AGLE Aeglea BioTherapeutics Inc

PROSPECTUS SUMMARY

This summary may not contain all the information that you should consider before investing in securities. You should read the entire prospectus and the information incorporated by reference in this prospectus carefully, including “Risk Factors” and the financial data and related notes and other information incorporated by reference herein, before making an investment decision.

Company Overview

On June 22, 2023, we completed the Asset Acquisition pursuant to Spyre Acquisition Agreement. Spyre was a pre-clinical stage biotechnology company that was incorporated on April 28, 2023 under the direction of Peter Harwin, a Managing Member of Fairmount, for the purpose of holding rights to certain intellectual property being developed by Paragon. Fairmount is a founder of Paragon.

Through the Asset Acquisition, we received the option to acquire the intellectual property rights related to four research programs (collectively, the “Option”) pursuant to the Spyre Option Agreement. On July 12, 2023, we exercised the Option with respect to one of these research programs to exclusively license intellectual property rights related to such research program directed to antibodies that selectively bind to a4b7 integrin and methods of using these antibodies, including methods of treating IBD using SPY001. If this research program is pursued non-provisionally and matures into issued patents, we would expect those patents to expire no earlier than 2044 subject to any disclaimers or extensions. The license agreement pertaining to such research program is currently being finalized. Furthermore, as of the date of this registration statement, the Option remains unexercised with respect to the intellectual property rights related to the three remaining research programs under the Spyre Option Agreement. For more information on the Spyre Option Agreement, see discussion under the heading “Spyre Option Agreement” below.

On July 27, 2023, we announced that we entered into an agreement to sell the global rights to pegzilarginase, an investigational treatment for the rare metabolic disease Arginase 1 Deficiency, to Immedica Pharma AB (“Immedica”) for $15.0 million in upfront cash proceeds and up to $100.0 million in contingent milestone payments (the “Immedica APA”). The sale of pegzilarginase to Immedica supersedes and terminates the license agreement between us and Immedica dated March 2021. See the section titled “Recent Developments” below for more information regarding the Immedica APA.

Following the Asset Acquisition and the entry into the Immedica APA, we have significantly reshaped the business into a preclinical stage biotechnology company focused on developing next generation therapeutics for patients living with inflammatory bowel disease (“IBD”), including ulcerative colitis (“UC”) and Crohn’s disease (“CD”). Our portfolio of novel and proprietary monoclonal antibody product candidates has the potential to address unmet needs in IBD care by improving efficacy, safety, and/or dosing convenience relative to products currently available or product candidates in development. We have purposely engineered our product candidates to bind potently and selectively to target epitopes with extended half-lives. We plan to use combinations of our proprietary antibodies and patient enrichment strategies via companion diagnostics to enhance efficacy. We intend to deliver our product candidates through convenient, infrequently self-administered, subcutaneous (“SC”) injection as a pre-filled pen.

Our Strategy

Our goal is to develop next-generation therapeutics for the treatment of IBD, relying on three strategic pillars:

Inflammatory Bowel Disease

IBD is a chronic condition characterized by inflammation within the gastrointestinal tract. It encompasses two main disorders: UC and CD. UC primarily affects the colon and the rectum. Inflammation occurs in the innermost lining of the colon leading to ulcers. Symptoms include bloody diarrhea, abdominal pain, bowel urgency, and frequent bowel movements. CD can affect any part of the gastrointestinal tract, from the mouth to the anus. It is characterized by inflammation that extends through multiple layers of the bowel wall. Symptoms include abdominal pain, diarrhea, weight loss, fatigue, and complications such as strictures or fistulas. Both conditions can significantly impact patients’ quality of life in terms of physical health, emotional well-being, and the unpredictability of symptom onset.

IBD affects millions of individuals worldwide, with increasing prevalence and incidence in both developed and developing countries. In the United States, it is estimated that approximately 1.7 million individuals currently have IBD, with approximately 70,000 patients newly diagnosed every year. The prevalence of UC in the United States is approximately 900,000 individuals, and the prevalence of CD in the United States is approximately 800,000 individuals. Based on research from the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation of America, the market for IBD therapeutics is expected to experience steady growth, driven by rising disease prevalence, increasing diagnosis rates, and evolving treatment paradigms.

A range of pharmaceutical options exists, including anti-inflammatory drugs, immunosuppressants, and biologics. Treatment plans are often tailored to the individual patient’s disease severity, location, and response to therapy. In some cases, surgical interventions such as bowel resection or ostomy formation may be necessary to manage complications or improve quality of life.

Despite available treatments, there remain substantial unmet needs in IBD management, including:

Our Portfolio

We are advancing a broad pipeline of potentially best-in-class monoclonal antibodies (“mAbs”) in connection with the research programs with respect to which we have exercised the Option to acquire intellectual property license rights to or have the Option to acquire intellectual property license rights to pursuant to the Spyre Option Agreement and plan to develop a companion diagnostic for each program. The following table summarizes these programs*.

SPY001 – anti-a4b7 mAb

Our most advanced product candidate, SPY001, is a highly potent, highly selective, and fully human monoclonal immunoglobulin G1 antibody designed to bind selectively to the a4b7 integrin. Thea4b7 integrin is a protein found on the surface of immune cells known as lymphocytes. This integrin regulates the migration of lymphocytes to the gut where they contribute to the inflammatory process in IBD. By binding to the a4b7 integrin, SPY001 is designed to prevent the interaction of these lymphocytes with MAdCAM-1, a molecule expressed on endothelial cells lining the blood vessels in the gut. This interaction is responsible for guiding lymphocytes from the bloodstream into the gut tissue, where they cause inflammation. By blocking the interaction between a4b7 integrin and MAdCAM-1, SPY001 aims to reduce the recruitment of lymphocytes to the gut, leading to a decrease in inflammation. Since it specifically targets the gut immune system, SPY001 is designed to help minimize systemic immunosuppressive effects unrelated to IBD pathology.

Vedolizumab is an anti-a4b7 integrin mAb marketed by Takeda as Entyvio. It is available in the United States as an intravenously administered product with an every 8-week maintenance dosing regimen. A SC version with an every 2-week dosing regimen is under review by the United States Food and Drug Administration (the “FDA”) for use in the maintenance setting and is approved in Europe and Japan. Vedolizumab is one of the leading therapies for moderate-to-severe IBD given its exquisite safety profile as a gut selective mechanism and its high efficacy rates in UC (particularly in the maintenance setting where it has the highest remission rates among approved biologics). In the induction setting, exposure-response data suggests that higher exposures may increase the likelihood of early remission in UC. In 2022, Takeda reported $5.3 billion in sales for Entyvio and updated its peak annual sales guidance to $7.5-9.0 billion. We believe that there is a significant opportunity for a SC regimen with a more infrequent dosing schedule (every eight to twelve weeks) in the maintenance settings, and potential efficacy upside in induction.

Our preclinical development program has demonstrated that SPY001 binds to the same epitope as vedolizumab with similar potency and selectivity. Both SPY001 and vedolizumab potently block MAdCAM-1 adhesion and

avoid interactions with a4b1 to prevent adhesion to VCAM-1, which can be associated with the risk of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy. Additionally, our preclinical studies have demonstrated that SPY001 binds to memory T-helper cells from human donors with a comparable potency as vedolizumab.

SPY001 is engineered with half-life extension technology. This approach relies on modifying the Fc domain to improve the pharmacokinetic (“PK”) profile of the antibody and support infrequent dosing as a convenient SC injection. An evaluation of SPY001’s PK in non-human primates suggests an increase in half-life of approximately 2-fold relative to vedolizumab, potentially supporting a SC dosing administration of every eight to twelve weeks in humans.

We aim to achieve the following target product profile for SPY001 in IBD:

SPY001 is currently progressing through IND-enabling studies and is expected to enter first-in-human (“FIH”) studies in the first half of 2024. We believe SPY001 has the potential to meaningfully transform the standard of care in IBD as a potent, low-frequency and self-administered SC injection.

SPY002 – anti-TL1A mAb

Our co-lead product candidate, SPY002, is a highly potent, highly selective, and fully human mAb designed to bind to tumor necrosis factor-like ligand 1A (“TL1A”). TL1A is a protein that plays a role in regulating the immune system and is found to be elevated in the gut tissue of individuals with IBD. TL1A interacts with its receptor, death receptor 3 (“DR3”), which is expressed in various immune cells, including T cells. This interaction triggers signaling pathways that contribute to inflammation and immune system activation, leading to IBD symptomology. SPY002 has been designed to block the interaction between TL1A and DR3 and thereby inhibit the downstream signaling events and dampen the inflammatory response. By neutralizing TL1A, SPY002 has the potential to modulate the immune response in IBD patients, potentially reducing disease activity and promoting mucosal healing.

TL1A is a clinically validated target that has been studied in multiple Phase 2 trials in UC and CD. Merck’s anti-TL1A molecule (PRA023) was studied in a randomized controlled Phase 2 trial where it showed a 25% placebo-adjusted clinical remission rate at week 12 and a placebo-adjusted endoscopic improvement rate of 31% for patients with UC. PRA023 was additionally studied in a Phase 2a open label trial in CD where it showed a 49% clinical remission rate at week 12 compared to a prespecified 16% historical placebo rate and a 26% endoscopic response compared to a prespecified 12% historical placebo rate. Roivant is also advancing an anti-TL1A molecule (RVT-3101) that showed a 21% placebo-adjusted clinical remission rate and a 21% placebo-adjusted endoscopic response in a Phase 2b study in UC patients. In the maintenance setting at week 56, RVT-3101 showed a compelling clinical remission rate of 36% (absolute) at the expected Phase 3 dose. Both PRA023 and RVT-3101 lack any half-life extension technologies and are dosed every four weeks in the maintenance setting.

Like SPY001, SPY002 is engineered with half-life extension technology to support infrequent, self-administration as a convenient SC injection. It is expected that these modifications, along with a high concentration formulation, will enable dosing every eight weeks or less frequently in humans.

We aim to achieve the following target product profile for SPY002 in IBD and other inflammatory diseases:

We expect to enter FIH studies in the second half of 2024. We believe SPY002 has the potential to be a best-in-class TL1A antibody compared to others in development as a highly potent, highly selective and infrequently self-administered SC injection.

SPY003 – anti-IL-23 mAb

Our third program, SPY003, is a discovery stage program designed to bind to Interleukin 23 (“IL-23”). IL-23 is a cytokine that is produced by immune cells and is involved in immune response regulation. IL-23 promotes the differentiation and activation of Th17 cells. Th17 cells produce other inflammatory cytokines, such as IL-17, which contribute to the inflammation seen in IBD. IL-23 also helps in the recruitment and activation of other immune cells, such as neutrophils, which further contribute to tissue damage in the gut.

Several IL-23 mAbs have been approved or are in late-stage development for IBD including Skyrizi (AbbVie), Tremfya (Johnson & Johnson), and mirikizumab (Lilly).

