Exhibit 99.1

RISK FACTORS

Our business faces significant risks. You should carefully consider all of the information set forth in our Annual Report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, or Form 20-F, and in our other filings with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, or the SEC, including the following risk factors which we face and which are faced by our industry. Our business, financial condition or results of operations could be materially adversely affected by any of these risks. This report also contains forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. Our results could materially differ from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements, as a result of certain factors including the risks described below and elsewhere in the Form 20-F and our other SEC filings.

Risks Related to Our Financial Position and Need for Additional Capital

We have incurred significant operating losses since inception and anticipate that we will continue to incur substantial operating losses for the foreseeable future and may never achieve or maintain profitability.

Since our inception, we have incurred significant operating losses. Our net loss was $76.7 million, $66.9 million and $30.2 million for the years ended December 31, 2018, 2017 and 2016, respectively. As of December 31, 2018, we had accumulated losses of $214.5 million, out of which $30.6 million were offset with share premium. We expect to continue to incur significant expenses and increasing operating losses for the foreseeable future. We have devoted substantially all of our efforts to in-licensing and developing our product candidates, linzagolix, nolasiban and OBE022, as well as capital raising, and building our management team. It could be several years, if ever, before we have a commercialized product. The net losses we incur may fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter and year to year. We anticipate that our expenses will increase substantially if and as we:

 

•

continue the ongoing and planned clinical development of linzagolix, nolasiban and OBE022 and make required milestone payments for linzagolix under license agreements;

 

•

conduct nonclinical studies required for the continued development and regulatory approval of our existing clinical programs, including an environmental assessment for linzagolix;

 

•

initiate preclinical studies and clinical trials for any additional indications for our current product candidates and any future product candidates that we may pursue;

 

•

continue to build our portfolio of product candidates through the acquisition or in-license of additional product candidates or technologies;

 

•

continue to develop, maintain, expand and protect our intellectual property portfolio;

 

•

pursue regulatory approvals for our current and future product candidates that successfully complete clinical trials;

 

•

ultimately establish a sales, marketing and distribution infrastructure to commercialize any product candidate for which we may obtain marketing approval;

 

•

hire additional clinical, regulatory, scientific and accounting personnel; and

 

•

incur additional legal, accounting and other expenses in operating as a public company.

To become and remain profitable, we must develop and eventually commercialize one or more product candidates with significant market potential. This will require us to be successful in a range of challenging activities, including completing clinical trials of linzagolix, nolasiban and OBE022, developing commercial scale manufacturing processes, obtaining marketing approval, manufacturing, marketing and selling any current and future product candidates for which we may obtain marketing approval, and satisfying any post-marketing requirements. We are only in the preliminary stages of most of these activities and, in some cases, have not yet commenced certain of these activities. We may never succeed in any or all of these activities and, even if we do, we may never generate sufficient revenue to achieve profitability.

Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with product development, we are unable to accurately predict the timing or amount of expenses or when, or if, we will obtain marketing approval to commercialize any of our product candidates. If we are required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, or other regulatory authorities such as the European Medicines Agency, or EMA, to perform studies and trials in addition to those

currently expected, or if there are any delays in the development, or in the completion of any planned or future preclinical studies or clinical trials of our current or future product candidates, our expenses could increase and profitability could be further delayed.

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, maintain our research and development efforts, expand our business or continue our operations. A decline in the value of our company also could cause you to lose all or part of your investment.

We have a limited operating history and have never generated any revenue from product sales, which may make it difficult to evaluate the success of our business to date and to assess our future viability.

We commenced operations in 2012, and our operations to date have been largely focused on in-licensing and developing our product candidates, including conducting preclinical studies and clinical trials, raising capital, and building our management team and infrastructure. We have not yet demonstrated an ability to successfully complete clinical development of a product candidate, obtain regulatory approvals, manufacture products on a commercial scale, or arrange for a third party to do so on our behalf, or conduct sales and marketing activities necessary for successful commercialization. Additionally, the markets for our product candidates are competitive, complex and have characteristics that differ by geography. Consequently, any predictions you make 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 products.

We expect our financial condition and operating results to continue to fluctuate from quarter to quarter and year to year due to a variety of factors, many of which are beyond our control. We will need to eventually transition from a company with a research and development focus to a company capable of undertaking commercial activities. We may encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications and delays, and may not be successful in such a transition.

We will need substantial additional funding to pursue our business objectives. If we are unable to raise capital when needed or on terms favorable to us, we could be forced to curtail our planned operations and the pursuit of our growth strategy.

Identifying potential product candidates and conducting preclinical studies and clinical trials is a time-consuming, expensive and uncertain process that takes years to complete, and we may never generate the necessary data or results required to obtain regulatory approval and achieve product sales. We expect our expenses to increase in connection with our ongoing activities, particularly as we continue to develop our product candidates. Our expenses could increase beyond our current expectations if the FDA, EMA or other foreign regulatory agencies require us to perform clinical trials and other studies in addition to those that we currently anticipate. In addition, our product candidates, if approved, may not achieve commercial success. Our revenue, if any, will be derived from sales of products that we do not expect to be commercially available for a number of years, if at all. Additionally, if we obtain marketing approval for our product candidates, we expect to incur significant expenses related to manufacturing, marketing, sales and distribution. We also expect to incur additional costs associated with operating as a public company.

As of December 31, 2018, our cash and cash equivalents was $138.6 million. We raised $88.5 million in net proceeds from our initial public offering in January 2017, $56.3 million in net proceeds from our private placement in October 2017 and $72.4 million in net proceeds from our underwritten public offering in June 2018. In addition, during 2018, we sold treasury shares from our “at the market,” or ATM, program, generating net proceeds of $19.4 million. We expect our existing cash and cash equivalents will enable us to fund our operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements into mid-2020. This estimate is based on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and we could use our available capital resources sooner than we expect. Changes may occur beyond our control that would cause us to consume our available capital before that time, including changes in and progress of our development activities and changes in regulation. Our future capital requirements will depend on many factors, including:

 

•

the scope, progress, results and costs of our ongoing, planned and any future required clinical trials for linzagolix, nolasiban and OBE022;

•

the timing and amount of milestone payments we are required to make under our license agreements;

 

•

the extent to which we in-license or acquire other product candidates and technologies;

 

•

the number and development requirements of other product candidates that we may pursue;

 

•

the costs, timing and outcome of regulatory review of our product candidates;

 

•

the costs associated with building out our U.S. operations;

 

•

the costs and timing of future commercialization activities, including drug manufacturing, marketing, sales and distribution, for any of our product candidates for which we receive marketing approval;

 

•

the revenue, if any, received from commercial sales of our product candidates for which we receive marketing approval;

 

•

our ability to establish strategic collaborations; and

 

•

the costs and timing of preparing, filing and prosecuting patent applications, maintaining and enforcing our intellectual property rights and defending any intellectual property-related claims.

We will require additional capital to complete our planned clinical development programs for our current product candidates to seek regulatory approval and may determine to engage in equity or debt financings or enter into credit facilities for other reasons. If we receive regulatory approval for any of our product candidates, we expect to incur significant commercialization expenses related to product manufacturing, sales, marketing and distribution. Any additional capital raising efforts may divert our management from their day-to-day activities, which may adversely affect our ability to develop and commercialize our current and future product candidates, if approved.

In addition, we may not be able to timely secure debt or equity financing on favorable terms or at all. Any debt financing obtained by us in the future could involve restrictive covenants relating to our capital raising activities and other financial and operational matters, which may make it more difficult for us to obtain additional capital and to pursue business opportunities. If we raise additional funds through further issuances of equity, convertible debt securities or other securities convertible into equity, our existing shareholders could suffer significant dilution in their percentage ownership of our company, and any new equity securities we issue could have rights, preferences and privileges senior to those of holders of our common shares. Further, as a Swiss corporation we have less flexibility to raise capital, particularly in a quick and efficient manner. As a result, we may not be able to access the capital markets as frequently as comparable U.S. companies. See the Risk Factor entitled “Our status as a Swiss corporation means that our shareholders enjoy certain rights that may limit our flexibility to raise capital, issue dividends and otherwise manage ongoing capital needs” for additional information related to our ability to timely raise capital. If we are unable to obtain funding on a timely basis on acceptable terms, we may be required to significantly curtail, delay or discontinue one or more of our research or development programs or the commercialization of any product candidates, if approved, or be unable to expand our operations or otherwise capitalize on our business opportunities, as desired.

The incurrence of debt may impact our financial position and subject us to additional financial and operating restrictions.

On August 7, 2019, we entered into a $75.0 million senior secured term loan credit facility, or the 2019 Facility, with Oxford Finance LLC, or Oxford, which is subject to funding in three tranches. Upon entry into the 2019 Facility, we borrowed $25.0 million. Our overall leverage and certain covenants and obligations contained in the related documentation could adversely affect our financial health and business and future operations by, among other things:

 

•

making it more difficult to satisfy our obligations, including under the terms of the 2019 Facility;

 

•

limiting our ability to refinance our debt on terms acceptable to us or at all;

 

•

limiting our flexibility to plan for and adjust to changing business and market conditions and increasing our vulnerability to general adverse economic and industry conditions;

 

•

limiting our ability to use our available cash flow to fund future acquisitions and to make dividend payments; and

•

limiting our ability to obtain additional financing for working capital, to fund growth or for general corporate purposes, even when necessary to maintain adequate liquidity.

Furthermore, substantially all of our assets, including our intellectual property, secure the 2019 Facility. If an event of default under the 2019 Facility occurs and is continuing, Oxford may request the acceleration of the related debt and foreclose on the underlying security interests.

The LIBOR calculation method may change and LIBOR is expected to be phased out after 2021.

Interest on the outstanding principal balance of the loans under the 2019 Facility is calculated based on one-month LIBOR, plus an applicable margin. On July 27, 2017, the U.K. Financial Conduct Authority, or the FCA, announced that it will no longer require banks to submit rates for the calculation of LIBOR after 2021. In the meantime, actions by the FCA, other regulators or law enforcement agencies may result in changes to the method by which LIBOR is calculated. At this time, it is not possible to predict the effect of any such changes or any other reforms to LIBOR that may be enacted in the United Kingdom or elsewhere.

Raising additional capital may cause dilution to our shareholders, restrict our operations or require us to relinquish rights to our intellectual property or future revenue streams.

Until such time as we can generate substantial product revenue, if ever, we expect to finance our operations through a combination of equity offerings, royalty financing, debt financings, and license and development agreements in connection with any future collaborations. Other than the 2019 Facility, we do not have any committed external source of funds. In the event we seek additional funds, we may raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities. In such an event, our shareholders may experience substantial dilution, and the terms of these securities may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect the rights of holders of our common shares. Royalty financing, if available, may only provide future payments contingent upon development, regulatory or commercial milestones and royalty payments as a percentage of our future sales. Debt financing, if available, could result in increased fixed payment obligations and may involve agreements that include restrictive covenants, such as limitations on our ability to incur additional debt, make capital expenditures, acquire, sell or license intellectual property rights or declare dividends, and other operating restrictions that could hurt our ability to conduct our business.

Further, if we raise additional capital through collaborations, strategic alliances, or marketing, distribution or licensing arrangements with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our intellectual property future revenue streams, research programs or product candidates, or grant licenses on terms that may not be favorable to us.

Fluctuations in exchange rates may adversely affect our results of operations.

Our reporting and functional currency is in U.S. dollars. A change in the concentration of our business activities could result in an increased effect of exchange rates on our financial position and results of operations. Although we do currently hedge against certain currency risks, see “Form 20-F— Item 11— Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risks” for more information regarding our exposure to currency fluctuations. There is no assurance that we will, in the future, be successful in fully or even adequately hedging our currency risk.

Legal, political and economic uncertainty surrounding the planned exit of the United Kingdom from the European Union may be a source of instability in international markets, create currency fluctuations and pose additional risks to our business operations and financial condition.

The United Kingdom’s referendum to leave the European Union, or “Brexit,” has caused and may continue to cause disruptions to capital and currency markets worldwide. The full impact of the Brexit decision, however, remains uncertain. A process of negotiation will determine the future terms of the United Kingdom’s relationship with the European Union and there is the potential that the United Kingdom and the European Union may not agree to a withdrawal arrangement before the date the United Kingdom leaves the European Union. During this period of negotiation and afterwards, our results of operations and access to capital may be negatively affected by interest rate,

exchange rate and other market and economic volatility, as well as political uncertainty. Brexit may have a limited detrimental effect on the timing of our research and development activities, which may, in turn, adversely affect our development and commercialization of certain product candidates.

Risks Related to the Development of Our Product Candidates

We depend entirely on the success of a limited number of product candidates, which are in clinical development. If we do not obtain regulatory approval for and successfully commercialize one or more of our product candidates or we experience significant delays in doing so, we may never become profitable.

We do not have any products that have received regulatory approval and may never be able to develop marketable product candidates. We expect that a substantial portion of our efforts and expenses over the next few years will be devoted to linzagolix, nolasiban and OBE022, and as a result, our business currently depends heavily on the successful development, regulatory approval and commercialization of these product candidates. We cannot be certain that our product candidates will receive regulatory approval or will be successfully commercialized even if they receive regulatory approval. The research, testing, manufacturing, safety, efficacy, labeling, approval, sale, marketing and distribution of our product candidates are, and will remain, subject to comprehensive regulation by the FDA, EMA and comparable foreign regulatory agencies. Failure to obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates in the United States, the European Union or other jurisdictions will prevent us from commercializing and marketing our product candidates. The success of our product candidates will depend on several additional factors, including:

 

•

completing clinical trials that demonstrate their efficacy and safety;

 

•

need for additional clinical trials necessitated by future interactions with regulatory authorities;

 

•

receiving marketing approvals from applicable regulatory authorities;

 

•

completing any post-marketing studies required by applicable regulatory authorities;

 

•

establishing and maintaining commercial manufacturing capabilities;

 

•

launching commercial sales, marketing and distribution operations;

 

•

the prevalence and severity of adverse events experienced with our product candidates;

 

•

acceptance of our product candidates by patients, the medical community and third-party payors;

 

•

a continued acceptable safety profile following approval;

 

•

obtaining and maintaining coverage and adequate reimbursement from third-party payors for our product candidates;

 

•

competing effectively with other therapies, including with respect to the sales and marketing of our product candidates, if approved; and

 

•

qualifying for, maintaining, enforcing and defending our intellectual property rights and claims.

Many of these factors are beyond our control, including the time needed to adequately complete clinical testing, the regulatory submission process, potential threats to our intellectual property rights and changes in the competitive landscape. It is possible that none of our product candidates will ever obtain regulatory approval, even if we expend substantial time and resources seeking such approval. If we do not achieve one or more of these factors in a timely manner or at all, we could experience significant delays or an inability to successfully complete clinical trials, obtain regulatory approval or, if approved, commercialize our product candidates, which would harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Clinical trials are very expensive, time-consuming and difficult to design and implement and involve uncertain outcomes. Furthermore, results of earlier preclinical studies and clinical trials may not be predictive of results of future preclinical studies or clinical trials.

The risk of failure for our product candidates is high. It is impossible to predict when or if any of our product candidates will prove effective or safe in humans or will receive regulatory approval. To obtain the requisite regulatory approvals to market and sell any of our product candidates, we must demonstrate through extensive preclinical studies and clinical trials that our product candidates are safe and effective in humans. Clinical testing is expensive and can take many years to complete, and the outcome is inherently uncertain. Failure can occur at any time during the clinical trial process.

In addition, the results of preclinical studies and earlier clinical trials may not be predictive of the results of later-stage clinical trials. The results generated to date in preclinical studies or clinical trials for our product candidates do not ensure that later preclinical studies or clinical trials will demonstrate similar results. Product candidates in later stages of clinical trials may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy traits despite having progressed through preclinical and earlier stage clinical trials. A number of companies in the biopharmaceutical industry have suffered significant setbacks in later-stage clinical trials due to lack of efficacy or adverse safety profiles, notwithstanding promising results in earlier trials, and we cannot be certain that we will not face similar setbacks. Moreover, preclinical and clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses, and many companies that have believed their product candidates performed satisfactorily in preclinical studies and clinical trials have nonetheless failed to obtain marketing approval of their products.

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 clinical trial procedures set forth in protocols, differences in the size and type of the patient populations, adherence to the dosing regimen and other clinical trial protocols, and the rate of dropout among clinical trial participants. Additionally, in the case of our late-stage clinical product candidates, results may differ in general on the basis of the larger number of clinical trial sites and additional countries and languages involved in Phase 3 clinical trials. Different countries have different standards of care and different levels of access to care for patients. These differences may, in part, drive the heterogeneity of the patient populations that enroll in our studies.

In addition, because we in-licensed linzagolix from Kissei and nolasiban and OBE022 from Ares Trading S.A., an affiliate of Merck Serono, or Merck Serono, we were not involved in and had no control over the preclinical and clinical development of these product candidates prior to entering into these in-license agreements. In addition, we are relying on Kissei and Merck Serono to have conducted such research and development in accordance with the applicable protocol, legal, regulatory and scientific standards, having accurately reported the results of all clinical trials conducted prior to our acquisition of linzagolix, nolasiban and OBE022, and having correctly collected and interpreted the data from these studies and trials. To the extent any of these has not occurred, expected development time and costs may be increased which could adversely affect the marketing approval for and any future revenue from these product candidates.

Clinical trials may be delayed, suspended or terminated for many reasons, which will increase our expenses and delay the time it takes to develop our product candidates.

We may experience delays in our ongoing or future preclinical studies or clinical trials, and we do not know whether future preclinical studies or clinical trials will begin on time, need to be redesigned, enroll an adequate number of patients on time or be completed on schedule, if at all. The completion of clinical trials for our clinical product candidates may be delayed, suspended or terminated as a result of many factors, including:

 

•

the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities disagreeing as to the design or implementation of our clinical trials;

 

•

the delay or refusal of regulators, Ethics Committees or institutional review boards, or IRBs, to authorize us to commence a clinical trial at a prospective trial site and changes in regulatory requirements, policies and guidelines;

 

•

delays or failure to reach agreement on acceptable terms with prospective clinical research organizations, or CROs, and clinical trial sites, the terms of which can be subject to extensive negotiation and may vary significantly among different CROs and trial sites;

 

•

delays in patient enrollment and variability in the number and types of patients available for clinical trials;

 

•

the inability to enroll a sufficient number of patients in trials to ensure adequate statistical power to detect statistically significant treatment effects;

 

•

having clinical sites deviate from the trial protocol or dropping out of a trial;

 

•

negative or inconclusive results, which may require us to conduct additional preclinical studies or clinical trials or to abandon projects that we expect to be promising;

•

safety or tolerability concerns could cause us to suspend or terminate a trial if we find that the participants are being exposed to unacceptable health risks;

 

•

regulators or IRBs requiring that we or our investigators suspend or terminate clinical research for various reasons, including noncompliance with regulatory requirements or safety concerns, among others;

 

•

lower than anticipated retention rates of patients and volunteers in clinical trials;

 

•

the inability to enroll a sufficient number of patients in clinical trials due to social and cultural stigmas or sensitivities around reproductive therapies;

 

•

our CROs or clinical trial sites failing to comply with regulatory requirements or meet their contractual obligations to us in a timely manner, or at all, deviating from the protocol or dropping out of a trial;

 

•

delays relating to adding new clinical trial sites;

 

•

difficulty in maintaining contact with patients after treatment, resulting in incomplete data;

 

•

delays in establishing the appropriate dosage levels;

 

•

the quality or stability of the product candidate falling below acceptable standards;

 

•

the inability to produce or obtain sufficient quantities of the product candidate to complete clinical trials; and

 

•

exceeding budgeted costs due to difficulty in accurately predicting costs associated with clinical trials.

