Item 3. Key Information

A. Reserved.

B. Capitalization and indebtedness.

Not applicable.

C. Reasons for the offer and use of proceeds.

Not applicable.

D. Risk factors.

Our business has significant risks. You should consider carefully the risks described below, together with the other information contained in this annual report, including our consolidated financial statements and the related notes. If any of the following risks occur, our business, financial condition, results of operations and future growth prospects could be materially and adversely affected.

Risks Related to Our Financial Position and Need for Additional Capital

We will need substantial additional funding. If we are unable to raise capital when needed, we may be forced to delay, reduce or eliminate our product development programs or commercialization efforts.

Developing pharmaceutical products, including conducting preclinical studies and clinical trials, is a very time-consuming, expensive and uncertain process that takes years to complete. We expect our expenses to increase in connection with our ongoing activities, particularly as we initiate new clinical trials of, initiate new research and preclinical development efforts for and seek marketing approval for our product candidates. In addition, if we obtain marketing approval for any of our product candidates, we may incur significant commercialization expenses related to product sales, marketing, manufacturing and distribution to the extent that such sales, marketing, manufacturing and distribution are not the responsibility of a future collaborator. Furthermore, we have incurred, and expect to continue to incur, significant additional costs associated with operating as a public company. Accordingly, we will need to obtain substantial additional funding in connection with our continuing operations. If we are unable to raise capital when needed and on attractive terms, we may be forced to delay, reduce or eliminate our research and development programs or any future commercialization efforts.

As of December 31, 2021, we had cash and cash equivalents of $47.1 million. Our existing cash and cash equivalents will not be sufficient to support our clinical development of elamipretide for rare and common ophthalmic indications, rare cardiomyopathies and rare neuromuscular and neurological indications and will not be sufficient to support any additional protocols or studies we may conduct for Barth syndrome, or BTHS, our planned Phase 3 clinical trial for primary mitochondrial disease arising due to nuclear DNA mutations, or nPMM, our ongoing Phase 2b clinical trial for treatment of GA, our anticipated Phase 2 clinical trial for the treatment of Duchenne cardiomyopathy, any Phase 2 clinical trials or clinical development for SBT-272 or any preclinical development for SBT-550 series, or for any other product candidates we may develop in the future. We will be required to expend significant funds in order to advance the development of elamipretide, SBT-272 and SBT-550 series, as well as any other product candidates we may develop in the future. In addition, while we may seek one or more collaborators for future development of our product candidates, and, in particular, may conduct any large Phase 3 clinical trials of elamipretide, such as those we would likely be required to conduct for common age-related diseases such as dry age-related macular degeneration, or dry AMD, in collaboration with one or more partners that would finance most of the associated costs, we may not be able to enter into a collaboration for any of our product candidates on suitable terms, or at all. In any event, our existing cash and cash equivalents will not be sufficient to fund all of the efforts that we plan to undertake or to fund the completion of development of any of our product candidates. Accordingly, we will be required to obtain further funding through public or private equity offerings, debt financings, collaborations and licensing arrangements or other sources. Adequate additional financing may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all. In addition, market volatility, inflation and interest rate fluctuations may increase our cost of financing or restrict our access to potential sources of future liquidity. Our failure to raise capital as and when needed would have a negative impact on our financial condition and our ability to pursue our business strategy.

-5-

Our estimate as to how long we expect our existing cash and cash equivalents to be able to fund our operations is based on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and we could use our available capital resources sooner than we currently expect. Further, changing circumstances, some of which may be beyond our control, could cause us to consume capital significantly faster than we currently anticipate, and we may need to seek additional funds sooner than planned. Our future funding requirements, both short-term and long-term, will depend on many factors, including:

Our recurring losses and negative cash flows raise substantial doubt regarding our ability to continue as a going concern.

Based on our cash balances, recurring losses and projected spending, there is doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. We are required to comply with an unrestricted minimum cash balance in accordance with our venture loan facility with Horizon Technology Finance Corporation and Powerscourt Investments XXV, LP, which we refer together as the Lenders, until certain cash financing conditions are met, and there is a risk that we may be unable to remain in compliance with this financial covenant in the future in which case the debt may become immediately due and payable. Given our planned expenditures for the next several years, including, without limitation, expenditures in connection with our clinical trials of elamipretide, SBT-272, SBT-550 series and other new compounds, we have concluded, in connection with the issuance of our consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2021, that there is a substantial doubt regarding our ability to continue as a going concern. Our independent registered public accounting firm has issued a going concern opinion in connection with the audit of our annual financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021. A going concern opinion means that there is substantial doubt that the company can continue as an ongoing business for the next 12 months. If we are unable to continue as a going concern, we might have to liquidate our assets and the values we receive for our assets in liquidation or dissolution could be significantly lower than the values reflected in our financial statements. In addition, the inclusion of an explanatory paragraph regarding substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern and our lack of cash resources may materially adversely affect the price of the American Depositary Shares, or ADSs and our ability to raise new capital or to enter into critical contractual relations with third parties. There is no assurance that we will be able to adequately fund our operations in the future.

-6-

Raising additional capital may cause dilution to our shareholders, restrict our operations or require us to relinquish rights to our technologies or product candidates.

We expect that significant additional capital will be needed in the future to continue our planned operations. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of ordinary shares, ADSs, convertible securities or other equity securities, our existing shareholders’ ownership interest may be substantially diluted, and the terms of these securities could include liquidation or other preferences and anti-dilution protections that could adversely affect the rights of our existing shareholders. Additional debt financing, if available, would result in increased fixed payment obligations and may involve the issuance of additional warrants and/or agreements that include restrictive covenants that limit our ability to take specific actions, such as incurring additional debt, making capital expenditures, creating liens, redeeming shares or declaring dividends, that could adversely impact our ability to conduct our business. For example, in connection with our venture loan facility with our Lenders, we granted a security interest in substantially all of our assets, excluding our intellectual property, and agreed to a negative pledge on our intellectual property. The venture loan facility also contains restrictive covenants including, subject to certain exceptions, covenants that prohibit us from incurring additional indebtedness, creating any lien on our property, making investments, paying dividends or redeeming shares, transferring any material portion of our assets, merging with or acquiring another entity, entering into a transaction that will result in a change of control and making certain other corporate changes. Future debt securities or other financing arrangements could contain similar or more restrictive negative covenants. In addition, securing financing could require a substantial amount of time and attention from our management and may divert a disproportionate amount of their attention away from day-to-day activities, which may adversely affect our management’s ability to oversee the development of our product candidates.

If we raise additional funds through collaborations or marketing, distribution or licensing arrangements with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our technologies, future revenue streams or product candidates or grant licenses on terms that may not be favorable to us. If we are unable to raise additional funds when needed, we may be required to delay, limit, reduce or terminate our product development or future commercialization efforts or grant rights to develop and market product candidates that we would otherwise prefer to develop and market ourselves.

If we receive regulatory approval for the use of elamipretide for certain indications, we will be required to make substantial payments pursuant to our Development Funding Agreement.

If we receive regulatory approval for the use of elamipretide as a treatment for BTHS, geographic atrophy, or GA, which is an advanced form of dry AMD, Friedreich’s ataxia, or FRDA, Duchenne cardiomyopathy, nPMM or Leber hereditary optic neuropathy, or LHON, we will be required to make substantial payments pursuant to our Development Funding Agreement. Our ability to make these required payments depends on our future performance, which is subject to economic, financial, competitive and other factors beyond our control. Our business may generate cash flow from operations in the future sufficient to meet our obligations under the Development Funding Agreement. If we are unable to generate such cash flow or to obtain additional funding through public or private equity offerings, debt financings, collaborations and licensing arrangements or other sources on acceptable terms, or at all, we could default on our payment obligations under the Development Funding Agreement.

We have incurred significant losses since inception and expect to incur significant and increasing losses for at least the next several years. We may never achieve or maintain profitability.

We have incurred significant annual net operating losses in every year since our inception. Our net losses were $52.5 million, $57.5 million, and $71.7 million for the years ended December 31, 2021, 2020 and 2019, respectively. As of December 31, 2021, we had an accumulated deficit of $608.0 million. We expect to continue to incur significant and increasing operating losses for the foreseeable future, and we do not know whether or when we will become profitable. We have not generated any revenues from product sales, have not completed the development of any product candidates and may never have a product candidate approved for commercialization. We have financed our operations to date through the issuance of our ADSs, ordinary shares, Series A convertible preferred shares, debt financings, a payment under an option agreement and payments under our Development Funding Agreement, and have devoted substantially all of our financial resources and efforts to research and development, including preclinical

-7-

studies and clinical development programs. Our net losses may fluctuate significantly from quarter-to-quarter and year-to-year. Net losses and negative cash flows have had, and will continue to have, an adverse effect on our shareholders’ equity and working capital.

We anticipate that our expenses will increase substantially if and as we:

Our ability to become and remain profitable depends on our ability to generate revenue. We do not expect to generate significant revenue unless and until we are, or any future collaborator is, able to obtain marketing approval for, and successfully commercialize, one or more of our product candidates. This will require our, or any of our future collaborators’, success in a range of challenging activities, including completing clinical trials of our product candidates; obtaining marketing approval for these product candidates; manufacturing, marketing and selling those products for which we, or any of our future collaborators, may obtain marketing approval; satisfying any post-marketing requirements; and obtaining reimbursement for our products from private insurance or government payors. Because of the uncertainties and risks associated with these activities, we are unable to accurately predict the timing and amount of increased expenses, and if or when we might achieve profitability. We and any future collaborators may never succeed in these activities and, even if we do, or any future collaborators do, we may never generate revenues that are large enough for us 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 decrease the value of our company and could impair our ability to raise capital, expand our business, maintain our research and development efforts, diversify our pipeline of product candidates or continue our operations. A decline in the value of our company could cause our shareholders to lose all or part of their investment.

We have no history of commercializing pharmaceutical products, which may make it difficult to evaluate the prospects for our future viability.

We began operations in 2006 and initiated our first clinical trial in 2010. Our operations have been limited to financing and staffing our company and developing our technology and conducting preclinical research and clinical trials for our product candidates. We have not demonstrated an ability to obtain marketing approvals, manufacture a commercial scale product, or arrange for a third party to do so on our

-8-

behalf, or conduct sales and marketing activities necessary for successful product commercialization. Accordingly, you should consider our prospects in light of the costs, uncertainties, delays and difficulties frequently encountered by companies in the early stages of development, especially clinical-stage biopharmaceutical companies such as ours. Predictions about our future success or viability may not be as accurate as they could be if we had a longer operating history or a history of successfully developing and commercializing pharmaceutical products.

We have a significant amount of debt, which may affect our ability to operate our business and secure additional financing in the future.

As of December 31, 2021, we had $15.0 million of outstanding principal under our venture loan facility with the Lenders. Subject to the restrictions set forth in the venture loan and security agreement governing our existing venture loan facility, we could incur additional indebtedness beyond our borrowings under our venture loan facility.

Our outstanding indebtedness, including any additional indebtedness beyond our borrowings under our venture loan facility, combined with our other financial obligations and contractual commitments, could have significant adverse consequences, including:

We may not have sufficient funds and may be unable to arrange for additional financing to pay the amounts due under our venture loan facility. Failure to make payments or comply with other covenants under our venture loan facility could result in an event of default and acceleration of amounts due. Additionally, under our venture loan facility, an occurrence that has a material adverse effect on our business, our ability to repay our obligations under the venture loan and security agreement or associated agreements when due or on the value or priority of the Lenders’ security interest could be considered an event of default. If an event of default occurs and the Lenders accelerate the amounts due, we may not be able to make accelerated payments, and the Lenders could seek to enforce their security interests in the collateral securing such indebtedness, which includes substantially all of our assets other than our intellectual property. In addition, the covenants under our venture loan facility, the pledge of substantially all of our assets as collateral and the negative pledge with respect to our intellectual property could limit our ability to obtain additional debt financing.

Risks Related to the Discovery, Development and Commercialization of Our Product Candidates

Our approach to the discovery and development of product candidates and the development of therapies targeting mitochondria generally are unproven, and we do not know whether we will be able to develop any products of commercial value.

We are focused on discovering and developing therapies for diseases involving mitochondrial dysfunction, particularly by developing therapies that target mitochondria in order to normalize the function of dysfunctional mitochondria. While we believe that our approach may ultimately enable drug research and clinical development for mitochondrial diseases across a wide range of therapeutic areas, this approach is unproven. We have not yet succeeded and may never succeed in demonstrating efficacy and safety for any of our product candidates in later stage clinical trials or in obtaining marketing approval thereafter. For example, we announced in December 2019 that our Phase 3 clinical trial in primary mitochondrial myopathy, or PMM, did not meet its primary efficacy endpoints. In addition, in October

-9-

2021 we received a Refusal to File letter, or RTF, from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or the FDA, regarding our NDA for BTHS. Furthermore, no products or therapies targeting mitochondrial dysfunction have ever obtained marketing approval from the FDA, and the European Medicines Agency, or the EMA, has approved one therapy to treat LHON (Raxone, or idebenone, made by Santhera Pharmaceuticals Holding), which is the only approved therapy to treat any primary mitochondrial disease. If we are unable to successfully discover and develop product candidates, our business prospects will be substantially harmed.

We are dependent on the success of our clinical product candidates. If we are unable to complete the clinical development of, obtain marketing approval for or successfully commercialize any of our product candidates, either alone or with a collaborator, or if we experience significant delays in doing so, our business could be substantially harmed.

We have no products approved for sale and have invested a significant portion of our efforts and financial resources in the development of elamipretide for the treatment of rare primary mitochondrial diseases. Our prospects are substantially dependent on our ability, or the ability of any future collaborator, to develop, obtain marketing approval for and successfully commercialize elamipretide, SBT-272 or any of our other product candidates.

The success of elamipretide will depend on several factors, including the following:

-10-

Many of these factors—including with respect to clinical development, the regulatory submission process, potential threats to our intellectual property rights and the manufacturing, marketing and sales efforts of any future collaborator—are beyond our control, and clinical development of product candidates is inherently risky and uncertain. For example, although we observed trends towards improvement in a certain subset of patients, our Phase 2/3 clinical trial in BTHS failed to reach its primary efficacy endpoints during the double-blind, placebo-controlled portion of the trial, and one of the FDA’s stated reasons for issuing an RTF in response to our NDA submission for BTHS in October 2021 was the absence of a single adequate and well-controlled trial that provided evidence of effectiveness. Our Phase 3 clinical trial in PMM also failed to meet its primary endpoints. If we are unable to develop, receive marketing approval for and successfully commercialize elamipretide, on our own or with any future collaborator, or experience delays as a result of any of these factors or otherwise, our business could be substantially harmed.

We are developing elamipretide for certain indications of the eye, including GA and LHON. Our phase 2 clinical trial for the treatment of LHON involved administration of elamipretide by use of topical drops, and our clinical trial for the treatment of GA involves administration of elamipretide by subcutaneous injection. We are working to develop methods for intravitreal injection, or direct injection of drug into the eye, but we cannot predict whether those development efforts will be successful.

We may not be successful in our efforts to identify or discover and develop additional potential product candidates.

A significant portion of the research that we are conducting involves the development of new therapeutic compounds targeting the mitochondria. The drug discovery that we are conducting may not be successful in identifying compounds that have commercial value or therapeutic utility. Our discovery platform may initially show promise in identifying potential product candidates, yet fail to yield viable product candidates for clinical development or commercialization for a number of reasons, including the following:

Our research programs to identify new product candidates will require substantial technical, financial and human resources, and we may be unsuccessful in our efforts to identify new product candidates. Further, the results we obtain in preclinical testing and early clinical trials may not be predictive of results that are obtained in later studies, and we may suffer significant setbacks in advanced clinical trials, even after seeing promising results in earlier studies. If we are unable to identify suitable additional compounds for preclinical and clinical development, our ability to develop product candidates and obtain product revenues in future periods could be compromised, which could result in significant harm to our financial position and adversely impact the price of the ADSs

We have never obtained marketing approval for a product candidate and we may be unable to obtain, or may be delayed in obtaining, marketing approval for any of our product candidates.

We have never obtained marketing approval for a product candidate. The FDA has, and may in the future, refuse to accept for substantive review any NDAs we submit for our product candidates or if accepted for substantive review, may conclude after review of our data that our application is insufficient to obtain marketing approval of our product candidates. For example, we met with the FDA to discuss the clinical evidence to support a potential NDA submission for BTHS, and the FDA expressed its view that the existing clinical data are insufficient to demonstrate substantial evidence of effectiveness and would not support NDA review. The FDA recommended that we collect additional controlled clinical data in this indication prior to an NDA submission. In May 2021, we submitted a randomized withdrawal clinical trial protocol to FDA. After reviewing our submission, the FDA concluded that neither the proposed randomized withdrawal trial nor any new clinical trial data from the patients remaining on the open label

-11-

extension would be likely to add meaningfully to the evidence to support an NDA. Despite FDA’s view that the existing clinical data are insufficient to demonstrate substantial evidence of effectiveness and would not support NDA review, we submitted our NDA to the FDA in August 2021, and the FDA refused to file the NDA.

If the FDA does not accept or approve our NDAs for our most advanced product candidates, it may require that we conduct additional clinical, nonclinical or manufacturing validation studies and submit that data before it will reconsider our applications.

Depending on the extent of these or any other FDA-required studies, approval of any NDA or application that we submit may be delayed by several years or may require us to expend more resources than we have available. It is also possible that additional studies, if performed and completed, may not be considered sufficient by the FDA to approve our NDAs.

Any delay in obtaining, or an inability to obtain, any marketing approvals would prevent us from commercializing our product candidates, generating revenues and achieving and sustaining profitability. If any of these outcomes occur, we may be forced to abandon our development efforts for our product candidates, which could significantly and materially harm our business.

Results of preclinical studies and early clinical trials may not be predictive of results of future clinical trials.

The outcome of preclinical studies and early clinical trials may not be predictive of the success of later clinical trials, and interim results of clinical trials do not necessarily predict success in future clinical trials. Many companies in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries have suffered significant setbacks in late-stage clinical trials after achieving positive results in earlier development. We faced this type of setback when our Phase 3 clinical trial in PMM did not meet its primary efficacy endpoints despite encouraging signals in early clinical trials, and we cannot be certain that we will not face similar setbacks in other trials. The design of a clinical trial can determine whether its results will support approval of a product and flaws in the design of a clinical trial may not become apparent until the clinical trial is well advanced. If our trial designs are not sufficient, our clinical programs may be delayed, or we may decide to terminate one or more of such programs.

