration procedure for biopesticides there can be no assurance that all of our products or product extensions will be eligible for this streamlined procedure or that additional requirements will not be mandated by the EPA that could make the procedure more time consuming and costly for our future products.

Additionally, for certain state registration and registration in jurisdictions outside of the United States, all products need to be proven efficacious for each proposed crop-pest combination, which can require costly field

41

trial testing, and a favorable result is not assured. Because many of the products that may be sold by us must be registered with one or more government agencies, the registration process can be time consuming and expensive, and there is no guarantee that the product will obtain all required registrations. We may seek registration in some jurisdictions and not in others. California is one of the largest and most important producers of agricultural products in the world. As such, we view California as one of the most natural and attractive markets for our products, but it is also very stringent in its regulations, generally requiring more time and effort, and lacking legally mandated deadlines for its reviews of reduced-risk biopesticides. Therefore, gaining concurrent approvals with the EPA, other states and other countries may not always be achievable. Even if we obtain all necessary regulatory approvals to market and sell our products, they will be subject to continuing review and extensive regulatory requirements, including periodic re-registrations. The EPA, as well as state and foreign regulatory authorities, could withdraw a previously approved product from the market upon receipt of newly discovered information, including an inability to comply with their regulatory requirements or the occurrence of unanticipated problems with our products, or for other reasons.

If our field trials are unsuccessful, we may be unable to obtain regulatory approval of, or commercialize, our products on a timely basis.

The successful completion of multiple field trials in domestic and foreign locations on various crops is critical to the success of our product development and marketing efforts. If our ongoing or future field trials are unsuccessful or produce inconsistent results or unanticipated adverse side effects on crops or on non-target organisms, or if we are unable to collect reliable data, regulatory approval of our products could be delayed, or we may be unable to commercialize our products. In addition, more than one growing or treatment season may be required to collect sufficient data and we may need to collect data from different geographies to prove performance for customer adoption. Although we have conducted many successful field trials we cannot be certain that additional field trials conducted on a greater number of acres, or on crops for which we have not yet conducted field trials, will be successful. Moreover, the results of our ongoing and future field trials are subject to a number of conditions beyond our control, including weather-related events such as drought or floods, severe heat or frost, hail, tornadoes and hurricanes, or low or no natural occurrence of the pests intended for testing. Generally, we pay third parties, such as growers, consultants and universities to conduct field tests on our behalf. Incompatible crop treatment practices or misapplication of our products by these third parties or lack of sufficient occurrence of the identified pests in nature for a particular trial could impair the success of our field trials.

Crop protection products must be extensively tested for safety, efficacy and environmental impact before they can be registered for production, use, sale or commercialization in a given market.

The regulatory approvals process is lengthy, costly, complex and in some markets unpredictable, with requirements that can vary by product, technology, industry and country. The regulatory approvals process for products that incorporate novel modes of action or new technologies can be particularly unpredictable and uncertain due to the then-current state of regulatory guidelines and objectives, as well as governmental policy considerations and non-governmental organization and other stakeholder considerations. In certain jurisdictions, we will need to periodically renew any regulatory approvals which may require us to demonstrate compliance with shifting or more stringent requirements as time passes.

The markets for biological agricultural products are intensely competitive, rapidly changing and undergoing consolidation. We may be unable to compete successfully against our current and future competitors, which may result in price reductions, reduced margins and the inability to achieve market acceptance for our products.

Many entities with significantly greater resources than us are engaged in developing biological agricultural products, including BASF SE, Valent BioSciences Corporation, Corteva Agriscience, UPL Limited, and FMC Corporation. Each of these competitors is a major multinational agrichemical company with longer operating histories, significantly greater resources, greater brand recognition, established global sales channels and a larger

42

base of customers than we have. As a result, they may be able to devote greater resources to the manufacture, promotion or sale of their products, receive greater resources and support from independent distributors, initiate or withstand substantial price competition, offer full-line discounts we cannot match, or more readily take advantage of acquisition or other opportunities. Further, many of the large agrichemical companies have a more diversified product offering, which may give these companies an advantage in meeting customers’ needs by enabling them to offer a broader range of crop protection, plant nutrition and plant health products. In addition, we could face competition in the future from new, well-financed start-up companies.

Customers in the agricultural sector tend to be loyal to major brands and distributors and are generally cautious in adopting new products and technologies, making the barriers to entry high in this market. If new products or technologies fail to achieve immediate results, they may never achieve significant customer adoption and, even if immediate and positive results are achieved, adoption may take several growing seasons as multi-year purchasing agreements expire and product-specific equipment is replaced.

Products incorporating biotechnology-derived traits and crop protection products must be extensively tested for safety, efficacy and environmental impact before they can be registered for production, use, sale or commercialization in a given market. In certain jurisdictions, we must periodically renew our approvals for both biotechnology and crop protection products, which typically require us to demonstrate compliance with then-current standards which generally are more stringent since the prior registration. The regulatory approvals process is lengthy, costly, complex and in some markets unpredictable, with requirements that can vary by product, technology, industry and country. The regulatory approvals process for products that incorporate novel modes of action or new technologies can be particularly unpredictable and uncertain due to the then-current state of regulatory guidelines and objectives, as well as governmental policy considerations and non-governmental organization and other stakeholder considerations.

Changes in the regulatory environment could adversely impact our ability to produce and/or sell certain products in domestic and foreign markets or could increase the cost of doing so.

Changes in the regulatory environment, particularly in the U.S., Brazil, China, India, Argentina and the European Union, could adversely impact our ability to produce and/or sell certain products in domestic and foreign markets or could increase the cost of doing so. Additionally, changes to the regulatory environment may be influenced by non-government public pressure as a result of negative perception regarding the use of our crop protection products. We are sensitive to this regulatory risk given the need to obtain and maintain pesticide registrations in every country in which we sell our products. Many countries require re-registration of pesticides to meet new and more challenging requirements; while we defend our products vigorously, these re-registration processes may result in significant additional data costs, reduced number of permitted product uses, or potential product cancellation. Compliance with changing laws and regulations may involve significant costs or capital expenditures or require changes in business practice that could result in reduced profitability. In the European Union, the regulatory risk specifically includes the chemicals regulation known as REACH (Registration, Evaluation, and Authorization of Chemicals), which requires manufacturers to verify through a special registration system that their chemicals can be marketed safely, as well as Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, governing plant protection products, which sets forth rules for the authorization, sale, use, and control of plant protection products.

Customers have historically perceived biological agricultural products as more expensive and less effective than conventional products. To succeed, we will need to continue to change that perception. To the extent that the market for biological agricultural products does not further develop or customers elect to continue to purchase and rely on conventional chemical products, our market opportunity will be limited.

43

Any decline in U.S. agricultural production could have a material adverse effect on the market for biopesticides and on our results of operations and financial position.

Conditions in the U.S. agricultural industry will significantly impact demand for our products. The U.S. agricultural industry has contracted in recent periods, and can be affected by a number of factors, including weather patterns and field conditions, current and projected grain inventories and prices, domestic and international demand for U.S. agricultural products and U.S. and foreign policies regarding trade in agricultural products. State and federal governmental policies, including farm subsidies and commodity support programs, as well as the prices of fertilizer products and the prices at which produce may be sold, may also directly or indirectly influence the number of acres planted, the mix of crops planted and the use of pesticides for particular agricultural applications.

Sales of our plant health products will depend upon weather conditions, seasonal variation and other factors

We expect to commercially launch Calantha, our RNAi Colorado potato beetle product in 2023, assuming we are able to obtain EPA and state approvals according to our current plans, which assumes EPA approval by or before the first half of 2023. If and when we do begin selling our product to farmers, our sales will be subject to weather conditions and other factors beyond our control, which may cause our operating results to fluctuate significantly quarterly and annually.

Weather conditions, natural disasters and other factors affect planting and growing seasons and incidence of pests and plant disease, and accordingly affect decisions by our distributors, direct customers and end users about the types and amounts of pest management and plant health products to purchase and the timing of use of such products. In addition, disruptions that cause delays by growers in harvesting or planting can result in the movement of orders to a future quarter, which would negatively affect the quarter and cause fluctuations in our operating results. Customers also may purchase large quantities of our products in a particular quarter to store and use over long periods of time or time their purchases to manage their inventories, which may cause significant fluctuations in our operating results for a particular quarter or year.

Our activities are subject to extensive federal, state, local and foreign governmental regulations. These regulations may prevent us or our collaborators from developing or commercializing products in a timely manner or under technically or commercially feasible conditions and may impose expenses, delays and other impediments to our product development and registration efforts.

In the United States, the EPA regulates our bio-based pest management products under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act (“FFDCA”), the Food Quality Protection Act (“FQPA”) and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”). In addition, some of our plant health products are regulated as fertilizers, auxiliary plant substances, soil amendments, beneficial substances and/or biostimulants in each of the fifty states.

In general, FIFRA prohibits the sale or distribution of any pesticide, a product category that includes the insecticides, fungicides, and acaricides we are developing, unless that pesticide is registered with the EPA. To register a pesticide with the EPA, the applicant must demonstrate that the product will not cause unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment. These adverse effects include any unreasonable risk to man or the environment, taking into account the economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits of the use of the pesticide, as well as any human dietary risk from residues that result from use of the pesticide in or on any food consistent with the FFDCA. In the course of its evaluation of a pesticide, EPA assesses the impact that a pesticide may have on endangered species and non-target organisms.

In order to commercialize a product for the U.S. agricultural market, we must complete specified toxicology studies, submit a registration dossier to the EPA demonstrating that the product does not pose unreasonable risks to human health or the environment, respond adequately to any deficiencies identified by the EPA through its

44

risk assessment process and obtain the EPA’s approval of our labeling. The EPA must also establish a tolerance level for the product or issue a tolerance exemption. We must separately obtain any applicable state or foreign regulatory approvals. Moreover, because our products contain novel RNA-based active ingredients, there will generally be no previously registered pesticide product containing that active ingredient and, as a result, the use of each of our products will require a new registration under FIFRA and the establishment of a tolerance under Section 408 of the FFDCA or the issuance of a tolerance exemption.

