Arvinas Holding Company (ARVN) Risk Analysis

Most of our outstanding common stock can be traded without restriction at any time. As such, sales of a substantial number of shares of our common stock in the public market could occur at any time. These sales, or the perception in the market that the holders of a large number of shares intend to sell shares, could reduce the market price of our common stock. We have a significant number of shares that are subject to outstanding options and restricted stock units, and in the future we may issue additional options, restricted stock units, or other derivative securities convertible into our common stock under our equity compensation plans. The exercise or vesting of any such options, restricted stock units, or other derivative securities, and the subsequent sale of the underlying common stock, could cause a further decline in our stock price. These sales also might make it difficult for us to sell equity securities in the future at a time and at a price that we deem appropriate. Such sales of our common stock could result in higher than average trading volume and may cause the market price for our common stock to decline. We currently have on file with the SEC a universal shelf registration statement on Form S-3 which allows us to offer and sell registered common stock, preferred stock, debt securities, depository shares, units and/or warrants from time to time pursuant to one or more offerings at prices and terms to be determined at the time of sale. In August 2021, we entered into an Equity Distribution Agreement with Piper Sandler & Company, or Piper Sandler, and Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., or Cantor, as agents, pursuant to which we sold 1,449,275 shares of common stock in at-the-market offerings, resulting in net proceeds of approximately $36.0 million. In November 2023, we amended and restated the Equity Distribution Agreement with Piper Sandler and Cantor, pursuant to which we may offer and sell from time to time, through the agents, up to an additional approximately $262.8 million of the common stock registered under our universal shelf registration statement pursuant to one or more "at-the-market" offerings. During the year ended December 31, 2025, since the amendment and restatement of the agreement, no shares were issued under this agreement. Sales of substantial amounts of shares of our common stock or other securities by our stockholders under our universal shelf registration statement, including pursuant to our "at-the-market" offering program, or otherwise could also dilute our stockholders.

The trading market for our common stock is influenced by the research and reports that industry or securities analysts publish about us or our business. If any of the analysts who cover us issue an adverse or misleading opinion regarding us, our business model, our intellectual property or our stock performance, or if our trials or operating results fail to meet the expectations of analysts, our stock price will likely decline. If one or more of these analysts cease coverage of us or fail to publish reports on us regularly, we could lose visibility in the financial markets, which in turn could cause our stock price or trading volume to decline.

Provisions in our certificate of incorporation and our bylaws may discourage, delay or prevent a merger, acquisition or other change in control of our company that stockholders may consider favorable, including transactions in which stockholders might otherwise receive a premium for their shares. These provisions could also limit the price that investors might be willing to pay in the future for shares of our common stock, thereby depressing the market price of our common stock. In addition, because our board of directors is responsible for appointing the members of our management team, these provisions may frustrate or prevent any attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove our current management by making it more difficult for stockholders to replace members of our board of directors. Among other things, these provisions: - provide for a classified board of directors such that only one of three classes of directors is elected each year;- allow the authorized number of our directors to be changed only by resolution of our board of directors;- limit the manner in which stockholders can remove directors from our board of directors;- provide for advance notice requirements for stockholder proposals that can be acted on at stockholder meetings and nominations to our board of directors;- require that stockholder actions must be effected at a duly called stockholder meeting and prohibit actions by our stockholders by written consent;- limit who may call stockholder meetings;- authorize our board of directors to issue "blank check" preferred stock, which could be issued without stockholder approval, may contain voting, liquidation, dividend and other rights superior to our common stock, and could be used to institute a "poison pill" that would work to dilute the stock ownership of a potential hostile acquirer, effectively preventing acquisitions that have not been approved by our board of directors; and - require the approval of the holders of at least 75% of the votes that all our stockholders would be entitled to cast to amend or repeal specified provisions of our charter or bylaws. Moreover, because we are incorporated in Delaware, we are governed by the provisions of Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, which prohibits a person who owns in excess of 15% of our outstanding voting stock from merging or combining with us for a period of three years after the date of the transaction in which the person acquired in excess of 15% of our outstanding voting stock, unless the merger or combination is approved in a prescribed manner.

Our executive officers and directors, combined with our stockholders who own more than 5% of our outstanding common stock, in the aggregate, beneficially own shares representing approximately 34% of our capital stock. As a result, if these stockholders were to choose to act together, they would be able to significantly influence or control all matters submitted to our stockholders for approval, as well as our management and affairs. For example, these persons, if they choose to act together, could significantly influence or control the election of directors and approval of any merger, consolidation or sale of all or substantially all of our assets. This concentration of ownership control may: - delay, defer or prevent a change in control;- entrench our management and the board of directors; or - impede a merger, consolidation, takeover or other business combination involving us that other stockholders may desire.

Our certificate of incorporation provides that the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware is the exclusive forum for any derivative action or proceeding brought on our behalf, any action asserting a breach of fiduciary duty owed by our directors, officers, other employees or stockholders to the company or our stockholders, any action asserting a claim against us arising pursuant to the Delaware General Corporation Law or as to which the Delaware General Corporation Law confers jurisdiction on the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, or any action asserting a claim arising pursuant to our certificate of incorporation or our bylaws or governed by the internal affairs doctrine. Our certificate of incorporation further provides that, unless we consent in writing to the selection of an alternative forum, the federal district courts of the United States shall, to the fullest extent permitted by law, be the sole and exclusive forum for the resolution of any complaint asserting a cause of action arising under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. These choice of forum provisions may limit a stockholder's ability to bring a claim in a judicial forum that such stockholder finds favorable for disputes with us or our directors, officers, other employees or other stockholders, which may discourage such lawsuits against us and our directors, officers, other employees or other stockholders. Alternatively, if a court were to find this provision in our certificate of incorporation to be inapplicable or unenforceable in an action, we may incur additional costs associated with resolving such action in other jurisdictions, which could adversely affect our business and financial condition. Neither of these choice of forum provisions would affect suits brought to enforce any liability or duty created by the Exchange Act or the rules and regulations thereunder, jurisdiction over which is exclusively vested by statute in the United States federal courts, or any other claim for which United States federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction.

Our stock price has been and likely will continue to be volatile. The stock market in general and the market for smaller biopharmaceutical companies in particular have experienced extreme volatility that has often been unrelated to the operating performance of particular companies. The market price for our common stock may be influenced by many factors, including: - the degree of success of any competitive products or technologies;- results of or developments in preclinical studies and clinical trials of our product candidates or those of our competitors;- regulatory or legal developments in the United States and other countries;- developments or disputes concerning patent applications, issued patents or other proprietary rights;- the recruitment or departure of key personnel;- the level of expenses related to any of our product candidates or clinical development programs;- the results of our efforts to discover, develop, acquire or in-license additional technologies or product candidates;- actual or anticipated changes in estimates as to financial results, development timelines or recommendations by securities analysts;- variations in our financial results or those of companies that are perceived to be similar to us;- changes in the structure of healthcare payment systems in the United States and other jurisdictions;- market conditions in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors;- general economic, industry and market conditions, including geopolitical conflicts, inflation and high interest rates; and - the other factors described in this "Risk Factors" section. If any of the foregoing factors were to occur, or if our operating results fall below the expectations of investors or securities analysts, the price of our common stock could decline substantially.

