Adding the following new paragraphs before the current last paragraph:
Section 6.4 of the CVR Agreement provides that the CVR holders are intended third-party beneficiaries of the CVR Agreement.
Furthermore, pursuant to Section 6.4 of the CVR Agreement, other than the rights of the Rights Agent as set forth in the CVR Agreement, holders of at least 30% of the CVRs (the Acting Holders) have the sole right, on behalf
of the holders of CVRs, by virtue or under any provision of the CVR Agreement, to institute any action or proceeding with respect to the CVR Agreement, and no individual holder or other group of holders will be entitled to exercise such rights. The
Acting Holders may request a written update in reasonable detail describing the progress, status and anticipated trajectory of the development of the products applicable to the Milestone, which Parent shall not be obligated to provide more than
once during any consecutive 12-month period.
Additionally, the CVR Agreement grants Lilly and
Purchaser the right to amend, without the consent of the CVR holders, the CVR Agreement in certain instances which include (i) providing for a successor to Lilly or to Purchaser, (ii) adding to the covenants of Lilly and Purchaser for the
protection of the holders (provided that such provisions do not adversely affect the interests of the CVR holders), (iii) curing any ambiguities, correcting or supplementing any provisions of the CVR Agreement that may be defective or inconsistent
therein, making any provisions with respect to matters or questions arising under the CVR Agreement (provided that such provisions do not adversely affect the interests of the CVR holders), (iv) providing, as may be necessary or appropriate, to
ensure that the CVRs are not subject to registration under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or any similar registration or prospectus requirement under applicable securities laws outside the
United States (provided that such provisions do not adversely affect the interests of the CVR holders), (v) providing for a successor rights agent, and (vi) any other amendments for the purpose of adding, eliminating or changing any provisions
of the CVR Agreement, unless such addition, elimination or change is adverse to the interests of the CVR holders. Lilly or Purchaser may also amend the CVR Agreement in a manner that is materially adverse to your interests as a CVR holder provided
that Lilly and Purchaser obtain the written consent of the Acting Holders of the CVRs.
The disclosure in the Offer to Purchase and Item 11 of the
Schedule TO is hereby amended and supplemented by adding the following in Section 16 Certain Legal Matters; Regulatory Approvals of the Offer to Purchase:
Adding the following new sub-heading and paragraph at the end of the last paragraph:
Certain Litigation
On December 30, 2020, Lori Karson, a purported stockholder of Prevail, filed a putative class action lawsuit in the Supreme Court of the State
of New York, County of New York, captioned Lori Karson v. Prevail Therapeutics Inc., et al., against Prevail and the Prevail Board (the Karson Complaint). The Karson Complaint asserts a breach of fiduciary duty claim against the
individual defendants and an aiding and abetting claim against Prevail in connection with the proposed transaction between Prevail, Purchaser and Lilly. The Karson Complaint alleges, among other things, that (i) defendants engaged in an unfair
sales process and agreed to inadequate consideration in connection with the proposed transaction, and (ii) the Schedule 14D-9 filed with the SEC on December 22, 2020 in connection with the proposed transaction is materially misleading. The
Karson Complaint seeks, among other things, to enjoin the proposed transaction, rescind the transaction or award rescissory damages to the extent it is consummated, and an award of attorneys fees and expenses.
On January 4, 2021, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York captioned Stephen
Bushansky v. Prevail Therapeutics Inc., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00040, against Prevail and the Prevail Board (the Bushansky Complaint). The Bushansky Complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants violated Sections
14(d), 14(e), and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 by omitting certain material facts related to the transaction from the Schedule 14D-9 filed by Prevail. The Bushansky Complaint seeks, among other things, to enjoin the
defendants from proceeding with, consummating, or closing the transaction, rescissory damages should the transaction not be enjoined, and an award of attorneys and experts fees.
The outcome of the lawsuits described above cannot be predicted with certainty. However, Prevail believes the claims asserted in the complaints
described above are without merit. Additional complaints may be filed against Prevail, the Prevail Board, Lilly and/or Purchaser in connection with the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement, the Schedule TO and the Schedule 14D-9. If
such additional complaints are filed, absent new or different allegations that are material, Lilly and Purchaser will not necessarily announce such additional complaints.