We have not previously obtained any EPA approvals for our biopesticides, and it is uncertain whether the EPA will approve any of our products or whether it will place conditions of approval that adversely impact our ability to sell them. Although the EPA has evaluated and approved other companies’ RNA products before, our products may differ materially from the products that have previously received approval, and the lack of precedent makes it more difficult to predict whether or when the EPA will grant approval or the conditions that it might impose on approval.

Even if our biopesticide product candidates are approved by the EPA, as with any pesticide, they would continue to be subject to review by the EPA and state regulatory agencies. The EPA has the authority to revoke the registration or impose limitations on the use of any of our pest management products if we do not comply with the regulatory requirements, if unexpected problems occur with a product or if the EPA receives other newly discovered adverse information. Our inability to obtain regulatory approvals, or to comply with ongoing and changing regulatory requirements, could delay or prevent sales of the products we are developing and commercializing.

Inadequate funding, staffing or shutdowns of the government agencies that regulate us could prevent new products and services from being developed or commercialized in a timely manner or otherwise prevent those agencies from performing normal business functions on which the operation of our business may rely, which could negatively impact our business.

Our research and development activities are also subject to federal, state and local worker safety, air pollution, water pollution and solid and hazardous waste regulatory programs, ongoing compliance requirements, permitting requirements, and periodic inspection. Any significant noncompliance could impact our ability to operate. In addition, any future expansion of our manufacturing capabilities may require additional or expanded permitting, and such permitting requirements may impede or prevent our ability to operate.

Our agricultural products may fail to meet the criteria for desirable certifications such as “non-GMO” or “organic” and may cause the plants or products to which they are applied also to lose these certifications, reducing the addressable market for and value of our products.

The use of products created through synthetic biology processes is generally prohibited in organic food supply chains and the U.S. Department of Agriculture and similar regulators outside the U.S. will not permit an “organic” certification unless the supply chain from field to table is free of such products. We do not currently expect any of our agricultural products to qualify for “organic” certifications, which will keep us from selling into a market with potentially higher returns and which will limit the size of the addressable market for which our products can be used. In addition, the standards associated with certifications such as “non-GMO” and “organic” can differ significantly between countries and jurisdictions within countries (such as states and cities) and, even when these standards are clearly established, the application of the standards for certification may differ depending on the third-party organizations conducting verification.

Genetically modified products are currently subject to public debate and heightened regulatory scrutiny, either of which could prevent or delay the adoption of our products. Claims that genetically modified products are unsafe or pose a danger to the environment may influence public attitudes and lead to our product not gaining public acceptance. The subject of genetically modified organisms has received negative publicity in the United States and particularly in Europe, and such publicity has aroused public debate. The adverse publicity in Europe could lead to greater regulation and trade restrictions.

45

We may have product liability claims if our agricultural products damage individuals or property and may need to recall items which do or could cause such damage.

Our agricultural products are intended to be used to improve yield in the human food supply chain. If our products are used for an application they are not intended for, become adulterated or mislabeled we may need to recall such products. A widespread product recall could result in significant losses due to the costs of a recall, the destruction of product inventory, and lost sales due to the unavailability of product for a period of time. We could also suffer losses from a significant product liability judgment against us. A significant product recall or product liability case could also result in adverse publicity, damage to our reputation, and a loss of confidence in our products, which could have an adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition and the value of our brands.

Risks Related to our Animal Health Program

We currently have one animal health product which is intended to control the Varroa destructor mite, a honeybee parasite; however, the honeybee ecosystem is complex and it difficult to measure the overall efficacy of this product since there are multiple factors other than Varroa mites contributing to the decline in honeybee populations.

The one animal health product in our product pipeline, which we call GS15, is intended to support the health of honeybees by using dsRNA to discourage the spread of the Varroa destructor mite, a honeybee parasite. A multitude of stressors can contribute to declines in honeybee health, making it difficult to determine whether or the degree to which GS15 benefits honeybees and, by implication, beekeepers. Other factors that impact honeybee health include pesticides, environmental stressors, inadequate nutrition, parasites, pathogens, and poor management practices. No one factor has been identified as the primary cause of honeybee health decline or “bee colony collapse,” including the Varroa destructor mite parasite which GS15 is designed to control. Determining dominating stressors to honeybee health is challenging to characterize and pinpoint. To complicate matters, many of the factors contributing to honeybee health decline interact, making it difficult in some circumstances to identify dominant factors. Unless we are able to develop clear correlations between GS15 use and specific successful outcomes in beehives, GS15 (assuming it obtains regularly approval) may not have strong or any commercial prospects.

Delivering the active ingredient in our bee health product effectively to Varroa mites is challenging.

Until we complete our field trials, it is unclear whether we will be able to deliver our product first to bees and, through bees, to Varroa mites, in a manner that will effectively impede mite function. Challenges in active ingredient delivery may interfere with the effectiveness of our product.

When testing our Varroa mite product under the high-dose conditions commonly required by the EPA for pesticide approval, we have observed a dose response in bees and an increase in bee mortality.

Although our product is intended to impact Varroa mites and not bees, it may have unanticipated impacts on bee health. The EPA typically seeks a 10x dose safety factor in order to approve a product for commercial use. We tested our product at this concentration and observed significant bee mortality. At the concentrations we would expect under normal conditions, however, our recent field trials demonstrated no negative effects. Our most recent data indicates that bee mortality at the 10x dose safety factor likely results from the extremely high viscosity of RNA when administered at that concentration, which prevents bees from feeding. If there is a significant relationship between our product and bee mortality, that relationship may undercut our product’s intended function of protecting bees and may impair our ability to obtain regulatory approval of our product.

46

The EPA will evaluate our Varroa mite product without a precedent product, which may result in the need to conduct additional field trials and lengthen the regulatory review period. If we cannot reduce bee mortality experienced in high-dose safety factor testing, the EPA may not approve our product or may impose labeling requirements that materially limit the commercial attractiveness of the product.

Our Varroa mite product is subject to EPA approval under FIFRA. Although the EPA has evaluated and approved RNA products before, our product may differ materially from previously approved products. After we perform our planned field trials and studies, the EPA may request further studies and data to effectively evaluate and approve our product. We anticipate that this process will require additional time to complete and may delay regulatory approval and commercialization. Moreover, other markets, such as those in the European Union, may require additional data or information prior to granting approval, and they may impose more stringent conditions on any approval.

One challenge we face in securing EPA approval for our Varroa mite product is that EPA typically seeks to ensure that a product does not cause adverse effects even when administered at a dose equal to ten times the dose that bees and other organisms would likely receive in typical use. Ordinarily, pesticides are applied at high doses in the field to account for anticipated losses to the environment resulting from degradation, runoff and other factors, and these losses are anticipated to reach as high as 95%. As a result, in a conventional field application scenario, organisms are generally expected to receive the actual field use rate, even when the product is applied at ten times that rate. When we tested our Varroa mite product in the laboratory at the required level of ten times the field use rate, the higher concentration of the product caused the treated bee food to become highly viscous, which limited consumption and resulted in bee starvation. We did not observe these adverse effects either when our product was administered at the field use rate or when our product was administered at the high-dose rate in the field. Because our product is delivered in a ready-to-use formulation through a pre-measured pouch delivery system, rather than through conventional spraying, we do not believe that our product presents a material risk that bees will be exposed to concentrations greater than the field use rate. We are negotiating with the EPA to modify its customary 10x safety factor protocol for both bees and non-target organisms to account for differences between the delivery system for our product and traditional field application methods. We may not be successful in these negotiations, and extended negotiations, even if ultimately successful, could delay regulatory approval and commercial introduction of the product. If the EPA does not modify its safety factor protocol for our Varroa mite product, we may be unable to obtain regulatory approval to commercialize the product in the United States, which would limit our growth opportunities. Even if the product receives EPA approval, it may receive labeling with warnings of potentially harmful effects on bees or other organisms, which would materially limit the commercial attractiveness of the product to potential customers.

We purchased some of the intellectual property related to our RNA honeybee product from Bayer Crop Science, a subsidiary of Bayer, which now owns Monsanto. It is well known that Monsanto has had significant pushback from environmental groups regarding its technology and practices, and our product may be hard to market since it was purchased from Bayer.

Despite rigorous testing during the pre-commercialization phase, if GS15 comes to market, there may be opponents of our RNA technology or synthetic biology generally who raise concerns about the potential for adverse effects of our products on human or animal health, plants and the environment. Because GS15 in part originated with Monsanto, the many negative public perceptions associated with Monsanto could impair our ability to bring GS15 to market and can affect the timing of, and whether we are able to obtain, government approvals for our products.

Even after approvals are granted for GS15, public concern may lead to increased regulation or legislation or litigation against government regulators concerning prior regulatory approvals, which could affect our sales and results of operations, and which may adversely affect sales of GS15 to beekeepers, including due to their concerns about available markets for the sale of crops or other products including those derived from biotechnology. Genetically modified products are currently subject to public debate and heightened regulatory

47

scrutiny, either of which could prevent or delay the adoption of GS15. Claims that genetically modified products are unsafe or pose a danger to the environment may influence public attitudes and lead to our product not gaining public acceptance. The subject of genetically modified organisms has received negative publicity in the United States and particularly in Europe, and such publicity has aroused public debate. The adverse publicity in Europe could lead to greater regulation and trade restrictions.

In addition, opponents of agricultural synthetic biology have attacked facilities used by agricultural biotechnology companies, and may launch future attacks against beekeepers’ hives and our field testing sites and research, production, or other facilities, which could affect our sales and our costs.

The research and development process for GS15 is expensive with little immediate return, and the field trials associated with honeybees in general are susceptible to circumstances outside of our control.

Although our field trial operators are under agreement not to extract honey from their hives during field trials, there is the risk that honey could be extracted impermissibly and find their way into the commercial market thereby impairing our ability to meet regulatory requirements or obtain regulatory approval.

Furthermore, beekeepers tend to be migratory as they serve the needs of seasonal crops and the environments in which the hives are placed can vary. These variables introduce the risk that hives could be damaged or otherwise compromised so as to require their removal from the field trials or field trial results which make it difficult for us to accurately measure the effects of GS15.