Our net losses totaled $80.8 million, $198.9 million and $367.3 million for the years ended December 31, 2025, 2024, and 2023, respectively. As of December 31, 2025, we had an accumulated deficit of $1,612.4 million. We have historically incurred losses, and expect to continue to incur losses in the future. To date, we have not generated any revenue from product sales and have financed our operations primarily through sales of our equity, proceeds from our collaborations, grant funding and debt financing. We are still developing our product candidates, and we have not completed development of any product candidates. We expect to continue to incur significant expenses and operating losses for at least the next several years if and as we: - continue our ongoing and planned clinical trials of our product candidates, including ARV-102, our PROTAC protein degrader designed to target the LRRK2 protein, ARV-806, our PROTAC protein degrader designed to target KRAS G12D for mutated cancers, ARV-393, our PROTAC protein degrader designed to target the BCL6 protein, ARV-027, our PROTAC protein degrader designed to target the polyQ-AR protein, and vepdegestrant, for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic ER+/HER2- breast cancer;- progress our preclinical programs, including ARV-6723 and our pan-KRAS degrader program;- progress additional PROTAC protein degrader programs into IND- or CTA-enabling studies;- apply our PROTAC Discovery Engine to advance additional product candidates into preclinical and clinical development;- expand the capabilities of our PROTAC Discovery Engine;- seek marketing approvals for any product candidates that successfully complete clinical trials;- make decisions with respect to our personnel, including retention or future hiring of key employees, and establishment of a sales, marketing, market access, and distribution infrastructure to launch commercial sales of our products, if and when approved, whether alone or in collaboration with others;- make decisions with respect to our infrastructure and capabilities, including to support our operations as a public company and our research, product development and future commercialization efforts;- make or maintain arrangements with third-party manufacturers, or establish manufacturing capabilities, for both clinical and commercial supplies of our product candidates; and - expand, maintain and protect our intellectual property portfolio. Our expenses could increase beyond our expectations if we are required by the FDA, the EMA, or other regulatory authorities to perform trials in addition to those that we currently expect or anticipate, or if there are any delays in establishing appropriate manufacturing arrangements for or in completing our clinical trials or the development of any of our current or future product candidates. Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with pharmaceutical product development, we are unable to accurately predict the timing or amount of increased expenses we will incur or when, if ever, we will be able to achieve profitability. Even if we do achieve profitability, we may not be able to sustain or increase profitability on a quarterly or annual basis. Our failure to become and remain profitable would depress the value of our company and could impair our ability to raise capital, expand our business, maintain our research and development efforts, diversify our product offerings or even continue our operations. A decline in the value of our company could also cause our stockholders to lose all or part of their investment.

As of December 31, 2025, we had $533.6 million of federal net operating loss carryforwards, $563.2 million of state and local net operating loss carryforwards, $44.7 million federal tax credit carryforwards and $22.3 million of state tax credit carryforwards. To the extent they expire unused, these net operating loss and tax credit carryforwards arising after 2017 will not be available to offset our future income tax liabilities. Federal net operating loss carryforwards may be carried forward indefinitely, but the deductibility of such carryforwards is limited to 80% of our taxable income in the year in which carryforwards are used. In addition, under Sections 382 and 383 of the Code, and corresponding provisions of state law, if a corporation undergoes an "ownership change," which is generally defined as a greater than 50% change, by value, in its equity ownership by certain stockholders over a three-year period, the corporation's ability to use its pre-change net operating loss carryforwards and other pre-change tax attributes to offset its post-change income may be limited. We may experience ownership changes in the future as a result of subsequent changes in our stock ownership, some of which may be outside of our control. If we determine that an ownership change has occurred and our ability to use our historical net operating loss and research and development tax credit carryforwards is materially limited, it would harm our future operating results by effectively increasing our future tax obligations. There is also a risk that due to regulatory changes, such as suspensions on the use of net operating losses, or other unforeseen reasons, our existing and any future net operating losses could expire or otherwise become unavailable to offset future income tax liabilities. In addition, state net operating losses generated in one state cannot be used to offset income generated in another state. For these reasons, even if we attain profitability, we may be unable to use a material portion of our net operating losses and other tax attributes.

As a public company, we incur significant legal, accounting and other expenses that we did not incur as a private company. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, or Sarbanes-Oxley, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the listing requirements of The Nasdaq Global Select Market and other applicable securities rules and regulations, including those promulgated by the SEC, impose various requirements on public companies, including establishment and maintenance of effective disclosure and financial controls and corporate governance practices. Our management and other personnel devote a substantial amount of time to these compliance initiatives. Moreover, we incur significant legal and financial compliance costs as a result of these rules and regulations, and these rules and regulations have made some activities more time-consuming and costly. Pursuant to Section 404 of Sarbanes-Oxley, or Section 404, we are required to furnish a report by our management on our internal control over financial reporting. To achieve compliance with Section 404, we are engaged in a process to document and evaluate our internal control over financial reporting and internal controls, which is both costly and challenging. In this regard, we will need to continue to dedicate internal resources, potentially engage outside consultants and carry out a detailed work plan to assess and document the adequacy of internal control over financial reporting, continue steps to improve control processes as appropriate, validate through testing that controls are functioning as documented and implement a continuous reporting and improvement process for internal control over financial reporting. Despite our efforts, there is a risk that we will not be able to conclude that our internal control over financial reporting is effective as required by Section 404. If we identify one or more material weaknesses, it could result in harm to our reputation or an adverse reaction in the financial markets and it could restrict our future access to the capital markets due to a loss of confidence in the reliability of our consolidated financial statements which would materially harm our business.