We could also encounter delays if a clinical trial is suspended or terminated by us, by the IRBs or Ethics Committees of the institutions in which such trials are being conducted, by the Data Safety Monitoring Board for such trial or by the FDA or other regulatory authorities. Such authorities may suspend or terminate a clinical trial due to a number of factors, including failure to conduct the clinical trial in accordance with regulatory requirements or our clinical protocols, inspection of the clinical trial operations or trial site by the FDA or other regulatory authorities resulting in the imposition of a clinical hold, unforeseen safety issues or adverse side effects, failure to demonstrate a benefit from using a drug, changes in governmental regulations or administrative actions or lack of adequate funding to continue the clinical trial.

Further, conducting clinical trials in foreign countries, which we are doing for our product candidates, presents additional risks that may delay completion of our clinical trials. These risks include the failure of enrolled patients in foreign countries to adhere to the clinical protocol as a result of differences in healthcare services or cultural customs, managing additional administrative burdens associated with foreign regulatory schemes, as well as political and economic risks relevant to such foreign countries. Similarly, conducting clinical trials in the United States, which we are doing for our product candidates, presents risks that may delay completion of our clinical trials. These risks include the failure of enrolled patients in the United States to adhere to the clinical protocol, managing additional administrative burdens associated with United States regulatory schemes, as well as economic risks relevant to the United States.

If we experience delays in the completion, or termination, of any clinical trial of our product candidates, the commercial prospects of our product candidates may be harmed, and our ability to generate product revenue from sales of any of these product candidates will be delayed or not realized at all.

We do not know whether any of our preclinical studies or clinical trials will begin as planned, will need to be restructured or will be completed on schedule, or at all. Any delays in completing our clinical trials will increase our costs, slow down our product candidate development and approval process and jeopardize our ability to commence product sales and generate revenue from product sales. Any of these occurrences may significantly harm our business, financial condition and prospects. In addition, many of the factors that cause, or lead to, a delay in the commencement or completion of clinical trials may also ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval of our product candidates. Significant preclinical study or clinical trial delays also could shorten any periods during which we may have the exclusive right to commercialize our product candidates or allow our competitors to bring products to market before we do and impair our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates.

The regulatory approval process of the FDA, EMA or any comparable foreign regulatory agency may be lengthy, time-consuming and unpredictable.

Our future success is dependent upon our ability to successfully develop, obtain regulatory approval for and then successfully commercialize one or more of our product candidates. The time required to obtain approval by the FDA and comparable foreign authorities is unpredictable but typically takes many years following the commencement of clinical trials and depends upon numerous factors, including the substantial discretion of the regulatory authorities. In addition, approval policies, regulations, or the type and amount of clinical data necessary to gain approval may change during the course of a product candidate’s clinical development and may vary among jurisdictions. We have not obtained regulatory approval for any product candidate and it is possible that none of our existing product candidates or any product candidates we may seek to develop in the future will ever obtain regulatory approval. Neither we nor any future collaborator is permitted to market any of our product candidates in the United States or abroad until we receive regulatory approval of a New Drug Application, or NDA, from the FDA or approval from the EMA or other applicable foreign regulatory agency.

Prior to obtaining approval to commercialize a product candidate in any jurisdiction, we or our collaborators must demonstrate with substantial evidence from well-controlled clinical trials, and to the satisfaction of the FDA, EMA or any comparable foreign regulatory agency, that such product candidates are safe and effective for their intended uses. Results from preclinical studies and clinical trials can be interpreted in different ways. The FDA, EMA or any comparable foreign regulatory agency can delay, limit or deny approval of our product candidates or require us to conduct additional preclinical or clinical testing or abandon a program for many reasons, including:

 

•

the FDA, EMA or the applicable foreign regulatory agency’s disagreement with the design or implementation of our clinical trials;

 

•

negative or ambiguous results from our clinical trials or results that may not meet the level of statistical significance required by the FDA, EMA or any comparable foreign regulatory agency for approval;

 

•

serious and unexpected drug-related side effects experienced by participants in our clinical trials or by individuals using drugs similar to our product candidates;

 

•

our inability to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the FDA, EMA or the applicable foreign regulatory agency that our product candidates are safe and effective for their proposed indications;

 

•

the FDA’s, EMA’s or the applicable foreign regulatory agency’s disagreement with the interpretation of data from preclinical studies or clinical trials;

 

•

our inability to demonstrate the clinical and other benefits of our product candidates outweigh any safety or other perceived risks;

 

•

the FDA’s, EMA’s or the applicable foreign regulatory agency’s requirement for additional preclinical studies or clinical trials;

 

•

the FDA’s, EMA’s or the applicable foreign regulatory agency’s disagreement regarding the formulation, labeling or the specifications of our product candidates;

 

•

the FDA’s, EMA’s or the applicable foreign regulatory agency’s failure to approve the manufacturing processes or facilities of third-party manufacturers with which we contract; or

 

•

the potential for approval policies or regulations of the FDA, EMA or the applicable foreign regulatory agencies to significantly change in a manner rendering our clinical data insufficient for approval.

Any of our current or future product candidates could take a significantly longer time to gain regulatory approval than expected or may never gain regulatory approval. This could delay or eliminate any potential product revenue by delaying or terminating the potential commercialization of our product candidates.

Of the large number of drugs in development, only a small percentage successfully complete the FDA or foreign regulatory approval processes and are commercialized. The lengthy approval process as well as the unpredictability of future clinical trial results may result in our failing to obtain regulatory approval to market our product candidates, which would significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We have previously sought, and intend to seek in the future, formal advice from the FDA and/or other applicable foreign regulatory agencies prior to advancing our product candidates into further studies or pivotal clinical trials, which may change, delay or adversely impact our product development or commercialization plans.

Based on feedback received from regulatory authorities in Europe on our nolasiban development program, we initiated an additional Phase 3 trial primarily in European, Canadian and CIS or Russian centers, or the IMPLANT 4 trial, in 2018, for which we reported completion of patient recruitment in June 2019. If the IMPLANT 4 trial meets its primary endpoint of 10-week ongoing pregnancy rate, we intend to use this data, along with the IMPLANT 1 and IMPLANT 2 results,

to file, a marketing authorization application, or MAA, with the European Medicines Agency in late 2019, for which we have commenced pre-commercial strategic planning. We had an End-of-Phase 2 meeting with the FDA in the second quarter of 2019 and continue to work with the FDA to reach agreement on the development program for nolasiban, including certain elements of the protocol for IMPLANT 3, a Phase 3 trial proposed to support U.S. approval. The elements include, for example, timing of randomization and the number of previous IVF failures in the study population. We expect to submit the IMPLANT 3 protocol and additional nonclinical information to the Investigational New Drug, or IND, application in the third quarter of 2019 and to initiate the IMPLANT 3 trial in the fourth quarter of 2019 or first quarter of 2020. . Even though we have sought and implemented much of the FDA’s guidance on the IMPLANT 3 trial design, it is not certain that the FDA will allow the trial to commence. The FDA could place the IND on clinical hold if, for example, they have nonclinical concerns or if they perceive that the risks of the trial design outweigh the potential benefits, including from the 900 mg dose level. We intend to submit the results of the IMPLANT 3 trial, along with the IMPLANT 1, IMPLANT 2, and IMPLANT 4 results, in support of an NDA in the U.S. Even if the IMPLANT 3 and IMPLANT 4 trials are successful, the FDA may not approve nolasiban if they do not agree that the risks of nolasiban for IVF outweigh the potential benefits in this indication.

In addition, in December 2018, we sought guidance from the FDA on our endometriosis clinical development program for linzagolix at an End of Phase 2 meeting. Based upon FDA feedback, we commenced a Phase 3 clinical development program for linzagolix for the endometriosis indication in the second quarter of 2019, with our initiation of the EDELWEISS 2 and EDELWEISS 3 trials.

We generally plan to seek regulatory approval to commercialize our product candidates in the United States, the European Union and other key global markets. With regard to each of our product candidates, we may experience delays or encounter issues in the development program in the relevant jurisdictions, including imposition of a clinical hold, failed studies, inconclusive or hard-to-interpret results, safety or efficacy issues, refusal to file the application, or refusal to approve it. To obtain regulatory approval in other countries, we must comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of such other countries regarding safety, efficacy, chemistry, manufacturing and controls, clinical trials, commercial sales, pricing and distribution of our product candidates. Even if we are successful in obtaining approval in one jurisdiction, we cannot ensure that we will obtain approval in any other jurisdiction. Failure to obtain approval in one jurisdiction may negatively impact our ability to obtain approval elsewhere. Failure to obtain marketing authorization for our product candidates will result in the inability to market and sell such products. If we fail to obtain approval in any jurisdiction, the geographic market for our product candidates could be limited. Similarly, regulatory agencies may not approve the labeling claims that are necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of our product candidates or may grant approvals for more limited patient populations than requested.

Even if we eventually complete clinical testing and receive approval of an NDA or foreign marketing application for our product candidates, the FDA or the applicable foreign regulatory agency may grant approval contingent on the performance of costly additional clinical trials, including Phase 4 clinical trials or the implementation of a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, which may be required to ensure safe use of the drug after approval. Any delay in obtaining, or inability to obtain, applicable regulatory approval would delay or prevent commercialization of that product candidate and would adversely impact our business and prospects.

Our clinical trials may fail to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of our product candidates, or serious adverse or unacceptable side effects may be identified during the development of our product candidates, which could prevent or delay regulatory approval and commercialization, increase our costs or necessitate the abandonment or limitation of the development of some of our product candidates.

Before obtaining regulatory approvals for the commercial sale of our product candidates, we must demonstrate through lengthy, complex and expensive preclinical testing and clinical trials that our product candidates are both safe and effective for use in each target indication, and failures can occur at any stage of testing. Clinical trials, such as our initial Phase 2 clinical trial for nolasiban, often fail to demonstrate definitive efficacy or safety of the product candidate studied for the target indication.

Moreover, undesirable side effects caused by our product candidates could cause us or regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay or halt clinical trials and could result in a more restrictive label or the delay or denial of regulatory approval by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. Results of our clinical trials could reveal a high and unacceptable severity and prevalence of side effects or unexpected characteristics. Accordingly, we may need to abandon their development or limit development to certain uses or sub-populations in which such side effects are less prevalent, less severe or more acceptable from a risk-benefit perspective. Many compounds that initially showed promise in preclinical or early-stage testing have later been found to cause side effects that restricted their use and prevented further development of the compound for larger indications.

For example, in evaluation of linzagolix to date, patients have experienced adverse events consistent with the suppression of estradiol, including hot flashes and irregular uterine bleeding. Occurrence of serious treatment-related side effects could impede subject recruitment and clinical trial enrollment or the ability of enrolled patients to complete the trial, require us to halt the clinical trial, and prevent receipt of regulatory approval from the FDA, EMA or any comparable foreign regulatory agency. They could also adversely affect physician or patient acceptance of our product candidates or result in potential product liability claims. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly.

Additionally, if one or more of our product candidates receives regulatory approval, and we or others later identify undesirable side effects caused by these product candidates, a number of potentially significant negative consequences could result, including:

 

•

withdrawal by regulatory authorities of approvals of such product;

 

•

seizure of the product by regulatory authorities;

 

•

recall of the product;

 

•

restrictions on the marketing of the product or the manufacturing process for any component thereof;

 

•

requirement by regulatory authorities of additional warnings on the label, such as a “black box” warning or contraindication;

 

•

requirement that we implement a REMS or create a medication guide outlining the risks of such side effects for distribution to patients;

 

•

commitment to expensive additional safety studies prior to launch as a prerequisite of approval by regulatory authorities of such product;

 

•

commitment to expensive post-marketing studies as a prerequisite of approval by regulatory authorities of such product;

 

•

the product may become less competitive;

 

•

initiation of legal action against us claiming to hold us liable for harm caused to patients; and

 

•

harm to our reputation and resulting harm to physician or patient acceptance of our products.

Any of these events could prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of the particular product candidate, if approved, and could significantly harm our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

We depend on enrollment of patients in our clinical trials for our product candidates. If we are unable to enroll patients in our clinical trials, our research and development efforts could be adversely affected.

Identifying and qualifying patients to participate in clinical trials of our product candidates is critical to our success. Successful and timely completion of clinical trials will require that we enroll a sufficient number of patients who remain in the study until its conclusion. If patients are unwilling to participate in our clinical trials because of a lack of familiarity with our approach to the treatment of reproductive health conditions, negative publicity from adverse events in the reproductive health field or for other reasons, including competitive clinical trials for similar patient populations and general social or cultural stigmas and sensitivities towards reproductive health, our timelines for recruiting patients, conducting clinical trials and obtaining regulatory approval of potential products may be delayed. These delays could result in increased costs, delays in advancing our product development, delays in testing the effectiveness of our technology or termination of our clinical trials altogether. We cannot predict how successful we will be at enrolling patients in future clinical trials. Patient enrollment is affected by other factors including:

 

•

the eligibility criteria for the trial in question;

 

•

the perceived risks and benefits of the product candidate in the trial;

•

clinicians’ and patients’ perceptions as to the potential advantages of the product candidate being studied in relation to other available therapies, including any new drugs that may be approved for the indications we are investigating or drugs that may be used off-label for these indications;

 

•

the size of the patient population required for analysis of the trial’s primary endpoints;

 

•

competition for patients for competitive product candidates undergoing clinical trials;

 

•

the efforts to facilitate timely enrollment in clinical trials;

 

•

the design of the trial;

 

•

the patient referral practices of physicians;

 

•

our ability to recruit clinical trial investigators with the appropriate competencies and experience;

 

•

the ability to monitor patients adequately during and after treatment;

 

•

the risk that patients enrolled in clinical trials will drop out of the trials before completion;

 

•

the ability to obtain and maintain patient consents;

 

•

the proximity and availability of clinical trial sites for prospective patients; and

 

•

the efficiency with which our external vendor, or CRO, manages the logistics of patient recruitment, randomization, and follow-up within the clinical trial.

In addition, our clinical trials will compete with other clinical trials for product candidates that are in the same therapeutic areas as our product candidates, and this competition will reduce the number and types of patients available to us, because some patients who might have opted to enroll in our trials may instead opt to enroll in a trial being conducted by one of our competitors. We expect that some trial sites that participate in our clinical trials may also participate in clinical trials being conducted to develop competitive compounds, which will reduce the number of patients who are available for our clinical trials at such clinical trial site.

For example, enrollment in our Phase 3 clinical trial of linzagolix for the treatment of uterine fibroids and endometriosis may be impacted by other compounds being developed for those indications, as well as the fact that a competitive oral GnRH receptor antagonist received FDA approval for treating endometriosis associated pain in 2018 and is now commercially available. In addition, for the clinical trials for OBE022, we are enrolling pregnant women, presenting with pre-term labor, a patient population that may be reluctant to enroll in clinical trials, given the sensitivity around pregnancy. As a result, enrollment in our planned clinical trials for OBE022 is difficult to predict and may take longer or cost more than we anticipate.

Delays in the completion of any clinical trial of our product candidates will increase our costs, slow down our product candidate development and approval process, and delay or potentially jeopardize our ability to commence product sales and generate revenue. In addition, many of the factors that may lead to a delay in the commencement or completion of clinical trials may also ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval of our product candidates.

We may not be successful in our efforts to in-license or acquire additional product candidates for other serious conditions compromising women’s reproductive health and pregnancy.

A significant element of our strategy is to further build and expand our pipeline of product candidates through in-licensing or acquiring additional product candidates for other serious conditions compromising women’s reproductive health and pregnancy. Currently, we do not have the internal expertise, nor do we intend to develop the internal expertise, necessary to discover new chemical entities for therapeutic purposes. As a result, if we are not able to identify and acquire additional product candidates, we will not be able to expand our pipeline. Even if we are successful in continuing to build our pipeline through in-licensing or acquisitions, the potential product candidates that we in-license or acquire may not be suitable for clinical development, including as a result of being shown to have harmful side effects or other characteristics that indicate that they are unlikely to be drugs that will receive marketing approval and achieve market acceptance.

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.

We have limited financial and managerial resources. As a result, we may forego or delay pursuit of opportunities with other product candidates or for other indications that later 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 products. 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 such product candidate.

We may become exposed to costly and damaging liability claims, either when testing our product candidates in the clinic or at the commercial stage, and our product liability insurance may not cover all damages from such claims.

We are exposed to potential product liability and professional indemnity risks that are inherent in the research, development, manufacturing, marketing, and use of pharmaceutical products. We currently have no products that have been approved for commercial sale. However, the current and future use of product candidates by us in clinical trials, and the sale of any approved products in the future, may expose us to liability claims. These claims might be made by patients that use the product, healthcare providers, pharmaceutical companies, or others selling such products. Any claims against us, regardless of their merit, could be difficult and costly to defend, and could compromise the market acceptance of our product candidates or any prospects for commercialization of our product candidates, if approved.

Although the clinical trial process is designed to identify and assess potential side effects, it is always possible that a drug, even after regulatory approval, may exhibit unforeseen side effects. If any of our product candidates were to cause adverse side effects during clinical trials or after approval of the product candidate, we may be exposed to substantial liabilities. Physicians and patients may not comply with any warnings that identify known potential adverse effects and patients who should not use our product candidates.

Although we maintain standard product liability insurance coverage, such insurance may not be adequate to cover all liabilities that we may incur. We may need to increase our insurance coverage each time we commence a clinical trial and if we successfully commercialize any product candidate. As the expense of insurance coverage is increasing, we may not be able to maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost or in an amount adequate to satisfy any liability that may arise. If a successful product liability claim or series of claims is brought against us for uninsured liabilities or in excess of insured liabilities, our assets may not be sufficient to cover such claims and our business operations could be impaired.

Risks Related to Commercialization of Our Product Candidates

We have never commercialized a product candidate and we may lack the necessary expertise, personnel and resources to successfully commercialize any of our products that receive regulatory approval on our own or together with collaborators.