Beekeeping practices and results also vary and are subject to factors outside of our control. For example, the overall health and productivity of a beehive is dependent on the queen, how she is mated, how well the nurse bees are taking care of her and larvae, and how well forager bees are able to bring back food to the hive. One hive may have bees that go north and a hive right next to it may have bees that go south to look for food, which causes variability in food sources and potentially in test results. This variability in testing can make it difficult or impossible for us to accurately isolate the effects of GS15 which may in turn increase the cost of field testing, the length and likelihood of regulatory approval and the commercial viability of the GS15 product.

Our GS15 product is intended to be used in commercial beehives and used in a fashion which will expose the product only to bees and the Varroa destructor mite. If GS15 is used inappropriately and is consumed by invertebrates other than the Varroa destructor mite, it could be harmful to those invertebrates.

According to a September 2020 report published by the Environmental Directorate of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (“OECD”) entitled Considerations for the Environmental Risk Assessment of the Application of Sprayed or Externally Applied ds-RNA-Based Pesticides, there is a long-established view that dietary intake of nucleic acids, including dsRNAs from plant viruses, does not present a health risk to humans and other vertebrates, and, as a result, the adoption of RNAi technology in agriculture is likely to present a lower human health risk than the use of conventional pesticides. Notwithstanding this history of safe consumption in vertebrates like humans, our GS15 product negatively impacts ladybugs and could also negatively impact other invertebrates if our use instructions are ignored and the invertebrates gain access to and consume the GS15 product. Moreover the honey from hives using GS15 may have trace elements of GS15 which could have the potential to be harmful to invertebrates consuming that honey in extreme circumstances.

It may be difficult to convince beekeepers to adopt our product, and to use it in the way prescribed for maximum effect.

Although we foresee that our product will be effective in controlling mites that impact bees, beekeepers may ultimately perceive shortcomings in treatment efficacy. This may result in reduced demand for our product or the selection of other treatment options.

48

Additionally, we will not be able to control how beekeepers will ultimately use our product, and misuse may result in reduced product efficacy, and thus reduced demand. For example, if beekeepers were to dilute our product formulation before application, the diluted product might leave hives subject to microbial contamination and allow microbes to consume our product, impeding its ability to affect mite function.

GS15 is susceptible to purity risks associated with scaling up manufacturing and we are also developing our own process for manufacturing our product at scale.

Commercial production of our product candidates will involve quantities several orders of magnitude higher than our current level of production. We may face challenges producing a product that meets applicable purity specifications at that scale, and may encounter other issues related to scaled up manufacturing.

While Bayer Crop Science (from which we obtained some intellectual property for the product) had its own proprietary methods for manufacturing, we did not license these methods, and we are developing our own methods of manufacturing GS15. We are currently developing a way to make this product with our cell-free platform so that it is economical to produce. Uncertainties related to this platform may ultimately limit our ability to produce the product.

Our product may require approval from other federal and state regulatory bodies.

As discussed above, state regulatory approvals may also be required for our product, which may delay commercialization. In addition, the EPA may not be the only federal agency with jurisdiction over products designed to eliminate honeybee pests. In 2017, the FDA, EPA, and USDA released a document entitled “Modernizing the Regulatory System for Biotechnology Products: Final Version of the 2017 Update to the Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology.” That document outlines the role that the three agencies have in biotechnology approvals. While it is clear that EPA has jurisdiction over pesticide and insecticide products pursuant to FIFRA, USDA also asserts jurisdiction over honeybees in some circumstances. As a result, we may need USDA evaluation and approval of our product, in addition to other unanticipated regulatory approvals. These additional approvals may delay commercialization.

Risks Related to Intellectual Property

If we are unable to obtain and maintain sufficient intellectual property protection for our products, platform, methods, and technology, or if the scope of the intellectual property protection obtained is not sufficiently broad, competitors could develop and commercialize products similar or identical to ours, and our ability to successfully commercialize our products may be impaired.

Our commercial success depends in part on our ability to protect our intellectual property and proprietary technologies. We rely on a combination of patent, trade secret and trademark laws, and nondisclosure, confidentiality and other contractual restrictions to protect our intellectual property and proprietary technology. However, these legal means afford only limited protection and may not adequately protect our rights or permit us to gain or keep any competitive advantage. If we fail to obtain, maintain and protect our intellectual property, third parties may be able to compete more effectively against us and our competitive position could be adversely affected, as could our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. In addition, we may incur substantial costs related to litigation or other patent proceedings in our attempts to recover or restrict use of our intellectual property.

To the extent that our intellectual property offers inadequate protection, or is found to be invalid or unenforceable, we would be exposed to a greater risk of direct competition. If our intellectual property does not provide adequate coverage of our competitors’ products and methods, our competitive position could be adversely affected, as could our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Both the patent application process and the process of managing patent and other intellectual property disputes are generally unpredictable, time-consuming and expensive.

49

Our success depends in large part on our own and any future licensor’s ability to obtain and maintain protection of the intellectual property we may own or license, whether solely or jointly, particularly patents, in the United States and other countries with respect to our products, platform, methods, and technologies. We apply for patents to protect our products, platform, methods, technologies and commercial activities, as we deem appropriate. However, obtaining and enforcing patents is costly, time-consuming and complex, and we may fail to apply for patents on important products, methods, and technologies in a timely fashion or at all, or we may fail to apply for patents in potentially relevant jurisdictions. Moreover, we may fail to obtain issuance of any of the patent applications that we do file. Publications of discoveries in scientific literature often lag behind the actual discoveries, and patent applications in the United States and other jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing, or in some cases not at all. Therefore, we cannot know with certainty whether we were the first to make the inventions claimed in our patents or pending patent applications, or whether we were the first to file for patent protection of such inventions.

We may not be able to file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications, or maintain, enforce and license any patents that may issue from such patent applications, at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner or in all jurisdictions. 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. Moreover, we may not develop additional proprietary products, methods and technologies that are patentable. Even if we believe an innovation to be patentable and file patent applications, the United States Patent Office (“USPTO”) and other patent offices may not find our innovations to be patentable and may refuse to grant patent rights. We may not have the right to control the preparation, filing and prosecution of patent applications, or to maintain the rights to patents which may be licensed from or to third parties or held jointly with third parties. In connection with any future licensing arrangements with third parties, these patents and applications may not be prosecuted and enforced by such third parties in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business. We currently own and may in the future own patents, patent applications, and other intellectual property jointly with third parties. In certain jurisdictions, including in the United States, joint owners of a patent are free to license rights under the patent to third parties without any compensation to or permission from co-owners. If we are unable to negotiate licenses on commercially reasonable terms with co-owners of patents, in order to exclusively control commercial licensing or commercial use of our co-owned patents or if agreements allowing us such control are found unenforceable, then co-owners may be able to license to our competitors and other third parties without our permission and without compensation to us. Failure to control exclusive rights under intellectual property as discussed above may have an adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial condition, and results of operations.

We may become involved in lawsuits to enforce our intellectual property or defend against third-party claims of infringement, misappropriation, or other violations of intellectual property which could be expensive, time consuming, and unsuccessful and may prevent or delay development and commercialization efforts, and could harm our competitive position and business prospects.

Litigation may be necessary for us to enforce our patent and proprietary rights, defend against intellectual property claims brought by third parties and/or determine the scope, coverage and validity of third parties’ intellectual property rights. Litigation on these matters has been prevalent in our industries and we expect that this will continue. To determine the priority of inventions, we may have to initiate and participate in interference proceedings declared by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office that could result in substantial legal fees and could substantially affect the scope of our patent protection. Also, our intellectual property may be subject to significant litigation and administrative proceedings such as invalidity, unenforceability, IPR, re-examination, opposition, or other post-grant proceedings against our patents. The outcome of any litigation or other proceeding is inherently uncertain and might not be favorable to us and we might not be able to obtain licenses to technology that we require or a competitor may have already obtained an exclusive license to such technology in the relevant fields. Even if such licenses are obtainable, they may not be available at a reasonable cost. We could therefore incur substantial costs related to royalty payments for licenses obtained from third parties, which could negatively affect our competitive position, business, financial condition, or results of operations and/or make it unfeasible to commercialize a given product. In some cases, the outcome of litigation may be to enjoin us from

50

commercializing or using a technology protected by third-party intellectual property. We could encounter delays in product introductions, or interruptions in product sales, as we develop alternative methods or products or we may need to cease sales of a product altogether if we are unable to develop alternatives that avoid the relevant third-party intellectual property.

If we resort to legal proceedings to enforce our intellectual property rights or to determine the validity, scope and coverage of the intellectual property or other proprietary rights of others, the proceedings could be burdensome, time-consuming, and expensive, even if we were to prevail. Moreover, it may not be possible for us to enforce jointly owned patents in the U.S. or other jurisdictions without the cooperation of other owners.

Our commercial success may depend in part on our non-infringement of the patents or proprietary rights of third parties and/or the invalidity or unenforceability of such patent or proprietary rights of others. Numerous significant intellectual property issues have been litigated, and will likely continue to be litigated, between or among existing and new participants in our relevant markets and competitors may assert that our products or methods infringe their intellectual property rights as part of a business strategy to impede the successful entry into or continued presence in those markets. Third parties may assert that we are employing their proprietary technology without authorization. For example, numerous third-party patents exist in fields relevant to the Company’s business and planned products, such as biologics, mRNA vaccines and therapies, and RNA interference (“RNAi”) for crop protection. Our competitors and others have patents and may in the future obtain patents and may claim that use, manufacture, sale, or importation of our products infringe these patents. Moreover, as we move into new markets and applications for our technologies, incumbent participants in such markets may assert their patents and other proprietary rights against us as a means of slowing or preventing our entry into such markets, or as a means to extract substantial license and royalty payments from us.

We have received notice in the past that our proposed products or methods may require an intellectual property license from others in order to be developed, produced, used, or sold. In each instance, we have reviewed the underlying intellectual property and either negotiated for a license or determined that no license was necessary. For future notices, if we are unable to successfully negotiate licenses or determine that no license is necessary, we may be unable to bring impacted products to market. Moreover, allegations that we violate third-party intellectual property could lead to disputes, including litigation.

