RISK FACTORS

You should carefully consider all the following risk factors, together with all of the other information in this proxy statement/prospectus, including the financial statements and other financial information included herein, before deciding how to vote or instruct your vote to be cast to approve the proposals described in this proxy statement/prospectus.

Investing in the Roivant Common Shares involves a high degree of risk. You should consider carefully the following risks, together with all the other information in this proxy statement/prospectus, including the combined and consolidated financial statements and notes thereto, as well as the risks, uncertainties and other information set forth in the reports and other materials filed or furnished by MAAC and by Roivant’s majority-controlled subsidiary Immunovant, Inc. (“Immunovant”), with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”), before you invest in the Roivant Common Shares. The value of your investment following the completion of the Business Combination will be subject to significant risks affecting, among other things, Roivant’s business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. If any of the following risks or the risks included in the public filings of Immunovant actually materializes following the Business Combination, Roivant’s operating results, financial condition and liquidity could be materially adversely affected. As a result, the trading price of the Roivant Common Shares could decline and you could lose part or all of your investment.

Risks Related to Roivant’s Business and Industry

Unless the context otherwise requires, references in this subsection “—Risks Related to Roivant’s Business and Industry” to “we,” “us,” “our” and the “Company” refer to Roivant and its subsidiaries and affiliates in the present tense or from and after the consummation of the Business Combination, as the context requires.

Risks Related to Our Financial Position and Strategy

Our limited operating history and the inherent uncertainties and risks involved in biopharmaceutical product development may make it difficult for us to execute on our business model and for you to assess our future viability. We have never generated product revenue from the commercialization of our drug product candidates, and there is no guarantee that we will do so in the future.

We are a biopharmaceutical and healthcare technology company with a limited operating history upon which you can evaluate our business and prospects. We were formed in April 2014, and our operations to date have been limited to acquiring or in-licensing product candidates or developing technologies for the discovery, development, and commercialization of product candidates, starting or acquiring subsidiary businesses, which we refer to as the Vants, in which to house those product candidates or technologies, and hiring management teams to operate the Vants and oversee the development of our product candidates and technologies.

Our ability to execute on our business model and generate revenues depends on a number of factors including our ability to:

30

If we cannot successfully execute any one of the foregoing, our business may not succeed and the price of our common shares may be negatively impacted.

Biopharmaceutical product development, which represents the core of our business model, is a highly speculative undertaking and involves a significant degree of risk. Our product candidates will require substantial development time – including extensive clinical, and in some cases pre-clinical, research and development – and resources before we would be able to apply for or receive applicable regulatory approvals and begin generating revenue from product sales.

We have not yet demonstrated an ability to successfully acquire regulatory clearance, develop or manufacture a commercial scale product, or arrange for a third-party to do so on our behalf, or conduct sales and marketing activities necessary for successful biopharmaceutical product commercialization. We have generated minimal revenues to date, and no revenues from the commercialization of our drug product candidates. Consequently, we have limited operations upon which to evaluate our business and predictions about our future success or viability may not be as accurate as they could be if we had a longer operating history or a history of successfully developing and commercializing biopharmaceutical product candidates.

Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with biopharmaceutical product development, we are unable to predict the timing or amount of increased expenses, or when we will be able to generate any meaningful revenue or achieve or maintain profitability, if ever. Our expenses could increase beyond expectations if we are required by the FDA or comparable non-U.S. regulatory authorities to perform studies or clinical trials in addition to those that are currently anticipated or to otherwise provide data beyond that which we currently believe is necessary to support an application for marketing approval or to continue clinical development, or if there are any delays in any of our or our future collaborators’ clinical trials or the development of our product candidates that we may identify. Even if a product is approved for commercial sale, we could incur significant costs associated with the commercial launch of any such product.

We may never be able to develop or commercialize a marketable drug or achieve profitability. Revenue from the sale of any product candidate for which regulatory approval is obtained will be dependent, in part, upon the size of the markets in the territories for which we gain regulatory approval, the accepted price for the product, the ability to obtain reimbursement at any price, the strength and term of patent exclusivity for the product, the competitive landscape of the product market, and whether we own the commercial rights for that territory. Even if we achieve profitability in the future, we may not be able to sustain profitability in subsequent periods. Our failure to achieve sustained profitability would depress the value of our company and could impair our ability to raise capital, expand our business, expand our pipeline, market our product candidates, if approved, and pursue or continue our operations. Our prior losses, combined with expected future losses, have had and will continue to have an adverse effect on our shareholders’ equity and working capital.