We have limited experience in designing clinical trials and may be unable to design and execute a clinical trial to support marketing approval. In addition, preclinical and clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses. During the regulatory review process, we will need to identify success criteria and endpoints at the time of the initiation of the trial such that the FDA or other regulatory authorities will be able to determine the clinical efficacy and safety profile of any product candidates we may develop, and the resulting clinical data and results may be difficult to analyze. Even if the FDA or other regulatory authorities were to find our success criteria to be sufficiently validated and clinically meaningful, we may not achieve the pre-specified endpoints to a degree of statistical significance. Many companies that believed that their product candidates had performed satisfactorily in preclinical studies and clinical trials nonetheless failed to obtain marketing approval of their product candidates. Even if we, or any future collaborators, believe that the results of clinical trials for our product candidates warrant marketing approval, the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may disagree and may not grant marketing approval of our product candidates. For example, in our BTHS program, we believed that our clinical trial data could support an NDA review and submitted an NDA to the FDA in August 2021. In October 2021, the FDA refused to file our NDA.

In some instances, there can be significant variability in safety or efficacy results between different clinical trials of the same product candidate due to numerous factors, including changes in trial procedures set forth in protocols, differences in the size and type of the patient populations, changes in and adherence to the dosing regimen and other clinical trial protocols and the rate of dropout among clinical trial participants. Specifically, the clinical trials we have completed to date have enrolled only small numbers of subjects, we have experienced dropout among participants, and we have not always successfully achieved our pre-specified clinical trial endpoints to a degree of statistical significance.

To date, other than our ongoing Phase 2b clinical trial in GA, our Phase 3 clinical trial in PMM, our Phase 3 retrospective natural history control trial in BTHS, and our Phase 2/3 clinical trial in BTHS, we have only conducted small Phase 1 and Phase 2 clinical trials, many of which have been undertaken to help

-12-

inform our clinical strategy and develop later stage clinical trials intended to assess efficacy. While the endpoints and populations for these later stage clinical trials, including our Phase 2b clinical trial for GA, our anticipated Phase 3 clinical trial for nPMM and our anticipated Phase 2 clinical trial for Duchenne cardiomyopathy, are or will be derived from results of our earlier trials and medical literature, in some cases we did not demonstrate a statistically significant effect in the population and on the efficacy endpoints in our prior clinical trials prospectively described in the clinical trial protocol. The lack of statistical significance could be attributed to various factors, including the lack of power to demonstrate significance, the design of the studies or the lack of a treatment benefit from our product candidate. In some cases, we conducted post hoc, retrospective analyses of data subsets and have designed, and expect to design later stage clinical trials based on the results of such post hoc analyses. For example, the improvements in stroke volume and other parameters of cardiac function as well as in functional endpoints observed in our BTHS Phase 2/3 trial were not statistically significant during the double-blind, placebo-controlled portion of the trial, which we believe was due to the duration of therapy being too short to derive benefit. Although we plan to design our future trials in rare cardiomyopathies with a longer duration of dosing, we cannot predict the successfulness of that approach. Additionally, despite improvements observed in similar endpoints during a Phase 2 clinical trial, our Phase 3 clinical trial in PMM failed to reach its primary efficacy endpoints, and we observed that subjective, effort-dependent endpoints such as the six-minute walk test, or 6MWT, may be influenced by a placebo effect, such that patients randomized to placebo may experience meaningful improvements. Although we have incorporated and plan to incorporate objective endpoints including disease biomarkers such as echocardiographic parameters of cardiac function for BTHS and other rare cardiomyopathies, and optical coherence tomography and fundus autofluorescence imaging of geographic atrophy progression for GA, we have also assessed and expect to assess functional endpoints including 6MWT, for BTHS, and visual function, for GA.

If we fail to receive positive results in clinical trials of our product candidates and do not achieve statistical significance for the prospectively specified primary endpoints in our planned Phase 3 clinical trials, the development timeline and regulatory approval and commercialization prospects for our most advanced product candidates, and, correspondingly, our business and financial prospects, would be negatively impacted.

Our future success depends on our ability to retain key executives and to attract, retain and motivate qualified personnel.

We are highly dependent on Reenie McCarthy, our Chief Executive Officer and a Director, as well as the other principal members of our management and scientific teams. Ms. McCarthy is employed “at will,” meaning we or she may terminate the employment relationship at any time. In the future, we may be dependent on other members of our management, scientific and development team. Our ability to compete in the highly competitive biotechnology and pharmaceuticals industries depends upon our ability to attract and retain highly qualified managerial, scientific and medical personnel. Our industry has experienced a high rate of turnover of management personnel in recent years. If we lose one or more of our executive officers or other key employees, our ability to implement our business strategy successfully could be seriously harmed. Furthermore, replacing executive officers or other key employees may be difficult and may take an extended period of time because of the limited number of individuals in our industry with the breadth of skills and experience required to develop, gain marketing approval of and commercialize products successfully. Competition to hire from this limited pool is intense, and we may be unable to hire, train, retain or motivate these additional key employees on acceptable terms given the competition among numerous pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies for similar personnel. We also experience competition for the hiring of scientific and clinical personnel from universities and research institutions.

We rely on consultants and advisors, including scientific and clinical advisors, to assist us in formulating our research and development and commercialization strategy. Our consultants and advisors may be employed by other entities and may have commitments under consulting or advisory contracts with those entities that may limit their availability to us. If we are unable to continue to attract and retain highly qualified personnel, our ability to develop and commercialize our product candidates will be limited.

Because we are developing elamipretide for the treatment of several indications for which regulatory authorities have not issued definitive guidance as to how to measure and demonstrate efficacy, there is

-13-

substantial risk that the design or outcomes of our clinical trials will not be satisfactory to support marketing approval.

We are developing elamipretide for several indications for which there are currently no approved therapies in the United States or the European Union, including BTHS, dry AMD and nPMM, and for symptoms of diseases including Duchenne cardiomyopathy and FRDA, for which there are currently no approved therapies in the United States or the European Union (although there are therapies approved generally for the treatment of Duchenne which do not address the cardiomyopathic manifestations). We are developing elamipretide for LHON, for which there are no currently approved therapies in the United States and only one therapy approved in Europe. Furthermore, there has been limited historical clinical trial experience for the development of drugs to treat many of these indications. As a result, the design and conduct of clinical trials for these indications is subject to substantial risk. In particular, regulatory authorities in the United States and in other jurisdictions, including Europe, have not issued definitive guidance as to how to measure and demonstrate efficacy for BTHS, LHON, dry AMD, nPMM, Duchenne cardiomyopathy or FRDA, and, as a result, there is substantial risk that the design or outcomes of our clinical trials will not be satisfactory to support marketing approval. For example, the endpoints in our Phase 2/3 clinical trial of elamipretide for the treatment of BTHS included change in six-minute walk distance and change in a total fatigue scale from the BTHS symptom assessment, a newly developed patient reported outcome measure, which has not been utilized in prior trials and may not be accepted by regulators as a basis for approval. Even if this type of novel endpoint is accepted as a basis for approval in the United States, we cannot be certain that regulators outside of the United States will accept such endpoints or will not require us to conduct additional validation studies to support the suitability of such endpoints for approval in these jurisdictions.

We may expend our limited resources to pursue a particular product candidate or indication and fail to capitalize on product candidates or indications that may be more profitable or for which there is a greater likelihood of success.

Because we have limited financial and managerial resources, we intend to focus on developing product candidates for specific indications that we identify as most likely to succeed, in terms of both their potential for marketing approval and commercialization. As a result, we may forego or delay pursuit of opportunities with other product candidates or for other indications that may prove to have greater commercial potential.

Our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial products or profitable market opportunities. Our spending on current and future research and development programs and product candidates for specific indications may not yield any commercially viable product candidates. If we do not accurately evaluate the commercial potential or target market for a particular product candidate, we may relinquish valuable rights to that product candidate through collaboration, licensing or other royalty arrangements in cases in which it would have been more advantageous for us to retain sole development and commercialization rights to the product candidate.

Clinical drug development involves a lengthy and expensive process with an uncertain outcome.

Clinical testing is expensive, time consuming and uncertain as to outcome. We cannot guarantee that any clinical trials will be conducted as planned or completed on schedule, or at all. The clinical development of our product candidates is susceptible to the risk of failure at any stage of drug development, including failure to demonstrate efficacy in a clinical trial or across a broad population of patients, the occurrence of adverse events that are severe or medically or commercially unacceptable, failure to comply with protocols or applicable regulatory requirements and determination by the FDA or any comparable foreign regulatory authority that a product candidate may not continue development or is not approvable. For example, Phase 3 clinical trials for common diseases associated with aging, such as dry AMD, would likely require a large number of subjects to be enrolled, which would cause any such trial to be very expensive. Moreover, it is possible that even if one or more of our product candidates has a beneficial effect, that effect will not be detected during clinical evaluation as a result of one or more of a variety of factors, including the size, duration, design, measurements, conduct or analysis of our clinical trials. Conversely, as a result of the same factors, our clinical trials may indicate an apparent positive effect of a product candidate that is greater than the actual positive effect, if any. Similarly, in our clinical trials we may fail to detect toxicity of or intolerability caused by our product candidates, or mistakenly believe

-14-

that our product candidates are toxic or not well tolerated when that is not in fact the case. Many companies in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries have suffered significant setbacks in late-stage clinical trials after achieving positive results in earlier development, and we cannot be certain that we will not face additional setbacks. It is possible that any of our development programs may be placed on full or partial clinical hold by regulatory authorities at any point, which would delay and possibly prevent further development of our product candidates.

If clinical trials of our product candidates fail to satisfactorily demonstrate safety and efficacy to the FDA and other comparable foreign regulators, we, or any future collaborators, may incur additional costs or experience delays in completing, or ultimately be unable to complete, the development and commercialization of these product candidates.

We, and any future collaborators, are not permitted to commercialize, market, promote or sell any product candidate in the United States without obtaining marketing approval from the FDA. Comparable foreign regulatory authorities impose similar restrictions. We, and any future collaborators, may never receive such approvals. We, and any future collaborators, must complete extensive preclinical development and clinical trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of our product candidates in humans before we, or they, will be able to obtain these approvals.

Clinical testing is expensive, difficult to design and implement, can take many years to complete and is inherently uncertain as to outcome. We have submitted one NDA to the FDA, which was determined, based on a preliminary review, not to be sufficiently complete to permit a substantive review, and have not previously submitted any similar drug approval filings to comparable foreign regulatory authorities for any of our product candidates. Any inability to complete preclinical and clinical development successfully could result in additional costs to us, or any future collaborators, and impair our ability to generate revenues from product sales, regulatory and commercialization milestones and royalties. Moreover, if (i) we, or any future collaborators, are required to conduct additional clinical trials or other testing of our product candidates beyond the trials and testing that we or they contemplate, (ii) we, or any future collaborators, are unable to identify a feasible trial design to generate additional data, (iii) we, or any future collaborators, are unable to successfully complete clinical trials of our product candidates or other testing, (iv) the results of these trials or tests are unfavorable, uncertain or are only modestly favorable, or (v) there are unacceptable safety concerns associated with our product candidates, we, or any future collaborators, may:

Adverse events or undesirable side effects caused by, or other unexpected properties of, any of our product candidates may be identified during development that could delay or prevent their marketing approval or limit their use.

Adverse events or undesirable side effects caused by, or other unexpected properties of, our product candidates could cause us, any future collaborators, an institutional review board or regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay or halt clinical trials of one or more of our product candidates and could result in a more restrictive label or the delay or denial of marketing approval by the FDA or comparable regulatory authorities. If any of our product candidates is associated with adverse events or undesirable side effects or has properties that are unexpected, we, or any future collaborators, may need to abandon development or limit development of that product candidate to certain uses or subpopulations in which the undesirable side effects or other characteristics are less prevalent, less severe or more acceptable from a risk-benefit perspective. For example, subjects in certain of our clinical trials have reported adverse events arising from reaction at the injection site and some subjects have withdrawn as a result. Moreover, laboratory findings

-15-

have demonstrated mild to moderate elevations in eosinophils, a variety of white blood cells that combats parasites and infections and controls mechanisms associated with allergy and asthma, beginning at approximately three to four weeks after initiation of elamipretide treatment, although these have not been reported to be associated with any systemic clinical manifestations of eosinophilia and in general were demonstrated to have returned to within normal range or to baseline levels after withdrawal of elamipretide therapy and, in most subjects, to decrease to within normal range after approximately 16 weeks of elamipretide therapy (and without withdrawal of therapy). Many compounds that initially showed promise in clinical or earlier stage testing have later been found to cause undesirable or unexpected side effects that prevented further development of the compound. If we, or any future collaborators, experience any of a number of possible unforeseen events in connection with clinical trials of our product candidates, potential marketing approval or commercialization of our product candidates could be delayed or prevented.

We, or any future collaborators, may experience numerous unforeseen events during, or as a result of, clinical trials that could delay or prevent marketing approval or commercialization of our product candidates, including the following:

-16-

Product development costs for us, or any future collaborators, will increase if we, or they, experience delays in testing or pursuing marketing approvals and we, or they, may be required to obtain additional funds to complete clinical trials and prepare for possible commercialization of our product candidates. We do not know whether any preclinical tests or clinical trials will begin as planned, will need to be restructured, or will be completed on schedule, or at all. Significant preclinical or clinical trial delays also could shorten any periods during which we, or any future collaborators, may have the exclusive right to commercialize our product candidates or allow our competitors, or the competitors of any future collaborators, to bring products to market before we, or any future collaborators, do and impair our ability, or the ability of any future collaborators, to successfully commercialize our product candidates and may harm our business and results of operations. In addition, many of the factors that lead to clinical trial delays may ultimately lead to the denial of marketing approval of any of our product candidates.

If we, or any future collaborators, experience delays or difficulties in the enrollment of subjects in clinical trials, our or their receipt of necessary regulatory approvals could be delayed or prevented.

We, or any future collaborators, may not be able to initiate or continue clinical trials for any of our product candidates if we, or they, are unable to locate and enroll a sufficient number of eligible subjects to participate in clinical trials as required by the FDA or comparable regulatory authorities. For example, we are developing elamipretide for the treatment of several rare diseases with small patient populations, such as BTHS. Enrollment is a significant factor in the timing of clinical trials, and is affected by many factors, including:

Our inability, or the inability of any future collaborators, to enroll a sufficient number of subjects for our, or their, clinical trials could result in significant delays or may require us or them to abandon one or more clinical trials altogether. For example, our Phase 2a clinical trial of elamipretide in subjects pre-treated prior to a renal angioplasty was terminated early due to recruitment challenges after enrolling only 14 subjects of the 28 originally planned. Enrollment delays in clinical trials may result in increased development costs for our product candidates, delay or halt the development of and approval processes for our product candidates and jeopardize our, or any future collaborators’, ability to commence sales of and generate revenues from our product candidates, which could cause the value of our company to decline.

-17-

If any of our product candidates receives marketing approval and we, or others, later discover that the drug is less effective than previously believed or causes undesirable side effects that were not previously identified, our ability, or that of any future collaborators, to market the drug could be compromised.

Clinical trials of our product candidates are conducted in carefully defined subsets of subjects who have agreed to enter into clinical trials. Consequently, it is possible that our clinical trials, or those of any future collaborator, may indicate an apparent positive effect of a product candidate that is greater than the actual positive effect, if any, or alternatively fail to identify undesirable side effects. In particular, because our product candidates will require chronic dosing over the lifetime of the patient, there may be undesirable side effects as a result of long-term exposure to the drug that were not observed in our clinical trials. If, following approval of a product candidate, we, or others, discover that the drug is less effective than previously believed or causes undesirable side effects that were not previously identified, any of the following adverse events could occur:

Any of these events could have a material and adverse effect on our operations and business and could adversely impact the price of the ADSs.

Even if one of our product candidates receives marketing approval, it may fail to achieve the degree of market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors and others in the medical community necessary for commercial success and the market opportunity for the product candidate may be smaller than we estimate.

We have never commercialized a product. Even if one of our product candidates is approved by the appropriate regulatory authorities for marketing and sale, it may nonetheless fail to gain sufficient market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors and others in the medical community. For example, physicians are often reluctant to switch their patients from existing therapies even when new and potentially more effective or convenient treatments enter the market. Further, patients often acclimate to the therapy that they are currently taking and do not want to switch unless their physicians recommend switching products or they are required to switch therapies due to lack of reimbursement for existing therapies.

Efforts to inform the medical community and third-party payors of the benefits of our product candidates may require significant resources and may not be successful. If any of our product candidates is approved but does not achieve an adequate level of market acceptance, we may not generate significant revenues and we may not become profitable. The degree of market acceptance of our product candidates, if approved for commercial sale, will depend on a number of factors, including:

-18-

The potential market opportunities for our product candidates are difficult to estimate precisely. Our estimates of the potential market opportunities are predicated on many assumptions, including industry knowledge and publications, third-party research reports and other surveys. While we believe that our internal assumptions are reasonable, these assumptions involve the exercise of significant judgment on the part of our management, are inherently uncertain and the reasonableness of these assumptions has not been assessed by an independent source. If any of the assumptions proves to be inaccurate, the actual markets for our product candidates could be smaller than our estimates of the potential market opportunities.

If we are unable to establish sales, marketing and distribution capabilities or enter into sales, marketing and distribution arrangements with third parties, we may not be successful in commercializing any product candidates that we develop if and when those product candidates are approved.

We do not have a sales, marketing or distribution infrastructure and have no experience in the sale, marketing or distribution of pharmaceutical products. To achieve commercial success for any approved product, we must either develop a sales and marketing organization or outsource these functions to third parties. We plan to use a combination of focused in-house sales and marketing capabilities and third-party collaboration, licensing and distribution arrangements to sell any of our products that receive marketing approval.

We generally plan to retain rights to participate in commercialization in the United States, particularly for products that we can commercialize with a specialized sales force and by building a focused sales and marketing organization in the United States to sell our products. Any efforts related to sales, marketing and distribution may be costly, and our investment could be lost if we cannot retain or reposition our sales and marketing personnel. In addition, we may not be able to hire or retain a sales force that is sufficient in size or has adequate expertise in the medical markets that we plan to target. If we are unable to establish or retain a sales force and marketing and distribution capabilities, our operating results may be adversely affected. If a potential partner has development or commercialization expertise that we believe is particularly relevant to one of our products, then we may seek to collaborate with that potential partner even if we believe we could otherwise develop and commercialize the product independently.

-19-

We hope to collaborate with third parties for commercialization in the United States of any products that require larger sales, marketing and product distribution infrastructure. We plan to commercialize our products outside the United States through collaboration, licensing and distribution arrangements with third parties. As a result of entering into arrangements with third parties to perform sales, marketing and distribution services, our product revenues or the profitability of these product revenues may be lower, perhaps substantially lower, than if we were to directly market and sell products in those markets. Furthermore, we may be unsuccessful in entering into the necessary arrangements with third parties or may be unable to do so on terms that are favorable to us. In addition, we may have little or no control over such third parties, and any of them may fail to devote the necessary resources and attention to sell and market our products effectively.