The outcome of litigation is uncertain and even if we believe that we do not violate asserted third-party intellectual property or that such intellectual property is invalid or unenforceable or otherwise not legally protectable, our defense may be unsuccessful. If a court were to find that we have violated the intellectual property rights of a third party, an injunction and/or an award of damages may have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations. Remedies for intellectual property infringement or misappropriation may include an injunction against future sales of products or use of methods, statutory damages, enhanced damages, punitive damages, attorney’s fees, an award of lost profits and/or a reasonable royalty and prejudgment interest. Damages may in some cases exceed our own profits on sales found to be infringing. Even if we are successful in defending claims, defending intellectual property litigation, particularly patent or trade secret litigation, can be prohibitively burdensome and expensive.

We may be required in the future to license patent rights from third-party owners in order to develop or continue to sell or use a product or method. If we cannot obtain such licenses, or if such owners do not properly maintain or enforce the patents underlying such licenses, our competitive position and business prospects will be harmed.

We develop products, platform, and methods in technological areas and industries that are critical to public health and agriculture—areas in which there is considerable competition. A third-party may hold intellectual property rights, including patent rights and trade secrets that are important or necessary to the development, manufacture, or commercialization of our current or future product candidates. It may be necessary for us to use the patented or proprietary technology of one or more third parties to manufacture or commercialize our product

51

candidates, in which case we would be required to obtain a license from these third parties on commercially reasonable terms, or our business could be harmed. If any such patents were to be asserted against us, there is no assurance that a court would find in our favor or that, if we choose to or are required to seek a license, that a license to any of these patents would be available to us on acceptable terms or at all.

To the extent that we enter into any patent licenses with third parties, if such third parties fail to properly maintain the licensed patents or if those patents are found to be invalid or unenforceable, then we could be subject to additional competition due to the loss of exclusive or non-exclusive rights.

Defending and protecting intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions is costly and sometimes prohibitively expensive.

Obtaining patent protection in every country is prohibitively expensive and, as we attempt to choose jurisdictions for intellectual property protection, we may fail to protect our intellectual property in relevant jurisdictions where we do business, and thereby cause a loss of revenue and profits or other impacts on our ability to manufacture and export our products.

Competitors may use our proprietary technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to manufacture or develop their own products. Such competitors may export otherwise infringing products, or products made through otherwise infringing methods, to territories where we may have or obtain patent protection, but where patent enforcement is not as strong as in the United States or where no protection is available for products made abroad through methods that infringe a local patent. These products may also compete with our products in jurisdictions where we do not have any issued or licensed patents and any future patent claims or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from so competing.

Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of some countries do not favor the enforcement of patents and other intellectual property protection, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patents or trademarks or the misappropriation of our trade secrets generally. Proceedings to enforce our intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, could put our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and our patent applications at risk of not issuing and could provoke third parties to assert claims against us. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate, and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful.

Many countries, including India, Japan, China, and some European nations have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner may be compelled under specified circumstances (including a matter of public policy) to grant licenses to third parties. In those countries, we may have limited remedies if patents are infringed or if we are compelled to grant a license to a third-party, which could diminish the value of those patents. This could limit our potential revenue opportunities. 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.

The United States has the absolute right to manufacture and use patented inventions and to allow others to manufacture and use patent inventions for the United States, for reasonable compensation.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1498, the United States government has the absolute right to use or manufacture any patented inventions for reasonable compensation. No injunction of patent infringement is available against the United States and damages are limited to reasonable compensation only. Moreover, a patent owner may not obtain damages or an injunction against a private entity for its infringing use or manufacture for the United States. Such suits may only be brought against the United States and only for reasonable compensation. In the

52

past the United States has relied on such rights to use or manufacture inventions from third parties other than the patentee. In the future, the United States may rely on its rights to infringe our current and future patents or to allow others to make or use our inventions on behalf of the United States. If the United States were to use, or allow others to use for the United States, our patented technology, platform, methods, or products, then we would only be entitled to reasonable compensation and would not be entitled to an injunction to prevent infringement. As with all intellectual property litigation, proceedings against the United States for patent infringement could be burdensome, time-consuming, and expensive. Even if we were to prevail on a patent infringement action against the United States, any remedy would not likely compensate us for the full extent of the financial harm from such infringement due to the limited remedies available against the United States under the law. Such infringement could adversely affect our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

When inventions are developed with government funding, the United States retains a paid-up license to such inventions and may compel us to grant licenses to third parties for little or no compensation.

Under 35 U.S.C. § 200 et seq., when inventions arise, even in part, through use of public funds, the United States may retain an irrevocable, paid-up license to practice or have practiced on its behalf, such inventions, whether protected by patent or trade secret. That is, the United States has the absolute right to use, and allow others to use on its behalf, such intellectual property without any compensation to the holder of the intellectual property. We have acquired and developed and may in the future acquire or develop trade secrets or obtain patents on inventions developed, in full or in part, with funding from the United States government. A court could also find that one or more of our current patents or applications are covered by 35 U.S.C. § 200 et seq. In such cases, the United States would have the right to use, or allow others to use on its behalf, our inventions, whether protected by patent or trade secret, without any compensation to us.

For inventions subject to 35 U.S.C. § 200 et seq., the United States also retains march-in rights. These march-in rights apply in certain situations, including, for example, when action is necessary to alleviate public health or safety needs or when an inventor is not taking reasonable steps to make its technology useful to the public. In such situations, the United States has the right to compel the innovator to grant licenses to third parties. If such a finding were made with respect to our current or future patents or trade secrets, then we may not be able to prevent competitors from practicing our patented inventions and/or may be compelled to license our competitors to practice our inventions for little or no monetary compensation. Any of the foregoing events could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Confidentiality agreements with employees and others may not adequately prevent disclosure of trade secrets and other proprietary information.

We currently rely, and intend to rely in the future, on trade secrets, know-how and technology that are not protected by patents to maintain our competitive position. In order to protect our proprietary technology and processes, we also rely in part on confidentiality agreements with our collaborators, employees, consultants, and sponsored researchers and other advisors. These agreements may not effectively prevent disclosure of confidential information and may not provide an adequate remedy in the event of unauthorized disclosure of confidential information. These agreements may be found by a court to be unenforceable or invalid. We may fail to enforce our agreements in Court if we are compelled to present them as evidence but are unable to locate and provide copies. Moreover, when employees with knowledge of our trade secrets and confidential information leave us and join new employers, it may be difficult or impossible for us to detect or prove misappropriation of our confidential information and trade secrets by the former employee and/or the former employee’s new employer. In addition, others may independently discover trade secrets and proprietary information, and in such cases, we could not assert any trade secret rights against such party. Costly and time-consuming litigation could be necessary to enforce and determine the scope of our proprietary rights, and failure to obtain or maintain trade secret protection could adversely affect our competitive position, business, financial condition and results of operations.

53

Changes in patent laws or patent jurisprudence could diminish the value of patents in general, thereby impairing our ability to protect our products and platforms.

The patent position of biotechnology, life sciences, and pharmaceutical companies generally is highly uncertain, involves complex legal and factual questions and has in recent years been the subject of much litigation. In addition, the laws of foreign countries may not protect our rights to the same extent as the laws of the United States. For example, European patent law restricts the patentability of methods of treatment of the human body more than United States law does. In another example, some jurisdictions prevent the patenting of certain biotechnology inventions outside of narrow coverage for exact nucleotide sequences.

As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our patent rights are highly uncertain. Our pending and future patent applications may not result in patents being issued which protect our technology, platform, methods, or products, in whole or in part, or which effectively prevent others from commercializing competitive products. Our issued patents may be found to be invalid or unenforceable in a post grant proceeding before patent offices or in patent litigation before courts in the United States or other countries. Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of the patent laws in the United States and other countries may diminish the value of our patents, narrow the scope of our patent protection, or result in the invalidity or unenforceability of our patents.

Various courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have recently rendered decisions that impact the scope of patentability of certain inventions or discoveries relating to our technology and commercial goals. Specifically, these decisions have substantially increased the probability that patent claims will be ruled patent ineligible for reciting a natural phenomenon, law of nature or abstract idea. Furthermore, in view of these decisions, the USPTO has published and continues to publish revised guidelines for patent examiners to apply when examining claims for patent eligibility. Patent claims relating to software algorithms, biologically-derived compositions, methods for analyzing biological systems and other subject matters that underlie our technology and commercial goals are impacted by these changes.

On September 16, 2011, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (the “Leahy-Smith Act”) was signed into law. The Leahy-Smith Act made a number of significant changes to United States patent laws. These include provisions that affect the way patent applications are prosecuted and challenged at the USPTO and may also affect patent litigation. The USPTO has developed and continues to develop regulations and procedures to govern administration of the Leahy-Smith Act, and many of the substantive changes to patent law associated with the Leahy-Smith Act, and in particular, the first to file provisions, became effective on March 16, 2013. Accordingly, it is not clear what, if any, impact the Leahy-Smith Act, subsequent rulemaking, and judicial interpretation of the Leahy-Smith Act and regulations will have on the operation of our business in the future. The Leahy-Smith Act and its continued implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement and/or defense of our issued patents, all of which could have an adverse effect on our business and financial condition.

Actions taken by the U.S. Congress, federal courts and USPTO have from time to time narrowed the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances and weakened the rights of patent owners in certain situations. Similar changes have been made by authorities in other jurisdictions. In addition to increasing uncertainty with regard to the ability to obtain patents in the future, such changes create uncertainty with respect to the value of patents, once obtained. Depending on decisions by authorities in various jurisdictions, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that may have an adverse effect on our ability to obtain new patents and to defend and enforce our existing patents and patents that we might obtain in the future, harming our business, competitive position, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

Patent reform legislation could increase uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement, validity, or defense of our issued patents. There has been recent public discussion around loosening of patent protection for inventions important to addressing the SARS-CoV-2

54

pandemic. Such reforms or similar changes in connection with future pandemics or other public health emergencies, could have an adverse effect on any patent protection on our products and methods.

We cannot assure you that our patent portfolio will not be negatively impacted by the current uncertain state of the law, new court rulings or changes in guidance or procedures issued by governments or patent offices around the world. From time to time, the U.S. Supreme Court, other federal courts, the U.S. Congress or the USPTO may change the standards of patentability, scope and validity of patents within the biotechnology, life sciences, and other relevant technologies and any such changes, or any similar adverse changes in the patent laws of other jurisdictions, could have a negative impact on the our business, financial condition, prospects and results of operations.