We have never commercialized a product candidate. Our operations to date have been limited to organizing and staffing our company, business planning, raising capital, in-licensing or acquiring our product candidates and undertaking preclinical studies and clinical trials of our product candidates. We currently have no sales force, marketing or distribution capabilities. To achieve commercial success of our product candidates, if any are approved, we will have to develop our own sales, marketing and supply capabilities or outsource these activities to a third party. While we announced the hiring of a Chief Commercial Officer in July 2018 to lead the strategic and logistical planning of these activities, including market access, the success of such activities once undertaken may be influenced by several factors outside of our control.

Factors that may affect our ability to commercialize our product candidates on our own include recruiting and retaining adequate numbers of effective sales and marketing personnel, obtaining access to and educating an adequate numbers of physicians as to the benefits of our product candidates and other unforeseen costs associated with creating an independent sales and marketing organization. Developing a sales and marketing organization requires significant investment, is time-consuming and could delay the launch of our product candidates. We may

not be able to build an effective sales and marketing organization in the United States, the European Union or other key global markets. If we are unable to build our own distribution and marketing capabilities or to find suitable partners for the commercialization of our product candidates, we may have difficulties generating revenue from them.

We operate in a highly competitive and rapidly changing industry.

Biopharmaceutical product development is highly competitive and subject to rapid and significant technological advancements. Our success is highly dependent upon our ability to in-license, acquire, develop and obtain regulatory approval for new and innovative products on a cost-effective basis and to market them successfully. In doing so, we face and will continue to face intense competition from a variety of businesses, including large, fully integrated, well-established pharmaceutical companies who already possess a large share of the market, specialty pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical companies, academic institutions, government agencies and other private and public research institutions in the United States, the European Union and other jurisdictions.

With respect to linzagolix, in 2018, the first compound from the oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone, or GnRH, receptor antagonist class received regulatory approval in the United States for the treatment of pain associated with endometriosis. AbbVie Inc. has been commercializing elagolix, brand named Orilissa, in the United States since August 2018, and has recently filed an NDA for uterine fibroids associated with heavy menstrual bleeding indication in 2019. We are aware of one other oral GnRH receptor antagonist product candidate being developed in Phase 3 clinical trials for endometriosis and uterine fibroids indications, relugolix from Myovant Sciences, Inc. We also anticipate competing with GnRH receptor agonists, including Lupron (leuprolide acetate), marketed by AbbVie Inc. and Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Visanne (dienogest), which is approved for the treatment of endometriosis outside the United States and marketed by Bayer. Ulipristal acetate, a Selective Progesterone Receptor Modulator (or SPRM), which is approved for the treatment of moderate-to-severe symptoms of uterine fibroids outside the United States and marketed by Gedeon Richter in Europe and other regions, and by Allergan in Canada. Ulipristal acetate, experienced severe label restrictions of usage in 2018 due to post marketing liver safety issues. Allergan had submitted an NDA for ulipristal acetate but disclosed receipt of a complete response letter (CRL) from the FDA in August 2018 that the NDA is not approvable in its current form and requesting additional information. Recently, Bayer Schering which was conducting an exhaustive clinical development program for Vilaprisan for the treatment of uterine fibroids and endometriosis announced stopping its development activities. In addition, oral contraceptives and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, or NSAIDs, are routinely used as a first-line therapy for the treatment of symptoms associated with endometriosis and uterine fibroids and have a meaningful success rate at mitigating the symptoms associated with these conditions.

With respect to nolasiban, there are no other oxytocin receptor antagonists approved either for oral administration or for use in connection with IVF. However, it is our understanding that Ferring Pharmaceuticals Inc. has barusiban in its development pipeline, an oxytocin receptor antagonist, to be administered subcutaneously, that may be developed for use in connection with IVF. Nevertheless, to our knowledge, no new clinical trial activity has been publicly announced since completion of a Phase 2 trial in 2015. Ferring Pharmaceuticals’ atosiban, an oxytocin receptor antagonist, to be administered by continuous infusion, has been used off-label in investigator initiated trials in connection with IVF outside the United States.

With respect to OBE022, Tractocile (atosiban) is approved to delay preterm birth outside of the United States, and we anticipate potential competition as a single agent, if not used in combination with OBE022 given their different mechanisms of action. In terms of clinical development, it is our understanding that GlaxoSmithKline terminated the in-house development of retosiban, an oxytocin receptor antagonist, designed to delay preterm birth. Currently available prostaglandin synthesis inhibitors, such as NSAIDs may also represent competitive therapies, some of which may be used off-label as standard of care, despite risk of serious neonatal side effects. Makena, which was FDA-approved in 2011, is registered in the USA for preventing preterm delivery in high risk patients, is seen as a complement rather than a competitor for OBE022, due to its mechanism of action and treatment regimen (bi-weekly administration to be initiated between week 16 and 20 of gestation). AMAG Pharmaceuticals announced in March 2019 that the PROLONG trial did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference between the Makena and placebo arms for the co-primary endpoints. The PROLONG trial was conducted as part of an approval commitment under the FDA’s “Subpart H” accelerated approval process. We may also compete with other companies acquiring and developing or marketing drug therapies or products for women’s reproductive health diseases.

Many of the companies against which we are competing or against which we may compete in the future have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals and marketing approved drugs than we do. These third parties compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel, establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs. Mergers and acquisitions in the biopharmaceutical industry could result in even more resources being concentrated among a small number of our competitors.

Competition may further increase as a result of advances in the commercial applicability of technologies and greater availability of capital for investment in these industries. Our competitors may succeed in developing, acquiring or licensing, on an exclusive basis, products that are more effective or less costly than any product candidate that we may develop.

Established biopharmaceutical companies may invest heavily to accelerate discovery and development of novel compounds or to in-license novel compounds that could make our product candidates less competitive. In addition, any new product that competes with an approved product must demonstrate compelling advantages in efficacy, convenience, tolerability and safety in order to overcome price competition and to be commercially successful. Accordingly, our competitors may succeed in obtaining patent protection, discovering, developing, receiving FDA, EMA or any comparable foreign regulatory agency approval for or commercializing drugs before we do, which would have an adverse impact on our business and results of operations.

The availability of our competitors’ products could limit the demand and the price we are able to charge for any product candidate we commercialize, if any. The inability to compete with existing or subsequently introduced drugs would harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The successful commercialization of certain of our product candidates will depend in part on the extent to which governmental authorities and health insurers establish coverage and adequate reimbursement levels, as well as pricing policies. Failure to obtain or maintain coverage and adequate reimbursement for our product candidates, if approved, could limit our ability to market those products and decrease our ability to generate revenue.

The availability of coverage and adequate reimbursement by governmental healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, private health insurers and other third-party payors, are essential for most patients to be able to afford products such as our product candidates, if approved. Our ability to achieve acceptable levels of coverage and reimbursement for products by governmental authorities, private health insurers and other organizations will have an effect on our ability to successfully commercialize, and attract additional collaboration partners to invest in the development of our product candidates. Coverage under certain government programs, such as Medicare, Medicaid and Tricare, may not be available for certain of our product candidates. Assuming we obtain coverage for a given product by a third-party payor, the resulting reimbursement payment rates may not be adequate or may require co-payments that patients find unacceptably high. We cannot be sure that coverage and reimbursement in the United States, the European Union or elsewhere will be available for any product that we may develop, and any reimbursement that may not be adequate to make our products affordable for patients or profitable for us and may become available, may be decreased or eliminated in the future.

Third-party payors increasingly are challenging prices charged for pharmaceutical products and services, and many third-party payors may refuse to provide coverage and reimbursement for particular drugs when an equivalent generic drug or a less expensive therapy is available. It is possible that a third-party payor may consider our product candidates and other therapies as substitutable and only offer to reimburse patients for the less expensive product. Even if we show improved efficacy or improved convenience of administration with our product candidates, pricing of existing drugs may limit the amount we will be able to charge for our product candidates. These payors may deny or revoke the reimbursement status of a given product or establish prices for new or existing marketed products at levels that are too low to enable us to realize an appropriate return on our investment in product development. If reimbursement is not available or is available only at limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize our product candidates, and may not be able to obtain a satisfactory financial return on products that we may develop.

There is significant uncertainty related to the insurance coverage and reimbursement of newly approved products. In the United States, third-party payors, including private and governmental payors, such as the Medicare and Medicaid programs, play an important role in determining the extent to which new drugs and biologics will be covered. The Medicare and Medicaid programs increasingly are used as models for how private payors and other governmental payors develop their coverage and reimbursement policies for drugs and biologics. Some third-party payors may require pre-approval of coverage for new or innovative devices or drug therapies before they will reimburse health care providers who use such therapies. It is difficult to predict at this time what third-party payors will decide with respect to the coverage and reimbursement for our product candidates.

Obtaining and maintaining reimbursement status is time-consuming and costly. No uniform policy for coverage and reimbursement for products exists among third-party payors in the United States. Therefore, coverage and reimbursement for products can differ significantly from payor to payor. As a result, the coverage determination process is often a time-consuming and costly process that will require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of our products to each payor separately, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be applied consistently or obtained in the first instance. Furthermore, rules and regulations regarding reimbursement change frequently, in some cases at short notice, and we believe that changes in these rules and regulations are likely.

Outside the United States, international operations are generally subject to extensive governmental price controls and other market regulations, and we believe the increasing emphasis on cost-containment initiatives in Europe, Canada, and other countries has and will continue to put pressure on the pricing and usage of our product candidates. In many countries, the prices of medical products are subject to varying price control mechanisms as part of national health systems. Other countries allow companies to fix their own prices for medical products, but monitor and control company profits. Additional foreign price controls or other changes in pricing regulation could restrict the amount that we are able to charge for our product candidates. Accordingly, in markets outside the United States, the reimbursement for our products may be reduced compared with the United States and may be insufficient to generate commercially reasonable revenue and profits.

In the European Union, for example, the main legal instrument at the European Union level governing the pricing and reimbursement of medicinal products is Council Directive 89/105/EEC, or the Price Transparency Directive. The aim of the Price Transparency Directive is to ensure the transparency of measures established by European Union countries to control the pricing and reimbursement of medicinal products. It defines a series of procedural requirements designed to verify that national pricing and reimbursement decisions do not create obstacles to the pharmaceutical trade within the European Union’s Internal Market. The Price Transparency Directive does not, however, provide any guidance concerning the specific criteria on the basis of which pricing and reimbursement decisions are to be made in individual EU member states, except as far as is necessary to achieve the level of transparency required by the Price Transparency Directive. The national authorities of the individual EU member states are free to restrict the range of medicinal products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices and/or reimbursement of medicinal products for human use. Some individual EU member states adopt policies according to which a specific price or level of reimbursement is approved for the medicinal product. Other EU member states adopt a system of reference pricing, basing the price or reimbursement level in their territory either, on the pricing and reimbursement levels in other countries, or on the pricing and reimbursement levels of medicinal products intended for the same therapeutic indication. Furthermore, some EU member states impose direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the medicinal product on the market.

Moreover, increasing efforts by governmental and third-party payors in the United States and abroad to cap or reduce healthcare costs may cause such organizations to limit both coverage and the level of reimbursement for newly approved products and, as a result, they may not cover or provide adequate payment for our product candidates. We expect to experience pricing pressures in connection with the sale of any of our product candidates due to the trend toward managed healthcare, the increasing influence of health maintenance organizations, and additional legislative changes. The downward pressure on healthcare costs in general, particularly prescription drugs and surgical procedures and other treatments, has become very intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products.

Even if we obtain regulatory approval for linzagolix, nolasiban, OBE022 or future product candidates, they will remain subject to ongoing regulatory oversight.

Even if we obtain any regulatory approval for linzagolix, nolasiban, OBE022 or future product candidates, they will be subject to extensive and ongoing regulatory requirements for manufacturing processes, labeling, packaging, distribution, adverse event reporting, storage, advertising, promotion, sampling and record-keeping. These requirements include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, registration, as well as continued compliance with current good manufacturing practices, or cGMP, regulations and good clinical practices, or GCPs, for any clinical trials that we conduct post-approval, all of which may result in significant expense and limit our ability to commercialize such products. In addition, any regulatory approvals that we receive for linzagolix, nolasiban, OBE022 or future product candidates may also be subject to limitations on the approved indicated uses for which the product may be marketed or to the conditions of approval, or contain requirements for potentially costly post-marketing testing, including Phase 4 clinical trials, and surveillance to monitor the safety and efficacy of the product candidate. The FDA may also require a REMS as a condition of approval of our product candidates, which could include requirements for a medication guide, physician communication plans or additional elements to ensure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools.

The FDA’s and other regulatory authorities’ policies may change and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of our product candidates. We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action, either in the United States or abroad. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may lose any marketing approval that we may have obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability. Moreover, if there are changes in the application of legislation or regulatory policies, or if problems are discovered with a product or our manufacture of a product, or if we or one of our distributors, licensees or co-marketers fails to comply with regulatory requirements, the regulators could take various actions. These include imposing fines on us, imposing restrictions on the product or its manufacture and requiring us to recall or remove the product from the market. The regulators could also suspend or withdraw our marketing authorizations, requiring us to conduct additional clinical trials, change our product labeling or submit additional applications for marketing authorization. If any of these events occurs, our ability to sell such product may be impaired, and we may incur substantial additional expense to comply with regulatory requirements, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Off-label use is common in the indications for which our product candidates are under development, which may result in enforcement actions by the FDA and other regulatory agencies for violations of the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses.

Although physicians, in the practice of medicine, may prescribe approved drugs for unapproved indications, pharmaceutical companies are prohibited from marketing or promoting their drug products for uses outside the approved label, a practice known as off-label promotion. Certain of our product candidates, including OBE022 and nolasiban, are under development for indications for which off-label use is common. For example, nifedipine and NSAIDS are prescribed off-label for the treatment of preterm labor, although they are not approved for this use. Similarly, the anticipated market for linzagolix is characterized by the use of oral contraceptives as a first-line therapy, which have been prescribed off-label for the treatment of a variety of indications. To the extent the price of our product candidates, if approved, is significantly higher than the prices of commercially available products that are frequently prescribed off-label, physicians may recommend and prescribe these commercial alternatives instead of writing prescriptions for our products. Either of these outcomes may adversely impact our results of operations by limiting how we price our product and increasing our competition.

In addition, if any of our product candidates are approved, our product labeling, advertising and promotional materials would be subject to regulatory requirements and continuing review by the FDA, Department of Justice, Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Inspector General, state attorneys general, members of Congress and the public. If we are found to have improperly promoted off-label uses of our product candidates, if approved, we may become subject to significant liability. Such enforcement has become more common in the industry. If we are found to have promoted our products for any such off-label uses, the federal government could levy civil, criminal or administrative penalties, and seek fines against us. The FDA or other regulatory authorities

could also request that we enter into a consent decree or a corporate integrity agreement, or seek a permanent injunction against us under which specified promotional conduct is monitored, changed or curtailed. If we cannot successfully manage the promotion of our product candidates, if approved, we could become subject to significant liability, which would materially adversely affect our business and financial condition.

In the United States, engaging in the impermissible promotion of our products, following approval, for off-label uses can also subject us to false claims litigation under federal and state statutes, which can lead to civil and criminal penalties and fines, agreements with governmental authorities that materially restrict the manner in which we promote or distribute drug products through, for example, corporate integrity agreements, and debarment, suspension or exclusion from participation in federal and state healthcare programs. These false claims statutes include, among others, the federal civil False Claims Act, which allows any individual to bring a lawsuit against a pharmaceutical company on behalf of the federal government alleging submission of false or fraudulent claims, or causing others to present such false or fraudulent claims, for payment by a federal program, such as Medicare or Medicaid. If the government decides to intervene and prevails in the lawsuit, the individual will share in the proceeds from any fines or settlement funds. If the government declines to intervene, the individual may pursue the case alone. These false claims lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies have increased significantly in volume and breadth, leading to several substantial civil and criminal settlements regarding certain sales practices promoting off-label drug uses. This growth in litigation has increased the risk that a pharmaceutical company will have to defend a false claim action, pay settlement fines or restitution, as well as criminal and civil penalties, agree to comply with burdensome reporting and compliance obligations, and be excluded from Medicare, Medicaid and other federal and state healthcare programs. If we do not lawfully promote our approved products, if any, we may become subject to such litigation and, if we do not successfully defend against such actions, those actions may have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Even if any 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.

Even if the FDA, EMA or any comparable foreign regulatory agency approves the marketing of any product candidates that we develop, physicians, patients, third-party payors or the medical community may not accept or use them. Efforts to educate the medical community and third-party payors on the benefits of our product candidates may require significant resources and may not be successful. If linzagolix, nolasiban, OBE022 or any future product candidate that we develop does not achieve an adequate level of acceptance, we may not generate significant product revenue or any profits from operations. The degree of market acceptance of linzagolix, nolasiban, OBE022 or any of our future product candidates that are approved for commercial sale will depend on a variety of factors, including:

 

•

the efficacy and potential advantages compared to alternative treatments;

 

•

effectiveness of sales and marketing efforts;

 

•

the cost of treatment in relation to alternative treatments, including any similar generic treatments;

 

•

our ability to offer our products, if approved, for sale at competitive prices;

 

•

the convenience and ease of administration compared to alternative treatments;

 

•

the willingness of the target patient population to try new therapies and of physicians to prescribe these therapies;

 

•

the strength of marketing and distribution support;

 

•

the availability of third-party coverage and adequate reimbursement, and patients’ willingness to pay out-of-pocket in the absence of third-party coverage or adequate reimbursement;

 

•

the prevalence and severity of any side effects;

 

•

any restrictions on the use of our products, if approved, together with other medications; and

 

•

other potential advantages over alternative treatment methods.

Our efforts to educate physicians, patients, third-party payors and others in the medical community on the benefits of our products, if approved, may require significant resources and may never be successful. Such efforts may require more resources than are typically required due to the complexity and uniqueness of our product candidates. Because we expect sales of our product candidates, if approved, to generate substantially all of our product revenue for the foreseeable future, the failure of our product candidates to find market acceptance would harm our business and could require us to seek additional financing.

In addition, the potential market opportunity for linzagolix, nolasiban, OBE022 or any other product candidate we may develop is difficult to estimate precisely. Our estimates of the potential market opportunity are predicated on several key assumptions, such as industry knowledge and publications, third-party research reports and other surveys. While we believe that our internal assumptions are reasonable, these assumptions may be inaccurate. If any of the assumptions proves to be inaccurate, then the actual market for linzagolix, nolasiban, OBE022 or our future product candidates could be smaller than our estimates of the potential market opportunity. If the actual market for linzagolix, nolasiban, OBE022 or our future product candidates is smaller than we expect, or if the products fail to achieve an adequate level of acceptance by physicians, health care payors and patients, our revenue from product sales may be limited and we may be unable to achieve or maintain profitability.

We currently have no marketing, sales or distribution infrastructure. If we are unable to develop sales, marketing and distribution capabilities on our own or through collaborations, or if we fail to achieve adequate pricing or reimbursement, we will not be successful in commercializing our product candidates, if approved.