If we do not establish sales, marketing and distribution capabilities, either on our own or in collaboration with third parties, we will not be successful in commercializing any of our product candidates that receive marketing approval.

We have established commercial manufacturing processes for both the elamipretide drug substance and drug product and have begun validation of our manufacturing processes at a scale that exceeds our expected quantities of elamipretide required for commercial launch and beyond. The successful validation of manufacturing processes is a necessary part of pre-approval inspections by regulatory authorities. An unfavorable pre-approval inspection could delay anticipated approval of marketing authorization applications.

Our transition to a solution-phase process for making the active ingredient, elamipretide, was relatively recent. A change in the contract manufacturer for elamipretide was necessary late in the development timeline to meet the goals for scale and product quality. In addition to any findings that could result from a pre-approval inspection, regulatory authorities could require that additional batches be produced to demonstrate the suitability of the process at the current contract manufacturing sites and/or at the current commercial scale. Such additional batches could cause a delay in granting approval of marketing authorization applications, including NDAs.

We face substantial competition from other pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, and our operating results may suffer if we fail to compete effectively.

The development and commercialization of new drug products is highly competitive. We expect that we, and any future collaborators, will face significant competition from major pharmaceutical companies, specialty pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology companies worldwide with respect to any of our product candidates that we, or they, may seek to develop or commercialize in the future. Specifically, there are a number of large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies that currently market and sell products or are pursuing the development of product candidates for the treatment of the key indications of our most advanced programs.

We are initially developing elamipretide for the treatment of rare primary mitochondrial diseases and common diseases of aging in which mitochondrial function is impaired. There are several companies developing treatments that target mitochondria or mitochondria-associated diseases. The majority of these efforts are in preclinical or early clinical development are focused on gene therapy or are proposing the use of generic compounds. To our knowledge, none of these is focused on cardiolipin remodeling. Our competitors include: Abliva AB, Reata Pharmaceuticals, Inc., LumiThera, Inc., Reneo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Santhera Pharmaceuticals Holding. In addition to competition from competitors who are developing treatments that seek to improve mitochondrial function or otherwise target the mitochondria, we also face competition from therapies that target the indications we are studying, particularly for diseases of aging such as GA. Such competitors who are developing or who have developed competing therapies include Apellis Pharmaceuticals Inc., Astellas Pharma Inc., Hemera Biosciences Inc., Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and IVERIC bio, Inc.

Our competitors may succeed in developing, acquiring or licensing technologies and drug products that are more effective, have fewer or more tolerable side effects or are less costly than any product candidates that we are currently developing or that we may develop, which could render our product candidates obsolete and noncompetitive.

-20-

Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, are more convenient or are less expensive than any products that we, or any future collaborators, may develop. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other marketing approval for their products before we, or any future collaborators, are able to obtain approval for ours, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we, or any future collaborators, are able to enter the market.

Many of our existing and potential future competitors have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining marketing approvals and marketing approved products than we do. Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors. Smaller or early stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel and establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs.

If the FDA or comparable regulatory authorities approve generic versions of any of our products that receive marketing approval, or such authorities do not grant our products appropriate periods of data exclusivity before approving generic versions of our products, the sales of our products could be adversely affected.

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.” Manufacturers may seek approval of generic versions of reference-listed drugs through submission of abbreviated new drug applications, or ANDAs, in the United States. In support of an ANDA, a generic manufacturer need not conduct clinical studies. 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 may be 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 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or FDCA, provides a period of five years of non-patent exclusivity for a new drug containing a new chemical entity, or NCE. Specifically, in cases where such exclusivity has been granted, an ANDA may not be filed with 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. We have an issued composition of matter patent on elamipretide. As such, the active ingredient will be treated as an NCE and any products containing elamipretide will be granted exclusivity based on that patent expiry date and other contributing factors. It is unclear whether the FDA will treat the active ingredients in our other product candidates as NCEs and, therefore, afford them five years of NCE data exclusivity if they are approved. If any product we develop does not receive five years of NCE exclusivity, the FDA may approve generic versions of such product three years after its date of approval. Manufacturers may seek to launch these generic products following the expiration of the applicable marketing exclusivity period, even if we still have patent protection for our product.

Competition that our products, if any, may face from generic versions of our 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 have made in those product candidates.

Even if we, or any future collaborators, are able to commercialize any product candidate that we, or they, develop, the product may become subject to unfavorable pricing regulations, third-party payor reimbursement practices or healthcare reform initiatives that could harm our business.

-21-

The commercial success of our product candidates in key potential markets will depend substantially on the extent to which the costs of our product candidates will be paid by third-party payors, including government health administration authorities and private health coverage insurers. If coverage and reimbursement is not available, or reimbursement is available only to limited levels, we, or any future collaborators, may not be able to successfully commercialize our product candidates. Even if coverage is provided, the approved reimbursement amount may not be high enough to allow us, or any future collaborators, to establish or maintain pricing sufficient to realize a sufficient return on our or their investments.

There is significant uncertainty related to third-party payor coverage and reimbursement of newly approved drugs. Marketing approvals, pricing and reimbursement for new drug products vary widely from country to country. 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. In some foreign markets, prescription pharmaceutical pricing remains subject to continuing governmental control even after initial approval is granted. As a result, we, or any future collaborators, might obtain marketing approval for a product in a particular country, but then be subject to price regulations that delay commercial launch of the product, possibly for lengthy time periods, which may negatively impact the revenues we are able to generate from the sale of the product in that country. Adverse pricing limitations may hinder our ability or the ability of any future collaborators to recoup our or their investment in one or more product candidates, even if our product candidates obtain marketing approval. Moreover, in the United States, no uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for products exists among third-party payors. Third-party payors often rely upon Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their reimbursement rates, but also have their own methods and approval process apart from Medicare determinations. Therefore, coverage and reimbursement for products in the United States can differ significantly from payor to payor.

Patients who are provided medical treatment for their conditions generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the costs associated with their treatment. Therefore, our ability, and the ability of any future collaborators, to commercialize any of our product candidates will depend in part on the extent to which coverage and reimbursement for these products and related treatments will be available from third-party payors. Third-party payors decide which medications they will cover and establish reimbursement levels. The healthcare industry is acutely focused on cost containment, both in the United States and worldwide. Government authorities and other third-party payors have attempted to control costs by limiting coverage and the amount of reimbursement for particular medications, which could affect our ability or that of any future collaborators to sell our product candidates profitably. These payors may not view our products, if any, as cost-effective, and coverage and reimbursement may not be available to our customers, or those of any future collaborators, or may not be sufficient to allow our products, if any, to be marketed on a competitive basis. Cost-control initiatives could cause us, or any future collaborators, to decrease the price we, or they, might establish for products, which could result in lower than anticipated product revenues. If the prices for our products, if any, decrease or if governmental and other third-party payors do not provide coverage or adequate reimbursement, our prospects for revenue and profitability will suffer.

There may also be delays in obtaining coverage and reimbursement for newly approved drugs, and coverage may be more limited than the indications for which the drug is approved by the FDA or comparable regulatory authorities. Moreover, eligibility for reimbursement does not imply that any drug will be paid for in all cases or at a rate that covers our costs, including research, development, manufacture, sale and distribution. Reimbursement rates may vary, by way of example, according to the use of the drug and the clinical setting in which it is used. Reimbursement rates may also be based on reimbursement levels already set for lower cost drugs or may be incorporated into existing payments for other services.

In addition, increasingly, third-party payors are requiring higher levels of evidence of the benefits and clinical outcomes of new technologies and are challenging the prices charged. We cannot be sure that coverage will be available for any product candidate that we, or any future collaborator, commercialize and, if available, that the reimbursement rates will be adequate. Further, the net reimbursement for drug products may be subject to additional reductions if there are changes to laws that presently restrict imports of drugs from countries where they may be sold at lower prices than in the United States. An inability to promptly obtain coverage and adequate payment rates from both government-funded and private payors for

-22-

any of our product candidates for which we, or any future collaborator, obtain marketing approval could significantly harm our operating results, our ability to raise capital needed to commercialize products and our overall financial condition.

The COVID-19 pandemic has and may continue to affect our ability to recruit or retain patients for our clinical trials, and may disrupt regulatory activities, disrupt preclinical studies or have other adverse effects on our business and operations.

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused many governments to implement measures to slow the spread of the pandemic through quarantines, travel restrictions, heightened border scrutiny and other measures. The pandemic and government measures taken in response have also had a significant impact, both direct and indirect, on businesses and commerce, as worker shortages have occurred; supply chains have been disrupted; facilities and production have been suspended; and demand for certain goods and services, such as medical services and supplies, has spiked, while demand for other goods and services, such as travel, has fallen. The future progression of the pandemic and its effects on our business and operations are uncertain. We seek to enroll patients for our clinical trials at sites located in the United States and may be unable to continue trials as scheduled. We have and may continue to face difficulties recruiting or retaining patients in our ongoing and planned clinical trials if patients are affected by the virus or are fearful of traveling to our clinical trial sites because of the pandemic. For example, for our on-going trials we have implemented best practices measures, including availability of night and weekend visits and visiting nurses, to alleviate COVID-19 related challenges. We are closely monitoring any COVID-19 related discontinuations in light of increased reported incidence in the United States. We and our third-party contract manufacturers, contract research organizations, academic collaborators and clinical sites may also face disruptions in accessing laboratory or clinical trial sites or procuring items that are essential for our research and development activities, including, for example, raw materials used in the manufacture of our product candidates, medical and laboratory supplies used in our clinical trials or preclinical studies or animals that are used for preclinical testing, in each case, that are sourced from abroad or for which there are shortages because of ongoing efforts to address the pandemic. These factors have and may continue to may increase our cost for future studies and may further delay timelines to start new studies. For example, we manufacture our products outside the United States and could be subject to disruptions in due to responses of other governments to outbreaks of COVID-19. Additionally, during various periods in 2021, the principal investigator for the TAZPOWER trial suspended all ongoing regular clinic visits in accordance with pandemic safety guidelines published by the Barth Syndrome Foundation, compromising the practicability of collecting additional controlled clinical data; similar disruptions in regularly scheduled visits also impacted our ReCLAIM 2 trial. Pandemic-related shutdowns could also impact our ability to initiate our Duchenne cardiomyopathy or nPMM trials. In addition, we may face impediments to regulatory meetings and approvals due to measures intended to limit in-person interactions. We cannot be certain what the overall impact of the COVID-19 pandemic will be on our business, and it has the potential to adversely affect our business, operations and financial condition.

Product liability lawsuits against us could divert our resources, cause us to incur substantial liabilities and limit commercialization of any products that we may develop.

We face an inherent risk of product liability claims as a result of the clinical testing of our product candidates despite obtaining appropriate informed consents from our clinical trial participants. We will face an even greater risk if we or any future collaborators commercially sell any product that we or they may develop. For example, we may be sued if any product we develop allegedly causes injury or is found to be otherwise unsuitable during clinical testing, manufacturing, marketing or sale. Any such product liability claims may include allegations of defects in manufacturing, defects in design, a failure to warn of dangers inherent in the product, negligence, strict liability or a breach of warranties. Claims could also be asserted under state consumer protection acts. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against product liability claims, we may incur substantial liabilities or be required to limit commercialization of our product candidates. Regardless of the merits or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in:

-23-

Although we believe we maintain adequate general and clinical trial liability insurance for a company at our stage, this insurance may not fully cover potential liabilities that we may incur. The cost of any product liability litigation or other proceeding, even if resolved in our favor, could be substantial. We will need to increase our insurance coverage if and when we begin selling any product candidate that receives marketing approval. In addition, insurance coverage is becoming increasingly expensive. If we are unable to obtain or maintain sufficient insurance coverage at an acceptable cost or to otherwise protect against potential product liability claims, it could prevent or inhibit the development and commercial production and sale of our product candidates, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Risks Related to Our Dependence on Third Parties

We expect to seek to establish collaborations and, if we are not able to establish them on commercially reasonable terms, we may have to alter our development and commercialization plans.

Our drug development programs and the potential commercialization of our product candidates will require substantial additional cash to fund expenses. We expect to seek collaborators for the development and commercialization of one or more of our product candidates. For example, we hold worldwide rights for elamipretide and we own our new pipeline compounds, including SBT-272. We may explore partnerships for development of elamipretide or SBT-272, as well as one or more of our pipeline compounds, in selected other indications and territories. Likely future collaborators may include large and mid-size pharmaceutical companies, regional and national pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology companies. In addition, if we are able to obtain marketing approval for any of our product candidates from foreign regulatory authorities, we intend to enter into strategic relationships with international biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies for the commercialization of such product candidates outside of the United States.

We face significant competition in seeking appropriate collaborators. Whether we reach a definitive agreement for a collaboration will depend, among other things, upon our assessment of the collaborator’s resources and expertise, the terms and conditions of the proposed collaboration and the proposed collaborator’s evaluation of a number of factors. Those factors may include the potential differentiation of our product candidate from competing product candidates, design or results of clinical trials, the likelihood of approval by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities and the regulatory pathway for any such approval, the potential market for the product candidate, the costs and complexities of manufacturing and delivering the product to patients and the potential of competing products. The collaborator may also consider alternative product candidates or technologies for similar indications that may be available for collaboration and whether such collaboration could be more attractive than the one with us for our product candidate.

Collaborations are complex and time-consuming to negotiate and document. Further, there have been a significant number of recent business combinations among large pharmaceutical companies that have resulted in a reduced number of potential future collaborators.

We may not be able to negotiate collaborations on a timely basis, on acceptable terms, or at all. If we are unable to do so, we may have to curtail the development of the product candidate for which we are seeking to collaborate, reduce or delay its development program or one or more of our other development programs, delay its potential commercialization or reduce the scope of any sales or marketing activities, or increase our expenditures and undertake development or commercialization activities at our own expense. If we elect to increase our expenditures to fund development or commercialization activities on our own, we may need to obtain additional capital, which may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all. If

-24-

we do not have sufficient funds, we may not be able to further develop our product candidates or bring them to market and generate product revenue.

If we enter into collaborations with third parties for the development and commercialization of our product candidates, our prospects with respect to those product candidates will depend in significant part on the success of those collaborations.

We may enter into collaborations for the development and commercialization of certain of our product candidates. If we enter into such collaborations, we will have limited control over the amount and timing of resources that our collaborators will dedicate to the development or commercialization of our product candidates. Our ability to generate revenues from these arrangements will depend on any future collaborators’ abilities to successfully perform the functions assigned to them in these arrangements. In addition, any future collaborators may have the right to abandon research or development projects and terminate applicable agreements, including funding obligations, prior to or upon the expiration of the agreed upon terms.

Collaborations involving our product candidates pose a number of risks, including the following:

Collaboration agreements may not lead to development or commercialization of product candidates in the most efficient manner, or at all. For example, in October 2019, we granted Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., or Alexion, an exclusive option to co-develop and commercialize elamipretide. Alexion terminated the option agreement in January 2020. Moreover, if any future collaborator of ours were to be involved in a business combination, it could decide to delay, diminish or terminate the development or commercialization of any product candidate licensed to it by us.

We rely on third parties to conduct our clinical trials. If they do not perform satisfactorily, our business could be significantly harmed.

-25-

We do not independently conduct clinical trials of any of our product candidates. We rely on third parties, such as contract research organizations, clinical data management organizations, medical institutions and clinical investigators, to conduct these clinical trials and expect to rely on these third parties to conduct clinical trials of any other product candidate that we develop. Any of these third parties may terminate their engagements with us under certain circumstances. We may not be able to enter into alternative arrangements or do so on commercially reasonable terms. In addition, there is a natural transition period when a new contract research organization begins work. As a result, delays would likely occur, which could materially impact our ability to meet our expected clinical development timelines and harm our business, financial condition and prospects.

Further, our reliance on these third parties for clinical development activities limits our control over these activities, but we remain responsible for ensuring that each of our trials is conducted in accordance with the applicable protocol, legal, regulatory and scientific standards. For example, notwithstanding the obligations of a contract research organization for a trial of one of our product candidates, we remain responsible for ensuring that each of our clinical trials is conducted in accordance with the general investigational plan and protocols for the trial. Moreover, the FDA requires us to comply with standards, commonly referred to as current good clinical practices, or cGCPs, for conducting, recording and reporting the results of clinical trials to assure that data and reported results are credible and accurate and that the rights, integrity and confidentiality of trial participants are protected. The FDA enforces these cGCPs through periodic inspections of trial sponsors, principal investigators, clinical trial sites and institutional review boards. If we or our third-party contractors fail to comply with applicable cGCPs, the clinical data generated in our clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA may require us to perform additional clinical trials before approving our product candidates, which would delay the marketing approval process. We cannot be certain that, upon inspection, the FDA will determine that any of our clinical trials comply with cGCPs. Similar regulatory requirements apply outside the United States, including the International Council for Harmonization of Technical Requirements for the Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use, or ICH. We are also required to register clinical trials and post the results of completed clinical trials on a government-sponsored database, ClinicalTrials.gov, within certain timeframes. Failure to do so can result in fines, adverse publicity and civil and criminal sanctions.

Furthermore, the third parties conducting clinical trials on our behalf are not our employees, and except for remedies available to us under our agreements with such contractors, we cannot control whether or not they devote sufficient time, skill and resources to our ongoing development programs. These contractors may also have relationships with other commercial entities, including our competitors, for whom they may also be conducting clinical trials or other drug development activities, which could impede their ability to devote appropriate time to our clinical programs. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties, meet expected deadlines or conduct our clinical trials in accordance with regulatory requirements or our stated protocols, we may not be able to obtain, or may be delayed in obtaining, marketing approvals for our product candidates. If that occurs, we will not be able to, or may be delayed in our efforts to, successfully commercialize our product candidates. In such an event, our financial results and the commercial prospects for any product candidates that we seek to develop could be harmed, our costs could increase and our ability to generate revenues could be impaired.

We also rely on other third parties to store and distribute drug supplies for our clinical trials. Any performance failure on the part of our distributors could delay clinical development or marketing approval of our product candidates or commercialization of any resulting products, producing additional losses and depriving us of potential product revenue.

We contract with third parties for the manufacture and distribution of our product candidates for clinical trials and expect to continue to do so in connection with our future development and commercialization efforts. This reliance on third parties increases the risk that we will not have sufficient quantities of our product candidates or such quantities at an acceptable cost, which could delay, prevent or impair our development or commercialization efforts.