We aim to achieve the following target product profile for SPY003 in IBD:

SPY004 – novel MOA mAb

SPY004 is an undisclosed novel mechanism of action (“MOA”) and incorporates half-life extension modifications.

Our combination programs – SPY120, SPY130, and SPY230

We aim to advance rational combinations of our therapeutic antibodies into clinical studies. SPY120 combines SPY001 (a4b7) and SPY002 (TL1A), SPY130 combines SPY001(a4b7) and SPY003 (IL-23), and SPY230 combines SPY002 (TL1A) and SPY003 (IL23). We believe these combinations target orthogonal biology and could lead to greater remission rates in IBD.

Clinical proof-of-concept for the potential of combination therapy in IBD was demonstrated by Johnson & Johnson’s VEGA study which evaluated their anti-TNFa antibody, Simponi, in combination with their anti-IL-23 antibody, Tremfya, in patients with UC. The combination resulted in an absolute clinical remission rate of 47% in the induction setting, which was nearly additive of the remission rates observed with either TNFa (25%) or IL-23 (24%) alone. We believe there is potential to build on this result by combining mechanisms that have shown greater efficacy rates in specific indications and settings and that exhibit a superior safety profile relative to the TNFa class.

Our precision immunology approach

We aim to develop genetic- or biomarker-based companion diagnostics across our portfolio of therapeutics to aid patients and physicians in selecting the optimal treatment regimen. Clinical proof-of-concept for the potential of companion diagnostic (“CDx”) approaches in IBD was demonstrated by both Prometheus (now Merck) and Roivant for their anti-TL1A programs. In Phase 2 studies, UC patients that were CDx positive were more likely to respond to anti-TL1A therapy as evidenced by a 7-13% increase in clinical remission rate at week 12 compared to all-comers. We are in discussions with several potential partners with access to large scale IBD biobanks to support CDx development across our portfolio.

Our Team and Investors

Our portfolio of potentially best-in-class antibodies were discovered and developed by Paragon. Spyre is the second company that was founded upon technology spun out of Paragon, a group of entrepreneurial scientists and investors with extensive mAb experience. Its scientific founders’ discoveries have also led to the creation of other successful biotechnology companies, including Cogent Biosciences, Inc., Viridian Therapeutics, Inc., Dianthus Therapeutics, Inc., and Apogee Therapeutics, Inc.

On June 22, 2023, we announced the completion of the Asset Acquisition with the sole focus on advancing a pipeline of next-generation antibodies for IBD with respect to which we have exercised the Option to acquire intellectual property license rights to or have the Option to acquire intellectual property license rights to pursuant to the Spyre Option Agreement. Concurrent with the closing of the acquisition, we completed a $210 million private placement of our Series A Preferred Stock with a syndicate of healthcare investors led by Fairmount Funds Management LLC, with participation from Fidelity Management & Research Company, Venrock Healthcare Capital Partners, Commodore Capital, Deep Track Capital, Perceptive Advisors, RTW Investments, Cormorant Asset Management, Driehaus Capital Management, Ecor1 Capital, RA Capital Management, Surveyor Capital (a Citadel company), and Wellington Management Company LLP, as well as additional institutional investors.

With respect to the Asset Acquisition, we determined that Aeglea was the acquiror for accounting purposes under ASC 805-10-25-4 and ASC 805-10-55-11. The primary factors considered were a) the relative voting rights in the combined entity not resulting in a change of control, b) legacy members of our board of directors maintained control of the board, and c) the only change in the composition of senior management was the appointment of a new Chief Operating Officer. Next, we considered whether the Asset Acquisition should be defined as a business under ASC 805. ASC 805-10-55-5A through 55-5C describe a screen test to determine whether an acquired set of assets and activities is not a business. We determined that substantially all (greater than 90%) of the fair value of the assets acquired were concentrated in a single asset, Spyre’s Option to license intellectual property rights related to SPY001, SPY002, SPY003 and SPY004 pursuant to the Spyre Option Agreement. Accordingly, we treated the Asset Acquisition as an asset acquisition for accounting purposes. Even if the transaction would have failed the screen test, Spyre lacked the financial resources to have inputs, processes, and outputs to constitute a business under ASC 805. Following the Asset Acquisition, we will need to invest in infrastructure and the continuing research and development being conducted under the Spyre Option Agreement to be able to have any measurable outputs.

We have a strong management team and group of employees with diverse backgrounds and significant experience in developing novel treatments for patients at biopharmaceutical companies such as AbbVie, BridgeBio Pharma, Genentech, and Johnson & Johnson. Together, our team has a proven track record in the discovery, development, and commercialization of numerous approved therapeutics.

Recent Developments

On June 22, 2023, we acquired Spyre pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the “Acquisition Agreement”), by and among the Company, Aspen Merger Sub I, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company (“First Merger Sub”), Sequoia Merger Sub II, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and wholly owned subsidiary of the Company (“Second Merger Sub”), and Spyre. Pursuant to the Acquisition Agreement, First Merger Sub merged with and into Spyre, pursuant to which Spyre was the surviving corporation and became a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company (the “First Merger”). Immediately following the First Merger, Spyre merged with and into Second Merger Sub, pursuant to which Second Merger Sub became the surviving entity.

The Asset Acquisition was structured as a stock-for-stock transaction pursuant to which all of Spyre’s outstanding equity interests were exchanged based on a fixed exchange ratio of 1-for-13.73622, for consideration of a combination of 12,945,385 shares of Common Stock and 364,887 shares of Series A Preferred Stock (or 364,887,000 shares on an as-converted-to-common basis) in addition to the assumption of outstanding and unexercised stock options to purchase 68,365 shares of Common Stock from the Amended and Restated Spyre 2023 Equity Incentive Plan. Concurrently with the Asset Acquisition, we entered into a definitive agreement (the “Securities Purchase Agreement”) for a PIPE investment with existing and new investors (the “Investors”) to raise approximately $210 million in which the Investors were issued 721,452 shares of Series A Preferred Stock (or 721,452,000 shares on an as-converted-to-common basis) at a price of $291.08 per share (or $0.29108 per share on an as-converted-to-common basis). The Asset Acquisition was approved by our Board of Directors and the Board of Directors and stockholders of Spyre. The closings of the Transactions were not subject to the approval of Aeglea stockholders. Subject to Aeglea stockholder approval and certain beneficial ownership limitations set by each holder, each share of Series A Preferred Stock will automatically convert into 1,000 shares of Common Stock. We expect to file a proxy statement with the SEC to solicit such stockholder approval, among other matters, at a special meeting of Aeglea stockholders. Except as otherwise required by law (e.g. voting on a change to the authorized shares of Series A Non-Voting Preferred Stock or the rights of such shares as required by Delaware General Corporation Law) and Aeglea’s Certificate of Designation of Series A Non-Voting Convertible Preferred Stock (the “Certificate of Designation”), the Series A Preferred Stock does not have voting rights. For more information on the Series A Preferred Stock, please refer to the Certificate of Designation, which is incorporated by reference herein.

In connection with the execution of the Acquisition Agreement, Aeglea and Spyre entered into stockholder support agreements (the “Support Agreements”) with certain of Aeglea’s officers and directors, which collectively own an aggregate of less than 1% of the outstanding shares of the Common Stock. The Support Agreements provide that, among other things, each of the parties thereto has agreed to vote or cause to be voted all of the shares of Common Stock owned by such stockholder in favor of the approval of the conversion of the Series A Preferred Stock into shares of Common Stock in accordance with Nasdaq Stock Market Rules at Aeglea’s stockholders’ meeting to be held in connection therewith.

Concurrently and in connection with the execution of the Acquisition Agreement, certain Spyre stockholders as of immediately prior to the Asset Acquisition, and certain of the directors and officers of Aeglea as of immediately prior to the Asset Acquisition entered into lock-up agreements with Aeglea and Spyre, pursuant to which each such stockholder will be subject to a 180-day lockup on the sale or transfer of shares of Common Stock held by each such stockholder at the closing of the Asset Acquisition, including those shares received by such Spyre stockholders in the Asset Acquisition.

In connection with the Asset Acquisition, a non-transferrable contingent value right (a “CVR”) was distributed to Aeglea stockholders of record as of the close of business on July 3, 2023, but was not distributed to holders of shares of Common Stock or Series A Preferred Stock issued to the Investors or former stockholders of Spyre in

connection with the Transactions. Holders of the CVR will be entitled to receive certain stock and/or cash payments from proceeds received by us, if any, related to the disposition or monetization of Aeglea’s legacy assets for a period of one year following the closing of the Asset Acquisition.

On July 27, 2023, we announced that we entered the Immedica APA. The sale of pegzilarginase to Immedica supersedes and terminates the license agreement between the us and Immedica dated March 2021.

The milestone payments under the Immedica APA are contingent on formal reimbursement decisions by national authorities in key European markets and pegzilarginase approval by the FDA, among other events. The upfront payment and contingent milestone payments if paid, net of expenses and adjustments, will be distributed to holders of Aeglea’s CVR pursuant to the CVR Agreement that was entered into in connection with the Asset Acquisition.

For more information about the Transactions or the Immedica APA, you should refer to our Current Reports on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on June 23, 2023 (excluding exhibit 99.1 furnished thereto) and July 27, 2023, respectively, which are incorporated by reference herein.

Corporation Information

We were formed as a limited liability company under the laws of the State of Delaware in December 2013 and converted to a Delaware corporation in March 2015. On June 22, 2023, we completed the Asset Acquisition, pursuant to which all of Spyre’s outstanding equity interests were exchanged based on a fixed exchange ratio of 13.73522 to 1 for consideration from Aeglea of 12,945,385 shares of Common Stock and 364,887 shares of Series A Preferred Stock in addition to the assumption of outstanding and unexercised stock options to purchase 68,365 shares of Common Stock from the Amended and Restated Spyre 2023 Equity Incentive Plan. Our principal executive offices are located at 221 Crescent Street, Building 17, Suite 102B, Waltham, MA 02453, and our telephone number is (512) 942-2935.    

Our Relationship with Paragon and Parapyre

Paragon and Parapyre, a related party of Paragon, beneficially own more than 5% of our capital stock collectively through their holdings of our Common Stock and Series A Preferred Stock. Fairmount Funds Management LLC beneficially owns more than 5% of our capital stock, has two seats on our Board and beneficially owns more than 5% of Paragon, which is a joint venture between Fairmount Funds Management LLC and Fair Journey Biologics. Fairmount Funds Management LLC has appointed Paragon’s board of directors and has the contractual right to approve the appointment of any executive officers.

