NOTE 13. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

Shumacher Derivative Lawsuit. On December 11, 2020, a purported stockholder derivative complaint was filed by plaintiff Leo Shumacher against the Company, as nominal defendant, and then current directors, as defendants, in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware (the “Court of Chancery”). The complaint alleges breach of fiduciary duty and a claim for unjust enrichment in connection with alleged excessive compensation of certain non-executive directors of the Company and seeks unspecified damages on behalf of the Company. The parties agreed to a proposed settlement, which was submitted to the Court of Chancery on June 15, 2022. After a hearing on November 17, 2022, the Court of Chancery required the parties to take additional steps before it would approve the settlement. The Company, as nominal defendant, and its current directors, as defendants, answered the complaint on February 3, 2023. The parties agreed to a revised proposed settlement, which was submitted to the Court of Chancery on March 12, 2024. On January

17, 2025, a non-party stockholder (The Paul Berger Revocable Trust), which objected to the revised proposed settlement, filed a derivative complaint and letter with the Court suggesting consolidation. On May 29, 2025, the Court issued an order consolidating the cases and appointing the Paul Berger Revocable Trust as lead plaintiff and its counsel as lead counsel. On September 2, 2025, the plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint in the matter, now captioned In re: Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc. Stockholder Litigation. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss certain claims in the consolidated complaint on November 24, 2025, the plaintiff’s response to which will be filed after resolution of certain discovery issues. The Company intends to vigorously defend against this matter.

​

Ohio Laborers Derivative Lawsuit. On September 11, 2024, a purported stockholder derivative complaint was filed by plaintiff Northern California Pipe Trades Trust Fund against the Company, as nominal defendant, and certain directors, as defendants, in the Court of Chancery. The complaint alleges breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the February 2024 underwritten public offering of 23,014,000 shares of the Company’s common stock. On November 22, 2024, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On December 5, 2024, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding an additional director defendant. On January 10, 2025, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On February 3, 2025, the Court approved substitution of Laborers’ District Council and Contractors’ Pension Fund of Ohio (“Ohio Laborers”) as representative plaintiff. The plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint on October 2, 2025. On October 21, 2025, the Court granted the parties’ stipulation allowing the plaintiff to file its second amended complaint, which it filed on October 22, 2025. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on December 12, 2025. On February 11, 2026, the plaintiff filed an opposition to the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The defendants filed their reply brief on March 18, 2026. The Company intends to vigorously defend against this complaint.

​

Solomon Capital, LLC. On April 8, 2016, a lawsuit (the “First Solomon Suit”) titled Solomon Capital, LLC, Solomon Capital 401(K) Trust, Solomon Sharbat and Shelhav Raff v. Lion Biotechnologies, Inc. was filed by Solomon Capital, LLC, Solomon Capital 401(k) Trust, Solomon Sharbat and Shelhav Raff (“Solomon Plaintiffs”) against the Company in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York (index no. 651881/2016) (the “court”). The Solomon Plaintiffs allege that, between June and November 2012, they provided the Company $0.1 million and that they advanced and paid on behalf of the Company an additional $0.2 million.

The complaint further alleges that the Company agreed to (i) provide them with promissory notes totaling $0.2 million, plus interest, (ii) issue a total of 1,110 shares to the Solomon Plaintiffs (after the 1-for-100 reverse split of the Company’s common stock effected in March 2013) (the “Equity Claim”), and (iii) allow the Solomon Plaintiffs to convert the foregoing funds into its securities in the next financing of the Company on the same terms offered to other investors, which Solomon Plaintiffs allege, should have given them the right to convert their advances and payments into shares of the Company’s common stock in the restructuring that took effect in May 2013. Based on the foregoing, the Solomon Plaintiffs allege causes for breach of contract and unjust enrichment and demand judgment against the Company in an unspecified amount exceeding $1.5 million, plus interest. On June 3, 2016, the Company filed an answer and counterclaims. The Company asserted counterclaims for fraudulent inducement, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract, alleging principally that the counterclaim defendants misrepresented their qualifications and failed to disclose that Solomon Sharbat was the subject of an investigation by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) that resulted in the loss of his FINRA license.