We currently have no marketing, sales and distribution capabilities and our product candidates are still in clinical development. If any of our product candidates are approved, we intend either to establish a sales and marketing organization with technical expertise and supporting distribution capabilities to commercialize our product candidates, or to outsource these functions to a third party. Either of these options would be expensive and time-consuming. These costs may be incurred in advance of any approval of our product candidates. In addition, we may not be able to hire a sales force that is sufficient in size or has adequate expertise in the medical markets that we intend to target. Any failure or delay in the development of our internal sales, marketing and distribution capabilities would adversely impact the commercialization of our products.

To the extent that we enter into collaboration agreements with respect to marketing, sales or distribution, our product revenue may be lower than if we directly marketed or sold any approved products. In addition, any revenue we receive will depend in whole or in part upon the efforts of these third-party collaborators, which may not be successful and are generally not within our control. If we are unable to enter into these arrangements on acceptable terms or at all, we may not be able to successfully commercialize any approved products. If we are not successful in commercializing any approved products, either on our own or through collaborations with one or more third parties, our future product revenue will suffer and we may incur significant additional losses.

Our business and operations would suffer in the event of computer system failures, cyber-attacks or a deficiency in our cyber-security.

Despite the implementation of security measures, our internal computer systems, and those of third parties on which we rely, are vulnerable to damage from computer viruses, malware, natural disasters, terrorism, war, telecommunication and electrical failures, cyber-attacks or cyber-intrusions over the Internet, attachments to emails, persons inside our organization, or persons with access to systems inside our organization. The risk of a security breach or disruption, particularly through cyber-attacks or cyber-intrusions, including by computer hackers, foreign governments, and cyber terrorists, has generally increased as the number, intensity and sophistication of attempted attacks and intrusions from around the world have increased. If such an event were to occur and cause interruptions in our operations, it could result in a material disruption of our product development programs. For example, the loss of clinical trial data from completed or ongoing or planned 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 was to result in a loss of or damage to our data or applications, or inappropriate disclosure of confidential or proprietary information, we could incur material legal claims and liability, damage to our reputation, and the further development of our product candidates could be delayed.

If we fail to comply with data protection laws and regulations, we could be subject to government enforcement actions (which could include civil or criminal penalties), private litigation, increased compliance costs and/or adverse publicity, which could negatively affect our operating results and business.

We are subject to data protection laws and regulations (i.e., laws and regulations that address privacy and data security). In the United States, numerous federal and state laws and regulations, including state data breach notification laws, state health information privacy laws, and federal and state consumer protection laws (e.g., Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act), govern the collection, use, disclosure, and protection of health-related and other personal information. Failure to comply with data protection laws and regulations could result in government enforcement actions and create liability for us, including civil and/or criminal penalties, private litigation and/or adverse publicity that could negatively affect our operating results and business. In addition, we may obtain health information from third parties (e.g., healthcare providers who prescribe our products) that are subject to privacy and security requirements under the U.S. federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, as amended by HITECH. Although we are not directly subject to HIPAA—other than potentially with respect to providing certain employee benefits—we could be subject to criminal penalties if we knowingly obtain or disclose individually identifiable health information maintained by a HIPAA-covered entity in a manner that is not authorized or permitted by HIPAA. HIPAA generally requires that healthcare providers and other covered entities obtain written authorizations from patients prior to disclosing protected health information of the patient (unless an exception to the authorization requirement applies). If authorization is required and the patient fails to execute an authorization or the authorization fails to contain all required provisions, then we may not be allowed access to and use of the patient’s information and our research efforts could be delayed. Furthermore, use of protected health information that is provided to us pursuant to a valid patient authorization is subject to the limits set forth in the authorization (e.g., for use in research and in submissions to regulatory authorities for product approvals). In addition, HIPAA does not replace federal, state, international or other laws that may grant individuals even greater privacy protections.

On June 28, 2018, California enacted the California Consumer Privacy Act, or CCPA, which takes effect on January 1, 2020. The CCPA gives California residents expanded rights to access and delete their personal information, opt out of certain personal information sharing, and receive detailed information about how their personal information is used. The CCPA provides for civil penalties for violations, as well as a private right of action for data breaches that is expected to increase data breach litigation. The CCPA may increase our compliance costs and potential liability. Some observers have noted that the CCPA could mark the beginning of a trend toward more stringent state privacy legislation in the U.S., which could increase our potential liability and adversely affect our business.

In the European Union, the General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR, took effect on May 25, 2018, introducing sweeping new data protection requirements that carry potential fines of up to the greater of 20 million Euros or 4% of annual global revenue. The GDPR introduces strict requirements for processing personal data, including potentially burdensome documentation requirements, more stringent requirements for obtaining valid consent (where applicable), obligations to honor expanded rights of individuals to control the use and retention of their personal data, and requirements to notify regulators and affected individuals of certain personal data breaches. The GDPR also imposes heightened restrictions on processing of special categories of personal data, such as health and genetic personal data. In addition, the GDPR prohibits the transfer of personal data to countries outside of the EEA, such as the United States, which are not considered by the European Commission to provide an adequate level of data protection. Switzerland has adopted similar restrictions. Although there are legal mechanisms to allow for the transfer of personal data from the EEA and Switzerland to the United States, they are subject to pending legal challenges that, if successful, could invalidate these mechanisms, restrict our ability to process personal data of European residents outside of Europe and adversely impact our business. The GDPR has increased our responsibility and potential liability in relation to personal data that we process, exposes us to substantial potential fines in the event of violations, increases our compliance costs and could restrict our operations in Europe.

Risks Related to Our Dependence on Third Parties

If we fail to comply with our obligations under our existing and any future intellectual property licenses with third parties, we could lose license rights that are important to our business.

We are party to several license agreements under which we in-license patent rights and other intellectual property related to our business, including a license and supply agreement with Kissei, under which we were granted an exclusive license relating to linzagolix and license agreements with Merck Serono, pursuant to which we were granted exclusive worldwide licenses relating to nolasiban and OBE022. We may enter into additional license agreements in the future. Our license agreements impose, and we expect that future license agreements will impose,

various diligence, milestone payment, royalty, insurance and other obligations on us. Any uncured, material breach under these license agreements could result in our loss of rights to practice the patent rights and other intellectual property licensed to us under these agreements, and could compromise our development and commercialization efforts for linzagolix, nolasiban and OBE022, or any future product candidates. See “Form 20-F—Item 4.B—Business Overview” for a more detailed description of our current license agreements.

We may be required to make significant payments in connection with our license and supply agreement with Kissei.

We acquired exclusive rights to linzagolix pursuant to our license and supply agreement with Kissei in November 2015. Under the terms of Kissei license and supply agreement, we are obligated to share certain development costs with Kissei in addition to our own direct development costs. Additionally, we may make significant payments in connection with certain milestones and the sale of resulting products. If these obligations become due under the terms of the Kissei license and supply agreement within the next eighteen months, our development efforts may be delayed and/or we may have to seek additional funding earlier than currently planned.

Our intellectual property in-licensed from third parties may be subject to disagreements over contract interpretations, which could narrow the scope of our rights to the relevant intellectual property or technology or increase our financial or other obligations to our licensors.

The agreements under which we currently in-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 harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. If any of our current or future licenses or material relationships or any in-licenses upon which our current or future licenses are based are terminated or breached, we may:

 

•

lose our rights to develop and market linzagolix, nolasiban, OBE022 or any future product candidates;

 

•

lose patent protection for linzagolix, nolasiban, OBE022 or any future product candidates;

 

•

experience significant delays in the development or commercialization of linzagolix, nolasiban, OBE022 or any future product candidates;

 

•

not be able to obtain any other licenses on acceptable terms, if at all; or

 

•

incur liability for damages.

If we experience any of the foregoing, it could harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We rely on third parties to conduct our preclinical studies and clinical trials and if these third parties perform in an unsatisfactory manner, our business could be substantially harmed.

We currently do not have the ability to independently conduct preclinical studies that comply with the regulatory requirements known as good laboratory practice, or GLP, requirements. We also do not currently have the ability to independently conduct any clinical trials. We have relied upon and plan to continue to rely upon medical institutions, clinical investigators, contract laboratories and other third parties, such as CROs, to conduct GLP-compliant preclinical studies and GCP-compliant clinical trials on our product candidates properly and on time, and may not currently have all of the necessary contractual relationships in place to do so. Once we have established contractual relationships with such third-party CROs, we will have only limited control over their actual performance of these activities.

We and our CROs and other vendors are required to comply with cGMP, GCP and GLP, which are regulations and guidelines enforced by the FDA, the EMA and any comparable foreign regulatory authorities for all of our product candidates in preclinical and clinical development. Regulatory authorities enforce these regulations through periodic inspections of trial sponsors, principal investigators, clinical trial sites and other contractors. Although we rely on CROs to conduct any current or planned GLP-compliant preclinical studies and GCP-compliant clinical trials and have limited influence over their actual performance, we remain responsible for ensuring that each of our preclinical

studies and clinical trials is conducted in accordance with its investigational plan and protocol and applicable laws and regulations, and our reliance on the CROs does not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities. If we or any of our CROs or vendors fail to comply with applicable regulations, the data generated in our preclinical studies and clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA, EMA or any comparable foreign regulatory agency may require us to perform additional preclinical studies and clinical trials before approving our marketing applications. We cannot assure you that upon inspection by a given regulatory agency, such regulatory agency will determine that all of our clinical trials comply with GCP regulations. In addition, our clinical trials must be conducted with products produced under cGMP requirements. Our failure to comply with these requirements may require us to repeat clinical trials, which would delay the regulatory approval process.

While we will have agreements governing their activities, our CROs will not be our employees, and we will not be able to control whether or not they devote sufficient time and resources to our future preclinical and clinical programs. These CROs 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 harm our business. We face the risk of potential unauthorized disclosure or misappropriation of our intellectual property by CROs, which may reduce our trade secret protection and allow our potential competitors to access and exploit our proprietary technology. If our CROs do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or obligations, fail to meet expected deadlines, or if the quality or accuracy of the clinical data they obtain is compromised due to the failure to adhere to our clinical protocols or regulatory requirements or for any other reason, our clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated, and we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for, or successfully commercialize any product candidate that we develop. As a result, our financial results and the commercial prospects for any product candidate that we develop would be harmed, our costs could increase, and our ability to generate revenue could be delayed.

If our relationship with these CROs terminates, we may not be able to enter into arrangements with alternative CROs or do so on commercially reasonable terms. Switching or adding additional CROs involves substantial cost and requires management time and focus. In addition, there is a natural transition period when a new CRO commences work. As a result, delays occur, which can negatively impact our ability to meet our desired clinical development timelines. Though we intend to carefully manage our relationships with our CROs, there can be no assurance that we will not encounter challenges or delays in the future or that these delays or challenges will not have a negative impact on our business and financial condition.

We rely on our third-party manufacturers to source the supply of the materials for our product candidates and, in the case of linzagolix, Kissei is the exclusive supplier of API. The inability to obtain supply of the materials for our product candidates or the failure of, or loss of, our exclusive supplier to supply us with the API for linzagolix would materially and adversely affect our business.

We currently rely on and expect to continue to rely on third parties for the manufacturing and supply of chemical compounds for the clinical trials of our product candidates and, if approved, our commercial supply. Further, Kissei has the exclusive right to supply us with the active pharmaceutical ingredient, or API, for linzagolix for our clinical trials and commercial supplies, if approved, subject to limited specified exceptions within the control of Kissei. Reliance on third-party suppliers may expose us to different risks than if we were to manufacture product candidates ourselves. The facilities used by our contract manufacturers to manufacture our product candidates must be approved by the FDA or other regulatory authorities pursuant to inspections that will be conducted after we submit our NDA or comparable marketing application to the FDA or other regulatory agency. Although we have auditing rights with all our manufacturing counterparties, we do not have control over a supplier’s or manufacturer’s compliance with these laws, regulations and applicable cGMP standards and other laws and regulations, such as those related to environmental health and safety matters.

To meet our projected needs for clinical supplies and support our activities through regulatory approval and commercial manufacturing, the CMOs with whom we currently work will need to increase scale of production, or we will need to secure alternate suppliers. With respect to linzagolix, we have entered into an exclusive agreement for the supply of the linzagolix API with Kissei. A CMO that Kissei is using to supply the linzagolix API received a warning letter from the FDA in November 2016 citing deviations from cGMP requirements with respect to its drug manufacturing facility. Kissei has now obtained linzagolix cGMP supply from two additional suppliers, both of which are different from the supplier who received the warning letter from the FDA in November 2016. For

nolasiban and OBE022, we obtain supply on a purchase order basis from a different single source. However, we believe that there are multiple potential sources for our contract manufacturing for nolasiban and OBE022. We have started engaging alternative suppliers for the cGMP manufacturing of nolasiban. We have not started engaging alternate suppliers for the manufacturing of OBE022. Additionally, any damage to or destruction of our or our third-party manufacturers’ or suppliers’ facilities or equipment may significantly impair our ability to manufacture our product candidates on a timely basis.

We rely on our manufacturers to purchase from third-party suppliers the materials necessary to produce our product candidates for our clinical trials, and we expect to continue to depend on third-party suppliers for the foreseeable future. There are a limited number of suppliers for raw materials that we use to manufacture our drugs and there may be a need to assess alternate suppliers to prevent a possible disruption of the manufacture of the materials necessary to produce our product candidates for our clinical trials, and if approved, ultimately for commercial sale. We do not have any control over the process or timing of the acquisition of these raw materials by our manufacturers. Moreover, we currently do not have any agreements for the commercial production of these raw materials. Any significant delay in the supply of a product candidate, or the raw material components thereof, for an ongoing clinical trial due to the need to replace a third-party manufacturer could considerably delay completion of our clinical trials, product testing and potential regulatory approval of our product candidates. If our manufacturers or we are unable to purchase these raw materials after regulatory approval has been obtained for our product candidates, the commercial launch of our product candidates would be delayed or there would be a shortage in supply, which would impair our ability to generate revenue from the sale of our product candidates.

We rely on our manufacturers and other subcontractors to comply with and respect the proprietary rights of others in conducting their contractual obligations for us. If our manufacturers or other subcontractors fail to acquire the proper licenses or otherwise infringe third-party proprietary rights in the course of completing their contractual obligations to us, we may have to find alternative manufacturers or defend against claims of infringement, either of which would significantly impact our ability to develop, obtain regulatory approval for or market our product candidates, if approved.

If our contract manufacturers cannot successfully manufacture material that conforms to our specifications and the strict regulatory requirements of the FDA or others, they will not be able to secure or maintain regulatory approval for their manufacturing facilities. In addition, we have no control over the ability of our contract manufacturers to maintain adequate quality control, quality assurance and qualified personnel. If the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory agency does not approve these facilities for the manufacture of our product candidates or if it withdraws any such approval in the future, we may need to find alternative manufacturing facilities, which would significantly impact our ability to develop, obtain regulatory approval for or market our product candidates, if approved. Any failure to achieve and maintain compliance with these laws, regulations and standards could subject us to the risk that we may have to suspend the manufacturing of our product candidates or that obtained approvals could be revoked, which would adversely affect our business and reputation. Furthermore, third-party providers may breach agreements they have with us because of factors beyond our control. They may also terminate or refuse to renew their agreements because of their own financial difficulties or business priorities, potentially at a time that is costly or otherwise inconvenient for us. If we were unable to find adequate replacement or another acceptable solution in time, our clinical trials could be delayed or our commercial activities could be harmed.

In addition, the fact that we are dependent on third parties for the manufacture, storage and distribution of our product candidates means that we are subject to the risk that our product candidates and, if approved, commercial products may have manufacturing defects that we have limited ability to prevent or control. The sale of products containing such defects could result in recalls or regulatory enforcement action that could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We may in the future enter into collaborations with third parties to develop our product candidates. If these collaborations are not successful, our business could be harmed.

We may potentially enter into collaborations with third parties in the future. We will face, to the extent that we decide to enter into collaboration agreements, significant competition in seeking appropriate collaborators. Moreover, collaboration arrangements are complex and time-consuming to negotiate, document, implement and maintain. We may not be successful in our efforts to establish and implement collaborations or other alternative arrangements should we so chose to enter into such arrangements. The terms of any collaborations or other arrangements that we may establish may not be favorable to us.

Any future collaborations that we enter into may not be successful. The success of our collaboration arrangements will depend heavily on the efforts and activities of our collaborators. Collaborations are subject to numerous risks, including:

 

•

collaborators have significant discretion in determining the efforts and resources that they will apply to these collaborations;

 

•

collaborators may not perform their obligations as expected;

 

•

the clinical trials conducted as part of these collaborations may not be successful;

 

•

collaborators may not pursue development and commercialization of any product candidates that achieve regulatory approval or may elect not to continue or renew development or commercialization programs based on clinical trial results, changes in the collaborators’ strategic focus or available funding or external factors, such as an acquisition, that divert resources or create competing priorities;

 

•

collaborators may delay clinical trials, provide insufficient funding for clinical trials, stop a clinical trial or abandon a product candidate, repeat or conduct new clinical trials or require a new formulation of a product candidate for clinical testing;

 

•

we may not have access to, or may be restricted from disclosing, certain information regarding product candidates being developed or commercialized under a collaboration and, consequently, may have limited ability to inform our shareholders about the status of such product candidates;

 

•

collaborators could independently develop, or develop with third parties, products that compete directly or indirectly with our product candidates if the collaborators believe that competitive products are more likely to be successfully developed or can be commercialized under terms that are more economically attractive than ours;

 

•

product candidates developed in collaboration with us may be viewed by our collaborators as competitive with their own product candidates or products, which may cause collaborators to cease to devote resources to the commercialization of our product candidates;

 

•

a collaborator with marketing and distribution rights to one or more of our product candidates that achieve regulatory approval may not commit sufficient resources to the marketing and distribution of any such product candidate;

 

•

disagreements with collaborators, including disagreements over proprietary rights, contract interpretation or the preferred course of development of any product candidates, may cause delays or termination of the research, development or commercialization of such product candidates, may lead to additional responsibilities for us with respect to such product candidates or may result in litigation or arbitration, any of which would be time-consuming and expensive;

 

•

collaborators may not properly maintain or defend our intellectual property rights or may use our proprietary information in such a way as to invite litigation that could jeopardize or invalidate our intellectual property or proprietary information or expose us to potential litigation;

 

•

disputes may arise with respect to the ownership of intellectual property developed pursuant to our collaborations;

 

•

collaborators may infringe the intellectual property rights of third parties, which may expose us to litigation and potential liability; and

 

•

collaborations may be terminated for the convenience of the collaborator and, if terminated, we could be required to raise additional capital to pursue further development or commercialization of the applicable product candidates.