31

We will likely incur significant operating losses for the foreseeable future and may never achieve or maintain profitability.

Investment in biopharmaceutical product development is highly speculative because it entails substantial upfront capital expenditures and significant risk that a product candidate will fail to gain regulatory approval or become commercially viable. None of our current product candidates has received marketing approval anywhere in the world and we have not generated any product revenues from the commercial sale of our biopharmaceutical products. We cannot estimate with precision the extent of our future losses. We may never generate product revenue from the commercial sales of our product candidates or achieve profitability.

We expect to continue to incur substantial operating losses through the projected commercialization of our product candidates. Our ability to generate product revenue and achieve profitability is dependent on the ability to complete the development of our product candidates, obtain necessary regulatory approvals and manufacture and successfully market product candidates alone or in collaboration with others.

If we do successfully obtain regulatory approval to market product candidates, our revenue will be dependent upon, in part and among other things, the size of the markets in the territories for which we gain regulatory approval, the number of competitors in such markets, the accepted price for product candidates and whether we own the commercial rights for those territories. If the indication approved by regulatory authorities is narrower than expected, or the treatment population is narrowed by competition, physician choice or treatment guidelines, we may not generate significant revenue from sales of our product candidates, even if approved. We cannot assure you that we will be profitable even if we successfully commercialize our product candidates.

The ongoing global pandemic resulting from the outbreak of the novel strain of coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, which causes COVID-19, could adversely impact our business, including our clinical trials and pre-clinical studies.

Public health crises such as pandemics or similar outbreaks could adversely impact our business. In December 2019, a novel strain of coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, which causes COVID-19, emerged. COVID-19 has since spread globally, including to the countries in which we and our other business partners conduct business. Governments in affected regions have implemented, and may continue to implement or re-implement, safety precautions, including quarantines, travel restrictions, business closures, cancellations of public gatherings and other measures they deem necessary. Like many other organizations and individuals, we and our employees have taken additional steps to avoid or reduce infection, including limiting travel and implementing remote work arrangements. We will continue to actively monitor the situation and may take further actions that could alter our business operations as may be required by national, state or local authorities, or that we determine are in the best interests of our employees and shareholders.

As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and policy responses to it, in April and May 2020 we initially observed a decrease in both patient screening and patient enrollment in certain of our ongoing clinical trials. Patient screening and the number of patients eligible for enrollment in our clinical trials has since returned to expected levels. However, some of our development programs have been delayed. Together with our investigators and clinical sites, we continue to assess the impact of the coronavirus pandemic on enrollment and the ability to maintain patients enrolled in our clinical trials and the corresponding impact on the timing of the completion of our ongoing clinical trials. We have experienced, or may in the future experience, disruptions as a result of COVID-19 or future pandemics that severely impact our business, clinical trials and pre-clinical studies, including:

32

These and other factors arising from the COVID-19 pandemic, including risks relating to the emergence of new variants, the efficacy and availability of vaccines, the pandemic worsening in countries that are already afflicted with COVID-19 or the COVID-19 pandemic continuing to spread to additional countries or returning to countries where the pandemic has been partially contained, could further adversely impact our ability to conduct clinical trials and our business generally, and could have a material adverse impact on our operations and financial condition and results.

We do not yet know the full extent of potential delays or impacts on our business, our clinical trials, healthcare systems or the global economy as a whole. However, these effects could have a material impact on our operations and we are continuing to monitor developments related to COVID-19 closely.

To the extent the COVID-19 pandemic adversely affects our business and financial results, it may also have the effect of heightening many of the other risks described elsewhere in “Risk Factors”, such as those relating to our clinical development operations, the supply chain for our ongoing and planned clinical trials and our ability to seek and receive regulatory approvals for our product candidates.

We may not be successful in our efforts to acquire, in-license or discover new product candidates.