We have in the past entered into, and anticipate in the future seeking additional, third-party collaborators for the research, development, and potential future commercialization of some of our PROTAC programs. For example, in September 2015 we entered into a research collaboration with Genentech, which we amended and restated in November 2017, and which will terminate in August 2026; in December 2017 we entered into a research collaboration with Pfizer, for which the research program term has concluded; in July 2021 we entered into a development and commercialization collaboration with Pfizer, and in May 2026 we, Pfizer and Rigel entered into the Rigel License Agreement pursuant to which Rigel will be responsible for the commercialization and development of VEPPANU; and in April 2024 we entered into an out-license agreement with Novartis for luxdegalutamide (ARV-766). Rigel may not adequately fund or perform its obligations to commercialize VEPPANU or may not achieve desired results in a timely manner. We are entirely dependent on the resources and expertise of Rigel for the commercialization of VEPPANU. Failure of Rigel to perform its obligations under the Rigel License Agreement may mean that VEPPANU does not enter the market on a timely basis, or at all. In addition, Novartis may not adequately fund or perform its obligations under the Novartis License Agreement and we are entirely dependent on the resources and expertise of Novartis for the development and potential commercialization of luxdegalutamide (ARV-766). Failure of Novartis to perform its obligations under the Novartis License Agreement may mean that luxdegalutamide (ARV-766) does not continue in its development or reach commercialization on a timely basis, or at all. Our likely collaborators for any other collaboration arrangements include large and mid-size pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology companies. Any such arrangements with third parties will likely limit our control over the amount and timing of resources that our collaborators dedicate to the development or commercialization of any product candidates we may seek to develop with them. Our ability to generate revenues from these arrangements will depend on our collaborators' abilities to successfully perform the functions assigned to them in these arrangements. We are unable to predict when, if ever, we will enter into any additional strategic collaborations because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with establishing them, and we cannot predict the success of any collaboration that we enter into. We may enter into strategic collaborations that we subsequently no longer wish to pursue, and we may not be able to negotiate strategic collaborations on acceptable terms, or at all. At the current time, we cannot predict what form any future strategic collaboration might take, and we are likely to face significant competition in seeking appropriate strategic collaborators, and strategic collaborations can be complicated and time consuming to negotiate and document. Any collaborations or license agreements involving our research programs or any product candidates we may develop, including our out-licenses to Novartis and Rigel, pose the following risks to us: - Collaborators and licensees have significant discretion in determining the efforts and resources that they will apply to these collaborations or licenses. For example, our research collaboration with Pfizer is managed by a joint research committee composed of an equal number of representatives from us and our respective collaborative partners, with the collaborative partner having final decision-making authority. In addition, following our out-license of luxdegalutamide (ARV-766) to Novartis, Novartis is responsible for worldwide clinical development and commercialization of ARV-766 and therefore has full decision-making authority with respect to the luxdegalutamide (ARV-766) program. Following our out-license of VEPPANU to Rigel pursuant to the Rigel License Agreement, Rigel is solely responsible for commercialization and development of VEPPANU and has full decision-making authority with respect to the program. - Collaborators or licensees may not pursue development and commercialization of any product candidates we may develop or may elect not to continue or renew development or commercialization programs based on clinical trial results, changes in the collaborator's or licensee's strategic focus or available funding or external factors such as an acquisition or business combination that diverts resources or creates competing priorities. - Collaborators have broad rights to select any target for protein degradation development on an exclusive basis, even as to us, so long as not excluded by us under the terms of each collaboration and may select targets we are considering but have not taken sufficient action to exclude under the collaboration. - Collaborators and licensees may delay clinical trials, provide insufficient funding for a clinical trial program, stop a clinical trial or abandon a product candidate, repeat or conduct new clinical trials, or require a new formulation of a product candidate for clinical testing. - Collaborators and licensees could independently develop, or develop with third parties, products that compete directly or indirectly with our products or product candidates if the collaborators believe that competitive products are more likely to be successfully developed or can be commercialized under terms that are more economically attractive than ours. - Collaborators with marketing and distribution rights to one or more products may not commit sufficient resources to the marketing and distribution of such product or products. - Collaborators and licensees may not properly obtain, maintain, enforce, or defend our intellectual property or proprietary rights or may use our proprietary information in such a way that could jeopardize or invalidate our proprietary information or expose us to potential litigation. For example, Pfizer, Genentech, Novartis and Rigel have had, or have, the first right to enforce or defend certain intellectual property rights under the applicable collaboration arrangement or license agreement with respect to particular licensed programs, and although we may have the right to assume the enforcement and defense of such intellectual property rights if the collaborator does not, our ability to do so may be compromised by their actions. - Disputes may arise between the collaborators or licensees and us that result in the delay or termination of the research, development, or commercialization of our products or product candidates or that result in costly litigation or arbitration that diverts management attention and resources. - We may lose certain valuable rights under circumstances identified in our collaborations and licenses, including if we undergo a change of control. - Collaborations and licenses may be terminated and, if terminated, may result in a need for additional capital to pursue further development or commercialization of the applicable product candidates. For example, Genentech provided notice of termination in June 2026 and the Restated Genentech Agreement will therefore terminate in August 2026. Additionally, the research term under the Pfizer Collaboration Agreement has ended. Novartis may terminate its agreement with us upon our material breach or for convenience or upon a safety or regulatory issue, subject to specified notice periods. Rigel may terminate its agreement with us and Pfizer upon material breach of us and/or Pfizer or upon a certain prior written notice period, following a pre-defined period of time. - Collaboration or license agreements may not lead to development or commercialization of product candidates in the most efficient manner or at all. If a present or future collaborator or licensee of ours were to be involved in a business combination, the continued pursuit and emphasis on our product development or commercialization program under such collaboration or license could be delayed, diminished, or terminated. If our collaborations and licenses do not result in the successful development and commercialization of products, or if one of our collaborators or licensees terminates its agreement with us, we may not receive any future research funding or milestone or royalty payments under the collaboration or license, as appropriate. If we do not receive the funding we expect under these agreements, our development of product candidates could be delayed, and we may need additional resources to develop product candidates. In addition, if one of our collaborators or licensees terminates its agreement with us, we may find it more difficult to find a suitable replacement collaborator or licensee or attract new collaborators or licensees, and our development programs may be delayed or the perception of us in the business and financial communities could be adversely affected. All of the risks relating to product development, marketing approval, and commercialization described in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2025, apply to the activities of our collaborators.