We currently have no manufacturing facilities and limited personnel with manufacturing experience. We rely on contract manufacturers to produce both drug substance and drug product required for our clinical trials. We plan to continue to rely upon contract manufacturers, and potentially collaboration

-26-

partners, to manufacture commercial quantities of our product candidates and, if approved, products. Reliance on such third-party contractors entails risks, including:

We currently rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties for the manufacture of our product candidates for preclinical studies and clinical trials, as well as for commercial manufacture if our product candidates receive marketing approval. To date, we, or our partners on our behalf, have obtained materials for elamipretide and SBT-272 from third-party manufacturers. If any of our existing manufacturers should become unavailable to us for any reason, we may incur some delay in identifying or qualifying replacements.

Any manufacturing problem or the loss of a contract manufacturer could be disruptive to our operations, delay our clinical trials and, if our products are approved for sale, result in lost sales. Any reliance on suppliers may involve several risks, including a potential inability to obtain critical materials and reduced control over production costs, delivery schedules, reliability and quality. Any unanticipated disruption to future contract manufacture caused by problems at suppliers could delay shipment of our product candidates, increase our cost of goods sold and result in lost sales.

If any of our product candidates are approved by any regulatory agency, we plan to enter into agreements with third-party contract manufacturers for the commercial production and distribution of those products. It may be difficult for us to reach agreement with a contract manufacturer on satisfactory terms or in a timely manner. In addition, we may face competition for access to manufacturing facilities as there are a limited number of contract manufacturers operating under current good manufacturing practices, or cGMPs, that are capable of manufacturing our product candidates. Consequently, we may not be able to reach agreement with third-party manufacturers on satisfactory terms, which could delay our commercialization efforts.

Third-party manufacturers are required to comply with cGMPs and similar regulatory requirements outside the United States, such as the ICH. Facilities used by our third-party manufacturers must be approved by the FDA after we submit an NDA and before potential approval of the product candidate. Similar regulations apply to manufacturers of our product candidates for use or sale in foreign countries. We do not control the manufacturing process and are completely dependent on our third-party manufacturers for compliance with the applicable regulatory requirements for the manufacture of our product candidates. If our manufacturers cannot successfully manufacture material that conforms to our specifications and the strict regulatory requirements of the FDA, and of any applicable foreign regulatory authority, we will not be able to secure the applicable approval for their manufacturing facilities. If these facilities are not approved for commercial manufacture, we may need to find alternative manufacturing facilities, which could result in delays in obtaining approval for the applicable product candidate.

-27-

In addition, our manufacturers are subject to ongoing periodic inspections by the FDA and corresponding state and foreign agencies for compliance with cGMPs and similar regulatory requirements both prior to and following the receipt of marketing approval for any of our product candidates. Some of these inspections may be unannounced. Failure by any of our manufacturers to comply with applicable cGMPs or other regulatory requirements could result in sanctions being imposed on us, including fines, injunctions, civil penalties, delays, suspensions or withdrawals of approvals, operating restrictions, interruptions in supply and criminal prosecutions, any of which could adversely affect supplies of our product candidates and significantly harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our current and anticipated future dependence upon others for the manufacture of our product candidates may adversely affect our future profit margins and our ability to commercialize any products that receive marketing approval on a timely and competitive basis.

Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property

If we are unable to obtain and maintain sufficient patent protection for our product candidates, or if the scope of the patent protection is not sufficiently broad, our competitors could develop and commercialize products similar or identical to ours, and our ability to commercialize our product candidates successfully may be adversely affected.

Our success depends in large part on our ability to obtain and maintain patent protection in the United States and other countries with respect to our proprietary product candidates. If we do not adequately protect our intellectual property, competitors may be able to erode or negate any competitive advantage we may have, which could harm our business and ability to achieve profitability. To protect our proprietary position, we file patent applications in the United States and abroad related to our novel product candidates that are important to our business. The patent application and approval process is expensive and time consuming. We may not be able to file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner.

The patent position of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies generally is highly uncertain. No consistent policy regarding the breadth of claims allowed in biotechnology and pharmaceutical patents has emerged to date in the United States or in many foreign jurisdictions. In addition, the determination of patent rights with respect to pharmaceutical compounds commonly involves complex legal and factual questions, which has in recent years been the subject of much litigation. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability, term and commercial value of our patent rights are highly uncertain.

Our pending patent applications cannot be enforced against third parties practicing the technology claimed in such applications unless and until a patent issues from such applications. Assuming the other requirements for patentability are met, currently, the first to file a patent application is generally entitled to the patent. However, prior to March 16, 2013, in the United States, the first to invent was entitled to the patent. Publications of discoveries in the scientific literature often lag behind the actual discoveries, and patent applications in the United States and other jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing, or in some cases not at all. Therefore, we cannot be certain that we were the first to make the inventions claimed in our patents or pending patent applications, or that we were the first to file for patent protection of such inventions.

Moreover, because the issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity, term or enforceability, our patents or pending patent applications may be challenged in the courts or patent offices in the United States and abroad. For example, we may be subject to a third-party preissuance submission of prior art to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, or become involved in post-grant review procedures, oppositions, derivations, reexaminations, inter partes review or interference proceedings, in the United States or elsewhere, challenging our patent rights or the patent rights of others. An adverse determination in any such challenges may result in loss of exclusivity or in patent claims being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable, in whole or in part, which could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical technology and products, or limit the duration of the patent protection of our technology and products. Moreover, if the breadth or strength of protection provided by our patents and patent applications is threatened, regardless of the outcome, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to license, develop or commercialize current or future product candidates. In addition, given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory

-28-

review of new product candidates, patents protecting such candidates might expire before or shortly after such candidates are commercialized. Furthermore, while it is our policy to require agreements with selected contractors, consultants, scientific advisors and collaborators requiring assignment of inventions or, in limited cases, the grant of an exclusive, worldwide license or option to license intellectual property rights developed in the course of their work with or for us, we may be unsuccessful in executing such an agreement with each party who, in fact, conceives or develops intellectual property that we regard as our own. As a result, the inventorship or ownership of our intellectual property may be challenged in the future.

Our pending and future patent applications may not result in patents being issued which protect our product candidates, in whole or in part, or which effectively prevent others from commercializing competitive products. Our issued patents or any patents that may issue in the future may be invalidated or interpreted narrowly, such that they fail to provide us with any significant competitive advantage. Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of the patent laws in the United States and other countries may diminish the value of our patents or narrow the scope of our patent protection. In addition, the laws of foreign countries may not protect our rights to the same extent or in the same manner as the laws of the United States. For example, European patent law restricts the patentability of methods of treatment of the human body more than United States law does.

Even if our patent applications have issued or do issue as patents, they may not issue in a form that will provide us with any meaningful protection, prevent competitors from competing with us or otherwise provide us with any competitive advantage. Our competitors may be able to circumvent our patents by developing similar or alternative technologies or products in a non-infringing manner. Our competitors may also seek approval to market their own products similar to or otherwise competitive with our products. Alternatively, our competitors may seek to market generic versions of any approved products by submitting ANDAs to the FDA in which they claim that patents owned or licensed by us are invalid, unenforceable or not infringed. In these circumstances, we may need to defend or assert our patents, or both, including by filing lawsuits alleging patent infringement. In any of these types of proceedings, a court or other agency with jurisdiction may find our patents invalid or unenforceable, or that our competitors are competing in a non-infringing manner. Thus, even if we have valid and enforceable patents, these patents still may not provide protection against competing products or processes sufficient to achieve our business objectives.

If we are unable to protect the confidentiality of our trade secrets, the value of our technology could be materially adversely affected, and our business would be harmed.

While we have obtained composition of matter patents with respect to elamipretide and certain methods of use through an application family in-licensed from Cornell Research Foundation, Inc., a subsidiary of Cornell University, or Cornell, and Institut de recherches cliniques de Montréal, or the IRCM, we also rely on trade secret protection for certain aspects of our discovery platform. We seek to protect these trade secrets, in part, by entering into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with parties who have access to them, such as our employees, consultants, independent contractors, advisors, contract manufacturers, suppliers and other third parties. We also enter into confidentiality and invention or patent assignment agreements with employees, certain consultants, contractors and collaborators. To our knowledge, such agreements have been entered into with all relevant parties; however, we cannot be certain that our trade secrets and other confidential proprietary information will not be disclosed or that competitors will not otherwise gain access to our trade secrets or independently develop substantially equivalent information and techniques. Any party with whom we have executed such an agreement may breach that agreement and disclose our proprietary information, including our trade secrets, and we may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for such breaches. Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret is difficult, expensive and time consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, if any of our trade secrets were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor, we would have no right to prevent such third party, or those to whom they communicate such technology or information, from using that technology or information to compete with us. If any of our trade secrets were to be misappropriated or disclosed to, or independently developed by, a competitor, our business and competitive position could be harmed.

Certain aspects of our product candidates and technology are protected by patents exclusively licensed from academic institutions. If these third parties terminate their agreements with us or fail to maintain or enforce the underlying patents, or we otherwise lose our rights to these patents, our competitive

-29-

position and our potential market share in the markets for any of our products that is approved will be harmed.

We are a party to license agreements and certain aspects of our business depend on patents and/or patent applications owned by third parties. In particular, we hold exclusive licenses from Cornell and the IRCM for elamipretide as well as for other compounds and certain methods. We may enter into additional license agreements as part of the development of our business in the future. If we are unable to maintain these patent rights or our license to these patent rights for any reason, or if we are unable to maintain any future material license we may enter into, our ability to develop and commercialize our product candidates could be materially harmed.

Our licensors may not successfully prosecute certain patent applications under which we are licensed and on which our business depends. Even if patents issue from these applications, our licensors may fail to maintain these patents, may decide not to pursue litigation against third-party infringers, may fail to prove infringement, or may fail to defend against counterclaims of patent invalidity or unenforceability. For example, under our license agreement with Cornell, we have the first right to enforce the licensed patents against third-party infringement. However, our first right to enforce is subject to Cornell’s consent.

Risks with respect to parties from whom we have obtained intellectual property rights may also arise out of circumstances beyond our control. Despite our best efforts, our licensors might conclude that we have materially breached our license agreements and might therefore terminate the license agreements, thereby removing our ability to obtain regulatory approval and to market products covered by these license agreements. For example, our license agreement with Cornell required us to commercialize a product by December 31, 2020, subject to specified exceptions for causes due to scientific and regulatory events that are common in drug development, such as institutional review board delays, clinical trial recruitment, clinical trial results and regulatory delays, and other events over which we cannot exert direct control, and Cornell has the right to terminate the license if we do not comply. We believe that our noncompliance is subject to the named exceptions, and to date we have not received any notice of termination from Cornell. Any actual termination of the license would be subject to cure periods and appeals before taking effect. If our license agreements are terminated, or if the underlying patents fail to provide the intended market exclusivity, competitors would have the freedom to seek regulatory approval of, and to market, products similar or identical to ours. Moreover, if our license agreements are terminated, our former licensors and/or assignors may be able to prevent us from utilizing the technology covered by the licensed or assigned patents and patent applications. This could have a material adverse effect on our competitive business position and our business prospects.

Our license agreements with Cornell and the IRCM impose, and future license agreements we may enter into may impose, various diligence, milestone payment, royalty and other obligations on us. For example, our license agreements with Cornell and the IRCM include obligations to pay royalties on the net sales of product candidates or related technologies to the extent they are covered by the agreements. If we fail to comply with our obligations under our license agreements with Cornell and the IRCM or future license agreements, and if no such exceptions apply, our counterparties may have the right to terminate these agreements, in which event we might not be able to develop, manufacture or market any product that is covered by the agreement or face other penalties under the agreement, such as loss of exclusivity. Such an occurrence could materially adversely affect the value of the product candidate being developed under any such agreement. Termination of these agreements or reduction or elimination of our rights under these agreements may result in our having to negotiate new or reinstated agreements with less favorable terms or cause us to lose our rights under these agreements, including our rights to important intellectual property or technology.

Moreover, disputes may arise regarding intellectual property subject to a licensing agreement, including:

-30-

In addition, the agreements under which we currently license intellectual property or technology from third parties are complex, and certain provisions in such agreements may be susceptible to multiple interpretations. The resolution of any contract interpretation disagreement that may arise could narrow what we believe to be the scope of our rights to the relevant intellectual property or technology or increase what we believe to be our financial or other obligations under the relevant agreement, either of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects. Moreover, if disputes over intellectual property that we have licensed prevent or impair our ability to maintain our current licensing arrangements on commercially acceptable terms, we may be unable to successfully develop and commercialize the affected product candidates, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial conditions, results of operations and prospects.

Some of our intellectual property that was discovered through government-funded programs may be subject to federal regulation such as “march-in” rights, certain reporting requirements and a preference for United States industry. Compliance with such regulations may limit our exclusive rights, subject us to expenditure of resources with respect to reporting requirements and limit our ability to contract with foreign manufacturers.

Some of our intellectual property with respect to our product candidates has been funded, at least in part, by the U.S. government and, therefore, would be subject to certain federal regulations. As a result, the U.S. government may have certain rights to intellectual property embodied in our current or future product candidates pursuant to the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, or Bayh-Dole Act. For example, under the “march-in” provisions of the Bayh-Dole Act, the U.S. government may have the right under limited circumstances to require the patent owners to grant exclusive, partially exclusive or non-exclusive rights to third parties for intellectual property discovered through the government-funded program. The U.S. government can exercise its march-in rights if it determines that action is necessary because the patent owner fails to achieve practical application of the new invention or because action is necessary to alleviate health concerns or address the safety needs of the public. Intellectual property discovered under the government-funded program is also subject to certain reporting requirements, compliance with which may require us or our licensors to expend substantial resources. Such intellectual property is also subject to a preference for U.S. industry, which may limit our ability to contract with foreign product manufacturers for products covered by such intellectual property. We may apply for additional U.S. government funding, and it is possible that we may discover additional compounds or product candidates as a result of such funding. Intellectual property under such discoveries would be subject to the applicable provisions of the Bayh-Dole Act. Similarly, intellectual property that we license in the future may have been made using government funding and may be subject to the provisions of the Bayh-Dole Act.

We may become involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce our patents or other intellectual property, which could be expensive, time consuming and unsuccessful.

Competitors may infringe our patents, trademarks, copyrights or other intellectual property. We may be required to file infringement claims, which can be expensive and time consuming and divert the time and attention of our management and scientific personnel. Any claims we assert against perceived infringers could provoke these parties to assert counterclaims against us alleging that we infringe their patents, in addition to counterclaims asserting that our patents are invalid or unenforceable, or both. In any patent infringement proceeding, there is a risk that a court will decide that a patent of ours is invalid or unenforceable, in whole or in part, and that we do not have the right to stop the other party from using the invention at issue. There is also a risk that, even if the validity of such patents is upheld, the court will construe the patent’s claims narrowly or decide that we do not have the right to stop the other party from using the invention at issue on the grounds that our patent claims do not cover the invention. An adverse outcome in a litigation or proceeding involving our patents could limit our ability to assert our patents against those parties or other competitors and may curtail or preclude our ability to exclude third parties

-31-

from making and selling similar or competitive products. Any of these occurrences could adversely affect our competitive business position, business prospects and financial condition. Similarly, if we assert trademark infringement claims, a court may determine that the marks we have asserted are invalid or unenforceable, or that the party against whom we have asserted trademark infringement has superior rights to the marks in question. In this case, we could ultimately be forced to cease use of such trademarks.

Even if we establish infringement, the court may decide not to grant an injunction against further infringing activity and instead award only monetary damages, which may or may not be an adequate remedy. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential or trade-secret information could be compromised by disclosure during litigation. There could also be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments. If securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a material adverse effect on the price of the ADSs. Moreover, there can be no assurance that we will have sufficient financial or other resources to file and pursue such infringement claims, which typically last for years before they are concluded. Even if we ultimately prevail in such claims, the monetary cost of such litigation and the diversion of the attention of our management and scientific personnel could outweigh any benefit we receive as a result of the proceedings. In addition, we may from time to time become involved in disputes, including litigation, with respect to intellectual property.

If we are sued for infringing intellectual property rights of third parties, such litigation could be costly and time-consuming and could prevent or delay us from developing or commercializing our product candidates.

Our commercial success depends, in part, on our ability to develop, manufacture, market and sell our product candidates without infringing the intellectual property and other proprietary rights of third parties. Third parties have U.S. and non-U.S. issued patents and pending patent applications relating to compounds and methods of use for the treatment of key indications for our priority programs, and we may be subject to claims that our research, development and commercialization activities infringe or otherwise violate patents or other intellectual property rights owned or controlled by third parties. If any third-party patents or patent applications are found to cover our product candidates or their methods of use, we may not be free to manufacture or market our product candidates as planned without obtaining a license, which may not be available on commercially reasonable terms, or at all.

There is a substantial amount of intellectual property litigation in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, and we may become party to, or threatened with, litigation or other adversarial proceedings regarding intellectual property rights with respect to our products candidates, including derivation or interference proceedings, post grant and inter partes reviews, opposition proceedings, and the like in the United States and in other jurisdictions. Third parties may assert infringement claims against us based on existing or future intellectual property rights. The outcome of intellectual property litigation is subject to uncertainties that cannot be adequately quantified in advance. The pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries have produced a significant number of patents, and it may not always be clear to industry participants, including us, which patents cover various types of products or methods of use. The coverage of patents is subject to interpretation by the courts, and the interpretation is not always uniform. If we were sued for patent infringement, we would need to demonstrate that our product candidates, products, or methods either do not infringe the patent claims of the relevant patent or that the patent claims are invalid or unenforceable, and we may not be able to do this. Proving invalidity is difficult. For example, in the United States, proving invalidity requires a showing of clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption of validity enjoyed by issued patents. Even if we are successful in these proceedings, we may incur substantial costs and the time and attention of our management and scientific personnel could be diverted in pursuing these proceedings, which could significantly harm our business and operating results. In addition, we may not have sufficient resources to bring these actions to a successful conclusion. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation or administrative proceedings, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure. In addition, any uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of any litigation could have material adverse effect on our ability to raise additional funds or otherwise have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects.

-32-

If we are found to infringe a third party’s intellectual property rights, we could be forced, including by court order, to cease developing, manufacturing, or commercializing the infringing product candidate or product. Alternatively, we may be required to obtain a license from such third party in order to use the infringing technology and continue developing, manufacturing or marketing the infringing product candidate. However, we may not be able to obtain any required license on commercially reasonable terms, or at all. Even if we were able to obtain a license, it could be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors access to the same technologies licensed to us. In addition, we could be found liable for monetary damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees if we are found to have willfully infringed a patent. A finding of infringement could prevent us from commercializing our product candidates or force us to cease some of our business operations, which could materially harm our business. Claims that we have misappropriated the confidential information or trade secrets of third parties could have a similar negative impact on our business.

Changes to the patent law in the United States and other jurisdictions could diminish the value of patents in general, thereby impairing our ability to protect our products.