The success of our business is highly dependent on our ability to successfully identify new product candidates, whether through acquisitions or in-licensing transactions, or through our internal discovery capabilities. Our acquisition and in-licensing efforts focus on identifying assets in development by third parties across a diverse range of therapeutic areas that, in our view, are underutilized or undervalued. Our strategy often entails designing low-cost studies that result in quick “go/no-go” decisions when deciding whether or how to proceed with future development for a given asset, once acquired. We may decide to proceed with the development of a drug candidate on this basis

33

and later determine that the more costly and time intensive trials do not support the initial value the product was thought to hold. Even if a product candidate does prove to be valuable, its value may be less than anticipated at the time of investment. We may also face competition for attractive investment opportunities. A number of entities compete with us for such opportunities, many of which have considerably greater financial and technical resources. If we are unable to identify a sufficient number of such product candidates, or if the product candidates that we identify do not prove to be as valuable as anticipated, we will not be able to generate returns and implement our investment strategy and our business and results of operations may suffer materially.

Our drug discovery efforts are centered on our targeted protein degradation platform and our computational discovery technology. As a company we have relatively limited experience in drug discovery generally, with targeted protein degradation as an approach to target inhibition and with computational discovery as a technology. Our future success depends, in part, on our ability to successfully use targeted protein degradation and computational discovery technology to identify promising new product candidates.

Very few small molecule product candidates using targeted protein degradation, such as the product candidates which may be generated by our targeted protein degradation platform, have been tested in humans and none has been approved in the United States or Europe. The data underlying the feasibility of developing therapeutic products based on protein degradation technology is both preliminary and limited. We have not yet succeeded and may not succeed in advancing any product candidates developed using our targeted protein degradation platform into clinical trials, demonstrating the efficacy and safety of such product candidates or obtain marketing approval thereafter. As a result, it is difficult to predict the time and cost of protein degrader product candidate development and we cannot predict whether the application of our targeted protein degradation platform will result in the development and marketing approval of any products. Any problems we experience in the future related to this platform or any of our related development programs may cause significant delays or unanticipated costs or may prevent the development of a commercially viable product. Any of these factors may prevent us from completing our preclinical studies or any clinical trials that we may initiate or commercializing any internally discovered product candidates we may develop on a timely or profitable basis, if at all.

Although we believe that our computational discovery platform has the potential to identify more promising molecules than traditional research methods and to accelerate drug discovery efforts, our focus on using our platform technology to discover and design molecules with therapeutic potential may not result in the discovery and development of commercially viable products for us. Computational discovery is a relatively new approach to drug development. As an organization, we have not yet developed any product candidates using this technology that have advanced into clinical trials and we may fail to identify potential product candidates for clinical development. Even if we are able to advance product candidates identified through our computational discovery platform into clinical trials, those trials may not be successful in demonstrating the efficacy and safety of such product candidates and, as a result, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approvals for those product candidates.

Any such failure to in-license or acquire new product candidates from third parties, or to discover new product candidates using our targeted protein degradation or computational discovery platforms would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Because we have multiple programs and product candidates in our development pipeline and are pursuing a variety of target indications and treatment approaches, we may expend our limited resources to pursue a particular product candidate and fail to capitalize on development opportunities or product candidates that may be more profitable or for which there is a greater likelihood of success.

We have limited financial and management resources. As a result, we may forego or delay pursuit of opportunities with potential target indications or product candidates that later prove to have greater commercial potential than our current and planned development programs and product candidates. Our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial product candidates or profitable market

34

opportunities. Our spending on current and future research and development programs and other future product candidates for specific indications may not yield any commercially viable future product candidates. If we do not accurately evaluate the commercial potential or target market for a particular product candidate, we may be required to 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 future product candidates.

Additionally, we may pursue additional in-licenses or acquisitions of product candidates or programs, which entails additional risk to us. Identifying, selecting and acquiring promising product candidates requires substantial technical, financial and human resources expertise. Efforts to do so may not result in the actual acquisition or license of a successful product candidate, potentially resulting in a diversion of our management’s time and the expenditure of our resources with no resulting benefit. For example, if we are unable to identify programs that ultimately result in approved products, we may spend material amounts of our capital and other resources evaluating, acquiring and developing products that ultimately do not provide a return on our investment.