The prices of prescription pharmaceuticals have also been the subject of considerable discussion in the United States. There have been several recent U.S. congressional inquiries, as well as proposed and enacted state and federal legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to pharmaceutical pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reduce the costs of pharmaceuticals under Medicare and Medicaid. In addition, in October 2020, HHS and the FDA published a final rule allowing states and other entities to develop a Section 804 Importation Program to import certain prescription products from Canada into the United States. That regulation was challenged in a lawsuit by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, or PhRMA, but the case was dismissed by a federal district court in February 2023 after the court found that PhRMA did not have standing to sue HHS. Several states have passed laws allowing for the importation of drugs from Canada. On January 5, 2024, the FDA approved Florida's plan for Canadian drug importation. That state now has authority to import certain drugs from Canada for a period of two years once certain conditions are met. Florida will first need to submit a pre-import request for each drug selected for importation, which must be approved by the FDA. The state will also need to relabel the drugs and perform quality testing of the products to meet FDA standards. On May 21, 2025, the FDA announced that it would offer individual states the opportunity to submit a draft proposal for pre-review and meet with the agency to obtain initial feedback from FDA prior to formally submitting their Section 804 importation program, or SIP, proposal. The intent of these meetings is to assist states in developing their proposals by further clarifying requirements, enhancing the quality of proposals submitted to the agency and ultimately shortening the review timeline. Further, HHS finalized a regulation removing safe harbor protection for price reductions from pharmaceutical manufacturers to plan sponsors under Part D, either directly or through pharmacy benefit managers, unless the price reduction is required by law. The final rule would also eliminate the current safe harbor for Medicare drug rebates and create new safe harbors for beneficiary point-of-sale discounts and pharmacy benefit manager service fees. It originally was set to go into effect on January 1, 2022, but with passage of the IRA has been delayed by Congress to January 1, 2032. On August 16, 2022, the IRA was signed into law. The legislation has implications for Medicare Part D, which is a program available to individuals who are entitled to Medicare Part A or enrolled in Medicare Part B to give them the option of enrolling in a plan providing outpatient prescription drug coverage. Among other things, the IRA requires manufacturers of certain drugs to engage in price negotiations with Medicare, with prices that can be negotiated subject to a cap; imposes rebates under Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation (first due in 2023); and replaces the Part D coverage gap discount program with a new discounting program (which began in 2025). The IRA permits the Secretary of HHS to implement many of these provisions through guidance, as opposed to regulation, for the initial years. Specifically, with respect to price negotiations, Congress authorized Medicare to negotiate lower prices for certain costly single-source drug and biologic products that do not have competing generics or biosimilars and are reimbursed under Medicare Part B and Part D. CMS has published the negotiated prices for the initial ten drugs, which will first be effective in 2026, and has published the list of the next 15 drugs that will have negotiated prices go into effect in 2027. Negotiated prices for 15 additional Part B or Part D drugs will go into effect in 2028, and negotiated prices for 20 additional Part B or Part D drugs will go into effect in 2029 and beyond. This provision applies to drug products that have been approved for at least 9 years and biologics that have been licensed for 13 years. Drugs and biologics that have been approved for a single rare disease or condition were originally categorically excluded from price negotiation. With passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act on July 3, 2025, which was signed into law on July 4, 2025, Congress extended this exemption to drugs and biologics with multiple orphan drug designations. Nonetheless, since CMS may establish a maximum price for these products in price negotiations, we would be fully at risk of government action if our products are the subject of Medicare price negotiations. Moreover, given the risk that could be the case, these provisions of the IRA may also further heighten the risk that we would not be able to achieve the expected return on our drug products or full value of our patents protecting our products if prices are set after such products have been on the market for nine years. Further, the legislation subjects drug manufacturers to civil monetary penalties and a potential excise tax for failing to comply with the legislation by offering a price that is not equal to or less than the negotiated "maximum fair price" under the law or for taking price increases that exceed inflation. The legislation also requires manufacturers to pay rebates for drugs in Medicare Part D whose price increases exceed inflation. The new law also caps Medicare beneficiaries' out-of-pocket drug costs at an estimated $4,000 a year in 2024 and, thereafter beginning in 2025, at $2,000 a year. On June 6, 2023, Merck & Co., Inc., filed a lawsuit against HHS and CMS asserting that, among other things, the IRA's Drug Price Negotiation Program for Medicare constitutes an uncompensated taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Subsequently, other parties, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, or Chamber of Commerce, Bristol Myers Squibb Company, the PhRMA, Astellas Pharma US, Inc., Novo Nordisk Inc., Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Novartis Pharmaceutical Corporation, AstraZeneca L.P. and Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. also filed lawsuits in various courts with similar constitutional claims against HHS and CMS. HHS has generally won the substantive disputes in these cases or succeeded in getting claims dismissed for lack of standing. Most of these cases are now on appeal. On October 30, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit heard oral arguments in three of these cases. In April 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit heard arguments in an additional three cases. On May 8, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit rejected AstraZeneca L.P.'s challenge to the Medicare price negotiation program, finding that the program did not violate the company's due process rights under the Constitution since there is no protected property interest in selling goods to Medicare beneficiaries at a price higher than what the government is willing to pay in reimbursement. Litigation involving these and other provisions of the IRA will continue with unpredictable and uncertain results. Accordingly, while it is currently unclear how the IRA will be effectuated, we cannot predict with certainty what impact any federal or state health reforms will have on us, but such changes could impose new or more stringent regulatory requirements on our activities or result in reduced reimbursement for our products, any of which could adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition. On April 15, 2025, the President issued an executive order that directs HHS to take steps to reduce the prices of pharmaceutical products. The new executive order repeats many of the proposals advanced during the current President's first Administration, including directing the FDA to streamline and improve its existing drug importation program so as to make it easier for states to obtain approval without sacrificing the safety or quality of drug products. Other provisions of the executive order relate to the 340B program. Specifically, one provision calls on the Secretary of HHS to determine the hospital acquisition cost for covered outpatient drugs at hospital outpatient departments and to consider and propose any appropriate adjustments for Medicare payment. The other provision directs HHS to condition grant funding to certain health centers on those centers passing through the 340B discounts they receive on insulin and injectable epinephrine products to patients who meet certain requirements. With respect to the IRA's Medicare drug pricing program, the executive order, among other things, calls for alignment in "the treatment of small molecule prescription drugs with that of biological products, ending the distortion that undermines relative investment in small molecule prescription drugs, coupled with other reforms to prevent any increase in overall costs to Medicare and its beneficiaries." Further, on May 12, 2025, the President issued an additional executive order calling on pharmaceutical manufacturers to voluntarily reduce the prices of medicines in the United States. The executive order directs the Secretary of HHS to communicate MFN price targets to pharmaceutical manufacturers to bring prices in line with comparably developed nations. The executive order further provides that if such actions do not lower the costs of pharmaceuticals, the Secretary of HHS would pursue other actions, including proposing a rulemaking that imposes MFN pricing in the United States. Subsequently, on May 20, 2025, HHS indicated that the proposed MFN pricing will apply only to brand products without generic or biosimilar competition and the reference foreign countries will include only those in which the branded product similarly does not have generic or biosimilar competition. Second, HHS indicated that the MFN target price will be the lowest price in a country that is a member of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, or OECD, with a gross domestic product, or GDP, per capita of at least 60% of the U.S. GDP per capita. Based on previous estimates, there are likely at least 22 OECD countries that would satisfy this criterion. The implications of these actions remain unclear and are likely to result in litigation if the administration pursues an MFN regulatory pricing requirement. More recently, on July 31, 2025, the President issued letters to 17 pharmaceutical companies reiterating the requirements of the May 12, 2025 Executive Order and demanding that such companies extend MFN pricing to Medicaid patients, guarantee MFN pricing for newly launched drug products, return increased revenues abroad to American patients and provide for direct purchasing at MFN pricing. The letters also urged these companies to stipulate that they will not offer other developed nations better prices for new drugs than the prices offered for such products in the U.S. The letters called for engagement with the FDA and CMS within 60 days to implement these changes and threatened to use "every tool in our arsenal" to address what the letter characterized as "abusive drug pricing practices." Since that time, virtually all of these pharmaceutical companies have entered into agreements with the administration to provide for lower prices on certain pharmaceuticals. On February 5, 2026, President Trump launched TrumpRx.gov, a website that directs individuals to pharmaceutical manufacturer websites that are offering price discounts based on the administration's pricing agreements with pharmaceutical manufacturers. On December 23, 2025, CMS, through its Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation, proposed two five-year pilot programs to implement a "reference pricing" regime for drugs paid for under Medicare for 25% of covered beneficiaries. The programs are referred to as the Global Benchmark for Efficient Drug Pricing Model for Medicare Part B drugs, referred to as GLOBE, and the Guarding U.S. Medicare Against Rising Drug Costs for Medicare Part D drugs, referred to as GUARD. Under the proposed pilot programs, a manufacturer would owe rebates to Medicare if prices for their drugs exceeded the prices paid by other economically comparable reference countries, defined in the proposed regulations as OECD countries with a GDP of $400 billion and a per capita GDP that is at least 60% of the U.S. per capita GDP (an initial list of 19 reference countries is included in the proposed rule). Comments are due on the proposed pilot program rules on or before February 23, 2026, and the pilot programs are proposed to go into effect beginning October 1, 2026. At the state level, individual states are increasingly aggressive in passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. This is increasingly true with respect to products approved pursuant to the accelerated approval pathway. State Medicaid programs and other payers are developing strategies and implementing significant coverage barriers, or refusing to cover these products outright, arguing that accelerated approval drugs have insufficient or limited evidence despite meeting the FDA's standards for accelerated approval. In addition, health care organizations 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 health care programs. These measures could reduce the ultimate demand for our products, once approved, or put pressure on our product pricing. We expect that additional state and federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand for our product candidates or additional pricing pressures. In other jurisdictions, particularly in the EU, the pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals is subject to governmental control. In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after the receipt of marketing approval for a drug. In addition, there can be considerable pressure by governments and other stakeholders on prices and reimbursement levels, including as part of cost containment measures. Political, economic and regulatory developments may further complicate pricing negotiations, and pricing negotiations may continue after reimbursement has been obtained. Reference pricing used by various EU member states and parallel distribution, or arbitrage between low-priced and high-priced member states, can further reduce prices, and in certain instances render commercialization in certain markets infeasible or disadvantageous from a financial perspective. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval in some countries, we, or our collaborators, may be required to conduct a clinical trial that compares the cost-effectiveness of our drug to other available therapies. If reimbursement of our drugs is unavailable or limited in scope or amount, or if pricing is set at unsatisfactory levels, the commercial launch of our products and/or product candidates could be delayed, possibly for lengthy periods of time, we or our collaborators may not launch at all in a particular country, we may not be able to recoup our investment in one or more product candidates, and there could be a material adverse effect on our business.