As is the case with other biopharmaceutical companies, our success is heavily dependent on intellectual property, particularly patents. Obtaining and enforcing patents in the biopharmaceutical industry involves both technological and legal complexity and is therefore costly, time consuming and inherently uncertain. Patent reform legislation in the United States and other countries, including the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or the Leahy-Smith Act, signed into law in September 2011, could increase those uncertainties and costs. The Leahy-Smith Act includes a number of significant changes to U.S. patent law. These include provisions that affect the way patent applications are prosecuted, redefine prior art and provide more efficient and cost-effective avenues for competitors to challenge the validity of patents. In addition, the Leahy-Smith Act has transformed the U.S. patent system into a “first to file” system. The first-to-file provisions, however, only became effective in March 2013. It remains unclear what, if any, long-term impact the Leahy-Smith Act will have on the operation of our business. However, the Leahy-Smith Act and its implementation could make it more difficult to obtain patent protection for our inventions and increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our or our collaboration partners’ patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our or our collaboration partners’ issued patents, all of which could harm our business, results of operations and financial condition.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on several patent cases in recent years, either narrowing the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances or weakening the rights of patent owners in certain situations. Additionally, there have been recent proposals for additional changes to the patent laws of the United States and other countries that, if adopted, could impact our ability to enforce our proprietary technology. Depending on future actions by the U.S. Congress, the U.S. courts, the USPTO and the relevant law-making bodies in other countries, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that would weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce our existing patents and patents that we might obtain in the future.

Obtaining and maintaining our patent protection depends on compliance with various procedural, document submissions, fee payment and other requirements imposed by governmental patent agencies, and our patent protection could be reduced or eliminated for non-compliance with these requirements.

Periodic maintenance fees on any issued patent are due to be paid to the USPTO and foreign patent agencies in several stages over the lifetime of the patent. The USPTO and various foreign governmental patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar provisions during the patent application process. While an inadvertent lapse can in many cases be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules, there are situations in which noncompliance can result in abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. Non-compliance events that could result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application include, but are not limited to, failure to respond to official actions within prescribed time limits, non-payment of fees and failure to properly legalize and submit formal documents. If we fail to maintain the patents and patent applications covering our product candidates, our competitive position would be adversely affected.

We may not be able to enforce our intellectual property rights throughout the world.

-33-

Filing, prosecuting, and defending patents on our product candidates in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive. The requirements for patentability may differ in certain countries, particularly in developing countries. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not pursued and obtained patent protection to develop their own products and, further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we may obtain patent protection, but where patent enforcement is not as strong as that in the United States. These products may compete with our products in jurisdictions where we do not have any issued or licensed patents and any future patent claims, or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from so competing.

Moreover, our ability to protect and enforce our intellectual property rights may be adversely affected by unforeseen changes in foreign intellectual property laws. Additionally, laws of some countries outside of the United States and Europe do not afford intellectual property protection to the same extent as the laws of the United States and Europe. Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in certain foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of some countries, including China, India and other developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents and other intellectual property rights. This could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patents or the misappropriation of our other intellectual property rights. For example, many foreign countries have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner must grant licenses to third parties. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in certain countries outside the United States and Europe. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to develop their own products and, further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we have patent protection, if our ability to enforce our patents to stop infringing activities is inadequate. These products may compete with our products, and our patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing.

Proceedings to enforce our patent rights in foreign jurisdictions, whether or not successful, could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and resources from other aspects of our business. Furthermore, while we intend to protect our intellectual property rights in major markets for our products, we cannot ensure that we will be able to initiate or maintain similar efforts in all jurisdictions in which we may wish to market our products. Accordingly, our efforts to protect our intellectual property rights in such countries may be inadequate.

Patent terms may be inadequate to protect our competitive position on our product candidates for an adequate amount of time.

Patents have a limited lifespan. In the United States, if all maintenance fees are timely paid, the natural expiration of a patent is generally 20 years from its earliest U.S. non-provisional filing date. Various extensions may be available, but the life of a patent, and the protection it affords, is limited. Even if patents covering our product candidates are obtained, once the patent life has expired, we may be open to competition from competitive products, including generics or biosimilars. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting such candidates might expire before or shortly after such candidates are commercialized. As a result, our owned and licensed patent portfolio may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing products similar or identical to ours.

If we do not obtain patent term extension and data exclusivity for any product candidates we may develop, our business may be materially harmed.

Depending upon the timing, duration, and specifics of any FDA marketing approval of any product candidates we may develop, one or more of our U.S. patents may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Action of 1984, or the Hatch-Waxman Amendments. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments permit a patent term extension of up to five years as compensation for patent term lost during the FDA regulatory review process. A patent term extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval, only one patent may be extended and the extension only applies to those claims covering the approved drug, a method for using it or a method for manufacturing it. However, we may not be granted an extension because of, for example, failing to exercise due diligence during the testing phase or regulatory review process, failing to apply within applicable deadlines, failing to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents or otherwise failing to satisfy applicable requirements. Moreover, the applicable time period or the scope of patent protection afforded could be less than we request. If we are unable to obtain patent term

-34-

extension or the term of any such extension is less than we request, our competitors may obtain approval of competing products following our patent expiration, and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects could be materially harmed. Furthermore, in the United States, only a single patent can be extended for each qualifying FDA approval, and any patent can be extended only once and only for a single product. Laws governing analogous patent term extensions in foreign jurisdictions vary widely, as do laws governing the ability to obtain multiple patents from a single patent family. Because elamipretide compositions-of-matter are protected by a single family of patents and applications, we may not be able to secure patent term extensions for both of these product candidates in all jurisdictions where these product candidates are or may be approved, including the United States.

We may be subject to claims by third parties asserting that our employees or we have misappropriated their intellectual property or claiming ownership of what we regard as our own intellectual property.

Many of our employees and our licensors’ employees, including our senior management, were previously employed by others, including universities and other biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, some of which are our competitors or potential competitors. Some of these employees, including each member of our senior management, executed proprietary rights, non-disclosure and non-competition agreements, or similar agreements, in connection with such previous employment. Although we try to ensure that our employees do not use the proprietary information or know-how of others in their work for us, we may be subject to claims that we or these employees have used or disclosed intellectual property, including trade secrets or other proprietary information, of any such third party. Litigation may be necessary to defend against such claims. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel or sustain damages. Such intellectual property rights could be awarded to a third party, and we could be required to obtain a license from such third party to commercialize our technology or products. Such a license may not be available on commercially reasonable terms, or at all. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management.

In addition, while we typically require our employees, consultants and contractors who may be involved in the development of intellectual property to execute agreements assigning such intellectual property to us, we may be unsuccessful in executing such an agreement with each party who in fact develops intellectual property that we regard as our own, which may result in claims by or against us related to the ownership of such intellectual property. If we fail in prosecuting or defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights. Even if we are successful in prosecuting or defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to our senior management and scientific personnel.

Risks Related to Regulatory Approval and Other Legal Compliance Matters

Even if we complete the necessary preclinical studies and clinical trials, the marketing approval process is expensive, time-consuming and uncertain and may prevent us from obtaining approvals for the commercialization of any product candidates. If we are not able to obtain, or if there are delays in obtaining, required regulatory approvals, we will not be able to commercialize any product candidates, and our ability to generate revenue will be materially impaired.

Elamipretide, our other product candidates and any future product candidates we may identify and pursue and the activities associated with their development and commercialization, including design, development, testing, manufacture, packaging, recordkeeping, labeling, storage, approval, advertising, promotion, sale and distribution, export, import and adverse event reporting, are subject to comprehensive regulation by the FDA and other regulatory agencies in the United States and by the EMA and similar regulatory authorities outside of the United States. In addition, even if we receive approval, regulatory agencies may not approve the labeling claims that are necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of any such product candidates.

Marketing approval of drugs in the United States requires the submission of an NDA to the FDA and we are not permitted to market any product candidate in the United States until we obtain approval from the FDA of the NDA for that product. An NDA must be supported by extensive clinical and preclinical data, as well as extensive information regarding pharmacology, toxicology, and chemistry, manufacturing and controls. Other than the NDA for elamipretide for the treatment of BTHS, which the FDA determined was not sufficiently complete to permit a substantive review, we have not submitted an application or received

-35-

marketing approval for elamipretide or any other product candidates we may develop in the United States or in any other jurisdiction.

We have only limited experience in filing and supporting the applications necessary to gain marketing approvals and expect to rely on third-party clinical research organizations or other third-party consultants or vendors to assist us in this process. Securing marketing approval requires the submission of extensive preclinical and clinical data and supporting information to regulatory authorities for each therapeutic indication to establish the product candidate’s safety and efficacy. Securing marketing approval also requires the submission of information about the product manufacturing processes to, and inspection of manufacturing facilities by, the regulatory authorities. Our product candidates may not be effective, may be only moderately effective or may prove to have undesirable or unintended side effects, toxicities or other characteristics that may preclude our obtaining marketing approval or prevent or limit commercial use. If our manufacturing facilities cannot pass FDA pre-approval inspection, our application could be delayed or rejected. If any of any product candidates receives marketing approval, the accompanying label may limit the approved use of our drug, which could limit sales of the product.

The process of obtaining marketing approvals, both in the United States and abroad, is expensive, may take many years, if approval is obtained at all, and can vary substantially based upon a variety of factors, including the type, complexity and novelty of the product candidates involved. Changes in marketing approval policies during the development period, changes in or the enactment of additional statutes or regulations, or changes in regulatory review for each submitted product application may cause delays in the approval or rejection of an application. Regulatory authorities have substantial discretion in the approval process and may refuse to accept any application or may decide that our data is insufficient for approval and require additional preclinical, clinical or other studies. For example, in October 2021, the FDA issued an RTF with respect to our NDA for BTHS, which the FDA determined was not sufficiently complete to permit a substantive review. In addition, varying interpretations of the data obtained from preclinical and clinical testing could delay, limit or prevent marketing approval of a product candidate. Any marketing approval we ultimately obtain may be limited or subject to restrictions or post-approval commitments that render the approved product not commercially viable.

If we experience delays in obtaining approval or if we fail to obtain approval of elamipretide, or our other product candidates and any other product candidates we may develop, the commercial prospects for any product candidates may be harmed and our ability to generate revenues will be materially impaired.

Failure to obtain marketing approval in foreign jurisdictions would prevent our product candidates from being marketed abroad.

In order to market and sell our products in the European Union and many other foreign jurisdictions, we or our potential third-party 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 regulatory approval process outside of the United States generally includes all of the risks associated with obtaining FDA approval. In addition, in many countries outside of the United States, it is required that the product be approved for reimbursement before the product can be approved for sale in that country. We or our potential third-party collaborators may not obtain approvals from regulatory authorities outside of 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 of the United States does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries or jurisdictions or by the FDA. However, a failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one country may have a negative effect on the regulatory process in other countries. We may not be able to file for marketing approvals and may not receive necessary approvals to commercialize our products in any market.

Additionally, we could face heightened risks with respect to seeking marketing approval 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 European Union Customs Union. As of January 1, 2021, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, or the MHRA, became responsible for supervising medicines and medical devices in Great Britain, comprising England, Scotland and Wales under domestic law, whereas Northern Ireland will continue to be

-36-

subject to European Union rules under the Northern Ireland Protocol. The MHRA will rely on the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 (SI 2012/1916) (as amended), or the HMR, as the basis for regulating medicines. The HMR has incorporated into the domestic law of the body of European Union law instruments governing medicinal products that pre-existed prior to the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union. Any delay in obtaining, or an inability to obtain, any marketing approvals, as a result of Brexit or otherwise, may force us to restrict or delay efforts to seek regulatory approval in the United Kingdom for our product candidates, which could significantly and materially harm our business.

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 in foreign economies and markets; compliance with tax, employment, immigration and labor laws for employees living or traveling abroad; 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.

If we resubmit our NDA for elamipretide for the treatment of BTHS and the FDA does not accept our NDA, we will experience delays in obtaining approval of this candidate product and will incur additional costs in securing approval and commercialization of this product.

Upon receipt of an NDA, the FDA conducts a preliminary review of all applications within 60 days of receipt and must inform the sponsor at that time or before whether an application is sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. In pertinent part, FDA’s regulations state that an application “shall not be considered as filed until all pertinent information and data have been received” by the FDA. In the event that FDA determines that an application does not satisfy this standard, it will issue a Refuse to File, or RTF, determination to the applicant. Typically, an RTF will be based on administrative incompleteness, such as clear omission of information or sections of required information; scientific incompleteness, such as omission of critical data, information or analyses needed to evaluate safety and efficacy or provide adequate directions for use; or inadequate content, presentation, or organization of information such that substantive and meaningful review is precluded. The FDA may request additional information rather than accept an application for filing. In this event, the application must be resubmitted with the additional information. The resubmitted application is also subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing.

On August 25, 2021, we submitted our NDA for elamipretide for the treatment of BTHS to the FDA. On October 18, 2021, we received an RTF from the FDA. The FDA determined, upon its preliminary review, that the NDA was not sufficiently complete to permit a substantive review. In the letter, the FDA stated that the NDA does not contain an adequate and well-controlled trial that provides evidence of effectiveness, noting that the SPIBA-201 Phase 2 clinical trial of elamipretide for the treatment of BTHS was negative during the randomized, double-blind portion of the study and that the FDA does not consider the open label extension of the SPIBA-201 trial to be adequate and well-controlled. In the event that we resubmit our NDA and the FDA decides not to file our NDA for review, we will experience delays in obtaining approval of elamipretide for the treatment of BTHS, if at all, and our ability to generate revenues will be materially impaired.

We have obtained Fast Track designation from the FDA for elamipretide for the treatment of BTHS, LHON and GA. However, Fast Track designation may not actually lead to a faster development, regulatory review or approval process.

We have received Fast Track designation for elamipretide for the treatment of BTHS, PMM, LHON, and GA. We may seek Fast Track designation for other product candidates we may develop. If a drug is intended for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening condition and the drug demonstrates the potential to address unmet medical needs for this condition, the drug sponsor may apply for FDA Fast Track designation. The FDA has broad discretion whether or not to grant this designation, so even if we believe a particular product candidate is eligible for this designation, we cannot be certain that the FDA would decide to grant it. Fast Track designation does not ensure that we will experience a faster development, regulatory review or approval process compared to conventional FDA procedures or that we will ultimately obtain regulatory approval of elamipretide. Additionally, the FDA may withdraw Fast Track designation if it believes that the designation is no longer supported by data from our clinical development program.

-37-

We may not be able to obtain or maintain orphan drug designation or exclusivity for any product candidates and, even if we do, that exclusivity may not prevent the FDA or the EMA from approving other competing products.

We have obtained orphan drug designation from the FDA and the EMA for elamipretide for the treatment of BTHS and from the FDA for the treatment of LHON. We may seek orphan drug designation in other indications or for any other future product candidates. Regulatory authorities in some jurisdictions, including the United States and the European Union, may designate drugs for relatively small patient populations as orphan drugs. Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may designate a product as an orphan drug if it is a drug intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally defined as a patient population of fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States.

Generally, if a product with an orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first marketing approval for the indication for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to a period of marketing exclusivity, which precludes the FDA or the EMA from approving another marketing application for the same drug for that time period. The applicable period is seven years in the United States and ten years in the European Union. The exclusivity period in the European Union can be reduced to six years if a drug no longer meets the criteria for orphan drug designation or if the drug is sufficiently profitable so that market exclusivity is no longer justified. Orphan drug exclusivity may be lost if the FDA or EMA determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient quantity of the drug to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition.

Even if we obtain orphan drug exclusivity for a product, that exclusivity may not effectively protect the product from competition because competing drugs containing a different active ingredient can be approved for the same condition. In addition, even after an orphan drug is approved, the FDA can subsequently approve the same drug for the same condition if the FDA concludes that the later drug is clinically superior in that it is shown to be safer, more effective or makes a major contribution to patient care.

In August 2017, the U.S. Congress passed the FDA Reauthorization Act of 2017. which, among other things, codified the FDA’s pre-existing regulatory interpretation to require that a drug sponsor demonstrate the clinical superiority of an orphan drug that is otherwise the same as a previously approved drug for the same rare disease in order to receive orphan drug exclusivity. The new legislation reverses prior precedent holding that the Orphan Drug Act unambiguously requires that the FDA recognize the orphan exclusivity period regardless of a showing of clinical superiority. The FDA may further reevaluate the Orphan Drug Act and its regulations and policies. We do not know if, when or how the FDA may change the orphan drug regulations and policies in the future, and it is uncertain how any changes might affect our business. Depending on what changes the FDA may make to its orphan drug regulations and policies, our business could be adversely impacted.

The FDA may further reevaluate the Orphan Drug Act and its regulations and policies. This may be particularly true in light of a decision from the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in September 2021 finding that, for the purpose of determining the scope of exclusivity, the term “same disease or condition” means the designated “rare disease or condition” and could not be interpreted by the FDA to mean the “indication or use.” We do not know if, when, or how the FDA may change the orphan drug regulations and policies in the future, and it is uncertain how any changes might affect our business. Depending on what changes the FDA may make to its orphan drug regulations and policies, our business could be adversely impacted.

Although we have obtained Rare Pediatric Disease Designation, or RPDD, for elamipretide for the treatment of BTHS, we may not be eligible to receive a priority review voucher in the event that FDA approval does not occur prior to October 1, 2022.

The Rare Pediatric Disease Priority Review Voucher Program, or PRV Program, is intended to incentivize pharmaceutical sponsors to develop drugs for rare pediatric diseases. A sponsor who obtains approval of an NDA or Biologics License Application, or BLA, for a rare pediatric disease may be eligible for a Priority Review Voucher, or PRV, under the PRV Program, which may be redeemed by the owner of such PRV to obtain priority review for a marketing application. A PRV is fully transferrable and can be

-38-

sold to any sponsor, who in turn can redeem the PRV for priority review of a marketing application in six months, compared to the standard timeframe of approximately 10 months.

In December 2016, Congress extended the PRV Program, authorizing the FDA to award vouchers through September 30, 2022, limited to drugs with rare pediatric disease designation granted by September 30, 2020. On September 30, 2020, Congress provided a short-term extension of the PRV Program. On December 27, 2020, the PRV Program was further extended. Under the current statutory sunset provisions, after September 30, 2024, FDA may only award a voucher for an approved rare pediatric disease product application if the sponsor has RPDD for the drug, and that designation was granted by September 30, 2024. After September 30, 2026, FDA may not award any rare pediatric disease PRVs. If we do not obtain approval of an NDA for elamipretide for the treatment of BTHS by these dates, and if the PRV Program is not further extended by congressional action, we may not receive a PRV.