We face risks associated with the Vant structure.

We develop our product candidates in the Vants, which operate similarly to independent biopharmaceutical companies. While we believe that there are significant competitive advantages to this structure, as compared to traditional pharmaceutical companies or smaller biopharma companies, the Vant structure also poses certain risks for our business.

Operating the Vants independently, rather than under a centralized, consolidated management team, may result in increased costs at the Vants, as certain functions or processes, including clinical and non-clinical personnel, business development, finance, accounting, human resources and legal functions, are replicated across the Vants. There may also be certain start-up costs, associated with the establishment of a new Vant or integration of a newly acquired business into a Vant, which are greater under the Vant model than they would be under a centralized model. The use of the Vant model may also entail increased costs at Roivant centrally, including the time and expenses associated with hiring Vant CEOs and management teams, overseeing Vant equity incentive arrangements and managing compliance-related risks, including the internal controls, reporting systems and procedures necessary for Roivant to operate as a public company. We may also be exposed to increased “key employee” risks, in the event a Vant CEO were to depart, including the loss of other senior Vant personnel, potentially resulting in significant delays to the development programs at the Vant. These increased expenses, complexities and other challenges may make using and scaling the Vant model more challenging and costly than it would be for a traditional pharmaceutical company to both operate and expand the number of product candidates under development, which could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated business, financial condition, results of operations or prospects. This decentralized model could also make compliance with applicable laws and regulations more challenging to monitor and may expose us to increased costs that could, in turn, harm our business, financial condition, results of operations or prospects.

In addition, a single or limited number of the Vants may, now or in the future, comprise a large proportion of our value. Similarly, a large proportion of our consolidated revenues may in the future be derived from one or a small number of Vants. Any adverse development at those Vants, including the termination of a key license agreement or other loss of the intellectual property underlying a product candidate or the failure of a clinical trial for a product candidate under development at the Vant, could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated business, financial condition, results of operations or prospects.

We manage the Vants in part through Roivant designees who serve on the Vant boards of directors. In their capacities as directors, those individuals owe fiduciary duties to the Vants and its shareholders under applicable law, which may at times require them to take actions that are not directly in Roivant’s interest. To the extent any such actions have an adverse effect on the value of Roivant’s ownership interest in the Vant, it could further adversely impact our consolidated business, financial condition, results of operations or prospects.

35

Our business may suffer reputational harm due to failures of our product candidates.

The failure of any of our product candidates could have a lasting negative impact on our reputation, which could, in turn, impact our ability to successfully enter into future licensing arrangements or other transactions with potential counterparties, raise future capital or attract key personnel to join us. As a result, our business and prospects would be materially harmed and our results of operations and financial condition would likely suffer materially.

Milestone and royalty payments that we are obligated to pay may be greater than anticipated.

Our model for asset in-licensing transactions typically involves a low upfront payment combined with milestone and royalty payments contingent upon the achievement of certain future development and commercial events. These arrangements generally involve a payment or payments upon certain regulatory milestones, including regulatory approval, and then upon achieving specified levels of sales, with ongoing royalty payments which can extend for up to the life of a product. These payments may become due before a product is generating revenues, in which case we may not have sufficient funds available to meet our obligations. If this were to occur, we would default on our payment obligations and could face penalties, delays in development or reputational damage. Even if a product is commercialized and generating revenue, payments could become due that are so large that the investment is not profitable or is less profitable than anticipated. For example, this could occur if at the time of the initial investment, we overestimated the value of the product and agreed to a payment schedule using these inflated estimates. If we are unable to pay milestone and royalty payments or if such payments are greater than anticipated, our business and prospects could suffer.

Our investment strategy and future growth relies on a number of assumptions, some or all which may not be realized.

Our investment strategy and plans for future growth rely on a number of assumptions, including, in the case of our biopharmaceutical product candidates, assumptions related to adoption of a particular therapy, incidence of an indication, use of a product candidate versus competitor therapies and size of patient populations. Some or all of these assumptions may be incorrect. We cannot accurately predict whether our product candidates will achieve significant market acceptance in line with these assumptions or whether there will be a market for our product candidates that reaches that which is anticipated. If any of these assumptions are incorrect or overstated, our results and future prospects will be materially and adversely affected.