In the United States and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system that could prevent or delay marketing approval of our product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities and affect our ability to profitably sell any product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. The pharmaceutical industry has been a particular focus of these efforts and has been significantly affected by legislative initiatives. Current laws, as well as other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future, may result in more rigorous coverage criteria and in additional downward pressure on the price that we receive for any FDA approved product. In the United States, the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, or the MMA, changed the way Medicare covers and pays for pharmaceutical products. The legislation expanded Medicare coverage for prescription drugs purchased through a pharmacy by the elderly and disabled and introduced a new reimbursement methodology based on average sales prices for physician-administered drugs. In addition, this statute provides authority for limiting the number of drugs that will be covered in any therapeutic class, subject to certain exceptions. Cost reduction initiatives and other provisions of this statute could decrease the coverage and price that we receive for any approved products. While the MMA applies only to drug benefits for Medicare beneficiaries, private payors often follow Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own reimbursement rates. Therefore, any reduction in reimbursement that results from the MMA may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors. In March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was signed into law, as amended by the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act, or collectively the ACA, which substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both the government and private insurers. In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted These changes include, the Budget Control Act of 2011, which, among other things, led to aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of up to 2% per fiscal year, which will remain in effect through 2031. Under current legislation, the actual reductions in Medicare payments may vary up to 4%. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, which was signed into law in December 2022, made several changes to sequestration of the Medicare program. Section 1001 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act delays the 4% Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 (PAYGO) sequester for two years, through the end of calendar year 2024. Triggered by enactment of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, the 4% cut to the Medicare program would have taken effect in January 2023. The Consolidated Appropriations Act's health care offset title includes Section 4163, which extends the 2% Budget Control Act of 2011 Medicare sequester for six months into fiscal year 2032 and lowers the payment reduction percentages in fiscal years 2030 and 2031. Since enactment of the ACA, there have been and continue to be, numerous legal challenges and Congressional actions to repeal and replace provisions of the law. Litigation and legislation over the ACA are likely to continue, with unpredictable and uncertain results. For example, with adoption of the OBBB Act on July 4, 2025, Congress further restricted certain provisions in the ACA by eliminating enhanced premium tax credits, halting provisional coverage, removing repayment caps, reducing subsidies for lawfully present migrants, and tightening enrollment verification requirements. In the EU, on December 13, 2021, Regulation No 2021/2282 on Health Technology Assessment, or HTA, amending Directive 2011/24/EU, was adopted, or the HTA Regulation. The HTA Regulation began to apply in January 2025 for oncology and advanced therapy medicinal products, with all new medicinal products set to be incorporated from 2030 onwards. The HTA Regulation intends to boost cooperation among EU member states in assessing health technologies, including new medicinal products as well as certain high-risk medical devices, and provide the basis for cooperation at the EU level for joint clinical assessments in these areas. It foresees a joint clinical assessment, or JCA, to be conducted by EU member states with one uniform clinical assessment of the new medicinal product and will serve as a basis for national HTA procedures of individual EU member states. While individual EU member states will continue to be responsible for assessing non-clinical (e.g., economic, social, ethical) aspects of health technology, and making decisions on pricing and reimbursement, a negative JCA can have a substantial detrimental effect on all pricing and reimbursement in all EU member states. We expect that these healthcare reforms, as well as other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future, may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding, more rigorous coverage criteria, new payment methodologies and additional downward pressure on the price that we receive for any approved product and/or the level of reimbursement physicians receive for administering any approved product we might bring to market. Reductions in reimbursement levels may negatively impact the prices we receive or the frequency with which our products are prescribed or administered. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors. Accordingly, such reforms, if enacted, could have an adverse effect on anticipated revenue from product candidates that we may successfully develop and for which we may obtain marketing approval and may affect our overall financial condition and ability to develop or commercialize product candidates.

Once an NDA is approved, the product covered thereby becomes a "reference-listed drug" in the FDA's publication, "Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations," commonly known as the Orange Book. Manufacturers may seek approval of generic versions of reference-listed drugs through submission of ANDAs in the United States. In support of an ANDA, a generic manufacturer need not conduct clinical trials to assess safety and efficacy. Rather, the applicant generally must show that its product has the same active ingredient(s), dosage form, strength, route of administration and conditions of use or labeling as the reference-listed drug and that the generic version is bioequivalent to the reference-listed drug, meaning it is absorbed in the body at the same rate and to the same extent. Generic products may be significantly less costly to bring to market than the reference-listed drug and companies that produce generic products are generally able to offer them at lower prices. Thus, following the introduction of a generic drug, a significant percentage of the sales of any branded product or reference-listed drug is typically lost to the generic product. The FDA may not approve an ANDA for a generic product until any applicable period of non-patent exclusivity for the reference-listed drug has expired. The FDCA provides a period of five years of non-patent exclusivity for a new drug containing an NCE. For the purposes of this provision, an NCE is a drug that contains an active moiety that has previously been approved by the FDA in any other NDA. This interpretation was confirmed with enactment of the Ensuring Innovation Act in April 2021. An active moiety is the molecule or ion responsible for the physiological or pharmacological action of the drug substance. Specifically, in cases where such exclusivity has been granted, an ANDA may not be submitted to the FDA until the expiration of five years unless the submission is accompanied by a Paragraph IV certification that a patent covering the reference-listed drug is either invalid or will not be infringed by the generic product, in which case the applicant may submit its application four years following approval of the reference-listed drug. The FDCA also provides for a period of three years of exclusivity if the NDA includes reports of one or more new clinical trials, other than bioavailability or bioequivalence studies, that were conducted by or for the applicant and are essential to the approval of the application. Generic drug manufacturers may seek to launch generic products following the expiration of any applicable exclusivity period we obtain if our product candidates are approved, even if we still have patent protection for such product candidates. Competition that any such product candidates of ours may face from generic versions of such products could materially and adversely impact our future revenue, profitability and cash flows and substantially limit our ability to obtain a return on the investments we may make in those product candidates.