Inadequate funding for the FDA, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC and other government agencies, including from government shut downs, or other disruptions to these agencies’ operations, could hinder their ability to hire and retain key leadership and other personnel, prevent new products and services from being developed or commercialized in a timely manner or otherwise prevent those agencies from performing normal business functions on which the operation of our business may rely, which could negatively impact our business.

The ability of the FDA to review and approve new products can be affected by a variety of factors, including government budget and funding levels, ability to hire and retain key personnel and accept the payment of user fees, and statutory, regulatory and policy changes. Average review times at the agency have fluctuated in recent years as a result. Disruptions at the FDA and other agencies may also slow the time necessary for new product candidates to be reviewed and/or approved by necessary government agencies, which would adversely affect our business. 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.

Disruptions at the FDA and other agencies may also slow the time necessary for new product candidates to be reviewed and/or approved by necessary government agencies, which would adversely affect our business. For example, over 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, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. Further, future government shutdowns could impact our ability to access the public markets and obtain necessary capital in order to properly capitalize and continue our operations.

Separately, in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic, a number of companies announced receipt of complete response letters due to the FDA’s inability to complete required inspections for their applications. As of May 26, 2021, the FDA noted it was continuing to ensure timely reviews of applications for medical products during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic in line with its user fee performance goals and conducting mission critical domestic and foreign inspections to ensure compliance of manufacturing facilities with FDA quality standards. However, the FDA may not be able to continue its current pace and review timelines could be extended, including where a pre-approval inspection or an inspection of clinical sites is required and due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and travel restrictions, the FDA is unable to complete such required inspections during the review period. Regulatory authorities outside the U.S. may adopt similar restrictions or other policy measures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and may experience delays in their regulatory activities. If a prolonged government shutdown or other disruption occurs, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. Future shutdowns or other disruptions could also affect other government agencies such as the SEC, which may also impact our business by delaying review of our public filings, to the extent such review is necessary, and our ability to access the public markets

Even if we, or any future collaborators, obtain marketing approvals for our product candidates, the terms of approvals and ongoing regulation of our products may limit how we, or they, manufacture and market our products, which could materially impair our ability to generate revenue.

-39-

Once marketing approval has been granted, an approved product and its manufacturer and marketer are subject to ongoing review and extensive regulation. We, and any future collaborators, must therefore comply with requirements concerning advertising and promotion for any of our product candidates for which we or they obtain marketing approval. Promotional communications with respect to prescription drugs are subject to a variety of legal and regulatory restrictions and must be consistent with the information in the product’s approved labeling. Thus, we and any future collaborators will not be able to promote any products we develop for indications or uses for which they are not approved.

In addition, manufacturers of approved products and those manufacturers’ facilities are required to comply with extensive FDA requirements, including ensuring that quality control and manufacturing procedures conform to cGMPs, which include requirements relating to quality control and quality assurance as well as the corresponding maintenance of records and documentation and reporting requirements. We, our contract manufacturers, any future collaborators and their contract manufacturers could be subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA to monitor and ensure compliance with cGMPs.

Accordingly, assuming we, or any future collaborators, receive marketing approval for one or more of our product candidates, we, and any future collaborators, and our and their contract manufacturers will continue to expend time, money and effort in all areas of regulatory compliance, including manufacturing, production, product surveillance and quality control.

If we, or any of our future collaborators, are not able to comply with post-approval regulatory requirements, we, and any such future collaborators, could have the marketing approvals for our products withdrawn by regulatory authorities and our, or any future collaborators’, ability to market any future products could be limited, which could adversely affect our ability to achieve or sustain profitability. Further, the cost of compliance with post-approval regulations may have a negative effect on our operating results and financial condition.

Any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval could be subject to post-marketing restrictions or withdrawal from the market, and we may be subject to substantial penalties if we fail to comply with regulatory requirements or if we experience unanticipated problems with our products, when and if any of them are approved.

Any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval, along with the manufacturing processes, post-approval clinical data, labeling, advertising and promotional activities for such product, will be subject to continual requirements of and review by the FDA and other regulatory authorities. These requirements include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, registration and listing requirements, cGMP requirements relating to manufacturing, quality control, quality assurance and corresponding maintenance of records and documents, requirements regarding the distribution of samples to physicians and recordkeeping. Even if marketing approval of a product candidate is granted, the approval may be subject to limitations on the indicated uses for which the product may be marketed or to the conditions of approval, including the requirement to implement a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS. If any product candidate receives marketing approval, the accompanying label may limit the approved use of our drug, which could limit sales of the product.

The FDA may also impose requirements for costly post-marketing studies or clinical trials and surveillance to monitor the safety or efficacy of the product, including the adoption and implementation of REMS. The FDA and other agencies, including the Department of Justice closely regulate and monitor the post-approval marketing and promotion of drugs to ensure, among other things, that they are marketed and distributed only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved labeling. The FDA and other agencies impose and enforce stringent restrictions on manufacturers’ communications regarding off-label use, and if we promote our products beyond their approved indications, we may be subject to enforcement action or prosecution arising from off-label promotion. Violations of the FDCA and other statutes relating to the promotion and advertising of prescription drugs may lead to investigations and enforcement actions alleging violations of federal and state healthcare fraud and abuse laws, including the False Claims Act, as well as state consumer protection laws.

-40-

In addition, later discovery of previously unknown adverse events or other problems with our products, manufacturers or manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may have various consequences, including:

In addition, manufacturers of approved products and those manufacturers’ facilities are required to comply with extensive FDA requirements, including ensuring that quality control and manufacturing procedures conform to cGMPs applicable to drug manufacturers or quality assurance standards applicable to medical device manufacturers, which include requirements relating to quality control and quality assurance as well as the corresponding maintenance of records and documentation and reporting requirements. We, any contract manufacturers we may engage in the future, our future collaborators and their contract manufacturers will also be subject to other regulatory requirements, including submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, registration and listing requirements, requirements regarding the distribution of samples to clinicians, recordkeeping, and costly post-marketing studies or clinical trials and surveillance to monitor the safety or efficacy of the product such as the requirement to implement a REMS.

Similar restrictions apply to the approval of our products in the European Union. The holder of a marketing authorization is required to comply with a range of requirements applicable to the manufacturing, marketing, promotion and sale of medicinal products. These include: compliance with the European Union’s stringent pharmacovigilance or safety reporting rules, which can impose post-authorization studies and additional monitoring obligations; the manufacturing of authorized medicinal products, for which a separate manufacturer’s license is mandatory; and the marketing and promotion of authorized drugs, which are strictly regulated in the European Union and are also subject to EU Member State laws.

Current and future legislation may increase the difficulty and cost for us and any future collaborators to obtain reimbursement for any of our product candidates that do receive marketing approval and our ability to generate revenue will be materially impaired.

In the United States and 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

-41-

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. We expect that 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, or any collaborators, may receive for any approved products. If reimbursement of our products is unavailable or limited in scope, our business could be materially harmed.

In March 2010, President Obama signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act, or collectively the ACA. In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted. In August 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, created measures for spending reductions by Congress. A Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, tasked with recommending a targeted deficit reduction of at least $1.2 trillion for the years 2013 through 2021, was unable to reach required goals, thereby triggering the legislation’s automatic reduction to several government programs. These changes included aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of up to 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect in April 2013 and will remain in effect through 2031 under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act. These Medicare sequester reductions have been suspended through the end of March 2022. From April 2022 through June 2022 a 1% sequester cut will be in effect, with the full 2% cut resuming thereafter. The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to several providers and increased the statute of limitations period for the U.S. government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. These laws may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding and otherwise affect the prices we may obtain for any of our product candidates for which we may obtain regulatory approval or the frequency with which any such product candidate is prescribed or used.

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. For example, with enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which was signed by President Trump on December 22, 2017, Congress repealed the “individual mandate.” The repeal of this provision, which requires most Americans to carry a minimal level of health insurance, became effective in 2019. Further, in December 2018, a U.S. District Court judge in the Northern District of Texas ruled that the individual mandate portion of the ACA is an essential and inseverable feature of the ACA, and therefore because the mandate was repealed as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, the remaining provisions of the ACA are invalid as well. After appeal, the case was heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, which dismissed this case in June 2021 after finding that the plaintiffs do not have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the ACA. However, litigation and legislation over the ACA are likely to continue, with unpredictable and uncertain results.

The Trump Administration also took executive actions to undermine or delay implementation of the ACA, including directing federal agencies with authorities and responsibilities under the ACA to waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the implementation of any provision of the ACA that would impose a fiscal or regulatory burden on states, individuals, healthcare providers, health insurers, or manufacturers of pharmaceuticals or medical devices. On January 28, 2021, however, President Biden issued a new Executive Order which directs federal agencies to reconsider rules and other policies that limit Americans’ access to health care and consider actions that will protect and strengthen that access. Under this Executive Order, federal agencies are directed to re-examine: policies that undermine protections for people with pre-existing conditions, including complications related to COVID-19; demonstrations and waivers under Medicaid and the ACA that may reduce coverage or undermine the programs, including work requirements; policies that undermine the Health Insurance Marketplace or other markets for health insurance; policies that make it more difficult to enroll in Medicaid and the ACA; and policies that reduce affordability of coverage or financial assistance, including for dependents.

Current and future legislative efforts may limit the costs for our products, if and when they are licensed for marketing, and that could materially impact our ability to generate revenues.

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

-42-

reduce the costs of pharmaceuticals under Medicare and Medicaid. In 2020, President Trump issued several executive orders intended to lower the costs of prescription products and certain provisions in these orders have been incorporated into regulations. These regulations include an interim final rule implementing a most favored nation model for prices that would tie Medicare Part B payments for certain physician-administered pharmaceuticals to the lowest price paid in other economically advanced countries, effective January 1, 2021. That rule, however, has been subject to a nationwide preliminary injunction and, on December 29, 2021, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, issued a final rule to rescind it. With issuance of this rule, CMS stated that it will explore all options to incorporate value into payments for Medicare Part B pharmaceuticals and improve beneficiaries' access to evidence-based care.

In addition, in October 2020, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, and the FDA published a final rule allowing states and other entities to develop a Section 804 Importation Program, or SIP, to import certain prescription drugs from Canada into the United States. The final rule is currently the subject of ongoing litigation, but at least six states (Vermont, Colorado, Florida, Maine, New Mexico, and New Hampshire) have passed laws allowing for the importation of drugs from Canada with the intent of developing SIPs for review and approval by the FDA. Further, on November 20, 2020, 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 implementation of the rule has been delayed by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act to January 1, 2026 in response to ongoing litigation. The rule also creates a new safe harbor for price reductions reflected at the point-of-sale, as well as a new safe harbor for certain fixed fee arrangements between pharmacy benefit managers and manufacturers, the implementation of which have also been delayed until January 1, 2026.

At the state level, legislatures are increasingly 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. In addition, regional health care authorities and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and which suppliers will be included in their prescription drug and other 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.

Finally, outside the United States, in some nations, including those of the European Union, the pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals is subject to governmental control and access. In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after the receipt of marketing approval for a product. 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 product to other available therapies. If reimbursement of our products is unavailable or limited in scope or amount, or if pricing is set at unsatisfactory levels, our business could be materially harmed.

We may be subject to certain healthcare laws and regulations, which could expose us to criminal sanctions, civil penalties, contractual damages, reputational harm, fines, disgorgement, exclusion from participation in government healthcare programs, curtailment or restricting of our operations, and diminished profits and future earnings.

Healthcare providers, third-party payors and others will play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of any products for which we obtain marketing approval. Our future arrangements with healthcare providers and third-party payors will expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations that may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we market, sell and distribute any products for which we obtain marketing approval. Potentially applicable U.S. federal and state healthcare laws and regulations include the following:

Anti-Kickback Statute. The federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits, among other things, persons and entities from knowingly and willfully soliciting, offering, receiving or providing remuneration, directly or indirectly, in cash or in kind, to induce or reward either the referral of an individual for, or the purchase,

-43-

order or recommendation of, any good or service, for which payment may be made under federal healthcare programs such as Medicare and Medicaid;

False Claims Laws. The federal false claims laws, including the civil False Claims Act, impose criminal and civil penalties, including those from civil whistleblower or qui tam actions against individuals or entities for knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented to the federal government, claims for payment that are false or fraudulent or making a false statement to avoid, decrease or conceal an obligation to pay money to the federal government;

HIPAA. The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, imposes criminal and civil liability for executing or attempting to execute a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program;

HIPAA and HITECH. HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, or the HITECH Act, also imposes obligations on certain types of individuals and entities, including mandatory contractual terms, with respect to safeguarding the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information;

False Statements Statute. The federal false statements statute prohibits knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services;

Transparency Requirements. The federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act requires certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologics, and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid, or the Children's Health Insurance Program, with specific exceptions, to report annually to HHS information related to physician and healthcare provider payments and other transfers of value and physician ownership and investment interests; and

Analogous State and Foreign Laws. Analogous state laws and regulations, such as state anti-kickback and false claims laws, and transparency laws, may apply to sales or marketing arrangements, and claims involving healthcare items or services reimbursed by non-governmental third party payors, including private insurers, and 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, in addition to requiring manufacturers to report information related to payments to physicians and other healthcare providers or marketing expenditures. Many state 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 preempted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts. Foreign laws also govern the privacy and security of health information in many circumstances.

The provision of benefits or advantages to physicians to induce or encourage the prescription, recommendation, endorsement, purchase, supply, order or use of medicinal products is prohibited in the European Union. 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.

Efforts to ensure that our business arrangements with third parties, and our business generally, will comply with applicable healthcare 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 healthcare 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 administrative penalties, damages, fines, imprisonment, exclusion of products from government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, disgorgement, contractual damages, and reputational harm, any of which could substantially disrupt our operations. If any of the physicians or other providers or entities with whom we expect to do business is found not to be in compliance with applicable laws, they may be

-44-

subject to criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government funded healthcare programs.

Compliance with global privacy and data security requirements could result in additional costs and liabilities to us or inhibit our ability to collect and process data globally, and the failure to comply with such requirements could subject us to significant fines and penalties, which may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

The regulatory framework for the collection, use, safeguarding, sharing, transfer and other processing of information worldwide is rapidly evolving and is likely to remain uncertain for the foreseeable future. Globally, virtually every jurisdiction in which we operate or plan to operate has established its own data security and privacy frameworks with which we must comply. For example, the collection, use, disclosure, transfer, or other processing of personal data regarding individuals in the European Union, including personal health data, is subject to the European Union General Data Protection Regulation, or the GDPR, which took effect across all member states of the European Economic Area, or EEA, in May 2018. The GDPR is wide-ranging in scope and imposes numerous requirements on companies that process personal data, including strict rules on the transfer of personal data to countries outside the European Union, including the United States.

As a result, there is increased scrutiny on the extent to which clinical trial sites located in the EEA should apply the GDPR to transfers of personal data from such sites to countries that are considered to lack an adequate level of data protection, such as the United States. The GDPR also permits data protection authorities to require destruction of improperly gathered or used personal information and/or impose substantial fines for violations of the GDPR, which can be up to four percent of global revenues or 20 million Euros, whichever is greater, and it also confers a private right of action on data subjects and consumer associations to lodge complaints with supervisory authorities, seek judicial remedies, and obtain compensation for damages resulting from violations of the GDPR. In addition, the GDPR provides that European Union member states may make their own laws and regulations limiting the processing of personal data, including genetic, biometric or health data. Assisting parties with whom we exchange personal data in complying with the GDPR, or complying with the GDPR ourselves, may cause us to incur substantial operational costs or require us to change our business practices.

Similar initiatives are either in place or under way in the United States. There are a broad variety of data protection laws that are applicable to our activities, and a wide range of enforcement agencies at both the state and federal levels that can review companies for privacy and data security concerns based on general consumer protection laws. The Federal Trade Commission and state Attorneys General all are aggressive in reviewing privacy and data security protections for consumers. New laws also are being considered at both the state and federal levels. For example, the California Consumer Privacy Act, which went into effect on January 1, 2020, is creating similar risks and obligations as those created by GDPR, though the Act does exempt certain information collected as part of a clinical trial subject to the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects (the Common Rule). Many other states are considering similar legislation. A broad range of legislative measures also have been introduced at the federal level. Accordingly, failure to comply with federal and state laws (both those currently in effect and future legislation) regarding privacy and security of personal information could expose us to fines and penalties under such laws. There also is the threat of consumer class actions related to these laws and the overall protection of personal data. Even if we are not determined to have violated these laws, government investigations into these issues typically require the expenditure of significant resources and generate negative publicity, which could harm our reputation and our business.

Given the breadth and depth of changes in data protection obligations, preparing for and complying with such requirements is rigorous and time intensive and requires significant resources and a review of our technologies, systems and practices, as well as those of any third-party collaborators, service providers, contractors or consultants that process or transfer personal data collected in the European Union. The GDPR and other changes in laws or regulations associated with the enhanced protection of certain types of sensitive data, such as healthcare data or other personal information from our clinical trials, could require us to change our business practices and put in place additional compliance mechanisms, may interrupt or delay our development, regulatory and commercialization activities and increase our cost of doing business, and could lead to government enforcement actions, private litigation and significant fines and penalties

-45-

against us and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

The Economic Substance Law in the Cayman Islands may have an adverse effect on our business.

The Cayman Islands is a member of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, or OECD, Inclusive Framework on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting, and, along with other OECD-compliant jurisdictions, enacted economic substance legislation in January 2019. Pursuant to the legislation, namely the International Tax Cooperation (Economic Substance) Law, as amended, together with related regulations and guidance, collectively referred to as the ES Law, we may need to incur additional costs in order to comply with filing or other requirements. While we are taking steps to comply with the ES Law, such as repatriation of assets domiciled in Cayman Island, there is a risk of inadvertent non-compliance, which could result in the payment of associated penalties. International standards are continuing to develop, and it is anticipated that the ES Law will evolve and be subject to further clarification. Hence, it is not possible to determine with certainty the extent to which the ES Law may affect us.

Our internal computer systems, or those of our future collaborators or other contractors or consultants, may fail or suffer security breaches, which could result in a material disruption of our product development programs.

Our internal computer systems and those of any future collaborators, or other contractors or consultants are vulnerable to damage from computer viruses, unauthorized access, natural disasters, terrorism, war and telecommunication and electrical failures. Such systems are also vulnerable to service interruptions or to security breaches from inadvertent or intentional actions by employees, third-party vendors and/or business partners, or from cyberattacks by malicious third parties. Cyber incidents are increasing in their frequency, sophistication and intensity, and have become increasingly difficult to detect. Additionally, the risk of cyber-attacks or other privacy or data security incidents may be heightened as a result of our moving increasingly towards a remote working environment, which may be less secure and more susceptible to hacking attacks. For example, we have experienced attempts at phishing and e-mail fraud with the goal of causing payments to be transmitted to an unintended recipient. Cyber incidents could also include the deployment of harmful malware, ransomware, denial-of-service attacks, unauthorized access to or deletion of files, social engineering and other means to affect service reliability and threaten the confidentiality, integrity and availability of information.