If we enter into acquisitions or strategic partnerships, this may increase our capital requirements, dilute our shareholders, cause us to incur debt or assume contingent liabilities and subject us to other risks.

We may engage in various acquisitions and strategic partnerships in the future, including licensing or acquiring new product candidates, intellectual property rights, technologies or businesses. Any acquisition or strategic partnership may entail numerous risks, including:

36

In addition, if we undertake such a transaction, we may issue dilutive securities, assume or incur debt obligations, incur large one-time expenses and acquire intangible assets that could result in significant future amortization expense.

We face risks associated with our ongoing strategic alliance with Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma Co., Ltd., as well as other acquisitions, partnerships, alliances or strategic transactions we may undertake in the future.

In December 2019, we and Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma Co., Ltd. (“Sumitomo”) completed various transactions in connection with the formation of a strategic alliance between the companies, including (i) Sumitomo indirectly acquiring from us our controlling equity interests in five affiliates, (ii) our granting Sumitomo options to purchase, subject to certain exceptions, our existing equity interests in six other privately-held Roivant affiliates, (iii) our granting Sumitomo access to key elements of our proprietary technology platforms and (iv) issuing our common shares to Sumitomo. In exchange, Sumitomo made a $3.0 billion upfront cash payment to us upon the closing of the transactions.

We face a number of risks in connection with our transactions with Sumitomo, including, but not limited to:

We may also face similar risks in connection with any other mergers, acquisitions, divestitures or strategic alliances that we have undertaken in the past or may undertake in the future, including our acquisition of Oncopia Therapeutics, which closed in November 2020, and of Silicon Therapeutics, which closed in March 2021. If we acquire businesses with promising technologies, we may not be able to realize the benefits of acquiring such businesses, including any anticipated synergies between the acquired business and our existing business, if we are unable to successfully integrate them with our existing operations, technology and company culture.

In addition, any such mergers, acquisitions, divestitures or strategic alliances may be complex, time consuming and expensive to execute and may be subject to regulatory requirements that could impact our business. There can be no guarantee that we will be able to successfully consummate such acquisitions or other arrangements, which could result in a significant diversion of management and other employee time, as well as substantial out-of-pocket costs. For example, on March 8, 2021, we filed an amendment to our Schedule 13D,

37

relating to our ownership interest in our subsidiary Immunovant, announcing our intention to propose to Immunovant that Roivant and Immunovant evaluate a potential transaction pursuant to which Roivant or an affiliate would acquire all of the issued and outstanding shares of Immunovant’s common stock not currently owned by Roivant (the “Potential Immunovant Transaction”). If that transaction or other transactions are not completed for any reason, we may incur significant costs and the market price of our common shares – and, in the case of the Potential Immunovant Transaction, the market price of Immunovant’s common stock – may decline. In addition, even if an acquisition is consummated, the integration of the acquired business, product or other assets into our Company may be complex and time-consuming, and we may not achieve the anticipated benefits, cost-savings or growth opportunities we expect. Potential difficulties that may be encountered in the integration process include the following: integrating personnel, operations and systems; coordinating geographically dispersed organizations; distracting management and employees from current operations; maintaining the existing business relationships of the acquired company; and managing inefficiencies associated with integrating the operations of the Company and the acquired business, product or other assets. For biopharmaceutical businesses we have acquired or may acquire in the future, or alliances or joint ventures in the biopharmaceutical industry, we may encounter numerous difficulties in developing, manufacturing and marketing any new drugs related to such businesses, which may delay or prevent us from realizing the expected benefits or enhancing our business. We cannot assure you that, following any such acquisition, alliance or partnership, we will achieve the expected synergies to justify the transaction.

Our failure to address these risks or other problems encountered in connection with the strategic alliance with Sumitomo, or other past or future acquisitions, partnerships or strategic alliances could cause us to fail to realize the anticipated benefits of these transactions, incur unanticipated liabilities and harm our business generally. There is also a risk that current or future acquisitions will result in the shareholder litigation, incurrence of debt, contingent liabilities, amortization expenses or incremental operating expenses, any of which could harm our financial condition or results of operations.