Health care providers, physicians and third-party payors will play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of any drugs for which we obtain marketing approval. Our future arrangements with third-party payors, health care providers and physicians may expose us to broadly applicable state and federal fraud and abuse and other health care laws and regulations that may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we market, sell and distribute any drugs for which we obtain marketing approval. These include the following: - Anti-Kickback Statute, which prohibits, among other things, persons and entities from knowingly and willfully soliciting, offering, paying, or receiving remuneration, directly or indirectly, in cash or in kind, to induce or reward either the referral of an individual for, or the purchasing, ordering, leasing, arranging for, or recommending the purchasing, ordering, or leasing of, any good or service for which payment may be made, in whole or in part, under a federal health care program such as Medicare or Medicaid;- False Claims Act - the federal civil and criminal false claims laws, including the civil False Claims Act, and Civil Monetary Penalties Law, which prohibit individuals or entities from, among other things, knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, to the federal government, false or fraudulent claims for payment or knowingly making, using or causing to made or used a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim or to avoid, decrease or conceal an obligation to pay money to the federal government, or knowingly concealing or knowingly and improperly avoiding or decreasing an obligation to pay money to the federal government;- HIPAA - the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, which created additional federal criminal statutes that prohibit, among other things, executing a scheme to defraud any health care benefit program or making false statements relating to health care matters, and apply regardless of the payor (e.g., public or private);- HIPAA and HITECH - HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, or HITECH, and their implementing regulations, which impose obligations on HIPAA covered entities and their business associates, including mandatory contractual terms and required implementation of administrative, physical and technical safeguards to maintain the privacy and security of individually identifiable health information;- Transparency Requirements - the federal physician transparency requirements known as the Physician Payments Sunshine Act, under the Patient Protection and the ACA, which requires manufacturers of drugs, medical devices, biological and medical supplies covered by Medicare, Medicaid, or State Children's Health Insurance Program to report annually to the CMS within the United States Department of Health and Human Services, information related to payments and other transfers of value made by that entity to physicians, other healthcare providers and teaching hospitals, as well as ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members; and - Analogous State, Local and Foreign Laws - analogous state, local and foreign fraud and abuse laws and regulations, such as state anti-kickback and false claims laws, which may be broader than similar federal laws, can apply to claims involving health care items or services regardless of payor, and are enforced by many different federal and state agencies as well as through private actions. Some state laws require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry's voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government and require drug manufacturers to report information related to payments and other transfers of value to physicians and other health care providers or marketing expenditures. State and foreign laws also govern the privacy and security of health information in some circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and often are not pre-empted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts. Efforts to ensure that our business arrangements with third parties will comply with applicable health care laws and regulations will involve substantial costs. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices may not comply with current or future statutes, regulations or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other health care laws and regulations. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of these laws or any other governmental regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal and/or administrative penalties, damages, fines, individual imprisonment, disgorgement, exclusion from government funded health care programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, contractual damages, reputational harm, administrative burdens, diminished profits and future earnings, additional reporting obligations and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or similar agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations. If any of the physicians or other health care providers or entities with whom we expect to do business is found to be not in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government funded health care programs. 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 also prohibited in the EU. The provision of benefits or advantages to physicians is governed by the national anti-bribery laws of EU Member States. In addition, payments made to physicians in certain EU Member States must be publicly disclosed. Moreover, agreements with physicians often must be the subject of prior notification and approval by the physician's employer, his or her competent professional organization and/or the regulatory 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 EU Member States. Failure to comply with these requirements could result in reputational risk, public reprimands, administrative penalties, fines or imprisonment.

We must also comply with requirements concerning advertising and promotion for any of our product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. Thus, we will not be able to promote any products we develop for indications or uses for which they are not approved. The FDA and other U.S. or foreign agencies, including the DOJ, closely regulate and monitor the post-approval marketing and promotion of drugs to ensure that they are manufactured, marketed and distributed only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved labeling. The FDA imposes stringent restrictions on manufacturers' communications regarding off-label use, and if we, or our collaborators communicate about any of our product candidates for which we, or they, receive marketing approval in a way that regulators assert goes beyond their approved indications, we, or they, may be subject to warnings or enforcement action for off-label marketing. In addition, following a memorandum from the President regarding disclosure of risks in direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising, the FDA indicated it would increase enforcement on this topic. Alleged violations of the FDCA or other statutes, including the False Claims Act, or the FCA, relating to the promotion and advertising of prescription drugs as well as an increase in enforcement may lead to more investigations or allegations of violations of federal and state health care fraud and abuse laws and state consumer protection laws, which could put us and other drug companies at increased risk for allegations of non-compliance. We will also need to carefully navigate the FDA's various regulations, guidance and policies, regarding communication about products in development and distribution of scientific information on unapproved uses of products to healthcare providers. For example, the Pre-Approval Information Exchange Act was enacted in December 2022, which allows sponsors of products that have not been approved may proactively communicate to payors certain information about products in development to help expedite patient access upon product approval. In addition, in January 2025, the FDA published final guidance outlining the agency's non-binding policies governing the distribution of scientific information on unapproved uses to healthcare providers. This final guidance calls for such communications to be truthful, non-misleading, factual, and unbiased and include all information necessary for healthcare providers to interpret the strengths and weaknesses and validity and utility of the information about the unapproved use. Violations of the FDCA and other statutes, including the False Claims Act, relating to the promotion and advertising of prescription products may lead to investigations and enforcement actions alleging violations of federal and state health care fraud and abuse laws, as well as state consumer protection laws. Failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may yield various results, including: - restrictions on such products, manufacturers or manufacturing processes;- restrictions or warnings on the labeling or marketing of a product;- restrictions on product distribution or use of a product;- requirements to conduct post-marketing studies or clinical trials;- warning letters or untitled letters;- withdrawal of the products from the market;- refusal to approve pending applications or supplements to approved applications that we submit;- recall of products;- fines, restitution or disgorgement of profits or revenues;- suspension or withdrawal of marketing approvals;- refusal to permit the import or export of our products;- product seizure or detention;- injunctions or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties;- damage to relationships with any potential collaborators;- unfavorable press coverage and damage to our reputation; or - litigation involving patients using our products. Similar restrictions apply to the approval of our products in the EU. The holder of the marketing authorization is required to comply with a range of requirements applicable to the manufacturing, marketing, promotion and sale of medicinal products. If we are found to have promoted such off-label uses, we may become subject to significant liability. The U.S. federal government has levied large civil and criminal fines against companies for alleged improper promotion of off-label use and has enjoined several companies from engaging in off-label promotion. The FDA has also requested that companies enter into consent decrees or permanent injunctions under which specified promotional conduct is changed or curtailed. If we cannot successfully manage the promotion of our product candidates, if approved, we could become subject to significant liability, which would materially adversely affect our business and financial condition.

Even if we obtain any regulatory approval for our product candidates, they will be subject to ongoing regulatory requirements for manufacturing, labeling, packaging, storing, advertising, promoting, sampling, record-keeping and submitting safety and other post-market information. Any regulatory approvals that we receive for our product candidates also may be subject to a REMS, limitations on the approved indicated uses for which the product may be marketed or to the conditions of approval or contain requirements for potentially costly post-marketing testing, including post-marketing clinical trials, and surveillance to monitor the quality, safety and efficacy of the product. For example, the holder of an approved NDA is obligated to monitor and report adverse events and any failure of a product to meet the specifications in the NDA. FDA guidance advises that patients treated with some types of gene therapy undergo follow-up observations for potential adverse events for as long as 15 years. The holder of an approved NDA also must submit new or supplemental applications and obtain FDA approval for certain changes to the approved product, product labeling or manufacturing process. Advertising and promotional materials must comply with FDA rules and are subject to FDA review, in addition to other potentially applicable federal and state laws. In addition, product manufacturers and their facilities are subject to payment of user fees and continual review and periodic inspections by the FDA and other regulatory authorities for compliance with cGMP requirements and adherence to commitments made in the NDA or foreign marketing application. If we, or a regulatory authority, discover previously unknown problems with a product, such as AEs of unanticipated severity or frequency, or problems with the facility where the product is manufactured or such regulatory authority disagrees with the promotion, marketing or labeling of that product, the regulatory authority may impose restrictions relative to that product, the manufacturing facility or us, including requiring recall or withdrawal of the product from the market or suspension of manufacturing. If we fail to comply with applicable regulatory requirements following approval of any of our product candidates, a regulatory authority may: - issue a warning letter asserting that we are in violation of the law;- seek an injunction or impose administrative, civil or criminal penalties or monetary fines;- suspend or withdraw regulatory approval;- suspend any ongoing clinical trials;- refuse to approve a pending NDA or comparable foreign marketing application, or any supplements thereto, submitted by us or our collaboration partners;- restrict the marketing or manufacturing of the product;- seize or detain the product or otherwise require the withdrawal of the product from the market;- refuse to permit the import or export of products; or - refuse to allow us to enter into supply contracts, including government contracts. Any government investigation of alleged violations of law could require us to expend significant time and resources in response and could generate negative publicity. The occurrence of any event or penalty described above may inhibit our ability to commercialize our product candidates and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. In addition, FDA policies, and those of equivalent foreign regulatory agencies, may change and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of our product candidates. We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action, either in the U.S. or abroad. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may lose any marketing approval that we may have obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability, which would harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