Moreover, we may be subject to a third-party pre-issuance submission of prior art to the USPTO, or become involved in opposition, derivation, reexamination, inter partes review, post-grant review or interference proceedings challenging our patent rights or the patent rights of others. An adverse determination in any such submission, proceeding or litigation could reduce the scope of, or invalidate, our patent rights, allow third parties to commercialize our technology or products or use our proprietary methods and compete directly with us, without payment to us, or result in our inability to manufacture or commercialize products without infringing third-party patent rights.

Our current or future issued patents could be found invalid or unenforceable if challenged or could be construed narrowly such that they do not cover our products or methods or those used by our competitors.

It is possible that none of our current or future pending patent applications will result in issued patents in a timely fashion or at all. Even if our patent applications issue as patents, they may not issue in a form that will provide us with any meaningful protection, prevent competitors from competing with us or otherwise provide us with any competitive advantage. Moreover, we cannot predict the breadth of claims that may be allowed or enforced in our patents. Our issued patents may not be construed to cover our own or our competitors’ products or methods. Our competitors may be able to circumvent or design around our patents by developing similar or alternative technologies or products in a non-infringing manner. In addition, if the breadth or strength of protection provided by our patents and patent applications is threatened, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to license, develop or commercialize current or future product candidates.

The issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity or enforceability, and our patents may be challenged in the courts or patent offices in the United States and abroad. Such challenges may result in loss of exclusivity, in patent claims being narrowed or invalidated, or in patents being held unenforceable which could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical technology, methods, and products, or limit the duration of the patent protection of our technology, methods, and products.

The inventorship and/or ownership rights for our patents and patent applications may be challenged by third parties. Such challenges could result in invalidation of such patents, the loss of ownership of such patents, or loss of exclusive rights to such patents, which could result in increased competition and could limit or eliminate our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical technology, methods, and products or require us to obtain a license from third parties on commercially reasonable terms to secure exclusive rights, or our business could be harmed. If any such challenges to inventorship and/or ownership were asserted, there is no assurance that a court would find in our favor or that, if we choose to seek a license, such license would be available to us on acceptable terms or at all.

Patent terms may be inadequate to protect our competitive position for an adequate amount of time.

Patents have a limited lifespan. In the United States, the natural expiration of a patent is generally 20 years after the first non-provisional filing date. In the United States, a patent’s term may, in certain cases, be

55

lengthened by patent term adjustment, which compensates a patentee for administrative delays by the USPTO in examining and granting a patent, or in certain cases, by patent term extension for patents covering certain pharmaceutical products requiring regulatory approval. In the United States a patent’s term also may be shortened if a patent is terminally disclaimed over a commonly owned patent or a patent naming a common inventor and having an earlier expiration date. The life of a patent, and the protection it affords, is limited. Therefore, even if patents covering our products and methods are obtained, once the patent life has expired, for our current or future platform, products, methods or technologies, we may be open to competition, including, for example, from biosimilar or generic versions of our products. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting such candidates might expire before or shortly after such candidates are commercialized. As a result, our owned and licensed patent portfolio may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing products similar or identical to ours.

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

The USPTO and European and other patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar provisions during the patent application process. In addition, periodic maintenance, renewal and annuity fees on any issued patent are due to be paid to the USPTO and European and other patent agencies over the lifetime of a patent. While an inadvertent failure to make payment of such fees or to comply with such provisions can in many cases be cured by additional payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules, there are situations in which such noncompliance will result in the abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, and the partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. Non-compliance events that could result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application include failure to respond to official actions within prescribed time limits, non-payment of fees and failure to properly legalize and submit formal documents within prescribed time limits. If we or our licensors fail to maintain the patents and patent applications covering our platform, technology, methods, or products or if we or our licensors otherwise allow patents or patent applications to be abandoned or lapse, our competitors might be able to enter the market, which would hurt our competitive position and could impair our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates, which could have an adverse effect on our business and financial condition.

We may become subject to claims for ownership of intellectual property, payment, or royalties for assigned invention rights by our employees, contractors, and collaborators, which could result in litigation and adversely affect our business.

We may be subject to claims that former employees, collaborators or other third parties have an interest in, or right to compensation, with respect to our current patent and patent applications, future patents and patent applications, or other intellectual property as an inventor or co-inventor. For example, we may have inventorship or ownership disputes from consultants, former employees, or others who are involved in developing a product for us. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these and other claims challenging inventorship or ownership or claiming the right to compensation. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights, such as ownership of, exclusive ownership of, or the right to use and/or exclude others from using, valuable intellectual property. Such an outcome could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects. 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.

We generally enter into assignment-of-invention agreements with our employees pursuant to which such individuals assign to us all rights to any inventions created in the scope of their employment or engagement with us. If compelled to provide copies of relevant agreements as evidence of such arrangements, we may not be able

56

to locate and provide copies of such agreements and may therefore be unable to assert such agreements. Moreover, such agreements could be found to be invalid or unenforceable. Although our employees have agreed to assign to us invention rights and have specifically waived their right to receive any special remuneration for such assignment beyond their regular salary and benefits, we may face claims demanding ownership of inventions or remuneration in consideration for assigned inventions.

We may not be able to protect and enforce our trademarks and trade names, or build name recognition in our markets of interest or may be subject to claims of trademark infringement thereby harming our competitive position.

We have filed, and may continue in the future to file trademark applications to protect certain of our intellectual property; however, we cannot guarantee that we will be successful in registering our trademarks. Our registered or unregistered trademarks or trade names may be challenged, infringed, circumvented, declared generic, lapsed or determined to be infringing on or dilutive of other marks. We may not be able to protect our rights in these trademarks and trade names, which we need in order to build name recognition. In addition, third parties have filed, and may in the future file, for registration of trademarks that may impede our ability to build brand identity and possibly leading to market confusion. Third parties have identified potential conflicts between their marks and our marks that may arise in the future. In addition, there could be potential trade name or trademark infringement claims brought by owners of trademarks or trademarks that incorporate variations of our trademarks or trade names. Such claims may require us to cease use of our trademarks or change our company or product names. Further, we may in the future enter into agreements with owners of such third-party trade names or trademarks to avoid potential trademark litigation which may limit our ability to use our trade names or trademarks in certain fields or territories. Over the long term, if we are unable to establish name recognition based on our trademarks and trade names, then we may not be able to compete effectively, and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects may be adversely affected. Our efforts to enforce or protect our proprietary rights related to trademarks, domain names, or other intellectual property may be ineffective and could result in substantial costs and diversion of resources. Any of the foregoing events could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Intellectual property rights do not necessarily address all potential threats to our competitive advantage.

The degree of future protection afforded by our intellectual property rights is uncertain because intellectual property rights have limitations, and may not adequately protect our business, or permit us to maintain our competitive advantage. The following examples are illustrative:

57

Should any of these events occur, they could significantly harm our business, competitive position, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Risks Related to Ownership of New GreenLight Common Stock

An active trading market for the New GreenLight Common Stock may never develop or be sustained.

We cannot assure you that an active trading market for the New GreenLight Common Stock will develop on the Nasdaq or elsewhere. If an active trading market does not develop, or develops but is not maintained, you may have difficulty selling any shares of New GreenLight Common Stock due to the limited public float. Accordingly, we cannot assure you of your ability to sell your shares of New GreenLight Common Stock when desired or the prices that you may obtain for your shares.

The market price of the New GreenLight Common Stock may be volatile, which could result in substantial losses for investors.

The market price of the New GreenLight Common Stock may fluctuate due to a variety of factors, including:

58

Recently, stock markets in general, and the market for life sciences technology companies in particular, have experienced significant price and volume fluctuations that have often been unrelated or disproportionate to changes in the operating performance of the companies whose stock is experiencing those price and volume fluctuations, particularly in light of the current COVID-19 pandemic. Broad market and industry factors may seriously affect the market price of New GreenLight Common Stock, regardless of our actual operating performance. These fluctuations may be even more pronounced in the trading market for New GreenLight Common Stock. Following periods of such volatility in the market price of a company’s securities, securities class action litigation has often been brought against that company. Because of the potential volatility of the price of New GreenLight Common Stock, we may become the target of securities litigation in the future. Securities litigation could result in substantial costs and divert management’s attention and resources from our business.

Our failure to meet the continued listing requirements of Nasdaq could result in a delisting of our securities.

If we fail to satisfy the continued listing requirements of Nasdaq, such as the corporate governance requirements or the minimum closing bid price requirement, Nasdaq may take steps to delist our securities. Such a delisting would likely have a negative effect on the price of our securities and would impair your ability to sell or purchase our securities when you wish to do so. In the event of a delisting, we can provide no assurance that any action taken by us to restore compliance with listing requirements would allow our securities to become listed again, stabilize the market price or improve the liquidity of our securities, prevent our securities from dropping below the Nasdaq minimum bid price requirement or prevent future non-compliance with Nasdaq’s listing requirements. Additionally, if our securities are not listed on, or become delisted from, Nasdaq for any reason, and are quoted on the OTC Bulletin Board, an inter-dealer automated quotation system for equity securities that is not a national securities exchange, our ability to issue additional securities or obtain additional financing in the future, the analyst coverage, and the liquidity and price of our securities may be more limited than if we were quoted or listed on Nasdaq or another national securities exchange. As a result, you may be unable to sell your securities unless a market can be established or sustained.

59

The exercise of registration rights may adversely affect the market price of the New GreenLight Common Stock.

Certain of our stockholders have registration rights for certain securities, including certain of the securities covered by this prospectus. Pursuant to the Subscription Agreements for the PIPE Financings and the Investor Rights Agreement, we have registered a substantial number of shares of New GreenLight Common Stock for resale and for issuance upon exercise of the Public Warrants. We are obligated to file one or more resale “shelf” registration statements to register such securities, use commercially reasonable efforts to cause such registration statements to be declared effective by the SEC within specified periods, and keep such registration statements effective for up to three years thereafter. We are also obligated to file other registration statements, including for underwritten offerings of New GreenLight Common Stock, in specified circumstances. Sales of a substantial number of shares of New GreenLight Common Stock pursuant to these registration statements in the public market could occur at any time. These sales, or the perception in the market that the holders of a large number of shares intend to sell shares, could reduce the market price of the New GreenLight Common Stock. For more information relating to the registration rights under the Subscription Agreements and the Investor Rights Agreements, see the section titled “Description of Securities—Registration Rights” in this prospectus.