In its counterclaims, the Company seeks damages in an amount exceeding $0.5 million and an order rescinding any and all agreements that the Solomon Plaintiffs contend entitled them to obtain shares of Company stock. On May 12, 2020, the court granted the Company’s motion for summary judgment limiting the Solomon Plaintiffs’ damages for the Equity Claim to $47,420. The Solomon Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of this summary judgment on June 9, 2020. On July 2, 2020, the court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss the First Solomon Suit for want of prosecution. On January 4, 2021, the court granted the Solomon Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration and reinstituted the case. On January 15, 2021, the Company filed a notice of appeal of the court’s grant of the Solomon Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration. On May 11, 2021, the Appellate Division upheld the court’s grant of the Solomon Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of the First Solomon Suit for want of prosecution. On January 22, 2025, Solomon Sharbat and Shelhav Raff (through new legal counsel) filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint in the First Solomon Suit, which the Company opposed. On March 10, 2025, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment, in the First Solomon Suit. Following oral argument on December 3, 2025, the court denied the Solomon Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend and granted the Company’s motion for summary judgment. The Solomon Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the court’s decision to the Appellate Division on April 13, 2026. On July 17, 2026, the court clerk entered judgment in the Company’s favor, dismissing the Plaintiffs’ complaint with prejudice and the Company’s counterclaims without prejudice.

On September 27, 2019, the Solomon Plaintiffs filed a new lawsuit (through new legal counsel) (the “Second Solomon Suit”) titled Solomon Capital, LLC, Solomon Capital 401(K) Trust, Solomon Sharbat and Shelhav Raff v. Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc.,

f/k/a/ Lion Biotechnologies Inc. f/k/a/ Genesis Biopharma Inc., and Manish Singh in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York (index no. 655668/2019). In the Second Solomon Suit, the Solomon Plaintiffs allege that they are third party beneficiaries of a “finder’s fee agreement” that prior management entered into with a third party unlicensed entity in 2012 in connection with seeking financing, that an agreement or understanding existed between the Company and the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs would be paid fees and commissions (in cash and stock) if they obtained financing for the Company, and that they directly and indirectly introduced investors to the Company who invested in the Company, or were willing to invest in the Company. Finally, the Solomon Plaintiffs allege that they were promised a license to use the Company’s technology in Israel. The plaintiffs claim that the Company breached the foregoing understandings, promises and agreements and, as a result, they are entitled to certain damages. The Solomon Plaintiffs also allege that Manish Singh, the Company’s former Chief Executive Officer, committed fraud and took shares belonging to them.

On February 18, 2020, the Company filed a removal petition and removed the Second Solomon Suit to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “District Court”), where the case has been assigned case no. 1:20-cv-1391. On May 22, 2020, the Company moved to dismiss the Second Solomon Suit for lack of personal jurisdiction. On March 26, 2021, the District Court denied the Company’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Company filed a response to the complaint in the Second Solomon Suit on April 30, 2021. On May 26, 2021, the Company and Singh filed motions for judgment on the pleadings with respect to the second and third claims asserted against the Company and all claims asserted against Singh, respectively, in the Second Solomon Suit. On January 5, 2022, the District Court granted the Company’s motions for judgment on the pleadings, dismissing the second and third claims against the Company and dismissing all claims against Singh. On January 4, 2023, the District Court granted in part the Company’s motion for sanctions against the Solomon Plaintiffs for violating Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in a decision and order that dismissed the Solomon Plaintiffs’ first claim against the Company, denied the Solomon Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the complaint, and ordered the Solomon Plaintiffs to pay the Company’s attorneys’ fees incurred in connection with the Rule 11 motion. Following the District Court’s decision and order on the Rule 11 motion, only the Solomon Plaintiffs’ fifth and sixth claims, for unjust enrichment and indemnification, respectively, remained pending against the Company. On October 26, 2023, the District Court granted the Company’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the Solomon Plaintiffs’ fifth and sixth claims. On October 27, 2023, the District Court entered judgment for the Company and closed the Second Solomon Suit. On November 10, 2023, the Company filed a motion for attorneys’ fees as the prevailing party in the action. On December 1, 2023, the Solomon Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit appealing the District Court’s orders (a) granting the motions for judgment on the pleadings filed on behalf of Singh and the Company, (b) granting the Company’s Rule 11 motion, (c) denying the Solomon Plaintiffs’ motions to compel discovery and re-open discovery, and (d) granting the Company’s summary judgment motion. On December 22, 2023, the Company filed a motion for an order requiring the Solomon Plaintiffs to post an appeal bond, to ensure payment of the Company’s appellate fees and costs should the Company prevail on the appeal. On May 9, 2024, the District Court issued an order granting the Company’s motions for attorneys’ fees and for an appeal bond. On June 28, 2024, the Company filed motions to dismiss the appeal on the grounds that the Solomon Plaintiffs (a) do not have an opening brief on file, which the Second Circuit Court denied, and (b) have not filed an appeal bond. The District Court entered judgment in favor of the Company on September 23, 2024, including a monetary award pursuant to the District Court’s Rule 11 order and orders for attorneys’ fees and costs. On October 9, 2024, the Second Circuit Court stated that it will dismiss the appeal unless the Solomon Plaintiffs post the appeal bond by October 23, 2024. The Solomon Plaintiffs then moved for an extension of time until November 23, 2024 to post the appeal bond. The Company filed an opposition to the motion. The Second Circuit Court denied the Solomon Plaintiffs’ motion for an extension of time on November 7, 2024, and dismissed the appeal on November 8, 2024. On August 15, 2025, the Solomon Plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate or modify the Rule 11 sanctions order, which the District Court denied on September 4, 2025. On January 29, 2026, the Solomon Plaintiffs filed a motion for extension of time to appeal the District Court’s September 4, 2025 order and for a stay of collection efforts, which the Company opposed on February 4, 2026. On March 23, 2026, the District Court denied the Solomon Plaintiffs’ motion for extension of time to appeal.

