The Company’s significant agreements are disclosed in Note 9, License and Collaboration Agreements, in the audited consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2025, and notes thereto, included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K that was filed with the SEC on March 3, 2026. Since the date of those financial statements, there have been no changes to the Company’s significant agreements except those discussed below.

Supplemental information related to the Research Collaboration and License Agreement, or the BMS Collaboration Agreement, with Juno Therapeutics, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, or BMS, consisted of the following:


	Three Months Ended June 30,				Six Months Ended June 30,
(in thousands)	2026		2025		2026		2025
Revenue recognized that was included in contract liability at the beginning of the period	$	1,152	$	1,061	$	2,008	$	2,502
Revenue recognized from performance obligations fully or partially satisfied in previous periods	$	3	$	5	$	3	$	3

As of June 30, 2026, the aggregate amount of the transaction price allocated to performance obligations under the BMS Collaboration Agreement that are partially unsatisfied was $64.0 million. The Company recognizes the portion of the transaction price as the single performance obligation is satisfied, using an input method, in proportion to costs incurred to date as compared to total costs incurred and expected to be incurred in the future to satisfy the underlying obligation.

The Company was engaged in binding arbitration proceedings with Beam Therapeutics, Inc., or Beam, regarding the parties’ collaboration and license agreement, or the Beam Collaboration Agreement. A dispute arose between the parties following the Company’s March 18, 2025 announcement that it is developing a Prime Editing-based treatment for alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency, or AATD. On April 16, 2025, Beam filed an arbitration demand with the American Arbitration Association, or AAA, alleging that the Company has breached the Beam Collaboration Agreement by developing a product for the treatment of AATD and by allegedly not complying with certain obligations to transfer technical information to Beam pursuant to the Beam Collaboration Agreement. Beam also made related claims for trade secret misappropriation and various business torts based on similar allegations. Beam sought both declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief. On April 18, 2025, the Company filed an arbitration demand with the AAA seeking a declaration that the Company’s AATD program is within our “Field” as defined by the Beam Collaboration Agreement. The arbitrations were consolidated and a hearing was conducted earlier this year.

On July 6, 2026, the Company received a final award, or the Final Award, from the arbitration tribunal, or the Tribunal. In the Final Award, the Tribunal declared that PM647, the Company's development candidate for the treatment of AATD, is within the Company's “Field,” and that the Company therefore did not breach the Beam Collaboration Agreement. Consequently, the Tribunal denied Beam's requests for damages and injunctive relief based on Beam's assertion that Prime breached the Beam Collaboration Agreement. The Tribunal denied the remaining claims brought by Beam and the Company.