If any such potential future collaborations do not result in the successful development and commercialization of product candidates, or if one of our future collaborators terminates its agreement with us, we may not receive any future research funding or milestone or royalty payments under the collaboration. If we do not receive the funding we expect under these agreements, the development of our product candidates could be delayed and we may need additional resources to develop our product candidates. In addition, if one of our future collaborators terminates its agreement with us, we may find it more difficult to attract new collaborators and the perception of us in the business and financial communities could be adversely affected. All of the risks relating to product development, regulatory approval and commercialization apply to the activities of our potential future collaborators.

If we are not able to establish or maintain collaborations, we may have to alter some of our future development and commercialization plans.

Our product development programs and the potential commercialization of our product candidates will require substantial additional capital to fund expenses. For some of our product candidates, we may decide to collaborate with pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies for the future development and potential commercialization of those product candidates, particularly in Asia. Furthermore, we may find that our programs require the use of proprietary rights held by third parties, and the growth of our business may depend in part on our ability to acquire, in-license or use these proprietary rights.

We face significant competition in seeking appropriate collaborators, and a number of more established companies may also be pursuing strategies to license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights that we may consider attractive. These established companies may have a competitive advantage over us due to their size, financial resources and greater clinical development and commercialization capabilities. In addition, companies that perceive us to be a competitor may be unwilling to assign or license rights to us. 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 design or results of clinical trials, the likelihood of approval by the FDA, EMA or similar foreign regulatory authorities, the potential market for the subject product candidate, the costs and complexities of manufacturing and delivering such product candidate to patients, competing products, the existence of uncertainty with respect to our ownership of technology, which can exist if there is a challenge to such ownership without regard to the merits of the challenge, and industry and market conditions generally. The collaborator may also consider alternative product candidates or technologies for similar indications that may be available to collaborate on and whether such a collaboration could be more attractive than the one with us for our product candidate. We may also be restricted under existing license agreements from entering into agreements on certain terms with potential collaborators. Collaborations are complex and time-consuming to negotiate and document. In addition, 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. Even if we are able to obtain a license to intellectual property of interest, we may not be able to secure exclusive rights, in which case others could use the same rights and compete with us. If we are unable to successfully obtain rights to required third party intellectual property rights or maintain the existing intellectual property rights we have, we may have to curtail the development of such product candidate, 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 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.

Our reliance on third parties requires us to share our trade secrets, which increases the possibility that a competitor will discover them or that our trade secrets will be misappropriated or disclosed.

Because we rely on third parties to develop and manufacture our product candidates, we must, at times, share trade secrets with them. We seek to protect our proprietary technology in part by entering into confidentiality agreements and, if applicable, material transfer agreements, collaborative research agreements, consulting agreements or other similar agreements with our collaborators, advisors, employees and consultants prior to beginning research or disclosing proprietary information. These agreements typically limit the rights of the third parties to use or disclose our confidential information, such as trade secrets. Despite these contractual agreements with third parties, sharing trade secrets and other confidential information increases the risk that such trade secrets become known by our competitors, are inadvertently incorporated into the technology of others, or are disclosed or used in violation of these agreements. Given that our proprietary position is based, in part, on our know-how and trade secrets, a competitor’s discovery of our trade secrets or other unauthorized use or disclosure would impair our competitive position and may harm our business.

In addition, these agreements typically restrict the ability of our advisors, employees, third-party contractors and consultants to publish data potentially relating to our trade secrets, although our agreements may contain certain limited publication rights. Despite our efforts to protect our trade secrets, our competitors may discover our trade secrets, either through breach of our agreements with third parties, independent development or publication of information by any of our third-party collaborators. A competitor’s discovery of our trade secrets would impair our competitive position and have an adverse impact on our business.

Risks Related to Regulatory Compliance

Enacted and future legislation may increase the difficulty and cost for us to obtain marketing approval of and commercialize our product candidates and may affect the prices we may set.

In the United States, the European Union, and other foreign jurisdictions, there have been, and we expect there will continue to be, a number of legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes to the healthcare system that could affect our future results of operations. In particular, there have been and continue to be a number of initiatives at the United States federal and state levels that seek to reduce healthcare costs and improve the quality of healthcare. For example, in March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, or collectively the ACA, was enacted, which substantially changes the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers. Among the provisions of the ACA, those of greatest importance to the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries include:

 

•

an annual, non-deductible fee on any entity that manufactures or imports certain branded prescription drugs and biologic agents, which is apportioned among these entities according to their market share in certain government healthcare programs;

 

•

a new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program, in which manufacturers must now agree to offer 70% point-of-sale discounts off negotiated prices of applicable brand drugs to eligible beneficiaries during their coverage gap period, as a condition for the manufacturer’s outpatient drugs to be covered under Medicare Part D;

 

•

new requirements to report certain financial arrangements with physicians and certain others, including reporting “transfers of value” made or distributed to prescribers and other healthcare providers and reporting investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members;

 

•

an increase in the statutory minimum rebates a manufacturer must pay under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program to 23.1% and 13.0% of the average manufacturer price for branded and generic drugs, respectively;

 

•

a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for drugs that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted or injected;

 

•

extension of a manufacturer’s Medicaid rebate liability to covered drugs dispensed to individuals who are enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations;

 

•

expansion of eligibility criteria for Medicaid programs by, among other things, allowing states to offer Medicaid coverage to certain individuals with income at or below 133% of the federal poverty level, thereby potentially increasing a manufacturer’s Medicaid rebate liability;

 

•

expansion of the entities eligible for discounts under the Public Health Service pharmaceutical pricing program;

 

•

a new Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to oversee, identify priorities in, and conduct comparative clinical effectiveness research, along with funding for such research; and

 

•

establishment of a Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, to test innovative payment and service delivery models to lower Medicare and Medicaid spending, potentially including prescription drug spending.

Some of the provisions of the ACA have yet to be implemented, and there have been judicial and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA, as well as recent efforts by the Trump administration to repeal or replace certain aspects of the ACA. Since January 2017, President Trump has signed two Executive Orders and other directives designed to delay the implementation of certain provisions of the ACA or otherwise circumvent some of the requirements for health insurance mandated by the ACA. Concurrently, Congress has considered legislation that would repeal or repeal and replace all or part of the ACA. While Congress has not passed comprehensive repeal legislation, two bills affecting the implementation of certain taxes under the ACA have been signed into law.

Legislation enacted in 2017, informally titled the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, or Tax Act, includes a provision repealing, effective January 1, 2019, the tax-based shared responsibility payment imposed by the ACA on certain individuals who fail to maintain qualifying health coverage for all or part of a year that is commonly referred to as the “individual mandate”. On January 22, 2018, President Trump signed a continuing resolution on appropriations for fiscal year 2018 that delayed the implementation of certain ACA-mandated fees, including the so-called “Cadillac” tax on certain high cost employer-sponsored insurance plans, the annual fee imposed on certain health insurance providers based on market share, and the medical device excise tax on non-exempt medical devices. The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, or the BBA, among other things, amends the ACA, effective January 1, 2019, to close the coverage gap in most Medicare drug plans, commonly referred to as the “donut hole”. In July 2018, CMS published a final rule permitting further collections and payments to and from certain ACA qualified health plans and health insurance issuers under the ACA risk adjustment program in response to the outcome of federal district court litigation regarding the method CMS uses to determine this risk adjustment. On December 14, 2018, a Texas U.S. District Court Judge ruled that the ACA is unconstitutional in its entirety because the “individual mandate” was repealed by Congress as part of the Tax Act. While the Texas U.S. District Court Judge, as well as the Trump administration and CMS, have stated that the ruling will have no immediate effect pending appeal of the decision, it is unclear how this decision, subsequent appeals, and other efforts to repeal and replace the ACA will impact the ACA and our business.

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA was enacted. On August 2, 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. This includes aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year. These reductions went into effect on April 1, 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, including amendments by the BBA, will remain in effect through 2027 unless additional Congressional action is taken. On January 2, 2013, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was signed into law, which, among other things, further reduced Medicare payments to several types of providers, including hospitals, imaging centers and cancer treatment centers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. These new laws may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other health care funding, which could have an adverse effect on our customers and accordingly, our financial operations.

Moreover, payment methodologies may be subject to changes in healthcare legislation and regulatory initiatives. For example, CMS may develop new payment and delivery models, such as bundled payment models. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, moved 30% of Medicare payments to alternative payment models tied to the quality or value of services in 2016. Additionally, HHS had set a goal of moving 50% of Medicare payments into these alternative payment models by the end of 2018, but due a policy shift under the Trump administration, it is unclear if, how and when such changes will be implemented.

In addition, recently there has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, including several recent Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, reduce the cost of drugs under Medicare and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for products. At the federal level, the Trump administration’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2019 contains further drug price control measures that could be enacted during the 2019 budget process or in other future legislation, including, for example, measures to permit Medicare Part D plans to negotiate the price of certain drugs under Medicare Part B, to allow some states to negotiate drug prices under Medicaid, and to eliminate cost sharing for generic drugs for low-income patients. Additionally, the Trump administration released a “Blueprint” to lower drug prices and reduce out of pocket costs of drugs that contains additional proposals to increase manufacturer competition, increase the negotiating power of certain federal healthcare programs, incentivize manufacturers to lower the list price of their products and reduce the out of pocket costs of drug products paid by consumers. HHS has already started the process of soliciting feedback on some of these measures and, at the same, is immediately implementing others under its existing authority. For example, in September 2018, CMS announced that it will allow Medicare Advantage Plans the option to use step therapy for Part B drugs beginning January 1, 2019. While a number of the existing measures and other proposed measures may require additional authorization to become effective, Congress and the Trump administration have

each indicated that it will continue to seek new legislative and/or administrative measures to control drug costs. We expect that additional U.S. federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that the U.S. federal government will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand for our product candidates or additional pricing pressures.

At the state level, individual states in the United States have increasingly passed legislation and implemented 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. Legally mandated price controls on payment amounts by third-party payors or other restrictions could harm our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects. In addition, regional healthcare authorities and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and which suppliers will be included in their prescription drug and other healthcare programs. This could reduce the ultimate demand for our products or put pressure on our product pricing, which could negatively affect our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects.

In the European Union, similar political, economic and regulatory developments may affect our ability to profitably commercialize any of our product candidates, if approved. In addition to continuing pressure on prices and cost containment measures, legislative developments at the European Union or member state level may result in significant additional requirements or obstacles that may increase our operating costs. The delivery of healthcare in the European Union, including the establishment and operation of health services and the pricing and reimbursement of medicines, is almost exclusively a matter for national, rather than European Union, law and policy. National governments and health service providers have different priorities and approaches to the delivery of health care and the pricing and reimbursement of products in that context. In general, however, the healthcare budgetary constraints in most EU member states have resulted in restrictions on the pricing and reimbursement of medicines by relevant health service providers. Coupled with ever-increasing European Union and national regulatory burdens on those wishing to develop and market products, this could prevent or delay marketing approval of our product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities and affect our ability to commercialize any products for which we obtain marketing approval. Political, economic and regulatory developments may further complicate pricing negotiations, and pricing negotiations may continue after reimbursement has been obtained. Reference pricing used by various EU member states, and parallel trade, i.e., arbitrage between low-priced and high-priced member states, can further reduce prices. There can be no assurance that any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for pharmaceutical products will allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements for any products, if approved in those countries. In international markets, reimbursement and healthcare payment systems vary significantly by country, and many countries have instituted price ceilings on specific products and therapies.

We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action, either in the United States or abroad. If we or our collaborators are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we or our collaborators are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, our product candidates may lose any regulatory approval that may have been obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability, which would adversely affect our business.

Our business operations and current and future relationships with investigators, health care professionals, consultants, third-party payors and customers may be subject, directly or indirectly, to federal and state healthcare fraud and abuse laws, false claims laws, health information privacy and security laws, and other healthcare laws and regulations. If we are unable to comply, or have not fully complied, with such laws, we could face substantial penalties.

Although we do not currently have any products on the market, our operations may be directly, or indirectly through health care professionals, consultants, customers and third-party payors, subject to various U.S. federal and state healthcare laws and regulations, including, without limitation, the U.S. federal Anti-Kickback Statute, the U.S. federal civil and criminal false claims laws and Physician Payments Sunshine Act and regulations. Healthcare providers, physicians and others play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of any products for which we obtain marketing approval. These laws may impact, among other things, our current business operations, including our clinical research activities, and proposed sales, marketing and education programs and constrain the business of financial arrangements and relationships with healthcare providers, physicians and other parties through

which we market, sell and distribute our products for which we obtain marketing approval. In addition, we may be subject to patient data privacy and security regulation by both the U.S. federal government and the states in which we conduct our business. Finally, we may be subject to additional healthcare, statutory and regulatory requirements and enforcement by foreign regulatory authorities in jurisdictions in which we conduct our business. The laws that may affect our ability to operate include:

 

•

the U.S. federal Anti-Kickback Statute, which prohibits, among other things, persons or entities from knowingly and willfully soliciting, offering, receiving or paying any remuneration (including any kickback, bribe, or certain rebates), directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, in cash or in kind, to induce or reward either the referral of an individual for, or the purchase, lease, order or recommendation of, any good, facility, item or service, for which payment may be made, in whole or in part, under U.S. federal and state healthcare programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. A person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation;

 

•

the U.S. federal false claims and civil monetary penalties laws, including the federal civil False Claims Act, which can be enforced through civil whistleblower or qui tam actions, which, among other things, impose criminal and civil penalties, against individuals or entities for knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, to the U.S. federal government, claims for payment or approval that are false or fraudulent, knowingly making, using or causing to be made or used, a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim, or from knowingly making a false statement to avoid, decrease or conceal an obligation to pay money to the U.S. federal government. In addition, the government may assert that a claim including items and services resulting from a violation of the U.S. federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the federal civil False Claims Act;

 

•

HIPAA, which imposes criminal and civil liability for, among other things, knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program, or 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; similar to the U.S. federal Anti-Kickback Statute, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the criminal health care fraud statute implemented under HIPAA or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation;

 

•

HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009, or HITECH, and their implementing regulations, which imposes certain obligations, including mandatory contractual terms, with respect to safeguarding the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information without appropriate authorization by covered entities subject to HIPAA, i.e. health plans, healthcare clearinghouses and certain healthcare providers, as well as their business associates that perform certain services for or on their behalf involving the use or disclosure of individually identifiable health information;

 

•

the U.S. federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, which prohibits, among other things, the adulteration or misbranding of drugs, biologics and medical devices;

 

•

the U.S. federal legislation commonly referred to as Physician Payments Sunshine Act, enacted as part of the ACA, and its implementing regulations, which requires certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologics and medical supplies that are reimbursable under Medicare, Medicaid, or the Children’s Health Insurance Program to report annually to CMS information related to certain payments and other transfers of value to physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors) and teaching hospitals, as well as ownership and investment interests held by the physicians described above and their immediate family members;

 

•

analogous state laws and regulations, including: state anti-kickback and false claims laws, which may apply to our business practices, including, but not limited to, research, distribution, sales and marketing arrangements and claims involving healthcare items or services reimbursed by any third-party payor, including private insurers; state laws that require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the U.S. federal government, or otherwise restrict payments that may be made to healthcare providers and other potential referral sources; state laws and regulations that require drug manufacturers to file reports relating to pricing and marketing information, which requires tracking gifts and other remuneration and items of value provided to healthcare professionals and entities; state and local laws that require the registration of sales representatives in the jurisdiction; and state laws governing the privacy and security of health information in certain circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and often are not preempted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts; and

•

European and other foreign law equivalents of each of the laws, including reporting requirements detailing interactions with and payments to healthcare providers.

Ensuring that our internal operations and future business arrangements with third parties comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations will involve substantial costs. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices do not comply with current or future statutes, regulations, agency guidance 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 the laws described above or any other governmental laws and regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant penalties, including civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, exclusion from U.S. government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, or similar programs in other countries or jurisdictions, disgorgement, individual imprisonment, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits, and corporate integrity agreements, which impose, among other things, rigorous operational and monitoring requirements on companies, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations. Further, defending against any such actions can be costly, time-consuming and may require significant financial and personnel resources. Therefore, even if we are successful in defending against any such actions that may be brought against us, our business may be impaired. If any of the physicians or other providers or entities with whom we expect to do business is found to not be in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government funded healthcare programs and imprisonment. If any of the above occur, it could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations.

Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property

If we fail to comply with our obligations under our existing and any future intellectual property licenses with third parties or if such licenses are subject to a disagreement over contract interpretation, we could lose license rights that are important to our business or be subject to a narrowing of the scope of our rights to the relevant intellectual property or technology or an increase of our financial or other obligations to our licensors.

We are party to several license agreements under which we in-license patent rights and other intellectual property related to our business, and we may enter into additional license agreements in the future. See “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Dependence on Third Parties” for a more detailed description of risks related to current and future license agreements.

If we are unable to obtain and maintain patent protection for our technology and product candidates, or if the scope of the patent protection obtained is not sufficiently broad, we may not be able to compete effectively in our markets.

We rely upon a combination of patents, trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect the intellectual property related to our development programs and product candidates. 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 current and future product candidates. We have sought to protect our proprietary position by filing and in-licensing patent applications in the United States and abroad related to our development programs and product candidates. The patent prosecution process is expensive and time-consuming, and we or our licensors may not be able to file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner or in all jurisdictions.

It is also possible that we will fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development output before it is too late to obtain patent protection. Moreover, in some circumstances, we do not have the right to control the preparation, filing and prosecution of patent applications, or to maintain the patents, covering technology that we have licensed from third parties. We prosecute and maintain certain patent rights for our product candidates and rely on our licensors Kissei and Merck Serono to prosecute and maintain other relevant patent rights for linzagolix, nolasiban and OBE022. Therefore, these patents and applications may not be prosecuted and enforced in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business. The patent applications that we own or in-license may fail to result in issued patents with claims that cover our current and future product candidates in the United States or in other foreign countries. Our patent applications cannot be enforced against third parties practicing the technology claimed in such applications unless, and until, a patent issues from such applications, and then only to the extent the issued claims cover the technology.

If the patent applications we hold or have in-licensed with respect to our development programs and product candidates fail to issue, if their breadth or strength of protection is threatened, or if they fail to provide meaningful exclusivity for our current and future product candidates, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to develop product candidates, and threaten our ability to commercialize, products. Any such outcome could have a negative effect on our business.