In connection with the Asset Acquisition, we assumed the rights and obligations of Spyre under the Spyre Option Agreement. Under the Spyre Option Agreement, we are obligated to compensate Paragon on a quarterly basis for its services performed under each research program based on the actual costs incurred. As of the date of the Asset Acquisition, Spyre had incurred total expenses of $19.3 million under the Spyre Option Agreement since inception, inclusive of a $3.0 million research initiation fee that was due upon signing of the Spyre Option Agreement and $16.3 million of reimbursable expenses under the Spyre Option Agreement for historical costs incurred by Paragon. As of the acquisition date, $19.3 million was unpaid and was assumed by us through the Asset Acquisition.

In July 2023, we exercised our option for SPY001 with the remaining three options for SPY002, SPY003, SPY004 remaining outstanding.

In connection with the Asset Acquisition, the Company assumed the Parapyre Option Obligation (as described under the section titled “Spyre Option Agreement” below) which provided for an annual equity grant of options to purchase 1% of the then outstanding shares of Spyre’s common stock, on a fully diluted basis, on the last business day of each calendar year, at the fair market value determined by the board of directors of Spyre. As a result of the Asset Acquisition, the Parapyre Option Obligation shall continue and Parapyre shall be entitled to receive the equivalent shares of the Company with the same terms.

See the section titled “Spyre Option Agreement” below for more information on the Spyre Option Agreement.

Spyre Option Agreement

In May 2023, Spyre entered into the Spyre Option Agreement with Paragon and Parapyre. In consideration for the Option granted under the Spyre Option Agreement, Spyre was obligated to pay Paragon an upfront cash amount of $3.0 million in research initiation fees. In addition, Spyre was obligated to pay incurred reimbursable research costs of $16.3 million to Paragon as of the closing of the Asset Acquisition. Furthermore, the Spyre Option Agreement provided for an annual equity grant of options to purchase 1% of the then outstanding shares of Spyre’s common stock, on a fully diluted basis, on the last business day of each calendar year, at the fair market value determined by the board of directors of Spyre (the “Parapyre Option Obligation”). As a result of the Asset Acquisition, we assumed the rights and obligations of Spyre under the Spyre Option Agreement, including the Parapyre Option Obligation. Pursuant to the Spyre Option Agreement, on a research program-by-research program basis following the finalization of the research plan for each respective research program, we are required to pay Paragon a nonrefundable fee in cash of $0.75 million. We are also obligated to compensate Paragon on a quarterly basis for its services performed under each research program based on the actual costs incurred. For the period from June 22, 2023 (Asset Acquisition date) to June 30, 2023, we did not make any payments to Paragon.

On July 12, 2023, we exercised our Option available under the Spyre Option Agreement with respect to the SPY001 research program and will enter into a SPY001 license agreement (the “SPY001 License Agreement”). Our Option available under the Spyre Option Agreement with respect to SPY002, SPY003 and SPY004 remains unexercised.

Following the execution of the SPY001 License Agreement, we will also obligated to pay Paragon up to $23.0 million upon the achievement of specific development and clinical milestones for the first product under the SPY001 License Agreement that achieves such specified milestones. Upon execution of the SPY001 License Agreement, we will pay Paragon a $1.5 million fee for nomination of a development candidate, and we are obligated to make a further milestone payment of  $2.5 million upon the first dosing of a human patient in a Phase 1 trial. Subject to the execution of the Option with respect to SPY002, SPY003 or SPY004, we expect to be obligated to make similar payments upon and following the execution of license agreements with respect to SPY002, SPY003 and SPY004, respectively. For additional detail regarding our arrangements with Paragon, see the section titled “Our Relationship with Paragon and Parapyre” above.

Commercial

Should any of our product candidates be approved for commercialization, we intend to develop a plan to commercialize them in the United States and other key markets, through internal infrastructure and/or external partnerships in a manner that will enable us to realize the full commercial value of our programs. Given our stage of development, we have not yet established a commercial organization or distribution capabilities.

Manufacturing

We do not currently own or operate facilities for product manufacturing, testing, storage, and distribution. We are currently in the process of novating certain agreements with third parties for the performance of future clinical manufacturing and toxicology activities from Paragon to us. The initial forms of these agreements are generally non-specific master services agreements that allow an entity to begin the process of future manufacturing or toxicology services, respectively. As clinical development activities are commenced by us, the agreements will be revised to provide for the specific deliverables and associated costs that are needed under our development plan.

Competition

We expect to face intense competition from other biopharmaceutical companies that are developing agents for the treatment of inflammatory diseases. If approved for the treatment of patients with moderate-to-severe IBD, our portfolio of products would compete with TNF antibodies including Humira (AbbVie), Remicade (Johnson & Johnson), and Simponi (Johnson & Johnson); IL-12/23 and IL-23 antibodies including Stelara (Johnson & Johnson) and Skyrizi (AbbVie); a4b7 antibody Entyvio (Takeda); JAK inhibitors including Xeljanz (Pfizer), Rinvoq (AbbVie); and S1P1 receptor modulating therapies including Zeposia (Bristol Myers Squibb).

We are aware of several companies with product candidates in development for the treatment of patients with IBD, including Merck’s PRA023, Roivant’s RVT-3101, and Teva’s TEV-48574 TL1A antibodies; additional IL-23s including Tremfya (Johnson & Johnson) and mirikizumab (Lilly); additional S1P1 modulator etrasimod (Pfizer); and oral anti-integrin agents including Morphic Therapeutic’s MORF-057 and Gilead’s GS-1427, and a discovery program at Dice Therapeutics (Lilly).

Government Regulation

The FDA and other regulatory authorities at federal, state and local levels, as well as in foreign countries, extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, quality control, import, export, safety, effectiveness, labeling, packaging, storage, distribution, record keeping, approval, advertising, promotion, marketing, post-approval monitoring and post-approval reporting of biologics such as those we are developing. We, along with our third-party contractors, will be required to navigate the various preclinical, clinical and commercial approval requirements of the governing regulatory agencies of the countries in which we wish to conduct studies or seek approval or licensure of our product candidates. Failure to comply with the applicable United States requirements at any time during the product development process, approval process or post-market may subject an applicant to administrative or judicial sanctions. These sanctions could include, among other actions, the FDA’s refusal to approve pending applications, withdrawal of an approval, a clinical hold, untitled or warning letters, product recalls or market withdrawals, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, refusals of government contracts, restitution, disgorgement and civil or criminal penalties. Any agency or judicial enforcement action could have a material adverse effect on us.

United States Biologics Regulation

In the United States, biological products are subject to regulation under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”) and the Public Health Service Act (“PHSA”) and their implementing regulations, as well as other federal, state, local, and foreign statutes and regulations. The process required by the FDA before biologic product candidates may be marketed in the United States generally involves the following:

Preclinical and Clinical Development

Prior to beginning the first clinical trial with a product candidate, in the United States, we must submit an IND to the FDA. An IND is a request for authorization from the FDA to administer an investigational new drug product to humans. The central focus of an IND submission is on the general investigational plan and the protocol or protocols for preclinical studies and clinical trials. The IND also includes results of animal and in vitro studies assessing the toxicology, pharmacokinetics, pharmacology and pharmacodynamic characteristics of the product, chemistry, manufacturing and controls information, and any available human data or literature to support the use of the investigational product. An IND must become effective before human clinical trials may begin. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA, within the 30-day period, raises safety concerns or questions about the proposed clinical trial. In such a case, the IND may be placed on clinical hold and the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns or questions before the clinical trial can begin. Submission of an IND therefore may or may not result in FDA authorization to begin a clinical trial. Similar processes exist in countries outside the United States that we will be required to follow if we choose to execute trials in other countries.

Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational product to human subjects under the supervision of qualified investigators in accordance with cGCPs, which include the requirement that all research subjects provide their informed consent for their participation in any clinical study. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the study, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. A separate submission to the existing IND must be made for

each successive clinical trial conducted during product development and for any subsequent protocol amendments. Furthermore, an independent IRB for each site proposing to conduct the clinical trial must review and approve the plan for any clinical trial and its informed consent form before the clinical trial begins at that site, and must monitor the study until completed.

Regulatory authorities, the IRB or the sponsor may suspend a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the subjects are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk or that the trial is unlikely to meet its stated objectives. Some studies also include oversight by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the clinical study sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board, which provides authorization for whether or not a study may move forward at designated check points based on access to certain data from the study and may recommend halting the clinical trial if it determines that there is an unacceptable safety risk for subjects or other grounds, such as no demonstration of efficacy. There are also requirements governing the reporting of ongoing preclinical studies and clinical trials and clinical study results to public registries. Sponsors of clinical trials of FDA-regulated products, including biological products, are required to register and disclose certain clinical trial information, which is publicly available at www.clinicaltrials.gov.

A sponsor who wishes to conduct a clinical trial outside of the United States may, but need not, obtain FDA authorization to conduct the clinical trial under an IND. If a foreign clinical trial is not conducted under an IND, the sponsor may submit data from the clinical trial to the FDA in support of a BLA. The FDA will accept a well-designed and well-conducted foreign clinical trial not conducted under an IND if the trial was conducted in accordance with cGCP requirements and the FDA is able to validate the data through an onsite inspection if deemed necessary.

For the purposes of BLA approval, human clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases that may overlap.

In some cases, the FDA may require, or companies may voluntarily pursue, additional clinical trials after a product is approved to gain more information about the product. These so-called Phase 4 studies may be made a condition to approval of the BLA. Concurrent with clinical trials, companies may complete additional animal studies and develop additional information about the biological characteristics of the product candidate and must finalize a process for manufacturing the product in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the product candidate and, among other things, must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality and purity of the final product, or for biologics, the safety, purity and potency. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested, and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the product candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life.

During all phases of clinical development, regulatory agencies require extensive monitoring and auditing of all clinical activities, clinical data and clinical study investigators. Written IND safety reports must be promptly submitted to the FDA and the investigators for serious and unexpected suspected adverse events, any findings from other studies, tests in laboratory animals or in vitro testing that suggest a significant risk for human subjects, or any clinically important increase in the rate of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure. The sponsor must submit an IND safety report within 15 calendar days after the sponsor determines that the information qualifies for reporting. The sponsor also must notify the FDA of any unexpected fatal or life-threatening suspected adverse reaction within seven calendar days after the sponsor’s initial receipt of the information.

BLA Submission and Review

Assuming successful completion of all required testing in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements, the results of product development, preclinical studies and clinical trials are submitted to the FDA as part of a BLA requesting approval to market the product for one or more indications. FDA approval of a BLA must be obtained before a biologic may be marketed in the United States. The BLA must include all relevant data available from pertinent preclinical studies and clinical trials, including negative or ambiguous results as well as positive findings, together with detailed information relating to the product’s chemistry, manufacturing, controls, and proposed labeling, among other things. Data can come from company-sponsored clinical studies intended to test the safety and effectiveness of the product, or from a number of alternative sources, including studies initiated and sponsored by investigators. The submission of a BLA requires payment of a substantial application user fee to the FDA, unless a waiver or exemption applies.