In order to market and sell our products in the EU and in other jurisdictions outside of the United States, we, and any collaborators, must obtain separate marketing approvals and comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements. The approval procedure varies among countries and can involve additional testing. The time required to obtain approval may differ substantially from that required to obtain FDA approval. The marketing approval process outside the United States generally includes all of the risks associated with obtaining FDA approval. We, and any collaborators, may not obtain approvals from regulatory authorities outside the United States on a timely basis, if at all. Approval by the FDA does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries or jurisdictions, and approval by one regulatory authority outside the United States does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries or jurisdictions or by the FDA. In many countries outside the United States, a product candidate must also be approved for reimbursement before it can be sold in that country. In some cases, the price that we intend to charge for our products, if approved, is also subject to approval. Obtaining non-U.S. regulatory approvals and compliance with non-U.S. regulatory requirements could result in significant delays, difficulties and costs for us and any collaborators and could delay or prevent the introduction of our product candidates in certain countries. In addition, if we or any collaborators fail to obtain the non-U.S. approvals required to market our product candidates outside the United States or if we or any collaborators fail to comply with applicable non-U.S. regulatory requirements, our target market will be reduced and our ability to realize the full market potential of our product candidates will be harmed and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects may be adversely affected. Additionally, we could face heightened risks with respect to obtaining marketing authorization in the United Kingdom as a result of the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union, commonly referred to as Brexit. The United Kingdom is no longer part of the European Single Market and EU Customs Union. As of January 1, 2025, the MHRA is responsible for approving all medicinal products destined for the United Kingdom market (i.e., Great Britain and Northern Ireland). On April 28, 2025, the UK Parliament adopted amendments to improve and strengthen the United Kingdom's clinical trials regulatory regime; they will take effect on April 28, 2026. These changes were needed since the current United Kingdom requirements are based upon the now-repealed EU Clinical Trials Directive (2001/20/EC), which has been replaced by the CTR. Since the United Kingdom left the EU prior to the date on which the EU CTR took effect, the UK legal framework did not benefit from the same revisions as occurred at EU level. In addition, as of January 1, 2025, a new international recognition procedure, or IRP, will apply, which intends to facilitate approval of pharmaceutical products in the UK. The IRP is open to applicants that have already received an authorization for the same product from one of the MHRA's specified Reference Regulators, or RRs. The RRs notably include EMA and regulators in the EU/EEA member states for approvals in the EU centralized procedure and mutual recognition procedure as well as the FDA (for product approvals granted in the U.S.). However, the concrete functioning of the IRP is currently unclear. Any delay in obtaining, or an inability to obtain, any marketing approvals, as a result of Brexit or otherwise, may force us or our collaborators to restrict or delay efforts to seek regulatory approval in the UK for our product candidates, which could significantly and materially harm our business. In addition, foreign regulatory authorities may change their approval policies and new regulations may be enacted. For instance, the EU pharmaceutical legislation is currently undergoing a complete review process, in the context of the Pharmaceutical Strategy for Europe initiative, launched by the European Commission in November 2020. The European Commission's proposal for revision of several legislative instruments related to medicinal products (potentially reducing the duration of regulatory data protection, revising the eligibility for expedited pathways, etc.) was published on April 26, 2023. On June 4, 2025, after almost two years of negotiations among the EU Member States, the Council of the European Union adopted its position on the proposed overhaul of the EU general pharmaceutical legislative framework, which is known as the new Pharma Package. On December 11, 2025, the European Parliament and Council reached a provisional political agreement on the legislation which is expected to be adopted by mid-2026. The revisions may have a significant impact on the pharmaceutical industry and our business. They would, among other things, set a baseline period of 8 years of data exclusivity and one year of market exclusivity with possible extensions for new indications up to a maximum of 11 years total. There will likely be a transition period of 24 months, with the changes taking effect in mid-2028. We expect that we will be subject to additional risks in commercializing any of our product candidates that receive marketing approval outside the United States, including tariffs, trade barriers and regulatory requirements; economic weakness, including inflation, or political instability in particular foreign economies and markets; compliance with tax, employment, immigration and labor laws for employees living or traveling outside of the United States; foreign currency fluctuations, which could result in increased operating expenses and reduced revenue, and other obligations incident to doing business in another country; and workforce uncertainty in countries where labor unrest is more common than in the United States.

The FDA and comparable regulatory agencies in foreign jurisdictions, such as the EMA and Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use, play an important role in the development of our product candidates by providing guidance on our clinical development programs and reviewing our regulatory submissions, including INDs, requests for special designations and marketing applications. If these oversight and review activities are disrupted, then correspondingly our ability to develop and secure timely approval of our product candidates could be impacted in a negative manner. For example, the recent loss, replacement and retirement of FDA leadership and personnel could lead to disruptions and delays in FDA guidance, or review and approval of our product candidates. Pursuant to an executive order, on March 27, 2025, the Secretary of HHS announced a reorganization and an approximately 24% reduction in force at HHS and an approximately 18% reduction in force at the FDA. Subsequently, the FDA indicated that roughly a quarter of those employees who received reduction in force notices had been reinstated. On July 14, 2025, following litigation reaching the U.S. Supreme Court, the administration began to carry out these layoffs across HHS, including the FDA. There are also ongoing deliberations within the administration and Congress over potentially substantial proposed cuts to the overall budget for HHS and funding of the FDA for the 2026 federal fiscal year. Further, while the FDA's review of marketing applications and other activities for new drugs and biologics is largely funded through the user fee program established under the PDUFA, it remains unclear how the administration's reduction in force and budget cuts will impact this program and the ability of the FDA to provide guidance and review our product candidates in a timely manner. For example, while the FDA reduction in force did not reportedly specifically target FDA reviewers, many operations, administrative and policy staff that help support such reviews were affected and those losses could lead to delays in PDUFA reviews and related activities. There have been several reports in which the FDA failed to meet a PDUFA goal date for approval of an NDA, or Biologics License Application due to heavy workload and limited resources. In addition, while currently unclear, there is a risk that the reduction in force and budget cutbacks could threaten the integrity of the PDUFA program itself. That is because, for the FDA to obligate user fees to be collected under PDUFA in the first place, a certain amount of non-user fee appropriations must be spent on the process for the review of applications plus certain other costs during the same fiscal year. There is also substantial uncertainty as to how regulatory reform measures and leadership changes being implemented by the current administration across the government - and in particular at the HHS and FDA - will impact the FDA and other federal agencies with jurisdiction over our activities. For example, since taking office in January 2025, the President has issued a number of executive orders that could have a significant impact on the manner in which the FDA conducts its operations and engages in regulatory and oversight activities. If these orders or executive actions impose constraints on the FDA's ability to engage in oversight and implementation activities in the normal course, our business may be negatively impacted. Similarly, actions by the U.S. government have significantly disrupted the operations of U.S. government agencies such as the National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and FDA, which have traditionally provided funding for basic research, research and development, and clinical testing. These and other future U.S. government actions could, directly or indirectly, significantly disrupt, delay, prevent, or increase the costs of our research and product commercialization programs, including our ability to develop new product candidates, conduct clinical trials, implement research collaborations with other companies or institutions, and obtain approvals to market and sell new products. In addition, government funding of the SEC and other government agencies on which our operations may rely, including those that fund research and development activities, is subject to the political process, which is inherently fluid and unpredictable. During the last several years, the U.S. government has shut down several times and certain regulatory agencies, such as the FDA and the SEC, have had to furlough critical FDA, SEC and other government employees and stop critical activities. If a prolonged government shutdown occurs, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA to timely review and process our regulatory submissions and could impact our ability to access the public markets and obtain necessary capital to properly capitalize and continue our operations. At the same time, disruptions at the FDA and other government agencies may result from public health events similar to the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, during the pandemic, a number of companies announced receipt of CRLs due to the FDA's inability to complete required inspections for their applications. In the event of a similar public health or other emergency in the future, the FDA may not be able to continue its current pace and review timelines could be extended. Regulatory authorities outside the U.S. facing similar circumstances may adopt similar restrictions or other policy measures in response to a similar public health emergency and may also experience delays in their regulatory activities. Accordingly, if any of the foregoing developments and others impact the ability of the FDA to provide us with guidance regarding our clinical development programs or delay the agency's review and processing of our regulatory submissions, including INDs and NDAs, our business would be negatively impacted. Further, any future government shutdown could impact our ability to access the public markets and obtain necessary capital to properly capitalize and continue our operations.