The patent position of biopharmaceutical companies generally is highly uncertain, involves complex legal and factual questions and has in recent years been the subject of much litigation. In addition, the laws of foreign countries may not protect our rights to the same extent as the laws of the United States. For example, EU patent law restricts the patentability of methods of treatment of the human body more than U.S. law does. Publications of discoveries in scientific literature often lag behind the actual discoveries, and patent applications in the United States and other jurisdictions remain confidential for a period of time after filing, and some remain so until issued. Therefore, we cannot know with certainty whether we were the first to make the inventions claimed in our owned or licensed patents or pending patent applications, or that we were the first to file for patent protection of such inventions. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our patent rights are highly uncertain. There is no assurance that all potentially relevant prior art relating to our patents and patent applications has been found, and such prior art could potentially invalidate a one or more of our patents or prevent a patent from issuing from a one or more of our pending patent applications. There is also no assurance that there is not prior art of which we are aware, but which we do not believe affects the validity or enforceability of a claim in our patents and patent applications, which may, nonetheless, ultimately be found to affect the validity or enforceability of a claim. Even if patents do successfully issue and even if such patents cover our current and future product candidates, third parties may challenge their validity, enforceability or scope, which may result in such patents being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable, which could allow third parties to commercialize our technology or products and compete directly with us, without payment to us, or result in our inability to manufacture or commercialize products without infringing third-party patent rights. Any successful opposition to these patents or any other patents owned by or licensed to us could deprive us of rights necessary for the successful commercialization of any product candidates that we may develop. Furthermore, even if they are unchallenged, our patents and patent applications may not adequately protect our intellectual property, provide exclusivity for our product candidates, prevent others from designing around our claims or provide us with a competitive advantage. Any of these outcomes could impair our ability to prevent competition from third parties. 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.

We, independently or together with our licensors, have filed several patent applications covering various aspects of our product candidates. We cannot offer any assurances about which, if any, patents will issue, the breadth of any such patent, or whether any issued patents will be found invalid and unenforceable or will be challenged by third parties. Any successful opposition to these patents or any other patents owned by or licensed to us after patent issuance could deprive us of rights necessary for the successful commercialization of any product candidates that we may develop. Further, if we encounter delays in regulatory approvals, the period of time during which we could market a product candidate under patent protection could be reduced.

We may not identify relevant third-party patents or may incorrectly interpret the relevance, scope or expiration of a third-party patent which might adversely affect our ability to develop and market our product candidates.

We cannot guarantee that any of our or our licensors’ patent searches or analyses, including the identification of relevant patents, the scope of patent claims or the expiration of relevant patents, are complete or thorough, nor can we be certain that we have identified each and every third-party patent and pending application in the United States and abroad that is relevant to or necessary for the commercialization of our product candidates in any jurisdiction. For example, U.S. applications filed before November 29, 2000 and certain U.S. applications filed after that date that will not be filed outside the United States remain confidential until patents issue. Patent applications in the United States and elsewhere are published approximately 18 months after the earliest filing for which priority is claimed, with such earliest filing date being commonly referred to as the priority date. Therefore, patent applications

covering our product candidates could have been filed by others without our knowledge. Additionally, pending patent applications that have been published can, subject to certain limitations, be later amended in a manner that could cover our product candidates or the use of our product candidates. The scope of a patent claim is determined by an interpretation of the law, the written disclosure in a patent and the patent’s prosecution history. Our interpretation of the relevance or the scope of a patent or a pending application may be incorrect, which may negatively impact our ability to market our product candidates. We may incorrectly determine that our product candidates are not covered by a third-party patent or may incorrectly predict whether a third party’s pending application will issue with claims of relevant scope. Our determination of the expiration date of any patent in the United States or abroad that we consider relevant may be incorrect, which may negatively impact our ability to develop and market our product candidates. Our failure to identify and correctly interpret relevant patents may negatively impact our ability to develop and market our product candidates.

If we fail to identify and correctly interpret relevant patents, we may be subject to infringement claims. We cannot guarantee that we will be able to successfully settle or otherwise resolve such infringement claims. If we fail in any such dispute, in addition to being forced to pay damages, we may be temporarily or permanently prohibited from commercializing any of our product candidates that are held to be infringing. We might, if possible, also be forced to redesign product candidates that we no longer infringe the third-party intellectual property rights. Any of these events, even if we were ultimately to prevail, could require us to divert substantial financial and management resources that we would otherwise be able to devote to our business.

We are aware of issued patents and pending patent applications, in the United States and abroad, relating to methods of improving embryo implantation outcomes in patients undergoing an embryo transfer procedure. If any such patent, or a patent that issues from any such application, were to be asserted against us, we believe that we have defenses against any such action, including that these patents would not be infringed by our product candidates and/or that these patents are not valid. However, if these patents were asserted against us and our defenses to such an action were unsuccessful, unless we obtain a license to these patents, which may not be available on commercially reasonable terms, or at all, we could be liable for damages and precluded from commercializing any product candidates that were ultimately held to infringe these patents, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, cash flows or results of operations.

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 linzagolix, nolasiban and OBE022 are obtained, once the patent life has expired for a product candidate, we may be open to competition from competitive medications, including biosimilar or generic medications. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting such product candidates might expire before or shortly after such product candidates are commercialized. As a result, our owned and licensed patent portfolio may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing product candidates similar or identical to ours.

Depending upon the timing, duration and conditions of FDA marketing approval of our product candidates, 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 Act of 1984, referred to as the Hatch-Waxman Amendments, and similar legislation in the European Union. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments permit a patent term extension of up to five years for a patent covering an approved product as compensation for effective patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review process. However, we may not receive an extension if we fail to apply within applicable deadlines, fail to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents or otherwise fail to satisfy applicable requirements. Moreover, the length of the extension could be less than we request. If we are unable to obtain patent term extension or the term of any such extension is less than we request, the period during which we can enforce our patent rights for that product will be shortened and our competitors may obtain approval to market competing products sooner. As a result, our revenue from applicable products could be reduced. Further, if this occurs, our competitors may take advantage of our investment in development and trials by referencing our clinical and preclinical data and launch their product earlier than might otherwise be the case.

Intellectual property rights do not necessarily address all potential threats to our business.

Once granted, patents may remain open to opposition, interference, re-examination, post-grant review, inter partes review, nullification or derivation action in court of before patent offices or similar proceedings for a given period after allowance or grant, during which time third parties can raise objections against such grant. In the course of such proceedings, which may continue for a protracted period of time, the patent owner may be compelled to limit the scope of the allowed or granted claims thus attacked, or may lose the allowed or granted claims altogether. In addition, the degree of future protection afforded by our intellectual property rights is uncertain because even granted intellectual property rights have limitations, and may not adequately protect our business. The following examples are illustrative:

 

•

others may be able to make compounds, or linzagolix, nolasiban and OBE022 formulations that are similar to our linzagolix, nolasiban and OBE022 formulations but that are not covered by the claims of the patents that we own or control;

 

•

the patents of third parties may have an adverse effect on our business;

 

•

we or our licensors or any future strategic partners might not have been the first to conceive or reduce to practice the inventions covered by the issued patent or pending patent application that we own or have exclusively licensed;

 

•

we or our licensors or any future strategic partners might not have been the first to file patent applications covering certain of our inventions;

 

•

others may independently develop similar or alternative technologies or duplicate any of our technologies without infringing our intellectual property rights;

 

•

it is possible that our pending patent applications will not lead to issued patents;

 

•

issued patents that we own or have exclusively licensed may not provide us with any competitive advantage, or may be held invalid or unenforceable, as a result of legal challenges by our competitors;

 

•

our competitors might conduct research and development activities in countries where we do not have patent rights and then use the information learned from such activities to develop competitive products for sale in our major commercial markets;

 

•

third parties performing manufacturing or testing for us using our product candidates or technologies could use the intellectual property of others without obtaining a proper license;

 

•

we may not develop additional proprietary technologies that are patentable; and

 

•

the patents of others may have an adverse effect on our business.

Changes in patent laws or patent jurisprudence could diminish the value of patents in general, thereby impairing our ability to protect our product candidates.

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 involve both technological complexity and legal complexity. Therefore, obtaining and enforcing biopharmaceutical patents is costly, time-consuming and inherently uncertain. In addition, the America Invents Act, or the AIA, was signed into law on September 16, 2011, and many of the substantive changes became effective on March 16, 2013.

An important change introduced by the AIA is that, as of March 16, 2013, the United States transitioned to a “first-to-file” system for deciding which party should be granted a patent when two or more patent applications are filed by different parties claiming the same invention. A third party that files a patent application in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, after that date but before us could therefore be awarded a patent covering an invention of ours even if we had made the invention before it was made by the third party. This will require us to be cognizant going forward of the time from invention to filing of a patent application, but circumstances could prevent us from promptly filing patent applications on our inventions.

Among some of the other changes introduced by the AIA are changes that limit where a patentee may file a patent infringement suit and providing opportunities for third parties to challenge any issued patent in the USPTO. This applies to all of our U.S. patents, even those issued before March 16, 2013. Because of a lower evidentiary standard in USPTO proceedings compared to the evidentiary standard in U.S. federal courts necessary to invalidate a patent claim, a third party could potentially provide evidence in a USPTO proceeding sufficient for the USPTO to hold a

claim invalid even though the same evidence would be insufficient to invalidate the claim if first presented in a district court action. Accordingly, a third party may attempt to use the USPTO procedures to invalidate our patent claims that would not have been invalidated if first challenged by the third party as a defendant in a district court action. The AIA and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents.

The USPTO has developed, in the last few years, regulations and procedures to govern administration of the AIA, and many of the substantive changes to patent law associated with the AIA, and, in particular, the first to file provisions, only became effective on March 16, 2013. Accordingly, it is not clear what, if any, impact the AIA will have on the operation of our business. However, the AIA and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our or our licensors’ or collaboration partners’ patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our or our licensors’ or collaboration partners’ issued patents, all of which could have an adverse effect on our business and financial condition.

Additionally, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on several patent cases in recent years, such as Association for  Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.  (Myriad I),  Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. , and  Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International , either narrowing the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances or weakening the rights of patent owners in certain situations. In addition to increasing uncertainty with regard to our ability to obtain patents in the future, this combination of events has created uncertainty with respect to the value of patents, once obtained. Depending on decisions by the U.S. Congress, the federal courts, and the USPTO, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that could weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce our existing patents and patents that we might obtain in the future. Similarly, the complexity and uncertainty of European patent laws has also increased in recent years. For example, the April 2010 amendment of the European Patent Convention, which limited the time permitted for filing divisional applications, was subsequently abrogated. This amendment and subsequent abrogation illustrates the uncertainty involved in the prosecution of European patent laws. In addition, the European patent system is relatively stringent in the type of amendments that are allowed during prosecution. These changes could limit our ability to obtain new patents in the future that may be important for our business.

Third parties may initiate legal proceedings alleging that we are infringing their intellectual property rights, the outcome of which would be uncertain and could have a negative impact on the success of our business.

Our commercial success depends, in part, upon our ability, and the ability of our future collaborators, to develop, manufacture, market and sell linzagolix, nolasiban, OBE022 and any future product candidates, if approved, and use our proprietary technologies without alleged or actual infringement, misappropriation or other violation of the patents and proprietary rights of third parties. There have been many lawsuits and other proceedings involving patent and other intellectual property rights in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, including patent infringement lawsuits, interferences, oppositions and re-examination proceedings before the USPTO, and corresponding foreign patent offices. Numerous U.S. and foreign issued patents and pending patent applications, which are owned by third parties, exist in the fields in which we are developing product candidates. Some claimants may have substantially greater resources than we do and may be able to sustain the costs of complex intellectual property litigation to a greater degree and for longer periods of time than we could. In addition, patent holding companies that focus solely on extracting royalties and settlements by enforcing patent rights may target us. As the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries expand and more patents are issued, the risk increases that our product candidates may be subject to claims of infringement of the intellectual property rights of third parties.

We may in the future become party to, or be threatened with, adversarial proceedings or litigation regarding intellectual property rights with respect to linzagolix, nolasiban, OBE022 and any future product candidates and technology, including interference or derivation proceedings, post grant review and inter partes review before the USPTO or similar adversarial proceedings or litigation in other jurisdictions. Similarly, we or our licensors or collaborators may initiate such proceedings or litigation against third parties, including to challenge the validity or scope of intellectual property rights controlled by third parties. Third parties may assert infringement claims against us based on existing patents or patents that may be granted in the future, regardless of their merit. There is a risk that third parties may choose to engage in litigation with us to enforce or to otherwise assert their patent rights against us. Even if we believe such claims are without merit, a court of competent jurisdiction could hold that these third-party patents are valid, enforceable and infringed, and the holders of any such patents may be able to block our ability to

commercialize such product candidate unless we obtained a license under the applicable patents, or until such patents expire or are finally determined to be invalid or unenforceable. Similarly, if any third-party patents were held by a court of competent jurisdiction to cover aspects of our compositions, formulations, or methods of treatment, prevention or use, the holders of any such patents may be able to block our ability to develop and commercialize the applicable product candidate unless we obtained a license or until such patent expires or is finally determined to be invalid or unenforceable. In either case, such a license may not be available 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. Furthermore, even in the absence of litigation, we may need to obtain licenses from third parties to advance our research or allow commercialization of our product candidates, and we have done so from time to time. We may fail to obtain any of these licenses at a reasonable cost or on reasonable terms, if at all. In such an event, we would be unable to further practice our technologies or develop and commercialize any of our product candidates at issue, which could harm our business significantly.

Parties making claims against us may obtain injunctive or other equitable relief, which could effectively block our ability to further develop and commercialize one or more of our product candidates, if approved. Defense of these claims, regardless of their merit, would involve substantial litigation expense and would be a substantial diversion of employee resources from our business. Third parties making such claims may have the ability to dedicate substantially greater resources to these legal actions than we or our licensors or collaborators can. In the event of a successful claim of infringement against us, we may have to pay substantial damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees for willful infringement, pay royalties, redesign our infringing products or obtain one or more licenses from third parties, which may be impossible or require substantial time and monetary expenditure.

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

Competitors may infringe or otherwise violate our or our licensors’ patents or misappropriate or otherwise violate our or our licensor’s other intellectual property rights. To counter infringement or unauthorized use, we may be required to file legal claims, which can be expensive and time-consuming. Our agreements with Merck Serono give Merck Serono the first right to control such claims. Therefore, these patents and applications may not be enforced in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business. Our or our licensors’ adversaries in these proceedings may have the ability to dedicate substantially greater resources to prosecuting these legal actions than we or our licensors can. In addition, in an infringement proceeding, a court may decide that a patent of ours or our licensors is not valid or is unenforceable, or may refuse to stop the other party from using the technology at issue on the grounds that our patents do not cover the technology in question. An adverse result in any litigation or defense proceedings could put one or more of our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and could put our patent applications at risk of not issuing. The initiation of a claim against a third party may also cause the third party to bring counter claims against us such as claims asserting that our patents are invalid or unenforceable or claims challenging the scope of the intellectual property rights we own or control. In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity or unenforceability are commonplace. Grounds for a validity challenge could be an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, including lack of novelty, obviousness, non-enablement or lack of statutory subject matter. Grounds for an unenforceability assertion could be an allegation that someone connected with prosecution of the patent withheld relevant material information from the USPTO, or made a materially misleading statement, during prosecution. Third parties may also raise similar validity claims before the USPTO in post-grant proceedings such as ex parte re-examinations, inter partes review, or post-grant review, or oppositions or similar proceedings outside the United States, in parallel with litigation or even outside the context of litigation. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. We cannot be certain that there is no invalidating prior art, of which we, our licensors and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution. For the patents and patent applications that we have licensed, we may have limited or no right to participate in the defense of any licensed patents against challenge by a third party. Our agreements with Kissei and Merck Serono give our licensors the first right to defend such validity challenges. Therefore, these patents and applications may not be defended in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business. If a defendant were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity or unenforceability, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of any future patent protection on our current or future product candidates. Such a loss of patent protection could harm our business. In addition, if the breadth or strength of protection provided by our or our licensors’ patents and patent applications is threatened, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to license, develop or commercialize current or future product candidates.

We may not be able to prevent, alone or with our licensors, infringement or misappropriation of our intellectual property rights, particularly in countries where the laws may not protect those rights as fully as in the United States. Our business could be harmed if in litigation the prevailing party does not offer us a license on commercially reasonable terms. Any litigation or other proceedings to enforce our intellectual property rights may fail, and even if successful, may result in substantial costs and distract our management and other employees.

Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of 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 an adverse effect on the price of our common shares.

We may not be able to protect our intellectual property rights throughout the world, which could negatively impact our business.

Filing, prosecuting and defending patents covering linzagolix, nolasiban, OBE022 and any future product candidates in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and our intellectual property rights in some countries outside the United States can be less extensive than those in the United States. In addition, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as federal and state laws in the United States. Further, licensing partners may not prosecute patents in certain jurisdictions in which we may obtain commercial rights, thereby precluding the possibility of later obtaining patent protection in these countries. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in all countries outside the United States, or from selling or importing products made using our inventions in and into the United States or other jurisdictions. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to develop their own products and may also export infringing products to territories where we have patent protection, but enforcement is not as strong as that in the United States. These products may compete with our product candidates, and our patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing.

Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents, trade secrets and other intellectual property protection, particularly those relating to biotechnology products, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patents or marketing of competing products in violation of our proprietary rights generally. Proceedings to enforce our patent rights in foreign jurisdictions, whether or not successful, could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, could put our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and our patent applications at risk of not issuing, and could provoke third parties to assert claims against us. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce our intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop or license. Furthermore, while we intend to protect our intellectual property rights in our expected significant markets, 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 product candidates. Accordingly, our efforts to protect our intellectual property rights in such countries may be inadequate, which may have an adverse effect on our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates in all of our expected significant foreign markets.

Additionally, the requirements for patentability may differ in certain countries, particularly developing countries. For example, unlike other countries, China has a heightened requirement for patentability, and specifically requires a detailed description of medical uses of a claimed drug. In India, unlike the United States, there is no link between regulatory approval of a drug and its patent status. Furthermore, generic or biosimilar drug manufacturers or other competitors may challenge the scope, validity or enforceability of our or our licensors’ patents, requiring us or our licensors to engage in complex, lengthy and costly litigation or other proceedings. Generic or biosimilar drug manufacturers may develop, seek approval for, and launch biosimilar versions of our products. In addition to India, certain countries in Europe and developing countries, including China, have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner may be compelled to grant licenses to third parties. In those countries, we and our licensors may have limited remedies if patents are infringed or if we or our licensors are compelled to grant a license to a third party,

which could materially diminish the value of those patents. This could limit our potential revenue opportunities. Accordingly, our and our licensors’ efforts to enforce intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we own or license.

We may be subject to claims that our employees, consultants or independent contractors have wrongfully used or disclosed confidential information of their former employers or other third parties.

We may employ individuals who were previously employed at universities or other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. Although we try to ensure that our employees, consultants and independent contractors do not use the proprietary information or know-how of others in their work for us, and we are not currently subject to any claims that our employees, consultants or independent contractors have wrongfully used or disclosed confidential information of third parties, we may in the future be subject to such claims. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel. 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 and other employees.

We may be subject to claims challenging the inventorship of our patents and other intellectual property.