In addition, under the Pediatric Research Equity Act (“PREA”), a BLA or supplement to a BLA must contain data to assess the safety and effectiveness of the biological product candidate for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective. The Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act requires that a sponsor who is planning to submit a marketing application for a biological product that includes a new active ingredient, new indication, new dosage form, new dosing regimen or new route of administration submit an initial pediatric study plan (“PSP”) within sixty days after an end-of-Phase 2 meeting or, if there is no such meeting, as early as practicable before the initiation of the Phase 3 or Phase 2/3 study as may be agreed between the sponsor and FDA. The initial PSP must include an outline of the pediatric study or studies that the sponsor plans to conduct, including study objectives and design, age groups, relevant endpoints and statistical approach, or a justification for not including such detailed information, and any request for a deferral of pediatric assessments or a full or partial waiver of the requirement to provide data from pediatric studies along with supporting information. The FDA and the sponsor must reach an agreement on the PSP. A sponsor can submit amendments to an agreed-upon initial PSP at any time if changes to the pediatric plan need to be considered based on data collected from preclinical studies, early phase clinical trials and/or other clinical development programs. Unless otherwise required by regulation, PREA does not apply to any biological product for an indication for which orphan designation has been granted.

Within 60 days following submission of the application, the FDA reviews the BLA to determine if it is substantially complete before the agency accepts it for filing. The FDA may refuse to file any BLA that it deems incomplete or not properly reviewable at the time of submission and may request additional information. In this event, the BLA must be resubmitted with additional information. Once a BLA has been accepted for filing, the FDA’s goal is to review standard applications within ten months after the filing date, or, if the application qualifies for priority review, six months after the FDA accepts the application for filing. In both standard and priority reviews, the review process may also be extended by FDA requests for additional information or clarification. The FDA reviews a BLA to determine, among other things, whether a product is safe, pure and potent and the facility in which it is manufactured, processed, packed or held meets standards designed to assure

the product’s continued safety, purity and potency. The FDA may convene an advisory committee to provide clinical insight on application review questions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions.

Before approving a BLA, the FDA will typically inspect the facility or facilities where the product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve an application unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. Additionally, before approving a BLA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with cGCPs. If the FDA determines that the application, manufacturing process or manufacturing facilities are not acceptable, it typically will outline the deficiencies in the submission and often will request additional testing or information. Notwithstanding the submission of any requested additional information, the FDA ultimately may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval.

After the FDA evaluates a BLA and conducts inspections of manufacturing facilities where the investigational product and/or its drug substance will be produced, the FDA may issue an approval letter or a Complete Response Letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the product with specific prescribing information for specific indications. A Complete Response Letter will describe all of the deficiencies that the FDA has identified in the BLA, except that where the FDA determines that the data supporting the application are inadequate to support approval, the FDA may issue the Complete Response Letter without first conducting required inspections, testing submitted product lots and/or reviewing proposed labeling. In issuing the Complete Response Letter, the FDA may recommend actions that the applicant might take to place the BLA in condition for approval, including requests for additional information or clarification. If a Complete Response Letter is issued, the applicant may either resubmit the BLA, addressing all of the deficiencies identified in the letter, or withdraw the application or request an opportunity for a hearing. The FDA may delay or refuse approval of a BLA if applicable regulatory criteria are not satisfied, require additional testing or information and/or require post-marketing testing and surveillance to monitor safety or efficacy of a product.

If regulatory approval of a product is granted, such approval will be granted for particular indications and may entail limitations on the indicated uses for which such product may be marketed. For example, the FDA may approve the BLA with a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (“REMS”) to ensure the benefits of the product outweigh its risks. A REMS is a safety strategy to manage a known or potential serious risk associated with a product and to enable patients to have continued access to such medicines by managing their safe use, and could include medication guides, physician communication plans, or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. The FDA also may condition approval on, among other things, changes to proposed labeling or the development of adequate controls and specifications. Once approved, the FDA may withdraw the product approval if compliance with pre- and post-marketing requirements is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the marketplace. The FDA may require one or more Phase 4 post-market studies and surveillance to further assess and monitor the product’s safety and effectiveness after commercialization, and may limit further marketing of the product based on the results of these post-marketing studies.

Expedited Development and Review Programs

The FDA offers several expedited development and review programs for qualifying product candidates. The Fast Track program is intended to expedite or facilitate the process for reviewing new products that meet certain criteria. Specifically, new products are eligible for Fast Track designation if they are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the disease or condition. Fast Track designation applies to the combination of the product and the specific indication for which it is being studied. The sponsor of a Fast Track product has opportunities for more frequent interactions

with the review team during product development and, once a BLA is submitted, the product may be eligible for priority review. A Fast Track product may also be eligible for rolling review, where the FDA may consider for review sections of the BLA on a rolling basis before the complete application is submitted, if the sponsor provides a schedule for the submission of the sections of the BLA, the FDA agrees to accept sections of the BLA and determines that the schedule is acceptable, and the sponsor pays any required user fees upon submission of the first section of the BLA.

A product intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition may also be eligible for Breakthrough Therapy designation to expedite its development and review. A product can receive Breakthrough Therapy designation if preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs or biologics, may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. The designation includes all of the Fast Track program features, as well as more intensive FDA interaction and guidance beginning as early as Phase 1 and an organizational commitment to expedite the development and review of the product, including involvement of senior managers.

Any marketing application for a biologic submitted to the FDA for approval, including a product with a Fast Track designation and/or Breakthrough Therapy designation, may be eligible for other types of FDA programs intended to expedite the FDA review and approval process, such as priority review and accelerated approval. A product is eligible for priority review if it has the potential to provide a significant improvement in the treatment, diagnosis or prevention of a serious disease or condition. For original BLAs, priority review designation means the FDA’s goal is to take action on the marketing application within six months of the 60-day filing date (as compared to ten months under standard review).

Additionally, products studied for their safety and effectiveness in treating serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions may receive accelerated approval upon a determination that the product has an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit, or on a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than irreversible morbidity or mortality, that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity, or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. As a condition of accelerated approval, the FDA will generally require the sponsor to perform adequate and well-controlled post-marketing clinical studies with due diligence to verify and describe the anticipated effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit. Under the Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act of 2022 (“FDORA”) the FDA may require, as appropriate, that such studies be underway prior to approval or within a specific time period after the date of approval for a product granted accelerated approval. Under FDORA, the FDA has increased authority for expedited procedures to withdraw approval of a product or indication approved under accelerated approval if the sponsor fails to conduct the required post-marketing studies or if such studies fail to verify the predicted clinical benefit. In addition, the FDA currently requires as a condition for accelerated approval pre-approval of promotional materials, which could adversely impact the timing of the commercial launch of the product.

Fast Track designation, Breakthrough Therapy designation and priority review do not change the standards for approval but may expedite the development or approval process. Even if a product qualifies for one or more of these programs, the FDA may later decide that the product no longer meets the conditions for qualification or decide that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened.

Post-Approval Requirements

Any products manufactured or distributed by us pursuant to FDA approvals are subject to pervasive and continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, requirements relating to record-keeping, reporting of adverse experiences, periodic reporting, product sampling and distribution, and advertising and

promotion of the product. As part of the manufacturing process, the manufacturer is required to perform certain tests on each lot of the product before it is released for distribution. After a BLA is approved for a biological product, the product also may be subject to official lot release. If the product is subject to official release by the FDA, the manufacturer submits samples of each lot of product to the FDA together with a release protocol showing a summary of the history of manufacture of the lot and the results of all of the manufacturer’s tests performed on the lot. The FDA also may perform certain confirmatory tests on lots of some products before releasing the lots for distribution by the manufacturer. In addition, the FDA conducts laboratory research related to the regulatory standards on the safety, purity, potency and effectiveness of biologics. After approval, most changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications or other labeling claims, are subject to prior FDA review and approval. There also are continuing user fee requirements, under which the FDA assesses an annual program fee for each product identified in an approved BLA. Biologic manufacturers and their subcontractors are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies, and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with cGMPs, which impose certain procedural and documentation requirements upon us and our third-party manufacturers. Changes to the manufacturing process are strictly regulated, and, depending on the significance of the change, may require prior FDA approval before being implemented. FDA regulations also require investigation and correction of any deviations from cGMPs and impose reporting requirements upon us and any third-party manufacturers that we may decide to use. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain compliance with cGMPs and other aspects of regulatory compliance.

The FDA may withdraw approval if compliance with regulatory requirements and standards is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the market. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in revisions to the approved labeling to add new safety information; imposition of post-market studies or clinical studies to assess new safety risks; or imposition of distribution restrictions or other restrictions under a REMS program. Other potential consequences include, among other things:

The FDA closely regulates the marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of biologics. A company can make only those claims relating to safety and efficacy, purity and potency that are approved by the FDA and in accordance with the provisions of the approved label. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses. Failure to comply with these requirements can result in,

among other things, adverse publicity, warning letters, corrective advertising and potential civil and criminal penalties. Physicians may prescribe legally available products for uses that are not described in the product’s labeling and that differ from those tested by us and approved by the FDA. Such off-label uses are common across medical specialties. Physicians may believe that such off-label uses are the best treatment for many patients in varied circumstances. The FDA does not regulate the behavior of physicians in their choice of treatments. The FDA does, however, restrict manufacturer’s communications on the subject of off-label use of their products.

Biosimilars and Reference Product Exclusivity

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (collectively, the “ACA”), includes a subtitle called the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (“BPCIA”), which created an abbreviated approval pathway for biological products that are highly similar, or “biosimilar,” to or interchangeable with an FDA-approved reference biological product. The FDA has issued several guidance documents outlining an approach to review and approval of biosimilars.

Biosimilarity, which requires that there be no clinically meaningful differences between the biological product and the reference product in terms of safety, purity, and potency, is generally shown through analytical studies, animal studies, and a clinical study or studies. Interchangeability requires that a product is biosimilar to the reference product and the product must demonstrate that it can be expected to produce the same clinical results as the reference product in any given patient and, for products that are administered multiple times to an individual, the biologic and the reference biologic may be alternated or switched after one has been previously administered without increasing safety risks or risks of diminished efficacy relative to exclusive use of the reference biologic. A product shown to be biosimilar or interchangeable with an FDA-approved reference biological product may rely in part on the FDA’s previous determination of safety and effectiveness for the reference product for approval, which can potentially reduce the cost and time required to obtain approval to market the product. Complexities associated with the larger, and often more complex, structures of biological products, as well as the processes by which such products are manufactured, pose significant hurdles to implementation of the abbreviated approval pathway that are still being worked out by the FDA. In September 2021, the FDA issued two guidance documents intended to inform prospective applicants and facilitate the development of proposed biosimilars and interchangeable biosimilars, as well as to describe the FDA’s interpretation of certain statutory requirements added by the BPCIA.