In the event any cyberattack security breach or system failure were to occur and cause interruptions in our operations, it could result in a material disruption of our development programs and our business operations, whether due to a loss of our trade secrets or other proprietary information or other similar disruptions. For example, the loss of clinical trial data from completed or future clinical trials could result in delays in our regulatory approval efforts and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data. To the extent that any disruption or security breach were to result in a loss of, or damage to, our data or applications, or inappropriate disclosure of confidential or proprietary information, we could incur liability, our competitive position and reputation could be harmed and the development of our product candidates could be delayed.

We are subject to U.S. and certain foreign export and import controls, sanctions, embargoes, anticorruption laws and anti-money laundering laws and regulations. Compliance with these legal standards could impair our ability to compete in domestic and international markets. We could face criminal liability and other serious consequences for violations, which could harm our business.

We are subject to export control and import laws and regulations, including the U.S. Export Administration Regulations, U.S. Customs regulations, various economic and trade sanctions regulations administered by the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Controls, the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, as amended, the U.S. domestic bribery statute contained in 18 U.S.C. § 201, the U.S. Travel Act, the USA PATRIOT Act, and other state and national anti-bribery and anti-money laundering laws in the countries in which we conduct activities. Anti-corruption laws are interpreted broadly and prohibit companies and their employees, agents, contractors and other collaborators from authorizing, promising, offering, or providing, directly or indirectly, improper payments or anything else of value to recipients in the public or private sector. We may engage third parties to sell any products for

-46-

which we obtain marketing approval outside the United States, to conduct clinical trials, and/or to obtain necessary permits, licenses, patent registrations and other regulatory approvals. We have direct or indirect interactions with officials and employees of government agencies or government-affiliated hospitals, universities and other organizations. We could be held liable for the corrupt or other illegal activities of our employees, agents, contractors and other collaborators, even if we do not explicitly authorize or have actual knowledge of such activities. Any violations of the laws and regulations described above may result in substantial civil and criminal fines and penalties, imprisonment, the loss of export or import privileges, debarment, tax reassessments, breach of contract and fraud litigation, reputational harm and other consequences.

If we or any third-party manufacturers we engage now or in the future fail to comply with environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, we could become subject to fines or penalties or incur costs or liabilities that could harm our business.

We and third-party manufacturers we engage now are, and any third-party manufacturers we may engage in the future will be, subject to numerous environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, including those governing laboratory procedures and the handling, use, storage, treatment and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes. Our operations involve the use of hazardous and flammable materials, including chemicals and biological materials. Our operations also produce hazardous waste products. We generally contract with third parties for the disposal of these materials and wastes. We cannot eliminate the risk of contamination or injury from these materials. In the event of contamination or injury resulting from our use of hazardous materials, we could be held liable for any resulting damages, and any liability could exceed our resources. Liability under certain environmental laws governing the release and cleanup of hazardous materials is joint and several and could be imposed without regard to fault. We also could incur significant costs associated with civil or criminal fines and penalties or become subject to injunctions limiting or prohibiting our activities for failure to comply with such laws and regulations.

Although we maintain general liability insurance as well as workers’ compensation insurance to cover us for costs and expenses we may incur due to injuries to our employees resulting from the use of hazardous materials, this insurance may not provide adequate coverage against potential liabilities. We do not maintain insurance for environmental liability or toxic tort claims that may be asserted against us in connection with our storage or disposal of biological, hazardous or radioactive materials.

In addition, we may incur substantial costs in order to comply with current or future environmental, health and safety laws and regulations. These current or future laws and regulations may impair our research, development or production efforts. Our failure to comply with these laws and regulations also may result in substantial fines, penalties or other sanctions.

Further, with respect to the operations of our current and any future third-party contract manufacturers, it is possible that if they fail to operate in compliance with applicable environmental, health and safety laws and regulations or properly dispose of wastes associated with our products, we could be held liable for any resulting damages, suffer reputational harm or experience a disruption in the manufacture and supply of any product candidates or products. In addition, our supply chain may be adversely impacted if any of our third-party contract manufacturers become subject to injunctions or other sanctions as a result of their non-compliance with environmental, health and safety laws and regulations.

In the future, if we decide to market our products outside of the United States, such as in the European Union or the United Kingdom, we would need to obtain additional approvals and comply with additional regulatory requirements.

Our primary regulatory strategy has been to apply first for approvals in the United States for our rare disease programs. We may in the future apply for approvals in Europe and the United Kingdom, following receipt of marketing authorization in the United States or, in the case of BTHS, concurrent with or even prior to United States regulatory interactions. As we also plan to consider collaboration for commercialization efforts in Europe and the United Kingdom, we anticipate that potential commercialization partners may have input into regulatory strategies in those jurisdictions. To date, we have focused our regulatory efforts primarily on achieving approvals and marketing authorization in the United States, but we are now undertaking preliminary efforts in Europe in the context of BTHS, such as discussions for potential partnerships. In order to market any product outside of the United States, we will

-47-

need to comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of other countries and jurisdictions regarding quality, safety and efficacy and governing, among other things, clinical trials, marketing authorization, commercial sales and distribution of products. Whether or not we obtain FDA approval for a product, we or any future collaborators would need to obtain the necessary approvals by the comparable foreign regulatory authorities before marketing the product in those countries or jurisdictions. We cannot be sure whether and when we would be able to obtain the necessary approvals, which could adversely affect our business and prospects.

Governments outside the United States may impose strict price controls, which may adversely affect our revenues, if any.

In some countries, 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 product. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval in some countries, we, or any future collaborators, may be required to conduct a clinical trial that compares the cost-effectiveness of our product to other available therapies. If reimbursement of our products is unavailable or limited in scope or amount, or if pricing is set at unsatisfactory levels, our business could be materially harmed.

Our employees, independent contractors, consultants and vendors may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including non-compliance with regulatory standards and requirements and insider trading, which could cause significant liability for us and harm our reputation.

We are exposed to the risk of fraud or other misconduct by our employees, independent contractors, consultants and vendors. Misconduct by these partners could include intentional failures to comply with FDA regulations or similar regulations of comparable foreign regulatory authorities, provide accurate information to the FDA or similar foreign regulatory authorities, comply with manufacturing standards, comply with federal and state healthcare fraud and abuse laws and regulations and similar laws and regulations established and enforced by comparable foreign regulatory authorities, report financial information or data accurately or disclose unauthorized activities to us. Employee misconduct could also involve the improper use of information obtained in the course of clinical trials, which could result in regulatory sanctions and serious harm to our reputation. This could include violations of HIPAA, other U.S. federal and state law, and requirements of non-U.S. jurisdictions, including the European Union Data Protection Directive. We are also exposed to risks in connection with any insider trading violations by employees or others affiliated with us. It is not always possible to identify and deter employee misconduct, and 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 be in compliance with such laws, standards, regulations, guidance or codes of conduct. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business and results of operations, including the imposition of significant fines or other sanctions.

Risks Related to Ownership of ADSs

Morningside Venture (I) Investments Limited, or MVIL, has a controlling ownership interest in our ordinary shares and the ability to substantially control all matters submitted to shareholders for approval.

As of February 28, 2022, MVIL beneficially owns 66.2% of our ordinary shares. In addition, certain entities associated within MVIL beneficially own an additional 8.2% of our ordinary shares. As a result, MVIL and such entities will be able to control all matters submitted to our shareholders for approval that require an ordinary resolution or special resolution, as well as our management and affairs. For example, MVIL would 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:

-48-

MVIL owns a controlling portion of our ordinary shares and may have conflicts of interest with us and other shareholders in the future.

The interests of MVIL may not always be consistent with our interests or the interests of our other shareholders. Accordingly, MVIL could cause us to enter into transactions or agreements of which other holders of our ordinary shares would not approve or make decisions with which such holders would disagree. Gerald L. Chan, one of our directors, is a co-founder of the Morningside group, a private investment group with venture, private equity and property investments. In addition, Reenie McCarthy, our Chief Executive Officer and a director, served as a member of the investment team at Morningside Technology Advisory, LLC (and affiliates) from 1993 through 2016, and remains a director of Morningside Technology Advisory, LLC, which provides advisory services to entities associated with the Morningside group.

Although Dr. Chan is not an officer, director or employee of MVIL and has neither voting nor dispositive control over the ordinary shares held by MVIL and does not otherwise beneficially own such shares, as a result of his ongoing relationship with the Morningside group, transactions between us and MVIL may present an actual or perceived conflict of interest. Although Ms. McCarthy is not an officer, director or employee of MVIL, and has neither voting nor dispositive control over our ordinary shares held by MVIL and does not otherwise beneficially own such shares, as a result of her historic relationship with the Morningside group and her ongoing relationship with Morningside Technology Advisory, LLC, transactions between us and MVIL may present an actual or perceived conflict of interest. Any actual or perceived conflicts of interest may lead Dr. Chan and Ms. McCarthy to recuse themselves from actions of our board of directors with respect to transactions involving MVIL and its affiliates. For example, in a situation in which MVIL is adverse to us, such as if it breaches an agreement with us, a conflict could arise. We may not be able to resolve any potential conflicts, and even if we do, the resolution may be less favorable than if we were dealing with an unaffiliated party.

MVIL is in the business of making investments in companies and could from time to time acquire and hold interests in businesses that compete with us. MVIL may also pursue acquisition opportunities that may be complementary to our business, and as a result, desirable acquisitions may not be available to us. As long as MVIL continues to own a significant amount of our equity, it will continue to be able to strongly influence or effectively control our decisions.

If we fail to meet the requirements for continued listing on the Nasdaq Global Market or Nasdaq, our ADSs could be delisted from trading, which would decrease the liquidity of our ADSs and our ability to raise additional capital.

Our ADSs are currently listed for quotation on the Nasdaq Global Market. We are required to meet specified financial requirements in order to maintain our listing on the Nasdaq Global Market. These requirements include maintaining a minimum bid price of at least $1.00 per share for our ADSs, which is referred to as the Bid Price Rule, maintaining a minimum market value of listed securities, or MVLS, of $50,000,000 and maintaining a minimum Market Value of Publicly Held Shares, or MVPHS, of $15,000,000. On January 4 and 5, 2022, and on February 14, 2022, we received deficiency letters from the Listings Qualifications Department of the Nasdaq Stock Market notifying that we were not in compliance with the Bid Price Rule, the MVLS and the MVPHS, respectively. We have been provided an initial period of 180 calendar days, for each such deficiency, or until July 5, 2022 and August 10, 2022, to regain compliance with the applicable. If we do not regain compliance with the Bid Price Rule, MVLS and MVPHS by the applicable compliance date, we may be eligible for an additional 180 calendar day compliance period. To qualify, we would need to transfer the listing of our common stock to the Nasdaq Capital Market, provided that we meet the continued listing requirement for the market value of publicly held shares and all other initial listing standards of the Nasdaq Capital Market, with the exception of its bid price requirement, or, if we fail to meet its listing requirements, the OTC Bulletin Board. Any potential delisting of our common stock from the Nasdaq Global Market would make it more difficult for our holders of our ADSs to sell our stock in the public market and would likely result in decreased liquidity and increased volatility for our ADSs.

The price of the ADSs has been, and is likely to continue to be, highly volatile.

-49-

The price of the ADSs has been, and is likely to continue to be, highly volatile. The stock market in general and the market for smaller pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies in particular have experienced extreme volatility that has often been unrelated to the operating performance of particular companies. The market price for the ADSs may be influenced by many factors, including:

-50-

Additionally, in the past, securities class action litigation has often been brought against a company following a decline in the market price of its securities. This risk is especially relevant for us in light of the significant stock price volatility we and other pharmaceutical companies have experienced in recent years. If we face such litigation, it could result in substantial costs and a diversion of management’s attention and resources, which could harm our business.

As a foreign private issuer, we are exempt from a number of rules under the U.S. securities laws and are permitted to file less information with the Securities and Exchange Commission, or the SEC, than U.S. companies. This may limit the information available to holders of the ADSs.

We are a “foreign private issuer,” as defined in the rules and regulations of the SEC and, consequently, we are not subject to all of the disclosure requirements applicable to companies organized within the United States. For example, we are exempt from certain rules under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, that regulate disclosure obligations and procedural requirements related to the solicitation of proxies, consents or authorizations applicable to a security registered under the Exchange Act. In addition, our senior management and supervisory board members are exempt from the reporting and “short-swing” profit recovery provisions of Section 16 of the Exchange Act and related rules with respect to their purchases and sales of our securities. Moreover, we are not required to file periodic reports and financial statements with the SEC as frequently or as promptly as U.S. public companies. Accordingly, there may be less publicly available information concerning our company than there is for U.S. public companies.

In addition, foreign private issuers are not required to file their annual report on Form 20-F until 120 days after the end of each fiscal year, while U.S. domestic issuers that are accelerated filers are required to file their annual report on Form 10-K within 75 days after the end of each fiscal year. Foreign private issuers are also exempt from the Regulation Fair Disclosure, aimed at preventing issuers from making selective disclosures of material information. As a result of the above, you may not have the same protections afforded to shareholders of companies that are not foreign private issuers.

If we are, or another entity in our group is, a controlled foreign corporation, or CFC, there could be adverse U.S. federal income tax consequences to certain U.S. shareholders.

If a U.S. person is treated as owning, directly, indirectly or constructively, at least 10% of the value or voting power of our ordinary shares (including ADSs), such person may be treated under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or the Code, as a “United States shareholder,” or a Ten-Percent Shareholder, with respect to each CFC in our group, if any. We do not believe that we were a CFC for our taxable year ended December 31, 2021; we have not made a determination regarding our CFC status in the current taxable year, and we may become a CFC in the current or a subsequent taxable year. In addition, because Stealth BioTherapeutics Corp has a U.S. subsidiary, any future newly formed or acquired non-U.S. subsidiaries of Stealth BioTherapeutics Corp may be treated as CFCs, regardless of whether we are treated as a CFC.

A Ten-Percent Shareholder of a CFC may be required to annually report and include in its taxable income its pro rata share of “Subpart F income,” “global intangible low-taxed income” and investments in U.S. property by the CFC, regardless of whether it makes any distributions. In addition, a Ten-Percent Shareholder that realizes gain from the sale or exchange of shares in a CFC may be required to classify a portion of such gain as dividend income rather than capital gain. An individual that is a Ten-Percent

-51-

Shareholder with respect to a CFC generally is not allowed certain tax deductions or foreign tax credits that would be allowed to a Ten-Percent Shareholder that is a U.S. corporation.

Failure to comply with CFC reporting obligations may subject a Ten-Percent Shareholder to significant monetary penalties. We cannot provide any assurances that we will furnish to any Ten-Percent Shareholder information that may be necessary to comply with the reporting and tax-paying obligations applicable under the CFC rules of the Code.

Our status, or the status of any subsidiary, as a CFC will generally not have any U.S. federal income tax consequences for U.S. shareholders holding our ordinary shares or ADSs who are not Ten-Percent Shareholders.

If we are a passive foreign investment company, or PFIC, for any taxable year, there could be adverse U.S. federal income tax consequences to certain U.S. shareholders.

Under the Code, we will be a PFIC for any taxable year in which (1) 75% or more of our gross income consists of passive income or (2) 50% or more of the value of our assets (generally determined on the basis of a weighted quarterly average) consists of assets that produce, or are held for the production of, passive income (including cash and cash-equivalents). For purposes of these tests, passive income includes dividends, interest, gains from the sale or exchange of investment property and certain rents and royalties. In addition, for purposes of the above calculations, a non-U.S. corporation that directly or indirectly owns at least 25% by value of the shares of another corporation is treated as holding and receiving directly its proportionate share of assets and income of such corporation. If we are a PFIC for any taxable year during which a U.S. person holds our shares, such U.S. holder may be subject to adverse tax consequences regardless of whether we continue to qualify as a PFIC in future years, including ineligibility for any preferred tax rates on capital gains or on actual or deemed dividends, the imposition of interest charges on certain taxes treated as deferred and additional reporting requirements.

Based on our analysis of our activities and current estimates (and not fully audited financials) of the composition of our income and assets, and taking into account the market price of our ordinary shares and ADSs, we do not believe that we were a PFIC in our taxable year ended December 31, 2021. The determination of whether we are a PFIC is a fact-intensive determination made on an annual basis as of the end of each taxable year, applying principles and methodologies that in some circumstances are unclear and subject to varying interpretation. In addition, for our current and future taxable years, the total value of our assets (including goodwill) for PFIC testing purposes may be determined in part by reference to the market price of our ordinary shares or ADSs from time to time, which may fluctuate considerably. Accordingly, if our market capitalization declines while we hold a substantial amount of cash and cash-equivalents for any taxable year, we may be a PFIC for that taxable year. Under the income test, our status as a PFIC depends on the composition of our income for the relevant taxable year which will depend on the transactions we enter into in the future and our corporate structure. The composition of our income and assets is also affected by how we spend the cash we raise in any financing. We may be a PFIC for any taxable year in which we do not generate sufficient amounts of active income to offset our passive income. Therefore, we cannot express an expectation regarding our PFIC status for the current or any future taxable year. Even if we determine that we are not a PFIC for a taxable year, there can be no assurance that the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, or IRS, will agree with our conclusion and that the IRS would not successfully challenge our position.

Certain consequences of being a U.S. shareholder in a PFIC may be mitigated in some circumstances through the making of certain elections. We cannot provide any assurances that we will furnish to any U.S. shareholder information that may be necessary to permit such elections to be made.

If we are a PFIC, certain U.S. shareholders will generally be subject to similar rules with respect to distributions we receive from, and our dispositions of the stock of, any of our direct or indirect subsidiaries or any other entities in which we hold equity interests that also are PFICs, or lower-tier PFICs, as if such distributions were indirectly received by, and/or dispositions were indirectly carried out by, such U.S. shareholder.

Failure to comply with PFIC reporting obligations may subject a U.S. shareholder to significant monetary penalties. We cannot provide any assurances that we will furnish to any U.S. shareholder information that may be necessary to comply with the reporting and tax-paying obligations applicable

-52-

under the PFIC rules of the Code. If we are classified as both a CFC (as discussed above) and a PFIC, we generally will not be treated as a PFIC with respect to those U.S. shareholders that meet the definition of a Ten-Percent Shareholder during the period in which we are a CFC.

We intend to continue to rely on Nasdaq rules that permit us to comply with applicable Cayman Islands corporate governance practices, rather than the corresponding domestic U.S. corporate governance practices, and therefore the rights of our shareholders will differ from the rights of shareholders of a U.S. domestic issuer.