Although we are not currently experiencing any claims challenging the inventorship of our patents or ownership of our intellectual property, we may in the future be subject to claims that former employees, collaborators or other third parties have an interest in our patents or other intellectual property as an inventor or co-inventor. While it is our policy to require our employees and contractors who may be involved in the conception or 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, conceives or develops intellectual property that we regard as our own. For example, the assignment of intellectual property rights may not be self-executing or the assignment agreements may be breached, or we may have inventorship disputes arise from conflicting obligations of consultants or others who are involved in developing our product candidates. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these and other claims challenging inventorship. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights, such as exclusive ownership of, or right to use, valuable intellectual property. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management and other employees.

Intellectual property litigation could cause us to spend substantial resources and distract our personnel from their normal responsibilities.

Litigation or other legal proceedings relating to intellectual property claims, with or without merit, is unpredictable and generally expensive and time-consuming and is likely to divert significant resources from our core business, including distracting our technical and management personnel from their normal responsibilities. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation. In addition, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments and if securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a substantial adverse effect on the price of our common shares. Such litigation or proceedings could substantially increase our operating losses and reduce the resources available for development activities or any future sales, marketing or distribution activities.

We may not have sufficient financial or other resources to adequately conduct such litigation or proceedings. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of such litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their greater financial resources and more mature and developed intellectual property portfolios. Accordingly, despite our efforts, we may not be able to prevent third parties from infringing upon, misappropriating or successfully challenging our intellectual property rights. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings could have an adverse effect on our ability to compete in the marketplace.

Our inability to protect our confidential information and trade secrets would harm our business and competitive position.

In addition to seeking patents for some of our technology and products, we also rely on trade secrets, including unpatented know-how, technology and other proprietary information, to maintain our competitive position. 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, corporate collaborators, outside scientific collaborators, contract manufacturers, consultants, advisors and other third parties. We also enter into confidentiality and invention or patent assignment agreements with our employees and consultants. We also seek to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of our data, trade secrets and know-how by maintaining physical security of our premises and physical and electronic security of our information technology systems. Monitoring unauthorized uses and disclosures is difficult, and we do not know whether the steps we have taken to protect our proprietary technologies will be effective. We cannot guarantee that our trade secrets and other proprietary and confidential information will not be disclosed or that competitors will not otherwise gain access to our trade secrets. Despite these efforts, any of these parties may breach the agreements 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, some courts both within and outside the United States may be less willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets. If a competitor lawfully obtained or independently developed any of our trade secrets, we would have no right to prevent such competitor from using that technology or information to compete with us, which could harm our competitive position.

Trade secrets and know-how can be difficult to protect as trade secrets and know-how will over time be disseminated within the industry through independent development, the publication of journal articles, and the movement of personnel skilled in the art from company to company or academic to industry scientific positions. 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 competitor from using that technology or information to compete with us, which could harm our competitive position. If we are unable to prevent material disclosure of the intellectual property related to our technologies to third parties, we will not be able to establish or maintain a competitive advantage in our market, which could adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition. Even if we are able to adequately protect our trade secrets and proprietary information, our trade secrets could otherwise become known or could be independently discovered by our competitors. Competitors could purchase our products and attempt to replicate some or all of the competitive advantages we derive from our development efforts, willfully infringe our intellectual property rights, design around our protected technology or develop their own competitive technologies that fall outside of our intellectual property rights. If any of our trade secrets were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor, in the absence of patent protection, we would have no right to prevent them, or those to whom they communicate, from using that technology or information to compete with us.

We may not be able to prevent misappropriation of our intellectual property, trade secrets or confidential information, particularly in countries where the laws may not protect those rights as fully as in the United States. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation. In addition, there could 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 substantial adverse effect on the price of our common shares.

Obtaining and maintaining our patent protection depends on compliance with various procedural, document submission, 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 and annuity 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 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 or our licensors fail to maintain the patents and patent applications covering our products, our competitors might be able to enter the market, which would harm our business.

Risks Related to Our Business Operations, Employee Matters and Managing Growth

Our future growth and ability to compete depends on retaining our key personnel and recruiting additional qualified personnel.

We are highly dependent on the management, development, clinical, financial and business development experience of Ernest Loumaye, our Chief Executive Officer, Tim Adams, our Chief Financial Officer, Jean-Pierre Gotteland, our Chief Scientific Officer and Head of R&D, Wim Souverijns, our Chief Commercial Officer, Elizabeth Garner, our Chief Medical Officer, Elke Bestel, our Vice President, Head of Drug Safety and Pharmacovigilance, Ben T.G. Tan, our Vice President of Commercial and Business Development, and Fabien Lefebvre de Ladonchamps, our Vice President Corporate Affairs and Finance. Each of these officers may currently terminate their employment with us on short notice. We do not maintain “key person” insurance for any of our executives or employees.

Laws and regulations on executive compensation, including legislation in our home country, Switzerland, may restrict our ability to attract, motivate and retain the required level of qualified personnel. In Switzerland, legislation affecting public companies has been passed that, among other things, (1) imposes an annual binding shareholders’ “say on pay” vote with respect to the compensation of executive management, including executive officers and the board of directors, (2) generally prohibits severance, advances, transaction premiums and similar payments to members of our executive management and board of directors, (3) imposes other restrictive compensation practices and (4) requires companies to specify various compensation-related matters in their articles of association, thus requiring them to be approved by a shareholders’ vote. In addition, the competition for qualified personnel in the biopharmaceutical field is intense, and our future success depends upon our ability to attract, retain and motivate highly-skilled scientific, technical and managerial employees. Because the Swiss legislation affecting public companies will apply to operations in the United States and are more onerous and restrictive than comparable laws and regulations applying to U.S. domiciled companies, recruiting and retaining employees in the United States will be even more difficult as compared to companies in the United States. We face competition for personnel from other companies, universities, public and private research institutions and other organizations. If our recruitment and retention efforts are unsuccessful in the future, it may be difficult for us to implement business strategy, which could harm our business.

In addition, we rely on consultants and advisors, including scientific and clinical advisors, to assist us in formulating our development and commercialization strategy. Our consultants and advisors may be employed by employers other than us and may have commitments under consulting or advisory contracts with other entities that may limit their availability to us. If we are unable to continue to attract and retain high quality personnel, our ability to pursue our growth strategy will be limited.

Our future growth depends, in part, on our ability to penetrate foreign markets, where we would be subject to additional regulatory burdens and other risks and uncertainties.

Our future profitability will depend, in part, on our ability to commercialize our product candidates in markets outside of the United States and the European Union. If we commercialize our product candidates in foreign markets, we will be subject to additional risks and uncertainties, including:

 

•

economic weakness, including inflation, or political instability in particular economies and markets;

 

•

the burden of complying with complex and changing foreign regulatory, tax, accounting and legal requirements, many of which vary between countries;

 

•

different medical practices and customs in foreign countries affecting acceptance in the marketplace;

 

•

tariffs and trade barriers;

 

•

other trade protection measures, import or export licensing requirements or other restrictive actions by U.S. or foreign governments;

•

longer accounts receivable collection times;

 

•

longer lead times for shipping;

 

•

compliance with tax, employment, immigration and labor laws for employees living or traveling abroad;

 

•

workforce uncertainty in countries where labor unrest is common;

 

•

language barriers for technical training;

 

•

reduced protection of intellectual property rights in some foreign countries, and related prevalence of generic alternatives to therapeutics;

 

•

foreign currency exchange rate fluctuations and currency controls;

 

•

differing foreign reimbursement landscapes;

 

•

uncertain and potentially inadequate reimbursement of our products; and

 

•

the interpretation of contractual provisions governed by foreign laws in the event of a contract dispute.

Foreign sales of our products could also be adversely affected by the imposition of governmental controls, political and economic instability, trade restrictions and changes in tariffs.

We expect to expand our development and regulatory capabilities and potentially implement sales, marketing and distribution capabilities, and as a result, we may encounter difficulties in managing our growth, which could disrupt our operations.

As of December 31, 2018, we had 45 employees. As our clinical development progresses, we expect to experience growth in the number of our employees and the scope of our operations, particularly in the areas of clinical operations, regulatory affairs and, if any of our product candidates receives marketing approval, sales, marketing and distribution. To manage our anticipated future growth, we must continue to implement and improve our managerial, operational and financial systems, expand our facilities and continue to recruit and train additional qualified personnel. Due to our limited financial resources and the limited experience of our management team in managing a company with such anticipated growth, we may not be able to effectively manage the expansion of our operations or recruit and train additional qualified personnel. The expansion of our operations may lead to significant costs and may divert our management and business development resources. Any inability to manage growth could delay the execution of our business plans or disrupt our operations.

Our employees, independent contractors, consultants, commercial collaborators, principal investigators, CROs and vendors may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including non-compliance with regulatory standards and requirements.

We are exposed to the risk that our employees, independent contractors, consultants, commercial collaborators, principal investigators, CROs and vendors may engage in fraudulent conduct or other illegal activity. Misconduct by these parties could include intentional, reckless or negligent conduct or unauthorized activities that violates (1) the laws and regulations of the FDA, the EMA and other similar regulatory authorities, including those laws requiring the reporting of true, complete and accurate information to such authorities, (2) manufacturing standards, (3) federal and state data privacy, security, fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations in the United States and abroad and (4) laws that require the true, complete and accurate reporting of financial information or data. In particular, sales, marketing and business arrangements in the healthcare industry are subject to extensive laws and regulations intended to prevent fraud, misconduct, kickbacks, self-dealing and other abusive practices. These laws and regulations may restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, sales commission, customer incentive programs and other business arrangements. Misconduct by these parties could also involve the improper use of individually identifiable information, including information obtained in the course of clinical trials, creating fraudulent data in our preclinical studies or clinical trials or illegal misappropriation of product candidates, which could result in regulatory sanctions and serious harm to our reputation. We have adopted a code of business conduct and ethics, but it is not always possible to identify and deter misconduct by employees and other third parties, 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 or regulations. Additionally, we are subject to the risk that a person or government could allege such fraud or other misconduct, even if none occurred. 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, including the imposition of significant civil, criminal

and administrative penalties, including damages, fines, disgorgement, individual imprisonment, exclusion from participation in government healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, additional integrity oversight and reporting obligations, contractual damages, reputational harm and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations.

Risks Related to Our Common Shares

The price of our common shares may be volatile and may fluctuate due to factors beyond our control.

The share price of our common shares has fluctuated, and is likely to continue to fluctuate substantially. The market price of our securities depends on a number of factors, including those described in this “Risk Factors” section, many of which are beyond our control and may not be related to our operating performance. The market price of our securities may fluctuate significantly in response to numerous factors, many of which are beyond our control, including

 

•

positive or negative results of preclinical studies and clinical trials reported by us, strategic partners or competitors;

 

•

any delay in the commencement, enrollment and the ultimate completion of clinical trials;

 

•

technological innovations or commercial product introductions by us or competitors;

 

•

failure to successfully develop and commercialize any of our product candidates;

 

•

developments, announcements or changes in government regulations relating to drug products, including related to drug pricing, reimbursement and healthcare coverage;

 

•

delays in in-licensing or acquiring additional complementary product candidates;

 

•

developments concerning proprietary rights, including patents and litigation matters;

 

•

public concern relating to the commercial value or safety of any of our product candidates or reproductive therapy generally;

 

•

financing or other corporate transactions, or inability to obtain additional funding;

 

•

failure to meet or exceed expectations of the investment community;

 

•

announcements by therapeutic drug product providers related to pricing of therapeutics;

 

•

announcements of significant licenses, acquisitions, strategic partnerships or joint ventures by us or our competitors;

 

•

publication of research reports or comments by securities or industry analysts;

 

•

changes in the structure of healthcare payment systems;

 

•

general market or regulatory conditions in the pharmaceutical industry or in the economy as a whole; or

 

•

other events and factors, many of which are beyond our control.

These and other market and industry factors may cause the market price and demand for our securities to fluctuate substantially, regardless of our actual operating performance, which may limit or prevent investors from selling their common shares at or above the price paid for the shares and may otherwise negatively affect the liquidity of our common shares. In addition, the stock market in general, and biopharmaceutical companies in particular, have experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have often been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of these companies.

Some companies that have experienced volatility in the trading price of their shares have been the subject of securities class action litigation. Any lawsuit to which we are a party, with or without merit, may result in an unfavorable judgment. We also may decide to settle lawsuits on unfavorable terms. Any such negative outcome could result in payments of substantial damages or fines, damage to our reputation or adverse changes to our offerings or business practices. Defending against litigation is costly and time-consuming, and could divert our management’s attention and resources. Furthermore, during the course of litigation, there could be negative public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments, which could have a negative effect on the market price of our common shares.

Concentration of ownership of our common shares among our existing executive officers, directors and principal shareholders may prevent new investors from influencing significant corporate decisions.

Based upon our common shares outstanding as of December 31, 2018, our executive officers, directors and shareholders who owned more than 5% of our outstanding common shares beneficially own, in the aggregate, approximately 41% of our outstanding common shares. These shareholders, acting together, will be able to significantly influence all matters requiring shareholder approval, including the election and removal of directors and approval of any merger, consolidation or sale of all or substantially all of our assets.

Some of these persons or entities may have interests different than our other shareholders. For example, because many of these shareholders purchased their shares at prices substantially below the price at which shares were sold in our initial public offering and have held their shares for a longer period, they may be more interested in selling our company to an acquirer than other investors, or they may want us to pursue strategies that deviate from the interests of other shareholders.

Future sales, or the possibility of future sales, of a substantial number of our common shares could adversely affect the price of our common shares.

As of December 31, 2018, 45,477,137 common shares were issued. If a substantial number of these shares were sold in the public market, or the market perceives that such sales may occur, the market price of our common shares could be adversely affected. We have entered into a registration rights agreement pursuant to which we have agreed under certain circumstances to file a registration statement to register the resale of the common shares held by certain of our existing shareholders, as well as to cooperate in certain public offerings of such common shares.

In addition, we have adopted an omnibus equity incentive plan, under which we have the discretion to grant a broad range of equity-based awards to eligible participants. We have filed a registration statement with the SEC to register the common shares that may be issued under our equity incentive plan. The common shares subject to outstanding options under our equity incentive plan, common shares reserved for future issuance under our equity incentive plan and common shares subject to outstanding warrants will become eligible for sale in the public market in the future, subject to certain legal and contractual limitations. Sales of a large number of the shares issued under these plans in the public market could have an adverse effect on the market price of our securities.

We do not expect to pay dividends in the foreseeable future.

We have not paid any dividends since our incorporation. Even if future operations lead to significant levels of distributable profits, we currently intend that any earnings will be reinvested in our business and that dividends will not be paid until we have an established revenue stream to support continuing dividends. The proposal to pay future dividends to shareholders will in addition effectively be at the discretion of our board of directors and shareholders after taking into account various factors including our business prospects, cash requirements, financial performance and new product development. In addition, payment of future dividends is subject to certain limitations pursuant to Swiss law or by our articles of association. See “Form 20-F—Item 10.B—Memorandum and Articles of Association.” Accordingly, investors cannot rely on dividend income from our common shares and any returns on an investment in our common shares will likely depend entirely upon any future appreciation in the price of our common shares.

We are a Swiss stock corporation. The rights of our shareholders may be different from the rights of shareholders in companies governed by the laws of U.S. jurisdictions.

We are a Swiss stock corporation. Our corporate affairs are governed by our articles of association and by the laws governing companies incorporated in Switzerland. The rights of our shareholders and the responsibilities of members of our board of directors may be different from the rights and obligations of shareholders and directors of companies governed by the U.S. laws. In the performance of its duties, our board of directors is required by Swiss law to consider the interests of our company, our shareholders, our employees and other stakeholders, in all cases with due observation of the principles of reasonableness and fairness. It is possible that some of these parties will have interests that are different from, or in addition to, your interests as a shareholder. Swiss corporate law limits the ability of our shareholders to challenge resolutions made or other actions taken by our board of directors in court. Our shareholders generally are not permitted to file a suit to reverse a decision or an action taken by our board of directors but are instead only permitted to seek damages for breaches of fiduciary duty. As a matter of Swiss law,

shareholder claims against a member of our board of directors for breach of fiduciary duty would have to be brought in Geneva, Switzerland, or where the relevant member of our board of directors is domiciled. In addition, under Swiss law, any claims by our shareholders against us must be brought exclusively in Geneva, Switzerland. Class actions and derivative actions as such are not available under Swiss law. In addition, Swiss corporation law restricts our ability to implement rights plans or U.S.-style “poison pills.” Also, there can be no assurance that Swiss law will not change in the future or that it will serve to protect investors in a similar fashion afforded under corporate law principles in the United States, which could adversely affect the rights of investors.

Our common shares are traded on more than one market and this may result in price variations and adversely affect the liquidity and value of our common shares.

Our common shares are listed on the Nasdaq Global Select Market and the SIX Swiss Exchange. Trading in our common shares on these markets takes place in different currencies (U.S. dollars on the Nasdaq Global Select Market and Swiss francs on the SIX Swiss Exchange), and at different times (resulting from different time zones, different trading days and different public holidays in the United States and Switzerland). The trading prices of our common shares on these two markets may differ due to these and other factors. Any decrease in the price of our common shares on the SIX Swiss Exchange could cause a decrease in the trading price of our common shares on the Nasdaq Global Select Market. Investors could seek to sell or buy our common shares to take advantage of any price differences between the markets through a practice referred to as arbitrage. Any arbitrage activity could create unexpected volatility in both our share prices on one exchange and the common shares available for trading on the other exchange.

U.S. shareholders may not be able to obtain judgments or enforce civil liabilities against us or our executive officers or members of our board of directors.

We are a Swiss stock corporation, and our jurisdiction of incorporation is Geneva, Switzerland. Moreover, a number of our directors and executive officers are not residents of the United States, and all or a substantial portion of the assets of such persons are located outside the United States. As a result, it may not be possible for investors to effect service of process within the United States upon us or upon such persons or to enforce against them judgments obtained in U.S. courts, including judgments in actions predicated upon the civil liability provisions of the federal securities laws of the United States. We have been advised by our Swiss counsel that there is doubt as to the enforceability in Switzerland of original actions, or in actions for enforcement of judgments of U.S. courts, of civil liabilities to the extent predicated upon the federal and state securities laws of the United States. Original actions against persons in Switzerland based solely upon the U.S. federal or state securities laws are governed, among other things, by the principles set forth in the Swiss Federal Act on International Private Law. This statute provides that the application of provisions of non-Swiss law by the courts in Switzerland shall be precluded if the result is incompatible with Swiss public policy. Also, mandatory provisions of Swiss law may be applicable regardless of any other law that would otherwise apply.