Under the BPCIA, an application for a biosimilar product may not be submitted to the FDA until four years following the date that the reference product was first licensed by the FDA. In addition, the approval of a biosimilar product may not be made effective by the FDA until 12 years from the date on which the reference product was first licensed. During this 12-year period of exclusivity, another company may still market a competing version of the reference product if the FDA approves a full BLA for the competing product containing that applicant’s own preclinical data and data from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to demonstrate the safety, purity and potency of its product. The BPCIA also created certain exclusivity periods for biosimilars approved as interchangeable products. FDA-approved interchangeable biosimilars may be substituted for the reference product without the intervention of the prescribing health care provider, subject to state laws, which differ by state.

A biological product can also obtain pediatric market exclusivity in the United States. Pediatric exclusivity, if granted, adds six months to existing exclusivity periods and patent terms. This six-month exclusivity, which runs from the end of other exclusivity protection or patent term, may be granted based on the voluntary completion of a pediatric study in accordance with an FDA-issued “Written Request” for such a study.

The BPCIA is complex and continues to be interpreted and implemented by the FDA. In July 2018, the FDA announced an action plan to encourage the development and efficient review of biosimilars, including the

establishment of a new office within the agency that will focus on therapeutic biologics and biosimilars. On December 20, 2020, Congress amended the PHSA as part of the COVID-19 relief bill to further simplify the biosimilar review process by making it optional to show that conditions of use proposed in labeling have been previously approved for the reference product, which used to be a requirement of the application. In addition, government proposals have sought to reduce the 12-year reference product exclusivity period. Other aspects of the BPCIA, some of which may impact the BPCIA exclusivity provisions, have also been the subject of recent litigation. As a result, the ultimate impact, implementation, and impact of the BPCIA is subject to significant uncertainty.

As discussed below, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (“IRA”) is a significant new law that intends to foster generic and biosimilar competition and to lower drug and biologic costs.

Other Healthcare Laws and Compliance Requirements

Pharmaceutical companies are subject to additional healthcare regulation and enforcement by the federal government and by authorities in the states and foreign jurisdictions in which they conduct their business. Such laws include, without limitation: the federal Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”); the federal False Claims Act (“FCA”); the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) and similar foreign, federal and state fraud, abuse and transparency laws.

The AKS prohibits, among other things, persons and entities from knowingly and willfully soliciting, receiving, offering or paying remuneration, to induce, or in return for, either the referral of an individual, or the purchase, lease, order, arrangement, or recommendation of an item or service for which payment may be made under any federal healthcare program. The term remuneration has been interpreted broadly to include anything of value. The AKS has been interpreted to apply to arrangements between pharmaceutical manufacturers on one hand, and prescribers and purchasers on the other. The government often takes the position that to violate the AKS, only one purpose of the remuneration need be to induce referrals, even if there are other legitimate purposes for the remuneration. There are a number of statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting some common activities from AKS prosecution, but they are drawn narrowly and practices that involve remuneration, such as consulting agreements, that may be alleged to be intended to induce prescribing, purchasing or recommending may be subject to scrutiny if they do not qualify for an exception or safe harbor. Our practices may not in all cases meet all of the criteria for protection under a statutory exception or regulatory safe harbor. Failure to meet all of the requirements of a particular applicable statutory exception or regulatory safe harbor does not make the conduct per se illegal under the AKS. Instead, the legality of the arrangement will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis based on a cumulative review of all of its facts and circumstances. Violations are subject to civil and criminal fines and penalties for each violation, plus up to three times the remuneration involved, imprisonment, and exclusion from government healthcare programs. In addition, the government may assert that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the AKS constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the FCA or federal civil monetary penalties.

Civil and criminal false claims laws, including the FCA, and civil monetary penalty laws, which impose criminal and civil penalties and can be enforced through civil whistleblower or qui tam actions, prohibit, among other things, individuals or entities from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, claims for payment of federal government funds, including in federal healthcare programs, that are false or fraudulent; knowingly making, using or causing to be made or used, a false statement of record material to a false or fraudulent claim or obligation to pay or transmit money or property to the federal government or knowingly concealing or knowingly and improperly avoiding or decreasing an obligation to pay money to the federal government. Pharmaceutical and other healthcare companies have been prosecuted under these laws for engaging in a variety of different types of conduct that “caused” the submission of false claims to federal healthcare programs. Under the AKS, for example, a claim resulting from a violation of the AKS is deemed to be a false or fraudulent claim for purposes

of the FCA. The FCA also permits a private individual acting as a “whistleblower” to bring actions on behalf of the federal government alleging violations of the FCA and to share in any monetary recovery.

HIPAA created additional federal criminal statutes that prohibit, among other things, executing a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program, including private third-party payors, and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up by any trick or device a material fact or making any materially false statements or representations relating to healthcare matters.

The FDCA addresses, among other things, the design, production, labeling, promotion, manufacturing, and testing of drugs, biologics and medical devices, and prohibits such acts as the introduction into interstate commerce of adulterated or misbranded drugs or devices. The PHSA also prohibits the introduction into interstate commerce of unlicensed or mislabeled biological products.

The United States federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act requires certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologics and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program, with specific exceptions, to annually report to the Centers for Medicaid & Medicare Services (“CMS”) information related to payments or other transfers of value made to various healthcare professionals including physicians, certain other licensed health care practitioners, and teaching hospitals, as well as ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members. Beginning on January 1, 2023, California Assembly Bill 1278 requires California physicians and surgeons to notify patients of the Open Payments database established under the federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act.

We are also subject to additional similar United States state and foreign law equivalents of each of the above federal laws, which, in some cases, differ from each other in significant ways, and may not have the same effect, thus complicating compliance efforts. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of such laws or any other governmental regulations that apply, we may be subject to penalties, including, without limitation, civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, exclusion from government-funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid or similar programs in other countries or jurisdictions, integrity oversight and reporting obligations to resolve allegations of non-compliance, disgorgement, individual imprisonment, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations.

Data Privacy and Security

Numerous state, federal, and foreign laws govern the collection, dissemination, use, access to, confidentiality, and security of personal information, including health-related information. In the United States, numerous federal and state laws and regulations, including state data breach notification laws, state health information privacy laws, and federal and state consumer protection laws and regulations, govern the collection, use, disclosure, and protection of health-related and other personal information could apply to our operations or the operations of our partners. For example, HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health, and their respective implementing regulations imposes privacy, security, and breach notification obligations on certain health care providers, health plans, and health care clearinghouses, known as covered entities, as well as their business associates and their covered subcontractors that perform certain services that involve using, disclosing, creating, receiving, maintaining, or transmitting individually identifiable health information for or on behalf of such covered entities. Entities that are found to be in violation of HIPAA may be subject to significant civil, criminal, and administrative fines and penalties and/or additional reporting and oversight obligations if required to enter into a resolution agreement and corrective action plan with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) to settle allegations of HIPAA non-compliance. Further, entities that knowingly obtain, use, or disclose individually identifiable health information maintained by a HIPAA covered entity in a manner that is not authorized or permitted by HIPAA may be subject to criminal penalties.

Even when HIPAA does not apply, according to the FTC, violating consumers’ privacy rights or failing to take appropriate steps to keep consumers’ personal information secure may constitute unfair acts or practices in or affecting commerce in violation of Section 5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

In addition, state laws govern the privacy and security of personal information, including health-related information, in certain circumstances. Failure to comply with these laws, where applicable, can result in the imposition of significant civil and/or criminal penalties and private litigation. For example, the California Consumer Privacy Act, which went into effect on January 1, 2020, has created new data privacy obligations for covered companies and provided new privacy rights to California residents.

Coverage and Reimbursement

In the United States and markets in other countries, patients generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the costs associated with their treatment. Adequate coverage and reimbursement from governmental healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and commercial payors is critical to new product acceptance. Our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates will depend in part on the extent to which coverage and adequate reimbursement for these products and related treatments will be available from government health administration authorities, private health insurers and other organizations. 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 a sufficient return on our investment. Government authorities and third-party payors, such as private health insurers and health maintenance organizations, decide which medications they will pay for and establish reimbursement levels.

Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of any pharmaceutical or biological product for which we obtain regulatory approval. Sales of any product, if approved, depend, in part, on the extent to which such product will be covered by third-party payors, such as federal, state, and foreign government healthcare programs, commercial insurance and managed healthcare organizations, and the level of reimbursement, if any, for such product by third-party payors. Decisions regarding whether to cover any of our product candidates, if approved, the extent of coverage and amount of reimbursement to be provided are made on a plan-by-plan basis. Further, no uniform policy for coverage and reimbursement exists in the United States, and coverage and reimbursement can differ significantly from payor to payor. Third-party payors often rely upon Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own reimbursement rates, but also have their own methods and approval process apart from Medicare determinations. As a result, the coverage determination process is often a time-consuming and costly process that will require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of our product candidates to each payor separately, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be applied consistently or obtained in the first instance. Factors payors consider in determining reimbursement are based on whether the product is:

Third-party payors are increasingly challenging the prices charged for medical products and services, examining the medical necessity and reviewing the cost effectiveness of pharmaceutical or biological products, medical devices and medical services, in addition to questioning safety and efficacy. Adoption of price controls and cost-containment measures, and adoption of more restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and

measures, could further limit sales of any product that receives approval. Decreases in third-party reimbursement for any product or a decision by a third-party not to cover a product could reduce physician usage and patient demand for the product.

For products administered under the supervision of a physician, obtaining coverage and adequate reimbursement may be particularly difficult because of the higher prices often associated with such drugs. Additionally, separate reimbursement for the product itself or the treatment or procedure in which the product is used may not be available, which may impact physician utilization. In addition, companion diagnostic tests require coverage and reimbursement separate and apart from the coverage and reimbursement for their companion pharmaceutical or biological products. Similar challenges to obtaining coverage and reimbursement, applicable to pharmaceutical or biological products, will apply to companion diagnostics.

In addition, net prices for drugs may be reduced by mandatory discounts or rebates required by government healthcare programs or private payors and by any future relaxation of laws that presently restrict imports of drugs from countries where they may be sold at lower prices than in the United States. Increasingly, third-party payors are requiring that drug companies provide them with predetermined discounts from list prices and are challenging the prices charged for medical products. We cannot be sure that reimbursement will be available for any product candidate that we commercialize and, if reimbursement is available, the level of reimbursement. In addition, many pharmaceutical manufacturers must calculate and report certain price reporting metrics to the government, such as average sales price, and best price. Penalties may apply in some cases when such metrics are not submitted accurately and timely. Further, these prices for drugs may be reduced by mandatory discounts or rebates required by government healthcare programs.