The regulations that govern marketing approvals, pricing, coverage and reimbursement for new drug products vary widely from country to country. Current and future legislation may significantly change the approval requirements in ways that could involve additional costs and cause delays in obtaining approvals. Some countries require approval of the sale price of a drug before it can be marketed. In many countries, the pricing review period begins after marketing or product licensing approval is granted. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval in some countries, we may be required to conduct a clinical trial that compares the cost-effectiveness of our product candidate to other available therapies. In some foreign markets, prescription pharmaceutical pricing remains subject to continuing governmental control even after initial approval is granted. As a result, we might obtain marketing approval for a product candidate in a particular country, but then be subject to price regulations that delay our commercial launch of the product, possibly for lengthy time periods, and negatively impact the revenues, if any, we are able to generate from the sale of the product in that country. Adverse pricing limitations may hinder our ability to recoup our investment in one or more product candidates, even if our product candidates obtain marketing approval. Our ability to commercialize any product candidates successfully also will depend in part on the extent to which coverage and adequate reimbursement for these products and related treatments will be available from government healthcare programs, private health insurers and other organizations. 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. A primary trend in the U.S. healthcare industry and elsewhere is cost containment. Government authorities and third-party payors have attempted to control costs by limiting coverage and the amount of reimbursement for particular medications. Increasingly, government authorities and 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. Coverage and reimbursement may not be available for any product that we commercialize and, even if these are available, the level of reimbursement may not be satisfactory. Reimbursement may affect the demand for, or the price of, any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval. Obtaining and maintaining adequate reimbursement for our products may be difficult. We may be required to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies to justify coverage and reimbursement or the level of reimbursement relative to other therapies. If coverage and adequate reimbursement are not available or reimbursement is available only to limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval. There may be significant delays in obtaining coverage and reimbursement for newly approved drugs, and coverage may be more limited than the purposes for which the FDA or similar regulatory authorities approve the drug outside of the United States. Moreover, eligibility for coverage and reimbursement does not imply that a drug will be paid for in all cases or at a rate that covers our costs, including research, development, intellectual property, manufacture, sale and distribution expenses. Interim reimbursement levels for new drugs, if applicable, may also not be sufficient to cover our costs and may not be made permanent. Reimbursement rates may vary according to the use of the drug and the clinical setting in which it is used, may be based on reimbursement levels already set for lower cost drugs and may be incorporated into existing payments for other services. 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. Third-party payors often rely upon Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own reimbursement policies. Our inability to promptly obtain coverage and adequate reimbursement rates from both government-funded and private payors for any approved products that we develop could have a material adverse effect on our operating results, our ability to raise capital needed to commercialize products and our overall financial condition.

We are exposed to the risk that our employees, independent contractors, vendors, principal investigators, CROs, CMOs, CDMOs, and consultants may engage in fraudulent conduct or other illegal activity. Misconduct by these parties could include: - intentional, reckless or negligent conduct or disclosure of unauthorized activities to us that violate the regulations of the FDA or similar foreign regulatory authorities;- healthcare fraud and abuse laws and regulations in the United States and in other jurisdictions;- violations of U.S. federal securities laws, including those related to trading in our common stock;- violations of applicable US and international privacy laws; and - failures to report financial information or data accurately. In particular, sales, marketing and business arrangements in the healthcare industry are subject to extensive laws and regulations intended to prevent fraud, misconduct, kickbacks, self-dealing and other abusive practices. These laws and regulations regulate a wide range of pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, sales commission, customer incentive programs and other business arrangements. Other forms of misconduct could involve the improper use of information obtained in the course of clinical trials or creating fraudulent data in our preclinical studies or clinical trials, which could, among other things, result in regulatory sanctions and cause serious harm to our reputation. We have adopted a code of conduct and implement other internal controls applicable to all of our employees, but it is not always possible to identify and deter misconduct by employees and other third parties. In addition, the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to comply with these laws or regulations. Additionally, we are subject to the risk that a person could allege such fraud or other misconduct, even if none occurred. If any legal, regulatory or administrative actions or proceedings are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, such actions could have a significant impact on our business, including the imposition of civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, monetary fines, possible exclusion from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other federal healthcare programs, contractual damages, reputational harm, diversion of management attention, general costs of litigation or proceedings, diminished profits and future earnings, and curtailment of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations.

We do not currently have a sales or marketing infrastructure and have no experience in the sale, marketing or distribution of biopharmaceutical products. To achieve commercial success for any product for which we obtain marketing approval, we will need to establish sales, marketing and distribution capabilities, either ourselves or through collaboration or other arrangements with third parties. In past years, we had begun the process of establishing our own focused, specialized sales, marketing, and market access organization to support the commercialization of our product candidates, including vepdegestrant, in the United States. However, in September 2025, we announced that we and Pfizer have agreed to jointly select a third party for the commercialization and potential further development of vepdegestrant. Other than with respect to vepdegestrant, we currently expect that we would build our own focused, specialized sales, marketing and market access organization to support the commercialization of our product candidates in the United States for which we receive marketing approval and that can be commercialized with such capabilities. There are risks involved with establishing our own sales and marketing capabilities. For example, recruiting and training a sales force is expensive and time-consuming and could delay any product launch. If the commercial launch of a product candidate for which we recruit a sales force and establish marketing capabilities is delayed or does not occur for any reason, we would have prematurely or unnecessarily incurred these commercialization expenses. These efforts may be costly, and our investment would be lost if we cannot retain or reposition our sales and marketing personnel. Factors that may inhibit our efforts to commercialize our products on our own include: - our inability to recruit, train and retain adequate numbers of effective, knowledgeable and experienced sales and marketing personnel;- the inability of such sales personnel to obtain access to physicians or persuade adequate numbers of physicians to prescribe any future products;- the lack of complementary products to be offered by sales personnel, which may put us at a competitive disadvantage to companies with more extensive product lines; and - unforeseen costs and expenses associated with creating an independent sales and marketing organization. If we are unable to establish our own sales and marketing capabilities and, therefore, we enter into arrangements with third parties to perform these services, our revenue from product sales and our profitability, if any, are likely to be lower than if we were to market and sell any products that we develop ourselves. In addition, we may not be successful in entering into arrangements with third parties to market and sell our product candidates or may be unable to do so on terms that are acceptable to us. We likely will have little control over such third parties, and any of these third parties may fail to devote the necessary resources and attention to sell and market our products effectively. If we do not establish sales and marketing capabilities successfully, either on our own or in collaboration with third parties, we will not be successful in commercializing our product candidates.