Switzerland and the United States do not have a treaty providing for reciprocal recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. The recognition and enforcement of a judgment of the courts of the United States in Switzerland is governed by the principles set forth in the Swiss Federal Act on Private International Law. This statute provides in principle that a judgment rendered by a non-Swiss court may be enforced in Switzerland only if:

 

•

the non-Swiss court had jurisdiction pursuant to the Swiss Federal Act on Private International Law;

 

•

the judgment of such non-Swiss court has become final and non-appealable;

 

•

the judgment does not contravene Swiss public policy;

 

•

the court procedures and the service of documents leading to the judgment were in accordance with the due process of law; and

 

•

no proceeding involving the same position and the same subject matter was first brought in Switzerland, or adjudicated in Switzerland, or was earlier adjudicated in a third state and this decision is recognizable in Switzerland.

Our status as a Swiss stock corporation means that our shareholders enjoy certain rights that may limit our flexibility to raise capital, issue dividends and otherwise manage ongoing capital needs.

Swiss law reserves for approval by shareholders certain corporate actions over which a board of directors would have authority in some other jurisdictions. For example, the payment of dividends and cancellation of treasury shares must be approved by shareholders. Swiss law also requires that our shareholders themselves resolve to, or authorize our board of directors to, increase our share capital. While our shareholders may authorize share capital that can be issued by our board of directors without additional shareholder approval, Swiss law limits this authorization to 50% of the issued share capital at the time of the authorization. The authorization, furthermore, has a limited duration of up to two years and must be renewed by the shareholders from time to time thereafter in order to be available for raising capital. Additionally, subject to specified exceptions, including exceptions explicitly described in our articles of association, Swiss law grants pre-emptive rights to existing shareholders to subscribe for new issuances of shares. Swiss law also does not provide as much flexibility in the various rights and regulations that can attach to different classes of shares as do the laws of some other jurisdictions. These Swiss law requirements relating to our capital management may limit our flexibility, and situations may arise where greater flexibility would have provided benefits to our shareholders. See “Form 20-F—Item 10.B—Memorandum and Articles of Association.”

We are a foreign private issuer and, as a result, are not subject to U.S. proxy rules and are subject to Exchange Act reporting obligations that, to some extent, are more lenient and less frequent than those of a U.S. domestic public company.

We report under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, as a non-U.S. company with foreign private issuer status. Because we qualify as a foreign private issuer under the Exchange Act and although we are subject to Swiss laws and regulations with regard to such matters and intend to furnish quarterly financial information to the SEC, we are exempt from certain provisions of the Exchange Act that are applicable to U.S. domestic public companies, including: (1) the sections of the Exchange Act regulating the solicitation of proxies, consents or authorizations in respect of a security registered under the Exchange Act; (2) the sections of the Exchange Act requiring insiders to file public reports of their share ownership and trading activities and liability for insiders who profit from trades made in a short period of time; and (3) the rules under the Exchange Act requiring the filing with the SEC of quarterly reports on Form 10-Q containing unaudited financial and other specified information, or current reports on Form 8-K, upon the occurrence of specified significant events. In addition, foreign private issuers are not required to file their annual report on Form 20-F until four months after the end of each financial 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.

As a foreign private issuer and as permitted by the listing requirements of Nasdaq, we will have the option to follow certain home country governance practices rather than the corporate governance requirements of Nasdaq.

We are a foreign private issuer. As a result, in accordance with Nasdaq Listing Rule 5615(a)(3), we may choose to comply with home country governance requirements and certain exemptions thereunder rather than complying with certain of the corporate governance requirements of Nasdaq.

Swiss law does not require that a majority of our board of directors consist of independent directors. Our board of directors therefore may include fewer independent directors than would be required if we were subject to Nasdaq Listing Rule 5605(b)(1). In addition, we are not subject to Nasdaq Listing Rule 5605(b)(2), which requires that independent directors regularly have scheduled meetings at which only independent directors are present.

Although Swiss law also requires that we set up a compensation committee, we may follow home country requirements with respect to such committee.

Our articles of association provide for an independent proxy elected by our shareholders, who may represent our shareholders at a general meeting of shareholders, and we must provide shareholders with an agenda and other relevant documents for the general meeting of shareholders. However, Swiss law does not have a regulatory regime for the solicitation of proxies and company solicitation of proxies is prohibited for public companies in Switzerland, thus our practice may vary from the requirement of Nasdaq Listing Rule 5620(b), which sets forth certain requirements regarding the solicitation of proxies. Furthermore, in accordance with Swiss law and generally accepted business practices, our articles of association do not provide quorum requirements generally applicable to general meetings of shareholders. Our practice thus varies from the requirement of Nasdaq Listing Rule 5620(c), which requires an issuer to provide in its bylaws for a generally applicable quorum, and that such quorum may not be less than one-third of the outstanding voting stock.

For an overview of our corporate governance principles, see “Form 20-F—Item 10.B—Memorandum and Articles of Association.” As a result of the above, you may not have the same protections afforded to shareholders of companies that are not foreign private issuers.

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

We are currently a foreign private issuer and therefore, are not be required to comply with all of the periodic disclosure and current reporting requirements of the Exchange Act applicable to U.S. domestic issuers. In order to maintain our current status as a foreign private issuer, either (1) a majority of our common shares must be either directly or indirectly owned of record by non-residents of the United States or (2)(a) a majority of our executive officers or directors may not be United States citizens or residents, (b) more than 50% of our assets cannot be located in the United States and (c) our business must be administered principally outside the United States. If we lost this status, we would be required to comply with the Exchange Act reporting and other requirements applicable to U.S. domestic issuers, which are more detailed and extensive than the requirements for foreign private issuers. We may also be required to make changes in our corporate governance practices in accordance with various SEC and stock exchange rules. The regulatory and compliance costs to us under U.S. securities laws if we are required to comply with the reporting requirements applicable to a U.S. domestic issuer may be significantly higher than the cost we would incur as a foreign private issuer. As a result, we expect that a loss of foreign private issuer status would increase our legal and financial compliance costs and would make some activities highly time-consuming and costly. If we lose our foreign private issuer status and are unable to devote adequate funding and the resources needed to maintain compliance with U.S. securities laws, while continuing our operations, we could be forced to deregister with the SEC. A deregistration would substantially reduce or effectively terminate the trading of our securities in the United States. We also expect that if we were required to comply with the rules and regulations applicable to U.S. domestic issuers, it would make it more difficult and expensive for us to obtain director and officer liability insurance, and we may be required to accept reduced coverage or incur substantially higher costs to obtain coverage. These rules and regulations could also make it more difficult for us to attract and retain qualified members of our board of directors.

Although we do not believe that we were a “passive foreign investment company,” or PFIC, for U.S. federal income tax purposes in prior taxable years and we do not expect to be a PFIC for our taxable year ending December 31, 2019, we currently could be or could become a PFIC in the future, which could result in adverse U.S. federal income tax consequences to U.S. holders.

Although we do not believe that we were a PFIC in prior taxable years and we do not expect to be a PFIC for our taxable year ending December 31, 2019, we could be a PFIC in our current taxable year or could become a PFIC in future taxable years. Under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, 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 average quarterly value of our assets consists of assets that produce, or are held for the production of, passive income. 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 if it held its proportionate share of the assets and received directly its proportionate share of the income of such other corporation. Passive income generally includes dividends, interest, certain rents and royalties, and capital gains.

If we are a PFIC for any taxable year during which a U.S. holder holds our shares, the U.S. holder may be subject to adverse tax consequences, including (1) the treatment of all or a portion of any gain on the disposition of our common shares as ordinary income, (2) the addition of an interest charge to the tax on such gain and (3) the obligation to comply with certain reporting requirements.

Each U.S. holder is strongly urged to consult its tax advisor regarding these issues. For further discussion of the adverse U.S. federal income tax consequences in the event we are classified as a PFIC, see “Form 20-F—Item 10.E—Taxation.”

If a United States person is treated as owning at least 10% of our common shares, such holder may be subject to adverse U.S. federal income tax consequences.

If a U.S. Holder (as defined in “Form 20-F—Item 10 E.—Taxation”) is treated as owning (directly, indirectly or constructively) at least 10% of the value or voting power of our common shares, such U.S. Holder may be treated as a “United States shareholder” with respect to each “controlled foreign corporation” in our group (if any). Because our group includes at least one U.S. subsidiary (ObsEva USA Inc.), if we were to form or acquire any non-U.S. subsidiaries in the future, they may be treated as controlled foreign corporations (regardless of whether ObsEva USA Inc. is treated as a controlled foreign corporation). A United States shareholder of a controlled foreign corporation may be required to report annually and include in its U.S. taxable income its pro rata share of “Subpart F income,” “global intangible low-taxed income” and investments in U.S. property by controlled foreign corporations, regardless of whether we make any distributions. An individual that is a United States shareholder with respect to a controlled foreign corporation generally would not be allowed certain tax deductions or foreign tax credits that would be allowed to a United States shareholder that is a U.S. corporation. Failure to comply with these reporting obligations may subject you to significant monetary penalties and may prevent the statute of limitations from starting with respect to your U.S. federal income tax return for the year for which reporting was due. We cannot provide any assurances that we will assist investors in determining whether any of our non-U.S. subsidiaries are treated as a controlled foreign corporation or whether such investor is treated as a United States shareholder with respect to any of such controlled foreign corporations. Further, we cannot provide any assurances that we will furnish to any United States shareholders information that may be necessary to comply with the aforementioned reporting and tax payment obligations. U.S. Holders should consult their tax advisors regarding the potential application of these rules to their investment in our common shares.”

As a result of changes in tax laws, treaties, rulings, regulations or agreements, or their interpretation, of Switzerland or any other country in which we operate, the loss of a major tax dispute or a successful challenge to our operating structure, intercompany pricing policies or the taxable presence of our key subsidiaries in certain countries, or other factors, our effective income tax rates may increase in the future, which could adversely affect our net income and cash flows.

We operate in multiple jurisdictions and our profits are taxed pursuant to the tax laws of these jurisdictions. Our effective income tax rate may be affected by changes in or interpretations of tax laws, treaties, rulings, regulations or agreements in any given jurisdiction, utilization of net operating loss and tax credit carryforwards, changes in geographical allocation of income and expense, and changes in management’s assessment of matters such as the realizability of deferred tax assets. In the past, we have experienced fluctuations in our effective income tax rate. Our effective income tax rate in a given fiscal year reflects a variety of factors that may not be present in the succeeding fiscal year or years. There is no assurance that our effective income tax rate will not change in future periods.

We file Swiss and non-Swiss tax returns. We are frequently subject to tax audits, examinations and assessments in various jurisdictions. If any tax authority successfully challenges our operational structure, intercompany pricing policies or the taxable presence of our key subsidiaries in certain countries, if the terms of certain income tax treaties are interpreted in a manner that is adverse to our structure, or if we lose a material tax dispute in any country, our effective income tax rate could increase. A material assessment by a governing tax authority could adversely affect our profitability. If our effective income tax rate increases in future periods, our net income and cash flows could be adversely affected.

Future changes to tax laws could materially adversely affect our company and reduce net returns to our shareholders.

The tax treatment of the company is subject to changes in tax laws, regulations and treaties, or the interpretation thereof, tax policy initiatives and reforms under consideration and the practices of tax authorities in jurisdictions in which we operate, as well as tax policy initiatives and reforms related to the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development’s, or OECD, Base Erosion and Profit Shifting, or BEPS Project, the European Commission’s state aid investigations and other initiatives.

Such changes may include (but are not limited to) the taxation of operating income, investment income, dividends received or (in the specific context of withholding tax) dividends paid. We are unable to predict what tax reform may be proposed or enacted in the future or what effect such changes would have on our business, but such changes, to the extent they are enacted in future tax legislation, regulations, policies or practices, could affect our financial position and overall or effective tax rates in the future in countries where we have operations, reduce post-tax returns to our shareholders, and increase the complexity, burden and cost of tax compliance.

On December 22, 2017, U.S. federal income tax legislation was signed into law (H.R. 1, “An Act to provide for reconciliation pursuant to titles II and V of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2018”, informally titled the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, or the Tax Act). The Tax Act, among other things, contains significant changes to corporate taxation, including (i) reduction of the corporate tax rate from a top marginal rate of 35% to a flat rate of 21%, (ii) limitation of the tax deduction for interest expense to 30% of adjusted earnings (except for certain small businesses), (iii) limitation of the deduction for net operating losses to 80% of current year taxable income in respect of net operating losses generated during or after 2018 and elimination of net operating loss carrybacks, (iv) one-time taxation of offshore earnings at reduced rates regardless of whether they are repatriated, (v) immediate deductions for certain new investments instead of deductions for depreciation expense over time, and (vi) modifying or repealing many business deductions and credits. Any federal net operating loss incurred in 2018 and in future years may now be carried forward indefinitely pursuant to the Tax Act. It is uncertain if and to what extent various states will conform to the Tax Act. We will continue to examine the impact the Tax Act may have on our business.

On May 19, 2019, the Swiss Federal Act on Tax Reform and AHV Financing, or TRAF, was approved by a public vote. The TRAF, among other things, contains significant changes to corporate taxation, including (i) the elimination of certain preferential tax regimes at both the federal and cantonal levels with certain transitional rules, (ii) the introduction of a mandatory cantonal patent box in line with the standards of the OECD, (iii) the introduction of R&D super deductions for R&D costs incurred in Switzerland, (iv) the introduction of an optional notional interest deduction in cantons with higher tax rates, (v) the introduction of a maximum relief limitation and (vi) the introduction of a limitation of the ability of Swiss resident corporations listed on a Swiss stock exchange to distribute dividends out of capital contributions exempt from withholding tax (these companies can only pay 50% of their annual dividend distributions out of capital contribution reserves). In addition, the cantons will implement new tax rates. The measures should enter into force in 2020. As a result, we expect that the standard combined (federal, cantonal, communal) effective corporate income tax rate, except for dividend income for which we could claim a participation exemption, will be approximately 14% for 2020 in the canton of Geneva. However, the standard effective corporate income tax rate in the canton of Geneva can change from time to time.

Our ability to use our net operating loss carryforwards to offset future taxable income may be subject to certain limitations.

Our U.S. net operating loss, or NOL, carryforwards generated in tax years ending on or prior to December 31, 2017, are only permitted to be carried forward for 20 years under applicable U.S. tax law. Under the Tax Act, our federal NOLs generated in tax years ending after December 31, 2017, may be carried forward indefinitely, but the deductibility of such federal NOLs generated in tax years beginning after December 31, 2017, is limited. It is uncertain if and to what extent various states will conform to the Tax Act. In addition, under Sections 382 and 383 of the Code and corresponding provisions of state law, if a corporation undergoes an “ownership change,” which is generally defined as a greater than 50% change, by value, in its equity ownership over a three-year period, the corporation’s ability to use its pre-change NOL carryforwards and other pre-change U.S. tax attributes to offset its post-change income or taxes may be limited. We may experience ownership changes in the future as a result of subsequent shifts in our stock ownership.

As a result, our pre-2018 NOL carryforwards may expire prior to being used, and our NOL carryforwards generated in 2018 and thereafter will be subject to a percentage limitation. In addition, it is possible that we have in the past undergone, and in the future may undergo, additional ownership changes that could limit our ability to use all of our

pre-change NOLs and other pre-change tax attributes to offset our post-change income or taxes. Similar provisions of state tax law may also apply to limit our use of accumulated state tax attributes. In addition, at the state level, there may be periods during which the use of NOLs is suspended or otherwise limited, which could accelerate or permanently increase state taxes owed. As a result, we may be unable to use all or a material portion of our NOLs and other tax attributes, which could adversely affect our future cash flows.

Our NOL carryforwards are only permitted to be carried forward for seven years under applicable Swiss tax law. As a result, our NOL carryforwards may expire prior to being used and we may be unable to use all or a material portion of our NOLs, which could adversely affect our future cash flows.

We are an “emerging growth company,” and we cannot be certain if the reduced reporting requirements applicable to “emerging growth companies” will make our common shares less attractive to investors.

We are an “emerging growth company,” as defined in the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 2012, or the JOBS Act. For as long as we continue to be an “emerging growth company,” we may take advantage of exemptions from various reporting requirements that are applicable to other public companies that are not “emerging growth companies,” including not being required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, exemptions from the requirements of holding a nonbinding advisory vote on executive compensation and shareholder approval of any golden parachute payments not previously approved. As an “emerging growth company,” we are required to report only two years of financial results and selected financial data compared to three and five years, respectively, for comparable data reported by other public companies. We may take advantage of these exemptions until we are no longer an “emerging growth company.” We could be an “emerging growth company” for up to five years, although circumstances could cause us to lose that status earlier, including if the aggregate market value of our common shares held by non-affiliates exceeds $700 million as of any June 30 (the end of our second fiscal quarter) before that time, in which case we would no longer be an “emerging growth company” as of the following December 31 (our fiscal year end). We cannot predict if investors will find our common shares less attractive because we may rely on these exemptions. If some investors find our common shares less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for our common shares and the price of our common shares may be more volatile.

If we fail to maintain an effective system of internal control over financial reporting, we may not be able to accurately report our financial results or prevent fraud. As a result, shareholders could lose confidence in our financial and other public reporting, which would harm our business and the trading price of our common shares.

Effective internal controls over financial reporting are necessary for us to provide reliable financial reports and, together with adequate disclosure controls and procedures, are designed to prevent fraud. Any failure to implement required new or improved controls, or difficulties encountered in their implementation could cause us to fail to meet our reporting obligations. In addition, any testing by us conducted in connection with Section 404, or any subsequent testing by our independent registered public accounting firm, may reveal deficiencies in our internal controls over financial reporting that are deemed to be material weaknesses or that may require prospective or retroactive changes to our financial statements or identify other areas for further attention or improvement. Inferior internal controls could also cause investors to lose confidence in our reported financial information, which could have a negative effect on the trading price of our common shares.

We are required to disclose changes made in our internal controls and procedures on a quarterly basis and our management is required to assess the effectiveness of these controls annually. However, for as long as we are an “emerging growth company” under the JOBS Act, our independent registered public accounting firm will not be required to attest to the effectiveness of our internal controls over financial reporting pursuant to Section 404. We could be an “emerging growth company” for up to five years. An independent assessment of the effectiveness of our internal controls could detect problems that our management’s assessment might not. Undetected material weaknesses in our internal controls could lead to financial statement restatements and require us to incur the expense of remediation.

If equity research analysts do not publish research or reports, or publish unfavorable research or reports, about us, our business or our market, our share price and trading volume could decline.

The trading market for our common shares is influenced by the research and reports that equity research analysts publish about us or our business, our market and our competitors. As a new public company, we have only limited research coverage by equity research analysts. Equity research analysts may elect not to initiate or continue to provide research coverage of our common shares, and such lack of research coverage may adversely affect the market price of our common shares. Even if we have equity research analyst coverage, we will not have any control over the analysts or the content and opinions included in their reports. The price of our shares could decline if one or more equity research analysts downgrade our shares or issue other unfavorable commentary or research. If one or more equity research analysts ceases coverage of our company or fails to publish reports on us regularly, demand for our shares could decrease, which in turn could cause our share price or trading volume to decline.