Finally, in some foreign countries, the proposed pricing for a drug must be approved before it may be lawfully marketed. The requirements governing drug pricing vary widely from country to country. For example, the European Union (“EU”) provides options for its member states to restrict the range of medicinal products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices of medicinal products for human use. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval, some of these countries may require the completion of clinical trials that compare the cost effectiveness of a particular product candidate to currently available therapies. A member state may approve a specific price for the medicinal product or it may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the medicinal product on the market. There can be no assurance that any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for pharmaceutical products will allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements for any of its product candidates. Historically, products launched in the EU do not follow price structures of the United States and generally prices tend to be significantly lower.

Healthcare reform

The United States and some foreign jurisdictions are considering or have enacted a number of reform proposals to change the healthcare system. There is significant interest in promoting changes in healthcare systems with the stated goals of containing healthcare costs, improving quality or expanding access. In the United States, the pharmaceutical industry has been a particular focus of these efforts and has been significantly affected by federal and state legislative initiatives, including those designed to limit the pricing, coverage, and reimbursement of pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical products, especially under government-funded health care programs, and increased governmental control of drug pricing.

The ACA, which was enacted in 2010, substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers in the United States, and significantly affected the pharmaceutical industry.

The ACA contains a number of provisions of particular import to the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, including, but not limited to, those governing enrollment in federal healthcare programs. Since its enactment, there have been judicial and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA, and we expect there will be additional challenges and amendments to the ACA in the future.

Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted. For example, the Budget Control Act of 2011 and subsequent legislation, among other things, created measures for spending reductions by Congress that include aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year, which remain in effect through 2032. Due to the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, estimated budget deficit increases resulting from the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, and subsequent legislation, Medicare payments to providers will be further reduced starting in 2025 absent further legislation. The United States American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 further reduced Medicare payments to several types of providers and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years.

In addition, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, among other things, amended the Medicare Act (as amended by the ACA) to increase the point-of-sale discounts that manufacturers must agree to offer under the Medicare Part D coverage discount program to 70% off negotiated prices of applicable brand drugs to eligible beneficiaries during their coverage gap period, as a condition for the manufacturer’s outpatient drugs being covered under Medicare Part D.

Moreover, there has recently been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state measures designed to, among other things, reduce the cost of prescription drugs, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug products. For example, in May 2019, CMS adopted a final rule allowing Medicare Advantage Plans the option to use step therapy for Part B drugs, permitting Medicare Part D plans to apply certain utilization controls to new starts of five of the six protected class drugs, and requiring the Explanation of Benefits for Part D beneficiaries to disclose drug price increases and lower cost therapeutic alternatives.

In addition, the United States government, state legislatures and foreign governments have continued implementing cost-containment programs, including price controls, restrictions on coverage and reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic products. The IRA includes several provisions that may impact our business to varying degrees, including provisions that reduce the out-of-pocket spending cap for Medicare Part D beneficiaries from $7,050 to $2,000 starting in 2025, thereby effectively eliminating the coverage gap; impose new manufacturer financial liability on certain drugs under Medicare Part D, allow the United States government to negotiate Medicare Part B and Part D price caps for certain high-cost drugs and biologics without generic or biosimilar competition; require companies to pay rebates to Medicare for certain drug prices that increase faster than inflation; and delay until January 1, 2032 the implementation of the HHS rebate rule that would have limited the fees that pharmacy benefit managers can charge. Further, under the IRA, orphan drugs are exempted from the Medicare drug price negotiation program, but only if they have one rare disease designation and for which the only approved indication is for that disease or condition. If a product receives multiple rare disease designations or has multiple approved indications, it may not qualify for the orphan drug exemption. These provisions will take effect progressively starting in fiscal year 2023, although the Medicare drug price negotiation program is currently subject to legal challenges. The effects of the IRA on its business and the healthcare industry in general is not yet known.

President Biden has also issued multiple executive orders that have sought to reduce prescription drug costs. In February 2023, HHS also issued a proposal in response to an October 2022 executive order from President Biden that includes a proposed prescription drug pricing model that will test whether targeted Medicare payment

adjustments will sufficiently incentivize manufacturers to complete confirmatory trials for drugs approved through FDA’s accelerated approval pathway. Although a number of these and other proposed measures may require authorization through additional legislation to become effective, and the Biden administration may reverse or otherwise change these measures, both the Biden administration and Congress have indicated that they will continue to seek new legislative measures to control drug costs.

Notwithstanding the IRA and President Biden’s executive orders, continued legislative and enforcement interest exists in the United States with respect to specialty drug pricing practices. Specifically, we expect regulators to continue pushing for transparency to drug pricing, reducing the cost of prescription drugs under Medicare, reviewing the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reforming government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs.

Individual states in the United States have also become increasingly active in passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain drug access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. Legally mandated price controls on payment amounts by third-party payors or other restrictions could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. In addition, regional healthcare authorities and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and which suppliers will be included in their prescription drug and other healthcare programs. This could reduce the ultimate demand for our drugs or put pressure on our drug pricing, which could negatively affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Other Government and Regulation Outside of the United States

In addition to regulations in the United States, we are subject to a variety of regulations in other jurisdictions governing, among other things, research and development, clinical trials, testing, manufacturing, safety, efficacy, quality control, labeling, packaging, storage, record keeping, distribution, reporting, export and import, advertising, marketing and other promotional practices involving biological products as well as authorization, approval as well as post-approval monitoring and reporting of our products. Because biologically sourced raw materials are subject to unique contamination risks, their use may be restricted in some countries.

Whether or not we obtain FDA approval for a product, we must obtain the requisite approvals from regulatory authorities in foreign countries prior to the commencement of clinical trials or marketing of the product in those countries. Certain countries outside of the United States have a similar process that requires the submission of a clinical trial application much like an IND prior to the commencement of human clinical trials.

The requirements and process governing the conduct of clinical trials, including requirements to conduct additional clinical trials, product licensing, safety reporting, post-authorization requirements, marketing and promotion, interactions with healthcare professionals, pricing and reimbursement may vary widely from country to country. No action can be taken to market any product in a country until an appropriate approval application has been approved by the regulatory authorities in that country. The current approval process varies from country to country, and the time spent in gaining approval varies from that required for FDA approval. In certain countries, the sales price of a product must also be approved. The pricing review period often begins after market approval is granted. Even if a product is approved by a regulatory authority, satisfactory prices may not be approved for such product, which would make launch of such products commercially unfeasible in such countries.

Regulation in the European Union

The collection and use of personal health data and other personal data regarding individuals in the European Economic Area (“EEA”) is governed by the provisions of the European General Data Protection Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (“EU GDPR”) and related data protection laws in individual EEA member states, including additional requirements relating to health, genetic and biometric data implemented through national legislation. Similar processing of personal health data and other personal data regarding individuals in the United Kingdom (“UK”) is governed by the UK General Data Protection Regulation (“UK GDPR”) and the UK Data Protection Act 2018. In this document, “GDPR” refers to both the EU GDPR and the UK GDPR, unless specified otherwise. The GDPR imposes a number of strict obligations and restrictions on the ability to process, including collecting, analyzing and transferring, personal data of individuals, in particular with respect to health data from clinical trials and adverse event reporting. The GDPR includes requirements relating to the legal basis of the processing (such as consent of the individuals to whom the personal data relates), the information provided to the individuals prior to processing their personal data, the notification obligations to the national data protection authorities, and the security and confidentiality of the personal data.

In addition, the GDPR imposes specific restrictions on the transfer of personal data to countries outside of the EEA/UK that are not considered by the European Commission (“EC”) and the UK government as providing an adequate level of data protection (third countries), including the United States. Appropriate safeguards are required to enable such transfers. Among the appropriate safeguards that can be used, the data exporter may use the EC approved standard contractual clauses (“SCCs”) and the UK International Data Transfer Agreement/Addendum (“UK IDTA”). Where relying on the SCCs or UK IDTA for data transfers, we may also be required to carry out transfer impact assessments to assess whether the recipient is subject to local laws which allow public authority access to personal data. The international transfer obligations under the EEA/UK data protection regimes will require effort and cost and may result in us needing to make strategic considerations around where EEA/UK personal data is located and which service providers we can utilize for the processing of EEA/UK personal data. Although the UK is regarded as a third country under the EU GDPR, the EC has issued a decision recognizing the UK as providing adequate protection under the EU GDPR (“Adequacy Decision”) and, therefore, transfers of personal data originating in the EEA to the UK remain unrestricted. The UK government has confirmed that personal data transfers from the UK to the EEA remain free flowing. The UK government has also now introduced a Data Protection and Digital Information Bill (“UK Data Protection Bill”) into the UK legislative process with the intention for this bill to reform the UK’s data protection regime following Brexit. If passed, the final version of the UK Data Protection Bill may have the effect of further altering the similarities between the UK and EU data protection regime. This may lead to additional compliance costs and could increase our overall risk. The respective provisions and enforcement of the EU GDPR and UK GDPR may further diverge in the future and create additional regulatory challenges and uncertainties.

On March 25, 2022, the EC and the United States announced that they have agreed in principle on a new Trans-Atlantic Data Privacy Framework. Following this statement, on October 7, 2022, President Biden signed an Executive Order on ‘Enhancing Safeguards for United States Signals Intelligence Activities’, which implemented the agreement in principle. On that basis, the EC prepared a draft Adequacy Decision and launched its adoption procedure. While this new EU-United States privacy framework is expected to enter into force in 2023, there is still some uncertainty around the new framework.

Failure to comply with the requirements of the GDPR and the related national data protection laws of the EEA member states/UK may result in significant monetary fines for noncompliance of up to €20 million (£17.5 million for the UK) or 4% of the annual global revenues of the noncompliant company, whichever is greater, other administrative penalties and a number of criminal offenses (punishable by uncapped fines) for organizations and, in certain cases, their directors and officers, as well as civil liability claims from individuals whose personal data was processed. Data protection authorities from the different EEA member states/UK may still implement certain variations, enforce the GDPR and national data protection laws differently, and introduce

additional national regulations and guidelines, which adds to the complexity of processing personal data subject to the EEA/UK data protection regimes. Guidance developed at both the EU level and at the national level in individual EU member states concerning implementation and compliance practices are often updated or otherwise revised.

Compliance with the GDPR is a rigorous and time-intensive process that may increase our cost of doing business or require us to change our business practices, and despite those efforts, there is a risk that we may be subject to fines, penalties and litigation in connection with European activities, which could in turn have a negative effect on our reputation and materially harm our business.

Furthermore, there is a growing trend towards the required public disclosure of clinical trial data in the EU, which adds to the complexity of obligations relating to processing health data from clinical trials. Such public disclosure obligations are provided in the new EU Clinical Trials Regulation (EU) No. 536/2014 (the “CTR”), European Medical Agency (“EMA”) disclosure initiatives and voluntary commitments by industry. Failure to comply with these obligations could lead to government enforcement actions and significant penalties against us, harm to our reputation, and adversely impact our business and operating results. The uncertainty regarding the interplay between different regulatory frameworks, such as the CTR and the GDPR, further adds to the complexity that we face with regard to data protection regulation.