If we obtain a controlling interest in additional companies in the future, it could adversely affect our operating results and the value of our common shares, thereby disrupting our business.

As part of our strategy, we expect to form and invest in additional wholly-owned and majority-owned subsidiaries. Investments in our existing and any future subsidiaries involve numerous risks, including, but not necessarily limited to, risks related to:

If we fail to properly evaluate potential acquisitions, in-licenses, investments or other transactions associated with the creation of new research and development programs or the maintenance of existing ones, we might not achieve the anticipated benefits of any such transaction, we might incur costs in excess of what we anticipate, and management resources and attention might be diverted from other necessary or valuable activities.

38

We will require additional capital to fund our operations, and if we fail to obtain necessary financing, we may not be able to complete the development and commercialization of our product candidates.

We expect to spend substantial capital to complete the development of, seek regulatory approvals for and commercialize our biopharmaceutical product candidates, as well as to advance the development of our healthcare technologies. Because the length of time and activities associated with successful development of our biopharmaceutical product candidates is highly uncertain, and due to the inherent challenges and uncertainties associated with the development of novel healthcare technologies, we are unable to estimate with certainty the actual funds we will require to execute on our strategy.

Our future funding requirements, both near- and long-term, will depend on many factors, including, but not limited to:

We cannot be certain that additional capital will be available on acceptable terms, or at all. If we are unable to raise additional capital in sufficient amounts or on terms acceptable to us, we may have to significantly delay, scale back or discontinue the development or commercialization of any product candidate, delay the launch or expansion of a given healthcare technology product or potentially discontinue our operations altogether. In addition, attempting to secure additional capital may divert the time and attention of our management from day-to-day activities and harm our business. Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with our business, we are unable to estimate the amounts of increased capital outlays, operating expenditures and capital requirements associated with our current product development programs and technology products.

We expect that significant additional capital will be needed in the future to continue our planned operations, including with respect to fulfilling our and the Vants’ human resources needs, which may be costly. Until such time, if ever, that we can generate substantial revenues, we expect to continue to finance our cash needs through

39

a combination of equity offerings, debt financings, strategic alliances and license and development agreements or other collaborations both at our parent and at certain affiliates. To the extent that we raise additional capital by issuing equity securities at the parent or subsidiary level, our existing shareholders’ ownership, or our ownership in our subsidiaries, may experience substantial dilution, and the terms of these securities may include liquidation or other preferences that could harm the rights of a common shareholder. Additionally, any agreements for future debt or preferred equity financings, if available, may involve covenants limiting or restricting our ability to take specific actions, such as incurring additional debt, making capital expenditures or declaring dividends. If we raise additional funds through collaborations, strategic alliances or marketing, distribution or licensing arrangements with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our product candidates, future revenue streams, research programs or technologies, or grant licenses on terms that may not be favorable to us. The foregoing restrictions associated with potential sources of additional capital may make it more difficult for us to raise additional capital or to pursue business opportunities, including potential acquisitions. If we are unable to obtain adequate financing or financing on terms satisfactory to us, if and when we require it, our ability to grow or support our business and to respond to business challenges could be significantly limited.

Risks Related to the Development of Our Product Candidates

Clinical trials and pre-clinical studies are very expensive, time-consuming, difficult to design and implement and involve uncertain outcomes. We may encounter substantial delays in clinical trials, or may not be able to conduct or complete clinical trials or pre-clinical studies on the expected timelines, if at all.

Our biopharmaceutical product candidates are in clinical development or pre-clinical studies and will require extensive clinical testing before an Investigational New Drug (“IND”), New Drug Application (“NDA”) or other similar application for regulatory approval, such as a Biologics License Application (“BLA”), may be submitted. We cannot provide you any assurance that we will submit an ID, NDA or other similar application for regulatory approval for our product candidates within projected timeframes or whether any such application will be approved by the relevant regulatory authorities.

Clinical trials and pre-clinical studies are very expensive, time-consuming and difficult to design and implement, in part because they are subject to rigorous regulatory requirements. For instance, the FDA, an institutional review board (“IRB”) or other regulatory authorities may not agree with the proposed analysis plans or trial design for the clinical trials of our product candidates, and during any such review, may identify unexpected efficacy or safety concerns, which may delay the approval of an NDA or similar application. The FDA may also find that the benefits of any product candidate in any applicable indication do not outweigh its risks in a manner sufficient to grant regulatory approval.