If securities or industry analysts do not publish or cease publishing research or reports about New GreenLight, our business, or our market, or if they change their recommendations regarding our securities adversely, the price and trading volume of our securities could decline.

The trading market for our securities will be influenced by the research and reports that industry or securities analysts may publish about us, our business, markets or competitors. Securities and industry analysts do not currently, and may never, publish research on New GreenLight. If no securities or industry analysts commence coverage of us, our share price and trading volume would likely be negatively impacted.

As a former shell company, we will face certain disadvantages relative to companies that pursue a traditional initial public offering, including ineligibility for certain forms and rules for extended periods.

ENVI was a special purpose acquisition company, or SPAC, a form of shell company under the rules of the SEC. Shell companies are more highly regulated than non-shell operating companies and face significant additional restrictions on their activities under federal securities laws. As a result of the Business Combination, New GreenLight ceased to be a shell company. However, companies that were formerly shell companies continue to face disadvantages under SEC rules, including (a) the inability to use Form S-3 until at least one year after the filing of information equivalent to that required by Form 10 after ceasing to be a shell company, (b) the inability to qualify as a “well-known seasoned issuer” and file automatically effective registration statements for three years after ceasing to be a shell company, (c) the inability to “incorporate by reference” information in certain registration statements filed under the Securities Act for a period of three years after ceasing to be a shell company, (d) the inability to use most free writing prospectuses until at least three years after a qualifying business combination, (e) the inability to use Form S-8 to register shares issuable in connection with certain compensatory plans and arrangements until 60 days after the filing of information equivalent to that required by Form 10, (f) the inability of stockholders to rely on Rule 144 for resales of securities until at least one year after the filing of information equivalent to that required by Form 10 and the provision of current public information, and (g) exclusion from certain safe harbors for offering-related communications under the Securities Act for three years after ceasing to be a shell company, including for research reports and certain communications in connection with business combinations. For more information about Rule 144 and its potential impact on our stockholders, please see the section titled “Securities Act Restrictions on Resale of New GreenLight Common Stock” in this prospectus. We expect that these disadvantages will make it more challenging and expensive, and create greater risks and delays, for both us and our stockholders to offer securities. These challenges may make our securities less attractive than those of companies that are not former shell companies and may raise our relative cost of capital.

60

Reports published by analysts, including projections in those reports that differ from our actual results, could adversely affect the price and trading volume of New GreenLight Common Stock.

Securities research analysts may establish and publish their own periodic projections for New GreenLight. These projections may vary widely and may not accurately predict the results we actually achieve. The share price of New GreenLight Common Stock may decline if our actual results do not match the projections of these securities research analysts. If any of the analysts who may cover New GreenLight issue an adverse or misleading opinion regarding New GreenLight, our business model, our intellectual property or our stock performance, change their recommendation regarding shares of New GreenLight Common Stock adversely, provide relatively more favorable recommendations about our competitors or if the clinical trials and operating results fail to meet the expectations of analysts, the price of shares of New GreenLight Common Stock would likely decline. If one or more of these analysts ceases coverage of New GreenLight or fails to publish reports on New GreenLight regularly, the share price or trading volume of New GreenLight Common Stock could decline. If no analysts commence coverage of New GreenLight, the market price and volume for the New GreenLight Common Stock could be adversely affected.

We have broad discretion in the use of the net proceeds from the exercise of outstanding public and private warrants, if any, and may not use them effectively.

As of June 30, 2022, we had outstanding Public Warrants to purchase 10,244,880 shares of New GreenLight Common Stock and private placement warrants to purchase 2,062,500 shares of New GreenLight Common Stock, in each case for an exercise price of $11.50 per share. The warrants may never be exercised for cash, in which case we will not receive any proceeds from such exercise. Because of this uncertainty, we have no specific plans for the proceeds that we may receive from warrant exercises, if any, and we intend to use any such proceeds for general corporate purposes and working capital, including the funding of our clinical programs. Our management will have broad discretion in the application of the net proceeds. Our management may spend a portion or all of the net proceeds in ways that our stockholders may not desire or that may not yield a favorable return. The failure by our management to apply these funds effectively could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Pending their use, we may invest the net proceeds from the exercise of such warrants, if any, in a manner that does not produce income or that loses value.

We do not expect to pay any dividends for the foreseeable future. Investors may never obtain a return on their investment.

You should not rely on an investment in New GreenLight Common Stock to provide dividend income. We do not anticipate that we will pay any dividends to holders of New GreenLight Common Stock in the foreseeable future. Instead, we plan to retain any earnings to maintain and expand our existing operations, fund our research and development programs and continue to invest in our commercial infrastructure. In addition, any future credit facility or financing we obtain may contain terms prohibiting or limiting the amount of dividends that may be declared or paid on New GreenLight Common Stock. Accordingly, investors must rely on sales of their shares after price appreciation, which may never occur, as the only way to realize any return on their investment. As a result, investors seeking cash dividends should not purchase New GreenLight Common Stock.

The Charter designates the Delaware Court of Chancery as the exclusive forum for specified disputes between New GreenLight and our stockholders and also provides that the federal district courts are the exclusive forum for resolving any complaint asserting a cause of action arising under the Securities Act, each of which could limit the ability of our stockholders to choose the judicial forum for disputes with New GreenLight or our directors, officers or employees.

Our Charter provides that, unless we consent in writing to the selection of an alternative forum (an “Alternative Forum Consent”), to the fullest extent permitted by the applicable law, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware will be the sole and exclusive forum for any stockholder (including a beneficial owner) to

61

bring (i) any derivative action or proceeding brought on behalf of New GreenLight, (ii) any action asserting a claim of breach of a fiduciary duty owed by any director, officer or other employee of New GreenLight to us or our stockholders, (iii) any action asserting a claim against New GreenLight, our directors, officers or employees arising pursuant to any provision of the DGCL, the Charter or the Bylaws, or (iv) any action asserting a claim against New GreenLight, our directors, officers or employees governed by the internal affairs doctrine, subject to specified exceptions. This provision will not apply to suits brought to enforce a duty or liability created by the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, for which claims may be brought in any U.S. federal court, or any other claim for which the federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction.

To prevent having to litigate claims in multiple jurisdictions and the threat of inconsistent or contrary rulings by different courts, among other considerations, the Charter also provides that, unless we give an Alternative Forum Consent, the federal district courts of the United States will, to the fullest extent permitted by law, be the exclusive forum for the resolution of any complaint asserting a cause of action arising under the Securities Act or the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder. However, Section 22 of the Securities Act creates concurrent jurisdiction for federal and state courts over all such actions. Accordingly, both state and federal courts have jurisdiction to entertain such claims, and there is uncertainty whether a court would enforce the Charter’s choice of forum provision applicable to Securities Act claims.

Any person or entity purchasing or otherwise acquiring any interest in any of our securities shall be deemed to have notice of and consented to the foregoing charter provisions. Although we believe these exclusive forum provisions benefit us by providing increased consistency in the application of Delaware law and federal securities laws in the types of lawsuits to which each applies, the exclusive forum provisions may limit a stockholder’s ability to bring a claim in a judicial forum of its choosing for disputes with New GreenLight or any of our directors, officers, or other employees, which may discourage lawsuits with respect to such claims against New GreenLight and our current and former directors, officers, or other employees. In addition, a stockholder that is unable to bring a claim in the judicial forum of its choosing may be required to incur additional costs in the pursuit of actions which are subject to the exclusive forum provisions described above. Our stockholders will not be deemed to have waived our compliance with the federal securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder as a result of our exclusive forum provisions. Further, in the event a court finds either exclusive forum provision contained in the Charter to be unenforceable or inapplicable in an action, we may incur additional costs associated with resolving such action in other jurisdictions, which could harm our results of operations.

Delaware law and provisions in our Charter and Bylaws might discourage, delay or prevent a change in control of our company or changes in our management and, therefore, depress the trading price of the New GreenLight Common Stock.

Our status as a Delaware corporation and the anti-takeover provisions of the Delaware General Corporation Law may discourage, delay or prevent a change in control by prohibiting us from engaging in a business combination with an interested stockholder for a period of three years after the person becomes an interested stockholder without the approval of holders of 66²/₃% of the voting power of our stockholders other than the interested stockholder, even if a change of control would be beneficial to our existing stockholders. In addition, our Charter and Bylaws contain provisions that may make the acquisition of our company more difficult, including the following:

62

These anti-takeover defenses could discourage, delay, or prevent a transaction involving a change in control of New GreenLight. These provisions could also discourage proxy contests and make it more difficult for stockholders to elect directors of their choosing or to cause us to take other corporate actions they desire, any of which, under certain circumstances, could limit the opportunity for our stockholders to receive a premium for their shares of our capital stock.

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

As of December 31, 2021, GreenLight had U.S. federal and state net operating loss carryforwards, or NOLs, of $232.1 million and $197.4 million, respectively. If not utilized, the federal NOLs generated before 2018 of approximately $27.1 million will expire at various dates through 2037 and the state NOLs will expire at various dates through 2040. The federal NOLs generated after 2017 of approximately $205.0 million have an indefinite carryforward period. GreenLight or New GreenLight may potentially use these U.S. federal and state NOLs to offset against taxable income for U.S. federal and state income tax purposes. However, the use of these NOLs may be subject to numerous limitations under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or the Code, and under state tax laws. Among such limitations, Section 382 of the Code may limit the use of these NOLs in any year for U.S. federal income tax purposes in the event of certain past or future changes in ownership of GreenLight or New GreenLight. An ownership change under Section 382 of the Code, referred to in this discussion as an ownership change, generally occurs if one or more stockholders or groups of stockholders who own at least 5% of a company’s stock increase their ownership by more than 50 percentage points over their lowest ownership percentage within a rolling three-year period. An ownership change in respect of New GreenLight also could be deemed to be an ownership change in respect of GreenLight. We have not conducted a Section 382 study to determine whether the use of our NOLs is impaired under Section 382 of the Code as a result of any prior ownership change. GreenLight may have previously undergone one or more ownership changes. In addition, the Business Combination and the PIPE Financings, or future issuances or sales of our stock, including certain transactions involving our stock that are outside of our control, could result in future ownership changes. Ownership changes that have occurred in the past or that may occur in the future, including in connection with the Business Combination and the PIPE Financings, could result in the imposition of an annual limit under Section 382 of the Code on the amount of pre-ownership change NOLs and other tax attributes that GreenLight or New GreenLight can use to reduce its taxable income, potentially increasing or accelerating its liability for income taxes, and also potentially causing those tax attributes to expire unused. States may impose similar limitations on the use of applicable NOLs. Any limitation on using NOLs, whether under Section 382 of the Code or otherwise under U.S. federal or state tax laws, could, depending on the extent of such limitation and the NOLs previously used, result in GreenLight or New GreenLight retaining less cash after payment of U.S. federal and state income taxes in respect of any year in which GreenLight or New GreenLight

63

has taxable income, rather than losses, than GreenLight or New GreenLight would be entitled to retain if such NOLs were available as an offset against such income for U.S. federal and state income tax reporting purposes, which could adversely impact GreenLight or New GreenLight’s operating results.