Drug and Biologic Development Process

Regardless of where they are conducted, all clinical trials included in applications for marketing authorization for human medicines in the EU must have been carried out in accordance with EU regulations. This means that clinical trials conducted in the EU have to comply with EU clinical trial legislation but also that clinical trials conducted outside the EU have to comply with ethical principles equivalent to those set out in the EU, including adhering to international good clinical practice and the Declaration of Helsinki. The conduct of clinical trials in the EU is governed by the CTR, which entered into force on January 31, 2022. The CTR replaced the Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC, (“Clinical Trials Directive”) and introduced a complete overhaul of the existing regulation of clinical trials for medicinal products in the EU.

Under the former regime, which will expire after a transition period of one or three years, respectively, as outlined below in more detail, before a clinical trial can be initiated it must be approved in each EU member state where there is a site at which the clinical trial is to be conducted. The approval must be obtained from two separate entities: the national competent authority in the applicable EU member state(s) and one or more ethics committees. The national competent authority of all EU member states in which the clinical trial will be conducted must authorize the conduct of the trial, and the independent ethics committee must grant a positive opinion in relation to the conduct of the clinical trial in the relevant EU member state before the commencement of the trial. Any substantial changes to the trial protocol or other information submitted with the clinical trial applications must be submitted to or approved by the relevant national competent authorities and ethics committees. Under the current regime all suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions to the investigated drug that occur during the clinical trial must be reported to the national competent authority and to the ethics committees of the EU member state where they occur.

A more unified procedure applies under the CTR. A sponsor can submit a single application for approval of a clinical trial through a centralized EU clinical trials portal (the “CTIS”). One national competent authority (the reporting EU member state proposed by the applicant) will take the lead in validating and evaluating the application, and will consult and coordinate with the other concerned EU member states. If an application is rejected, it may be amended and resubmitted through the EU clinical trials portal. If an approval is issued, the sponsor may start the clinical trial in all concerned EU member states. However, a concerned EU member state may in limited circumstances declare an “opt-out” from an approval and prevent the clinical trial from being

conducted in such member state. The CTR also aims to streamline and simplify the rules on safety reporting, and introduces enhanced transparency requirements such as mandatory submission of a summary of the clinical trial

results to the EU database. The CTR foresees a three-year transition period. On January 31, 2023, submission of initial clinical trial applications via CTIS became mandatory, and by January 31, 2025, all ongoing trials approved under the former Clinical Trials Directive will need to comply with the CTR and have to be transitioned to CTIS.

Under both the former regime and the CTR, national laws, regulations, and the applicable Good Clinical Practice and Good Laboratory Practice standards must also be respected during the conduct of the trials, including the International Council for Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use guidelines on Good Clinical Practice and the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki.

During the development of a medicinal product, the EMA and national regulators within the EU provide the opportunity for dialogue and guidance on the development program. At the EMA level, this is usually done in the form of scientific advice, which is given by the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (“CHMP”) on the recommendation of the Scientific Advice Working Party. A fee is incurred with each scientific advice procedure, but is significantly reduced for designated orphan medicines. Advice from the EMA is typically provided based on questions concerning, for example, quality (chemistry, manufacturing and controls testing), nonclinical testing and clinical studies, and pharmacovigilance plans and risk-management programs. Advice is not legally binding with regard to any future marketing authorization application (“MAA”) for the product concerned.

Drug Marketing Authorization

In the EU, medicinal products are subject to extensive pre- and post-market regulation by regulatory authorities at both the EU and national levels. To obtain regulatory approval of a product under the EU regulatory systems, we must submit an MAA under either the EU centralized procedure, or one of the national procedures in the EU.

Centralized Authorization Procedure

The centralized procedure provides for the grant of a single marketing authorization (“MA”) that is issued by the EC following the scientific assessment of the application by the EMA and that is valid for all EU member states as well as in the three additional EEA member states (Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein). The centralized procedure is compulsory for certain types of medicinal products, including for medicines developed by means of certain biotechnological processes, products designated as orphan medicinal products, advanced therapy medicinal products (gene therapy, somatic cell therapy or tissue-engineered medicines) and medicinal products with a new active substance indicated for the treatment of certain diseases (HIV/AIDS, cancer, neurodegenerative disorders, diabetes, auto-immune and other immune dysfunctions and viral diseases). The centralized procedures is option for medicinal products containing a new active substance not yet authorized in the EU, or for products that constitute a significant therapeutic, scientific or technical innovation or for which the grant of an MA through the centralized procedure would be in the interest of public health at EU level.

Under the centralized procedure, the CHMP established at the EMA, is responsible for conducting the initial assessment of a drug. The CHMP is also responsible for several post-authorization and maintenance activities, such as the assessment of modifications or extensions to an existing marketing authorization. Under the centralized procedure, the timeframe for the evaluation of an MAA by the EMA’s CHMP is, in principle, 210 days from receipt of a valid MAA. However, this timeline excludes clock stops, when additional written or oral information is to be provided by the applicant in response to questions asked by the CHMP, so the overall process typically takes a year or more, unless the application is eligible for an accelerated assessment. Accelerated evaluation might be granted by the CHMP in exceptional cases, when a medicinal product is expected to be of a major public health interest, particularly from the point of view of therapeutic innovation.

Upon request, the CHMP can reduce the time frame to 150 days if the applicant provides sufficient justification for an accelerated assessment. The CHMP will provide a positive opinion regarding the application only if it meets certain quality, safety and efficacy requirements. This opinion is then transmitted to the EC, which has the ultimate authority for granting the MA within 67 days after receipt of the CHMP opinion.

Decentralized and Mutual Recognition Procedures

Medicines that fall outside the mandatory scope of the centralized procedure can be authorized under a decentralized procedure where an applicant applies for simultaneous authorization in more than one EU member state, or they can be authorized in an EU member state in accordance with that state’s national procedures and then be authorized in other EU countries by a procedure whereby the countries concerned agree to recognize the validity of the original, national marketing authorization (mutual recognition procedure).

The decentralized procedure permits companies to file identical MA applications for a medicinal product to the competent authorities in various EU member states simultaneously if such medicinal product has not received marketing approval in any EU member state before. The competent authority of a single EU member state, the reference member state, is appointed to review the application and provide an assessment report. The competent authorities of the other EU member states, the concerned member states, are subsequently required to grant a marketing authorization for their territories on the basis of this assessment. The only exception to this is where the competent authority of an EU member state considers that there are concerns of potential serious risk to public health, the disputed points are subject to a dispute resolution mechanism and may eventually be referred to the EC, whose decision is binding for all EU member states.

Risk Management Plan

All new MAAs must include a Risk Management Plan (“RMP”) describing the risk management system that the company will put in place and documenting measures to prevent or minimize the risks associated with the product. RMPs are continually modified and updated throughout the lifetime of the medicine as new information becomes available. An updated RMP must be submitted: (i) at the request of EMA or a national competent authority, or (ii) whenever the risk-management system is modified, especially as the result of new information being received that may lead to a significant change to the benefit-risk profile or as a result of an important pharmacovigilance or risk-minimization milestone being reached. The regulatory authorities may also impose specific obligations as a condition of the MA. RMPs and Periodic Safety Update Reports (“PSURs”) are routinely available to third parties requesting access, subject to limited redactions.

MA Validity Period

In the EU, an MA has an initial duration of five years. After these five years, the authorization may subsequently be renewed on the basis of a reevaluation of the risk-benefit balance. Once renewed, the MA is valid for an unlimited period unless the EC or the national competent authority decides, on justified grounds relating to pharmacovigilance, to proceed with only one additional five-year renewal. Applications for renewal must be made to the EMA at least nine months before the five-year period expires.

Exceptional Circumstances/Conditional Approval

Similar to accelerated approval regulations in the United States, conditional MAs can be granted in the EU for medicines intended for treating, preventing or diagnosing seriously debilitating or life-threatening diseases, or in a public health emergency. A conditional MA can be granted for medicinal products where, although comprehensive clinical data referring to the safety and efficacy of the medicinal product have not been supplied, the following criteria are fulfilled: (i) the benefit/risk balance of the product is positive, (ii) it is likely that the

applicant will be in a position to provide the comprehensive clinical data post-authorization, (iii) unmet medical needs will be fulfilled by the grant of the MA and (iv) the benefit to public health of the immediate availability on the market of the medicinal product concerned outweighs the risk inherent in the fact that additional data are still required. Once a conditional MA has been granted, the MA holder must fulfil specific obligations within defined timelines. A conditional MA must be renewed annually, but can be converted into a standard MA once the MA holder fulfils the obligations imposed and the complete data confirm that the medicine’s benefits continue to outweigh its risks.

Data and Market Exclusivity

As in the United States, it may be possible to obtain a period of market and/or data exclusivity in the EU that would have the effect of postponing the entry into the marketplace of a competitor’s generic, hybrid or biosimilar product (even if the pharmaceutical product has already received a MA) and prohibiting another applicant from relying on the MA holder’s pharmacological, toxicological and clinical data in support of another MA for the purposes of submitting an application, obtaining an MA or placing the product on the market. Innovative medicinal products (sometimes referred to as new chemical entities (“NCEs”)) approved in the EU generally qualify for eight years of data exclusivity and 10 years of marketing exclusivity.

If granted, the data exclusivity period begins on the date of the product’s first MA in the EU and prevents generic or biosimilar applicants from referencing the innovator’s preclinical and clinical trial data contained in the dossier of the reference product when applying for a generic or biosimilar marketing authorization in the EU. After eight years, a generic product application may be submitted and generic companies may rely on the MA holder’s data. However, a generic product cannot launch until two years later (or a total of 10 years after the first MA in the EU of the innovator product). An additional one-year period of marketing exclusivity is possible if, during the data exclusivity period (the first eight years of the 10-year marketing exclusivity period), the MA holder obtains an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications that are deemed to bring a significant clinical benefit compared to existing therapies. Additionally, a standalone one-year period of data exclusivity can be granted where an application is made for a new indication for a well-established substance, provided that significant pre-clinical or clinical studies were carried out in relation to the new indication. Where a change of classification of a pharmaceutical product has been authorized on the basis of significant pre-trial tests or clinical trials, when examining an application by another applicant for or holder of an MA for a change of classification of the same substance the competent authority will not refer to the results of those tests or trials for one year after the initial change was authorized.

Products may not be granted data exclusivity since there is no guarantee that a product will be considered by the EU’s regulatory authorities to include a NCE. Even if a compound is considered to be a NCE and the MA applicant is able to gain the prescribed period of data exclusivity, another company nevertheless could also market another version of the medicinal product if such company can complete a full MAA with their own complete database of pharmaceutical tests, preclinical studies and clinical trials and obtain MA of its product.