The Company intends to vigorously defend these complaints and pursue its counterclaims, as applicable. At the current stage of the litigation, in both the First Solomon Suit and the Second Solomon Suit, it is not possible to estimate the amount or range of possible loss that might result from an adverse judgment or a settlement of these matters.

Securities Class Actions and Shareholder Derivative Cases. On May 15, 2025, two putative securities class actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (“Northern District of California”), captioned Sundaram v. Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc., et al., No. 25-cv-04177 (“Sundaram”) and Farberov v. Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc., et al., No. 25-cv-04199 (“Farberov”), naming the Company and certain of the Company’s officers as defendants. The complaints purport to assert claims against the defendants under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “1934 Act”), SEC Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act. The Sundaram action is on behalf of persons or entities who acquired the Company’s common stock between August 8, 2024 and May 8, 2025, and the Farberov action is on behalf of persons or entities who acquired the Company’s common

stock between May 9, 2024 and May 8, 2025. Each putative class action arises out of the Company’s quarterly disclosure of financial results on May 8, 2025, and the decline in the price of the Company’s common stock the following day, and involve allegations that during the respective class periods, defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s expected revenue for fiscal year 2025, which the plaintiffs claim artificially inflated the price of the Company’s common stock. The actions seek compensatory damages and costs and expenses incurred in the actions, including attorneys’ fees. On December 15, 2025, the court consolidated the class actions, now captioned In re Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 25-cv-04177, and appointed lead plaintiff and plaintiffs’ counsel.
​

On June 5, 2025, two putative shareholder derivative lawsuits were filed in the Northern District of California, captioned Hollin v. Vogt, et al., 3:25-cv-04740 and Gera, et al. v. Vogt, et al., 3:25-cv-04794, purportedly brought on behalf of Iovance against certain current and former officers and directors of the Company. A third putative shareholder derivative lawsuit, captioned Bitton v. Bellemin, et. al., 3:25-cv-09701, was filed in the Northern District of California on November 12, 2025. Iovance is named as a nominal defendant in the complaints. The lawsuits contain allegations based on or similar to those in the putative securities class actions and claim, among other things, that the named individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties and violated Section 14(a) of the 1934 Act by issuing or causing the Company to issue false and misleading disclosures concerning the Company’s financial forecasts for fiscal year 2025. Before filing the complaints, the plaintiffs did not make a demand that the Company’s Board of Directors consider the claims therein. The lawsuits seek money damages, corporate governance reforms, restitution, punitive damages, and costs and expenses of the lawsuits, including attorneys’ fees. On December 15, 2025, the court consolidated the derivative lawsuits, now captioned In re Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc. Derivative Litigation, No. 5:25-cv-04740, and appointed co-lead plaintiff and plaintiffs’ counsel. On March 24, 2026, the court granted the parties’ stipulation to stay the derivative litigation pending resolution of the securities litigation. The plaintiff in the securities litigation filed a consolidated amended complaint on April 15, 2026, which the Company moved to dismiss on June 15, 2026.

Based on the preliminary nature of the proceedings in these actions, the outcomes remain uncertain and we cannot estimate the potential impact, if any, on the Company’s business or financial statements at this time.

The Company has been and may continue to be involved, from time to time, in legal proceedings and claims arising in the ordinary course of its business. Such matters are subject to many uncertainties and outcomes are not predictable with assurance. The Company accrues amounts, to the extent they can be reasonably estimated, that it believes are adequate to address any liabilities related to legal proceedings and other loss contingencies that it believes will result in a probable loss. While there can be no assurances as to the ultimate outcome of any legal proceeding or other loss contingency involving the Company, management does not believe any pending matter will be resolved in a manner that would have a material adverse effect on its financial position, results of operations or cash flows.