New GreenLight remains an “emerging growth company” and a “smaller reporting company”, and the reduced disclosure requirements applicable to emerging growth companies and smaller reporting companies may make the New GreenLight Common Stock less attractive to investors.

We are an “emerging growth company,” as defined in the JOBS Act. For so long as we remain an emerging growth company, we are permitted by SEC rules to, and plan to, rely on exemptions from certain disclosure requirements that are applicable to other SEC registered public companies that are not emerging growth companies. These exemptions include not being required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act, not being required to comply with any requirement that may be adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board regarding mandatory audit firm rotation or a supplement to the auditor’s report providing additional information about the audit and the financial statements, reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation and exemptions from the requirements of holding a nonbinding advisory vote on executive compensation and any golden parachute payments not previously approved. As a result, the information we provide to stockholders will be different than the information that is available with respect to other public companies that are not emerging growth companies. In this prospectus, not all of the executive compensation-related information that would be required if we were not an emerging growth company has been included. If we were to continue to qualify as a “smaller reporting company,” as such term is defined in Rule 12b-2 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, after we cease to qualify as an emerging growth company, we would continue to be permitted to make certain reduced disclosures in our periodic reports and other documents that we file with the SEC. We expect to cease to qualify as a smaller reporting company before we cease to qualify as an emerging growth company. We cannot predict whether investors will find the New GreenLight Common Stock less attractive if we rely on these exemptions. If some investors find the New GreenLight Common Stock less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for the New GreenLight Common Stock and our stock price may be more volatile.

In addition, the JOBS Act provides that an emerging growth company can take advantage of an extended transition period for complying with new or revised accounting standards. This allows an emerging growth company to delay the adoption of certain accounting standards until those standards would otherwise apply to private companies. We have elected to avail ourselves of this exemption from new or revised accounting standards and, therefore, we will not be subject to the same new or revised accounting standards as other public companies that have not made or cannot make a similar election. As a result, our consolidated financial statements may not be comparable to companies that comply with new or revised accounting pronouncements as of public company effective dates.

We will incur significant increased costs and management resources as a result of operating as a public company.

As a public company, we will incur significant legal, accounting, compliance and other expenses that GreenLight did not incur as a private company and that do not appear in our historical consolidated financial statements. These expenses may increase even more after we are no longer an “emerging growth company.” Our management and other personnel will need to devote a substantial amount of time and incur significant expense in connection with compliance initiatives. For example, we will need to implement additional internal controls, both generally and to address the material weaknesses discussed in “Risks Relating to Our Business and Industry”, and disclosure controls and procedures. As a public company, we will bear all of the internal and external costs of preparing and distributing periodic public reports in compliance with our obligations under the securities laws.

In addition, regulations and standards relating to corporate governance and public disclosure, including the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, and the related rules and regulations implemented by the SEC and Nasdaq, have increased

64

legal and financial compliance costs and will make some compliance activities more time-consuming. For example, Nasdaq imposes requirements to obtain stockholder approval for the issuance of equity securities in a variety of circumstances, and this requirement can limit the financing alternatives available to us and thereby increase the cost of capital, which could reduce shareholder returns. We intend to invest resources to comply with evolving laws, regulations and standards, and this investment will result in increased general and administrative expenses and may divert management’s time and attention from our other business activities. If our efforts to comply with new laws, regulations and standards differ from the activities intended by regulatory or governing bodies due to ambiguities related to practice, regulatory authorities may initiate legal proceedings against us, and our business may be harmed. In the future, it may be more expensive or more difficult for us to obtain director and officer liability insurance, and we may be required to accept reduced coverage or incur substantially higher costs to obtain coverage. These factors could also make it more difficult for us to attract and retain qualified members of our board of directors, particularly to serve on our audit committee and compensation committee, and qualified executive officers.

Risks Related to the Business Combination and ENVI

The former GreenLight stockholders have significant influence over us.

Upon the completion of the Business Combination, the GreenLight stockholders collectively owned approximately 85% of the outstanding New GreenLight Common Stock. Some of these persons or entities may have interests different than yours. For example, because many of these stockholders purchased their shares at prices substantially below the agreed-upon valuation of the consideration issued in the Business Combination and have held their shares for a longer period, they may be more interested in selling New GreenLight to an acquirer than other investors or they may want us to pursue strategies that deviate from the interests of other stockholders.

Investors in New GreenLight will not have the same benefits as an investor in an underwritten public offering.

Upon the completion of the Business Combination, the directors, officers and stockholders of GreenLight, a private company, obtained control of New GreenLight, a public company, and the business of GreenLight became the business of New GreenLight. In this respect, the Business Combination was an indirect path for GreenLight to obtain the benefits of becoming a publicly listed company. However, the Business Combination was not an underwritten initial public offering of GreenLight’s securities and differed from an underwritten initial public offering in several significant ways, which include, but are not limited to, the following:

Like other business combinations and spin-offs, in connection with the Business Combination, investors did not receive the benefits of the diligence performed by the underwriters in an underwritten public offering. Investors in an underwritten public offering may benefit from the role of the underwriters in such an offering. In an underwritten public offering, an issuer initially sells its securities to the public market via one or more underwriters, who distribute or resell such securities to the public. Underwriters have liability under the U.S. securities laws for material misstatements or omissions in a registration statement pursuant to which an issuer sells securities. Because the underwriters have a “due diligence” defense to any such liability by, among other things, conducting a reasonable investigation, the underwriters and their counsel customarily conduct a due diligence investigation of the issuer. Due diligence entails engaging legal, financial and/or other professionals to investigate the accuracy of an issuer’s disclosure regarding, among other things, its business and financial results. In underwritten public offerings, investors have the benefit of such diligence in making their investment decision. The Business Combination did not involve any underwriters and, accordingly, no underwriter has ever conducted due diligence with respect to the business of GreenLight. Our investors must rely on the information disclosed in our filings with the Commission and will not have the benefit of any prior independent review and investigation of the type normally performed by an underwriter in a public securities offering.

While sponsors, private investors and management in a business combination undertake a certain level of due diligence, it is not necessarily the same level of due diligence undertaken by an underwriter in a public securities offering and, therefore, there is a heightened risk of an incorrect valuation of GreenLight’s business or material misstatements or omissions in this prospectus.

65

In addition, because no underwriters were engaged in connection with the Business Combination, there was no traditional “roadshow” or book-building process before the closing of the Business Combination, and no underwriters set any initial public offering price to facilitate price discovery with respect to our securities after the closing of the Business Combination. Therefore, buy and sell orders for our securities, whether submitted before or after the closing of the Business Combination, have not had the benefit of being informed by a published price range or a price at which any underwriters initially sold shares to the public, as would be the case in an underwritten initial public offering. Moreover, as of the date of this prospectus, there are no underwriters assuming risk in connection with an initial resale of our securities or helping to stabilize, maintain or affect the public price of any our securities, including those offered hereby. Moreover, we do not intend to engage in, and have not requested and do not intend to request, directly or indirectly, financial advisors to engage in, any special selling efforts or stabilization or price support activities in connection with any of our securities, including those offered hereby. In addition, securities analysts of major brokerage firms may not provide coverage of New GreenLight. No assurance can be given that brokerage firms will, in the future, want to conduct any offerings on our behalf. All of these differences from an underwritten public offering of GreenLight’s securities could result in a more volatile price for our securities.

These differences from an underwritten public offering may present material risks to unaffiliated investors that would not exist if GreenLight had become a publicly listed company through an underwritten initial public offering instead of upon completion of the Business Combination.

Our future depends on the continued contributions of our senior management team and our ability to attract and retain other highly qualified personnel; in particular, Andrey Zarur, our President and Chief Executive Officer, is critical to our future vision and strategic direction.

Our success depends in large part on our ability to attract and retain high-quality management in sales, market access, product development, software engineering, marketing, operations, finance and support functions, especially in the Boston and Rochester areas. We compete for qualified technical personnel with other life sciences and biotechnology companies. Competition for qualified employees is intense in these industries, and the loss of even a few qualified employees, or an inability to attract, train, retain and motivate additional highly skilled employees required for the planned expansion of our business could harm our operating results and impair our ability to grow. The loss of one or more of our key employees, and any failure to have in place and execute an effective succession plan for key executives, could seriously harm our business.

As we continue to grow, we may be unable to continue to attract or retain the personnel needed to maintain our competitive position. To attract, train and retain key personnel, we use various measures, including competitive compensation and benefit packages (including an equity incentive program), which may require significant investment. These measures may not be enough to attract and retain the personnel required to operate our business effectively and efficiently.

Moreover, if the perceived value of our equity awards declines, it may materially and adversely affect our ability to attract and retain key employees. If we do not maintain the necessary personnel to accomplish our business objectives, we may experience staffing constraints that materially and adversely affect our ability to support programs and operations.

Many of our employees may receive proceeds from sales of our equity in the public markets, which may reduce their motivation to continue to work for us.

In addition, our future also depends on the continued contributions of our senior management team and other key personnel, each of whom would be difficult to replace. In particular, Dr. Andrey Zarur, our President and Chief Executive Officer, is critical to our future vision and strategic direction. We rely on our executive team in the areas of operations, research and development, commercial, and general and administrative functions. We also do not maintain key person life insurance for our key employees.