Pediatric Development

In the EU, companies developing a new medicinal product are obligated to study their product in children and must therefore submit a PIP together with a request for agreement to the EMA, unless the EMA has granted a product-specific waiver, a class waiver, or a deferral for one or more of the measures included in the PIP. The EMA issues a decision on the PIP based on an opinion of the EMA’s Pediatric Committee. Companies must conduct pediatric clinical trials in accordance with the PIP approved by the EMA, unless a deferral (e.g. until enough information to demonstrate its effectiveness and safety in adults is available) or waiver (e.g. because the relevant disease or condition occurs only in adults) has been granted by the EMA. The MAA for the medicinal product must include the results of all pediatric clinical trials performed and details of all information collected in

compliance with the approved PIP, unless such a waiver or a deferral has been granted. Medicinal products that are granted an MA on the basis of the pediatric clinical trials conducted in accordance with the approved PIP are eligible for a six month extension of the protection under a supplementary protection certificate (“SPC”), provided an application for such extension is made at the same time as filing the SPC application for the product, or at any point up to two years before the SPC expires, or, in the case of orphan medicinal products, a two year extension of the orphan market exclusivity. This pediatric reward is subject to specific conditions and is not automatically available when data in compliance with the approved PIP are developed and submitted. An approved PIP is also required when an MA holder wants to add a new indication, medicinal form or route of administration for a medicine that is already authorized and covered by intellectual property rights.

PRIME Designation

In March 2016, the EMA launched an initiative to facilitate development of product candidates in indications, often rare, for which few or no therapies currently exist. The Priority Medicines (“PRIME”) scheme is intended to encourage drug development in areas of unmet medical need and provides accelerated assessment of products representing substantial innovation reviewed under the centralized procedure. Products from small- and medium-sized enterprises may qualify for earlier entry into the PRIME scheme than larger companies on the basis of compelling non-clinical data and tolerability data from initial clinical trials. Many benefits accrue to sponsors of product candidates with PRIME designation, including but not limited to, early and proactive regulatory dialogue with the EMA, frequent discussions on clinical trial designs and other development program elements, and potentially accelerated marketing authorization application assessment once a dossier has been submitted. Importantly, once a candidate medicine has been selected for the PRIME scheme, a dedicated contact point and rapporteur from the CHMP or from the Committee for Advanced Therapeutics (“CAT”) are appointed facilitating increased understanding of the product at EMA’s Committee level. A kick-off meeting with the CHMP/CAT rapporteur initiates these relationships and includes a team of multidisciplinary experts to provide guidance on the overall development plan and regulatory strategy. PRIME eligibility does not change the standards for product approval, and there is no assurance that any such designation or eligibility will result in expedited review or approval.

Post-Approval Regulation

Similar to the United States, both MA holders and manufacturers of medicinal products are subject to comprehensive regulatory oversight by the EMA, the EC and/or the competent regulatory authorities of the EU member states. This oversight applies both before and after grant of manufacturing licenses and marketing authorizations. It includes control of compliance with EU good manufacturing practices rules, manufacturing authorizations, pharmacovigilance rules and requirements governing advertising, promotion, sale, and distribution, recordkeeping, importing and exporting of medicinal products.

Failure by us or by any of our third-party partners, including suppliers, manufacturers and distributors to comply with EU laws and the related national laws of individual EU member states governing the conduct of clinical trials, manufacturing approval, MA of medicinal products and marketing of such products, both before and after grant of MA, statutory health insurance, bribery and anti-corruption or other applicable regulatory requirements may result in administrative, civil or criminal penalties. These penalties could include delays or refusal to authorize the conduct of clinical trials or to grant an MA, product withdrawals and recalls, product seizures, suspension, withdrawal or variation of the MA, total or partial suspension of production, distribution, manufacturing or clinical trials, operating restrictions, injunctions, suspension of licenses, fines and criminal penalties.

The holder of an MA for a medicinal product must also comply with EU pharmacovigilance legislation and its related regulations and guidelines, which entail many requirements for conducting pharmacovigilance, or the assessment and monitoring of the safety of medicinal products.

MA holders must establish and maintain a pharmacovigilance system and appoint an individual qualified person for pharmacovigilance, who is responsible for oversight of that system. Key obligations include expedited reporting of suspected serious adverse reactions and submission of PSURs in relation to medicinal products for which they hold MAs. The EMA reviews PSURs for medicinal products authorized through the centralized procedure. If the EMA has concerns that the risk benefit profile of a product has varied, it can adopt an opinion advising that the existing MA for the product be suspended, withdrawn or varied. The EMA can advise that the MA holder be obliged to conduct post-authorization Phase IV safety studies. If the EC agrees with the opinion, it can adopt a decision varying the existing MA. Failure by the MA holder to fulfill the obligations for which the EC’s decision provides can undermine the ongoing validity of the MA.

More generally, non-compliance with pharmacovigilance obligations can lead to the variation, suspension or withdrawal of the MA for the product or imposition of financial penalties or other enforcement measures.

The manufacturing process for pharmaceutical products in the EU is highly regulated and regulators may shut down manufacturing facilities that they believe do not comply with regulations. Manufacturing requires a manufacturing authorization, and the manufacturing authorization holder must comply with various requirements set out in the applicable EU laws, regulations and guidance, including Directive 2001/83/EC, Directive 2003/94/EC, Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 and the European Commission Guidelines for Good Manufacturing Practice (“GMP”). These requirements include compliance with GMP standards when manufacturing pharmaceutical products and active pharmaceutical ingredients, including the manufacture of active pharmaceutical ingredients outside of the EU with the intention to import the active pharmaceutical ingredients into the EU. Similarly, the distribution of pharmaceutical products into and within the EU is subject to compliance with the applicable EU laws, regulations and guidelines, including the requirement to hold appropriate authorizations for distribution granted by the competent authorities of the EU member states. The manufacturer or importer must have a qualified person who is responsible for certifying that each batch of product has been manufactured in accordance with GMP, before releasing the product for commercial distribution in the EU or for use in a clinical trial. Manufacturing facilities are subject to periodic inspections by the competent authorities for compliance with GMP.

Sales and Marketing Regulations

The advertising and promotion of our products is also subject to EU laws concerning promotion of medicinal products, interactions with physicians, misleading and comparative advertising and unfair commercial practices. In addition, other national legislation of individual EU member states may apply to the advertising and promotion of medicinal products and may differ from one country to another. These laws require that promotional materials and advertising in relation to medicinal products comply with the product’s Summary of Product Characteristics (“SmPC”) as approved by the national competent authorities. The SmPC is the document that provides information to physicians concerning the safe and effective use of the medicinal product. It forms an intrinsic and integral part of the marketing authorization granted for the medicinal product. Promotion of a medicinal product that does not comply with the SmPC is considered to constitute off-label promotion, which is prohibited in the EU. Direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription-only medicines is also prohibited in the EU. Violations of the rules governing the promotion of medicinal products in the EU could be penalized by administrative measures, fines and imprisonment.

Anti-Corruption Legislation

In the EU, interactions between pharmaceutical companies and physicians are also governed by strict laws, regulations, industry self-regulation codes of conduct and physicians’ codes of professional conduct both at EU level and in the individual EU member states. The provision of benefits or advantages to physicians to induce or encourage the prescription, recommendation, endorsement, purchase, supply, order or use of medicinal products

is prohibited in the EU. The provision of benefits or advantages to physicians is also governed by the national anti-bribery laws of the EU member states. Violation of these laws could result in substantial fines and imprisonment.

Payments made to physicians in certain EU member states also must be publicly disclosed. Moreover, agreements with physicians must often be the subject of prior notification and approval by the physician’s employer, his/her regulatory professional organization, and/or the competent authorities of the individual EU member states. These requirements are provided in the national laws, industry codes, or professional codes of conduct, applicable in the individual EU member states. Failure to comply with these requirements could result in reputational risk, public reprimands, administrative penalties, fines or imprisonment.

Other Markets

The UK formally left the EU on January 31, 2020 and the transition period, during which EU laws continued to apply to the UK, expired on December 31, 2020. This means EU laws now only apply to the UK in respect of Northern Ireland as laid out in the Northern Ireland Protocol. Following the end of the transition period, the EU and the UK concluded a trade and cooperation agreement (“TCA”), which applied provisionally from January 1, 2021 and entered into force on May 1, 2021.

The TCA includes specific provisions concerning pharmaceuticals, which include the mutual recognition of GMP, inspections of manufacturing facilities for medicinal products and GMP documents issued but does not provide for wholesale mutual recognition of UK and EU pharmaceutical regulations. At present, Great Britain has implemented EU legislation on the marketing, promotion and sale of medicinal products through the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 (as amended). Except in respect of the new CTR, the regulatory regime in Great Britain therefore largely aligns with current EU medicines regulations, however it is possible that these regimes will diverge more significantly in future now that Great Britain’s regulatory system is independent from the EU and the TCA does not provide for mutual recognition of UK and EU pharmaceutical legislation. However, notwithstanding that there is no wholesale recognition of EU pharmaceutical legislation under the TCA, under a new framework which will be put in place by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (“MHRA”), from January 1, 2024, the MHRA has stated that it will take into account decisions on the approval of marketing authorizations from the EMA (and certain other regulators) when considering an application for a Great Britain marketing authorization.

On February 27, 2023, the UK government and the EC announced a political agreement in principle to replace the Northern Ireland Protocol with a new set of arrangements, known as the “Windsor Framework”. This new framework fundamentally changes the existing system under the Northern Ireland Protocol, including with respect to the regulation of medicinal products in the UK. In particular, the MHRA will be responsible for approving all medicinal products destined for the UK market (i.e., Great Britain and Northern Ireland), and the EMA will no longer have any role in approving medicinal products destined for Northern Ireland. A single UK-wide marketing authorization will be granted by the MHRA for all medicinal products to be sold in the UK, enabling products to be sold in a single pack and under a single authorization throughout the UK. The Windsor Framework was approved by the EU-UK Joint Committee on March 24, 2023, so the UK government and the EU will enact legislative measures to bring it into law.

For other countries outside of the EU, such as countries in Eastern Europe, Latin America or Asia, the requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary from country to country. In all cases, again, the clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with cGCPs and the applicable regulatory requirements and the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki.

If we fail to comply with applicable foreign regulatory requirements, we may be subject to, among other things, fines, suspension of clinical trials, suspension or withdrawal of regulatory approvals, product recalls, seizure of products, operating restrictions and criminal prosecution.

Employees and Human Capital Resources

As of June 30, 2023, we had 14 employees, all of whom were employed full time. None of our employees are represented by a labor union or covered under a collective bargaining agreement. We consider our relationship with our employees to be good.

Legal Proceedings

From time to time, we may be subject to legal proceedings. We are not currently a party to or aware of any proceedings that we believe will have, individually or in the aggregate, a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. Regardless of outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact on us because of defense and settlement costs, diversion of management resources and other factors.