As a foreign private issuer whose ADSs are listed on The Nasdaq Global Market, we are permitted in certain cases to follow Cayman Islands corporate governance practices instead of the corresponding requirements of Nasdaq rules. A foreign private issuer that elects to follow a home country practice instead of Nasdaq requirements must submit to Nasdaq in advance a written statement from an independent counsel in such issuer’s home country certifying that the issuer’s practices are not prohibited by the home country’s laws. In addition, a foreign private issuer must disclose in its annual reports filed with the SEC each such requirement that it does not follow and describe the home country practice followed instead of any such requirement. In accordance with Cayman Islands law:

For further information upon the differences between Delaware law and Cayman Islands law, please see “Description of Share Capital and Articles of Association—Differences in Corporate Law” in our preliminary prospectus, filed with the SEC on Form F-1 on August 5, 2021, which information is incorporated by reference in this annual report.

We may lose our foreign private issuer status, which would then require us to comply with the Exchange Act’s domestic reporting regime and cause us to incur significant legal, accounting and other expenses.

As discussed above, we are a foreign private issuer, and therefore, we are not required to comply with all of the periodic disclosure and current reporting requirements of the Exchange Act. The determination of foreign private issuer status is made annually on the last business day of an issuer’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter. We would lose our foreign private issuer status if, for example, more than 50% of our ordinary shares are directly or indirectly held by residents of the United States and we fail to meet additional requirements necessary to maintain our foreign private issuer status. If we lose our foreign private issuer status on this date, we will be required to file with the SEC periodic reports and registration statements on U.S. domestic issuer forms, which are more detailed and extensive than the forms available to a foreign private issuer. We will also have to mandatorily comply with U.S. federal proxy requirements, and our officers, directors and principal shareholders will become subject to the short-swing profit disclosure and recovery provisions of Section 16 of the Exchange Act. In addition, we will lose our ability to rely upon exemptions from certain corporate governance requirements under the Nasdaq listing rules. As a U.S. listed public company that is not a foreign private issuer, we will incur significant additional legal, accounting and other expenses that we do not incur as a foreign private issuer, and accounting, reporting and other expenses in order to maintain a listing on a U.S. securities exchange. These rules and regulations could also make it more difficult for us to attract and retain qualified members of our board of directors and more expensive to procure director and officer liability insurance.

We incur increased costs as a result of operating as a public company, and our management is required to devote substantial time to compliance initiatives and corporate governance practices.

-53-

As a public company we incur significant legal, accounting and other expenses that we did not incur as a private company, and we expect these expenses to increase after we are no longer an “emerging growth company.” The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, or SOX, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the listing requirements of Nasdaq and other applicable securities rules and regulations 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 towards maintaining compliance with these requirements. Moreover, these requirements have increased our legal and financial compliance costs and make some activities more time consuming and costly.

Pursuant to SOX Section 404, we will be required to furnish a report by our management on our internal control over financial reporting. However, while we remain an emerging growth company, we will not be required to include an attestation report on internal control over financial reporting issued by our independent registered public accounting firm. To achieve compliance with SOX Section 404 within the prescribed period, we will be engaged in a process to document and evaluate our internal control over financial reporting, which is both costly and challenging. In this regard, we will need to continue to dedicate internal resources, potentially engage outside consultants and adopt 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, within the prescribed timeframe, or at all, that our internal control over financial reporting is effective as required by SOX Section 404. If we identify one or more material weaknesses, it could result in an adverse reaction in the financial markets due to a loss of confidence in the reliability of our financial statements.

A significant portion of our total outstanding shares may be sold into the market, which could cause the market price of the ADSs to decline significantly, even if our business is doing well.

Sales of a substantial number of ADSs 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 ordinary shares intend to sell ADSs, could reduce the market price of the ADSs.

On June 2, 2020, we entered into the Purchase Agreement with Lincoln Park Capital Fund LLC, or Lincoln Park, pursuant to which Lincoln Park has committed to purchase up to $20.0 million of our ordinary shares over the 36-month period commencing on June 22, 2020. As of December 31, 2021, pursuant to the Purchase Agreement a total of 45,774,552 ordinary shares were sold to Lincoln Park for aggregate gross proceeds totaling $5.3 million. On August 6, 2020, we entered into the At The Market Offering Agreement, or ATM Offering Agreement, with H.C. Wainwright & Co., LLC, or Wainwright, pursuant to which we may offer and sell, from time to time through Wainwright, ADSs. We generally have the right to control the timing and amount of any future sales of ordinary shares to Lincoln Park or ADSs through Wainwright. Sales of ordinary shares or ADSs to Lincoln Park or through Wainwright, respectively, will depend upon market conditions and other factors to be determined by us. We may decide to sell the remaining ordinary shares to Lincoln Park pursuant to the Purchase Agreement and/or we may decide to sell all, some or none of the ADSs through Wainwright pursuant to the ATM Offering Agreement. Further sales to Lincoln Park or any sales through Wainwright by us could result in substantial dilution to the interests of other holders of our ordinary shares and ADSs. Additionally, the sale of a substantial number of ordinary shares to Lincoln Park or ADSs through Wainwright, or the anticipation of such sales, could make it more difficult for us to sell equity or equity-related securities in the future at a time and at a price that we might otherwise wish to effect sales. Lincoln Park may resell all, some or none of the ordinary shares that it has acquired and may acquire in the future at any time or from time to time in its discretion. If and when we do sell ADSs through Wainwright, after the purchaser has acquired the ADSs, such purchaser may resell all, some or none of those ADSs at any time or from time to time in its discretion.

As of March 31, 2022, we have also reserved 159,699,644 ordinary shares that we may issue under our equity compensation plans. The ADSs representing these ordinary shares can be freely sold in the public market upon issuance and once vested, subject to volume limitations applicable to affiliates.

-54-

We have issued warrants to purchase an aggregate of 161,823,177 ordinary shares to MVIL in connection with funding under our Development Funding Agreement. Further, in connection with our entry into the venture loan facility, we issued the Lenders warrants to purchase up to an aggregate of 13,636,364 ordinary shares. Subject to compliance with applicable securities laws, and volume limitations, ADSs representing the ordinary shares issued upon exercise of these warrants may be sold in the public market.

We do not anticipate paying any cash dividends on the ADSs in the foreseeable future. Accordingly, holders of ADSs must rely on capital appreciation, if any, for any return on their investment.

We have never declared nor paid cash dividends on our share capital. We currently plan to retain all of our future earnings, if any, to finance the operation, development and growth of our business. In addition, the terms of our venture loan and security agreement with the Lenders restrict our ability to pay cash dividends. As a result, capital appreciation, if any, of the ADSs will be your sole source of gain for the foreseeable future. However, if we do pay a cash dividend on our ordinary shares and ADSs in the future, we may only pay such dividend out of our profits or share premium (subject to applicable solvency requirements) under Cayman Islands law.

If securities or industry analysts do not publish research or publish inaccurate or unfavorable research about our business, our share price and trading volume could decline.

The trading market for the ADSs will likely depend, in part, on the research and reports that securities or industry analysts publish about us or our business. We do not have any control over these analysts. There can be no assurance that analysts will continue to cover us or provide favorable coverage. If one or more analysts downgrade the ADSs or change their opinion of the ADSs, our share price would likely decline. . In addition, if one or more analysts cease coverage of our company or fail to regularly publish reports on us, we could lose visibility in the financial markets, which could cause the price of the ADSs or trading volume to decline.

Holders of our ADSs have fewer rights than our shareholders and must act through the depositary to exercise their rights.

Holders of our ADSs do not have the same rights as our shareholders and may only exercise their voting rights with respect to the underlying ordinary shares in accordance with the provisions of the deposit agreement. Holders of the ADSs have appointed the depositary or its nominee as their representative to exercise the voting rights attaching to the ordinary shares represented by the ADSs. When a general meeting is convened, holders of ADSs may not receive sufficient notice of a shareholders’ meeting to permit them to withdraw the ordinary shares underlying their ADSs to allow them to vote directly with respect to any specific matter. We cannot assure any holders of our ADSs that they will receive voting materials in time to instruct the depositary to vote, and it is possible that such holders, or persons who hold their ADSs through brokers, dealers or other third parties, will not have the opportunity to exercise a right to vote. Furthermore, the depositary will not be liable for any failure to carry out any instructions to vote, for the manner in which any vote is cast or for the effect of any such vote. As a result, holders of the ADSs may not be able to exercise their right to vote and may lack recourse if their ADSs are not voted as they request. In addition, ADS holders will not be able to call a shareholders’ meeting. See “Description of American Depositary Shares” in our preliminary prospectus filed with the SEC on Form F-1 on August 5, 2021, which information is incorporated by reference in this annual report.

Holders of our ADSs may face limitations on transfer and withdrawal of underlying ordinary shares.

Our ADSs, which may be evidenced by American Depositary Receipts, are transferable on the books of the depositary. However, the depositary may close its books at any time or from time to time when it deems expedient in connection with the performance of its duties. The depositary may refuse to deliver, transfer or register transfers of the ADSs generally when our books or the books of the depositary are closed, or at any time if we or the depositary think it is advisable to do so because of any requirement of law, government or governmental body, or under any provision of the deposit agreement, or for any other reason subject to your right to cancel your ADSs and withdraw the underlying ordinary shares. Temporary delays in the cancellation of the ADSs and withdrawal of the underlying ordinary shares may arise because the depositary has closed its transfer books or we have closed our transfer books, the transfer of ordinary shares is blocked to permit voting at a shareholders’ meeting or we are paying a dividend on our ordinary shares. In addition, holders of the ADSs may not be able to cancel their ADSs and withdraw the underlying

-55-

ordinary shares when they owe money for fees, taxes and similar charges and when it is necessary to prohibit withdrawals in order to comply with any laws or governmental regulations that apply to ADSs or to the withdrawal of ordinary shares or other deposited securities. See “Description of American Depositary Shares” in our preliminary prospectus filed with the SEC on Form F-1 on August 5, 2021, which information is incorporated by reference in this annual report.

ADS holders may not be entitled to a jury trial with respect to claims arising under the deposit agreement, which could result in less favorable outcomes to the plaintiff(s) in any such action.

The deposit agreement governing the ADSs representing our ordinary shares provides that holders and beneficial owners of ADSs irrevocably waive the right to a trial by jury in any legal proceeding arising out of or relating to the deposit agreement or the ADSs, including in respect of claims under federal securities laws, against us or the depositary to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law. If this jury trial waiver provision is prohibited by applicable law, an action could nevertheless proceed under the terms of the deposit agreement with a jury trial. To our knowledge, the enforceability of a jury trial waiver under the federal securities laws has not been finally adjudicated by a federal court. However, we believe that a jury trial waiver provision is generally enforceable under the laws of the State of New York, which govern the deposit agreement, by a court of the State of New York or a federal court, which have non-exclusive jurisdiction over matters arising under the deposit agreement, applying such law. In determining whether to enforce a jury trial waiver provision, New York courts and federal courts will consider whether the visibility of the jury trial waiver provision within the agreement is sufficiently prominent such that a party has knowingly waived any right to trial by jury. We believe that this is the case with respect to the deposit agreement and the ADSs. In addition, New York courts will not enforce a jury trial waiver provision in order to bar a viable setoff or counterclaim sounding in fraud or one which is based upon a creditor’s negligence in failing to liquidate collateral upon a guarantor’s demand, or in the case of an intentional tort claim (as opposed to a contract dispute), none of which we believe are applicable in the case of the deposit agreement or the ADSs. No condition, stipulation or provision of the deposit agreement or ADSs serves as a waiver by any holder or beneficial owner of ADSs or by us or the depositary of compliance with any provision of the federal securities laws. If any holder or beneficial owner of ADSs brings a claim against us or the depositary in connection with such matters, such holder or beneficial owner may not be entitled to a jury trial with respect to such claims, which may have the effect of limiting and discouraging lawsuits against us and/or the depositary. If a lawsuit is brought against us and/or the depositary under the deposit agreement, it may be heard only by a judge or justice of the applicable trial court, which would be conducted according to different civil procedures and may result in different outcomes than a trial by jury would have had, including results that could be less favorable to the plaintiff(s) in any such action, depending on, among other things, the nature of the claims, the judge or justice hearing such claims, and the venue of the hearing.

Our shareholders may face difficulties in protecting their interests, and their ability to protect their rights through U.S. courts may be limited, because we are incorporated under Cayman Islands law and many of our directors reside outside of the United States.

We are an exempted company incorporated under the laws of the Cayman Islands. Our corporate affairs are governed by our Amended and Restated Memorandum and Articles of Association, referred to as our Articles of Association, the Companies Law (2020 Revision) (as amended) of the Cayman Islands, referred to as the Companies Law, and the common law of the Cayman Islands. The rights of shareholders to take action against the directors, actions by minority shareholders and the fiduciary duties of our directors to us under Cayman Islands law are to a large extent governed by the common law of the Cayman Islands. The common law of the Cayman Islands is derived in part from comparatively limited judicial precedent in the Cayman Islands as well as from the common law of England and Wales, the decisions of whose courts are of persuasive authority, but are not binding, on a court in the Cayman Islands. Similarly, the rights of our shareholders and the fiduciary duties of our directors under Cayman Islands law are not as clearly established as they would be under statutes or judicial precedent in some jurisdictions in the United States. In particular, the Cayman Islands has a less developed body of securities laws than the United States, and some U.S. states, such as Delaware, have more fully developed and judicially interpreted bodies of corporate law than the Cayman Islands. As a Cayman Islands exempted company, we may not have standing to initiate a derivative action in a federal court of the United States. As a result, our shareholders may be limited in their ability to protect their interests if they are harmed in a manner that would otherwise

-56-

enable them to sue in a United States federal court. In addition, shareholders of Cayman Islands companies may not have standing to initiate a shareholder derivative action in U.S. federal courts.

Shareholders of Cayman Islands exempted companies like us have very limited statutory rights under Cayman Islands law to inspect the corporate records of Cayman Islands exempted companies into which they are invested and have no statutory rights to obtain copies of registers of shareholders of Cayman Islands exempted companies. Although our shareholders may request access to our books and records, our directors have discretion under our Articles of Association to determine whether or not, and under what conditions, certain of our corporate records may be inspected by our shareholders. Under the Companies Law, shareholders are entitled to view our Articles of Association. This may make it more difficult for our shareholders to obtain the information needed to establish any facts necessary for a shareholder motion or to solicit proxies from other shareholders in connection with a proxy contest.

Certain corporate governance practices in the Cayman Islands, which is the jurisdiction of our incorporation, differ significantly from requirements for companies incorporated in other jurisdictions such as the United States. To the extent we choose to follow practice in the Cayman Islands with respect to corporate governance matters, our shareholders may be afforded less protection than they otherwise would under rules and regulations applicable to U.S. domestic issuers.

The Cayman Islands has no legislation specifically dedicated to the rights of investors in securities or statutorily defined private causes of action to investors in securities such as those found under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act. Subject to limited exceptions, under Cayman Islands law, a shareholder is not entitled to bring a derivative action against the board of directors. U.S.-style class action lawsuits are not recognized in the Cayman Islands, but groups of shareholders with identical interests may bring representative proceedings in a similar fashion.

As a result of all of the above, our shareholders may have more difficulty in protecting their interests in the face of actions taken by management, or members of the board of directors than they would as public shareholders of a company incorporated in the United States. For a discussion of significant differences between the provisions of the Companies Law of the Cayman Islands and the U.S. Delaware General Corporation Law applicable to companies incorporated in Delaware and their shareholders, see “Description of Share Capital and Articles of Association—Differences in Corporate Law” in our preliminary prospectus filed with the SEC on Form F-1 on August 5, 2021, which information is incorporated by reference in this annual report.

The rights of our shareholders may differ from the rights typically offered to shareholders of a U.S. corporation.

Our corporate affairs and the rights of holders of ordinary shares are governed by our Articles of Association, the Companies Law, and the common law of the Cayman Islands. Certain rights and responsibilities of our shareholders, ADS holders and members of our board of directors under Cayman Islands law are different from those that apply to a Delaware corporation.

Directors of Cayman Islands exempted companies are required to observe certain fiduciary duties. These fiduciary duties are owed to the Cayman Islands company and include the duty to act in the best interests of the company and the shareholders as a whole. However, the fiduciary duties of a director of a Cayman Islands exempted company may not be the same as the fiduciary duty of a director of a Delaware corporation.

In addition, controlling shareholders of Delaware corporations may owe fiduciary duties to minority shareholders, while shareholders (including controlling shareholders) of Cayman Islands companies generally owe no fiduciary duties to the company or other shareholders.

The rights of our shareholders to bring shareholders’ suits against us or our board of directors under Cayman Islands law are much more limited than those of shareholders of a Delaware corporation. For example, under Cayman Islands law, a shareholder who wishes to bring a claim against a director would generally need to obtain permission from the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands, or Cayman Islands Court, to bring a derivative action, in the name of the company, against the director. This is because the director of a Cayman Islands exempted company owes duties to the company and not to individual shareholders. As a result, our shareholders, including holders of ADSs, may have more difficulty protecting

-57-

their rights in connection with actions taken by our directors than they would as shareholders of a U.S. corporation.

Minority shareholders in a Cayman Islands exempted company have more limited rights than minority shareholders in a Delaware corporation in relation to mergers and similar transactions that the company may carry out. For example, if a merger under the Companies Law involving a Cayman Islands exempted company is approved by the requisite majority of shareholders, a dissenting minority shareholder would have the right to be paid the fair value of their shares (which, if not agreed between the parties, will, following the course of legal proceedings, be determined by the Cayman Islands Court) if the shareholders follow the statutorily prescribed procedure for initiating such proceedings, subject to certain exceptions. Such dissenter rights differ substantially from the appraisal rights, which would ordinarily be available to dissenting shareholders of Delaware corporations. Further, if a takeover offer is made to the shareholders of a Cayman Islands exempted company and accepted by holders of 90% of the shares affected, the offeror may require the holders of the remaining shares to transfer such shares on the terms of the offer. An objection can be made to the Cayman Islands Court, but this is unlikely to succeed in the case of an offer which has been so approved unless there is evidence of fraud, bad faith or collusion. A minority shareholder in this scenario would have no rights comparable to the appraisal rights which would generally be available to a dissenting shareholder of a U.S. corporation in similar circumstances. For a discussion of significant differences between the provisions of the Companies Law of the Cayman Islands and the U.S. Delaware General Corporation Law applicable to companies incorporated in Delaware and their shareholders, see “Description of Share Capital and Articles of Association—Differences in Corporate Law” in our preliminary prospectus filed with the SEC on Form F-1 on August 5, 2021, which information is incorporated by reference in this annual report.