66

From time to time, there may be changes in our senior management team that may be disruptive to our business. If our senior management team, including any new hires that we may make, fails to work together effectively and to execute our plans and strategies on a timely basis, our business, results of operations and financial condition could be harmed.

Investors should not rely on outdated financial projections.

In connection with the Business Combination, we disclosed certain projections of GreenLight’s potential financial performance in future years. As previously disclosed, these projections were prepared solely for GreenLight’s internal use, capital budgeting and other management purposes, were finalized as of June 30, 2021 and were not updated to reflect events after that date. Also as previously disclosed, the projections were not prepared with a view toward public disclosure or with a view toward complying with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”), the published guidelines of the SEC or the guidelines established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants for preparation and presentation of prospective financial information. Readers were cautioned not to rely on the prospective financial information because actual results are likely to differ materially from the prospective financial information. In light of the passage of time since June 30, 2021, the projections have become outdated and do not necessarily represent the current views of management. We reiterate our prior caution not to rely on the previously published and now outdated financial projections. We have not undertaken any obligation to publish any financial projections.

We are subject to changing laws and regulations regarding regulatory matters, corporate governance and public disclosure that have increased and will continue to increase costs and the risk of noncompliance.

We are subject to rules and regulations by various governing bodies, including, for example, the SEC, which is charged with the protection of investors and the oversight of companies whose securities are publicly traded, and to new and evolving regulatory measures under applicable law. Our efforts to comply with new and changing laws and regulations have resulted, and will likely continue to result, in increased general and administrative expenses and a diversion of management time and attention from business operations.

Moreover, because these laws, regulations and standards are subject to varying interpretations, their application in practice may evolve over time as new guidance becomes available. This evolution may result in continuing uncertainty regarding compliance matters and additional costs necessitated by ongoing revisions to our disclosure and governance practices. If we fail to address and comply with these regulations and any subsequent changes, we may be subject to penalty and our business may be harmed.

Risks Related to Redemptions

If we file a bankruptcy petition or an involuntary bankruptcy petition is filed against us that is not dismissed, a bankruptcy court may seek to recover proceeds that we distributed to our public stockholders from our trust account, and we and our board may be exposed to claims of punitive damages.

If we file a bankruptcy petition or an involuntary bankruptcy petition is filed against us that is not dismissed, the proceeds that we distributed to our public stockholders from our trust account could be viewed under applicable debtor/creditor and/or bankruptcy laws as either a “preferential transfer” or a “fraudulent conveyance.” As a result, a bankruptcy court could seek to recover all amounts received by our stockholders. In addition, our board of directors may be viewed as having breached its fiduciary duty to our creditors and/or having acted in bad faith, thereby exposing the directors and us to claims of punitive damages, by paying public stockholders from the trust account prior to addressing the claims of creditors. We and our directors may not have sufficient resources to satisfy any such claims in full, or at all.

67

Risks Related to Being a Public Benefit Corporation

Although we are a public benefit corporation, we cannot provide any assurance that we will achieve our PBC Purpose.

In connection with the Business Combination, we became a public benefit corporation under Delaware law, and our public benefit purpose is set forth in the Charter. Our public benefit purpose is to improve the public health and wellbeing of people and the environment by engineering, developing and commercializing biological products that can reduce chemicals in our environment and promote health through delivery of high quality, affordable products that improve outcomes for people and the planet. As a public benefit corporation, we are required to operate in a responsible and sustainable manner, balancing our stockholders’ pecuniary interests, the best interests of those materially affected by our conduct and our public benefit purpose. When we use the term ‘sustainable,’ we refer to our efforts to align economic development with environmental protection and human well-being as well as our obligations as a public benefit corporation under § 362(a) of the Delaware General Corporation Law. There is no assurance that we will be able to achieve our public benefit purpose or that the expected positive impact from being a public benefit corporation will be realized, which could have a material adverse effect on our reputation, which in turn may have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

As a public benefit corporation, our focus on a specific public benefit purpose and producing a positive effect for society may negatively impact our financial performance.

Unlike traditional corporations, whose directors have a fiduciary duty to focus exclusively on maximizing stockholder value, our directors have a fiduciary duty to balance (i) the pecuniary interests of our stockholders, (ii) the best interests of those materially affected by our conduct and (iii) our public benefit purpose, as set forth in the Charter. Therefore, we may take actions that we believe will be in the best interests of those stakeholders materially affected by our public benefit purpose even if those actions do not maximize our financial results. While we intend for this public benefit designation and obligation to provide an overall net benefit to us and our stakeholders, it could instead cause us to make decisions and take actions without seeking to maximize the income generated from our business, and hence available for distribution to our stockholders. Our pursuit of longer-term or non-pecuniary benefits may not materialize within the timeframe we expect or at all, yet may have an immediate negative effect on any amounts available for distribution to our stockholders. Accordingly, being a public benefit corporation could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition, which in turn could cause our stock price to decline.

Also, as a public benefit corporation, because the New GreenLight Board is required by the DGCL to manage or direct our business and affairs in a manner that balances the pecuniary interests of our stockholders, the best interests of those materially affected by our conduct, and our public benefit purpose, we believe that our public benefit corporation status could make it more difficult for another party to obtain control of us without maintaining our public benefit corporation status and purpose. While Delaware common law, as stated in Revlon, Inc. v. MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, Inc., 506 A.2d 173 (Del. 1986), and related cases, may impose upon directors of a traditional corporation a duty to maximize short-term stockholder value in certain ‘sale of the company’ transactions, a public benefit corporation board’s decision-making would not be subject to those same constraints. Any of the foregoing provisions could limit the price that investors might be willing to pay in the future for shares of our capital stock, and they could deter potential acquirers of our company, thereby reducing the likelihood that you would receive a premium for your shares of New GreenLight Common Stock in an acquisition.

Further, public benefit corporations may not be attractive targets for activists or hedge fund investors because new directors would still have to consider and give appropriate weight to the public benefit along with shareholder value, and shareholders committed to the public benefit can enforce this through derivative suits. By requiring that boards of directors of public benefit corporations consider constituencies in addition to shareholder value, Delaware public benefit corporation law could potentially make it easier for a board to reject a hostile bid, even where the takeover would provide the greatest short-term financial yield to investors.

68

Our directors have a fiduciary duty to consider not only our stockholders’ interests, but also our specific public benefit and the interests of other stakeholders affected by our actions. If a conflict between such interests arises, there is no guarantee such a conflict would be resolved in favor of our stockholders.

While directors of traditional corporations are required to make decisions they believe to be in the best interests of their stockholders, directors of a public benefit corporation have a fiduciary duty to consider not only the stockholders’ interests, but also the company’s specific public benefit and the interests of other stakeholders affected by the company’s actions. Under Delaware law, directors are shielded from liability for breach of these obligations if they make informed and disinterested decisions that serve a rational purpose. Thus, unlike traditional corporations whose directors must focus exclusively on stockholder value, our directors are not merely permitted, but obligated, to consider our specific public benefit and the interests of other stakeholders. In the event of a conflict between the interests of our stockholders and the interests of our specific public benefit or our other stakeholders, our directors must only make informed and disinterested decisions that serve a rational purpose; thus, there is no guarantee such a conflict would be resolved in favor of our stockholders, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition, which in turn could cause our stock price to decline.

As a public benefit corporation, we are required to comply with various new reporting requirements, which, even if complied with, could result in harm to our reputation.

As a public benefit corporation, we are required to publicly disclose a report at least biennially on our overall public benefit performance and on our assessment of our success in achieving our specific public benefit purpose. If we are not timely or are unable to provide this report, or if the report is not viewed favorably by parties doing business with us or regulators or others reviewing our credentials, our reputation and status as a public benefit corporation may be harmed and the value of our stock could decrease as a result.

While not required by Delaware law or the terms of the Charter, we may elect to have our environmental, social and governance (“ESG”) performance assessed against ESG standards, including proprietary criteria established by independent non-profit organizations. For example, we may seek a Certified B Corporation certification. The requirements for these certifications may change over time. These standards may not be appropriately tailored to the legal requirements of publicly traded companies or to the operational requirements of larger companies. Additionally, our management team might have to spend significant time considering and meeting such certifications or such standards (including preparation of relevant applications and reports) and therefore will be spending less time on operating our business. Further, our reputation could be harmed if we obtain and then lose ESG certifications, whether by our choice or by our failure to meet certification requirements, or if that change in status were to create a perception that we are more focused on financial performance and are no longer as committed to the values shared by certifying organizations. Likewise, our reputation could be harmed if scores given to us by certifying organizations decline, since this might create a perception that we have slipped in our satisfaction of such standards. Similarly, our reputation could be harmed if we take actions that are perceived to be misaligned with our values.

As a public benefit corporation, we may be subject to increased derivative litigation concerning our duty to balance stockholder and public benefit interests, the occurrence of which may have an adverse impact on our financial condition and results of operations.

Stockholders of a Delaware public benefit corporation (if they, individually or collectively, own at least 2% of its outstanding capital stock or at least $2.0 million in market value) are entitled to file a derivative lawsuit claiming that its directors failed to balance stockholder and public benefit interests. This potential liability does not exist for traditional corporations. Therefore, we may be subject to the possibility of increased derivative litigation, which would require the attention of management and, as a result, may adversely impact management’s ability to effectively execute our strategy. Any such derivative litigation may be costly and have an adverse impact on our financial condition and results of operations.

69

Our status as a public benefit corporation could make an acquisition of our company, which may be beneficial to our stockholders, more difficult.

While Delaware common law, as stated in Revlon, Inc. v. MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, Inc., and related cases, may impose upon directors of a traditional corporation a duty to maximize short-term stockholder value in certain ‘sale of the company’ transactions, a public benefit corporation board’s decision-making would not be subject to those same constraints. Our Board could reject a bid to acquire New GreenLight in favor of pursuing other stakeholder interests or the specified public benefit, to the detriment of stockholders. Consideration of these competing interests would not preclude our Board from accepting a bid that maximizes short-term stockholder value. Rather, our Board could weigh the merits of accepting the short-term value offered by a bid against other options that may generate greater long-term value or have other meaningful effects on those materially affected by our conduct or public benefit purpose and, if appropriate, could accept a bid that does not maximize short-term value.

70