The FDA or other regulatory authorities may also not agree with the scope of our proposed investigational plan. For example, they may find that our proposed development program is not sufficient to support a marketing authorization application, or that the proposed indication is considered to be too broad. Moreover, the FDA or other regulatory authorities may also refuse or impose certain restrictions on our reliance on data supporting our marketing authorization application should such data originate from studies outside of the relevant jurisdiction. In each case, this could delay the clinical development timeline for a given product candidate.

Failures can occur at any stage of clinical trials or pre-clinical studies, and we could encounter problems that cause us to abandon or repeat clinical trials or pre-clinical studies. In addition, results from clinical trials or pre-clinical studies may require further evaluation, delaying the next stage of development or submission of an NDA or similar application. Further, product candidates in later stages of clinical trials may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy traits despite having progressed through nonclinical studies and initial clinical trials, and such product candidates may exhibit safety signals in later stage clinical trials that they did not exhibit in pre-clinical or early-stage clinical trials. A number of companies in the biopharmaceutical industry have suffered significant setbacks in or the discontinuation of advanced clinical trials due to lack of efficacy or adverse safety profiles, notwithstanding promising results in earlier trials or studies. Likewise, the results of early clinical trials

40

or pre-clinical studies of our product candidates may not be predictive of the results of planned development programs, and there can be no assurance that the results of studies conducted by collaborators or other third parties will be viewed favorably or are indicative of our own future trial results.

The commencement and completion of pre-clinical studies and clinical trials may be delayed by several factors, including:

In addition, disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic increase the likelihood that we encounter such difficulties or delays in initiating, enrolling, conducting or completing our planned and ongoing clinical trials. Further, we, the FDA or other regulatory authorities may suspend our clinical trials in an entire country at any time, or an IRB/EC may suspend our clinical trial sites within any country, if it appears that we or our collaborators are failing to conduct a trial in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements, including GCP regulations, that we are exposing participants to unacceptable health risks, or if the FDA or other regulatory authority finds deficiencies in our IND or equivalent applications for other countries or in the manner in which clinical trials are conducted. Therefore, we cannot predict with any certainty the schedule for commencement and completion of future clinical trials.

41

If we experience delays in the commencement or completion of our clinical trials, or if we terminate a clinical trial prior to completion, the commercial prospects of our product candidates could be harmed, and our ability to generate product revenue from any of our product candidates, if approved, may be delayed. In addition, any delays in our clinical trials could increase our costs, slow down the approval process, and jeopardize our ability to commence product sales and generate revenue. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition and results of operations. In addition, many of the factors that cause or lead to a termination or suspension of, or 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 make formulation or manufacturing changes to our product candidates, in which case we may need to conduct additional pre-clinical or clinical studies to bridge our modified product candidates to earlier versions. Any delays to our clinical trials that occur as a result could shorten any period during which we may have the exclusive right to commercialize our product candidates and our competitors may be able to bring product candidates to market before we do, and the commercial viability of our product candidates could be significantly reduced.

Moreover, principal investigators for our clinical trials may serve as scientific advisors or consultants to us from time to time and receive compensation in connection with such services. Under certain circumstances, we may be required to report some of these relationships to the FDA or other regulatory authorities. The FDA or other regulatory authorities may conclude that a financial relationship between us and a principal investigator has created a conflict of interest or otherwise affected the integrity of the study. The FDA or other regulatory authority may therefore question the integrity of the data generated at the applicable clinical trial site and the utility of the clinical trial itself may be jeopardized. This could result in a delay in approval, or rejection, of our marketing applications by the FDA or other regulatory authority, as the case may be, and may ultimately lead to the denial of marketing approval of any of our product candidates.

In addition, for our product candidates in clinical development, prior to our acquisition of the rights to those product candidates we had no involvement with or control over the pre-clinical or clinical development of those product candidates. We are therefore dependent on our licensing and other transaction partners having conducted such research and development in accordance with the applicable protocol and legal, regulatory and scientific standards, having accurately reported the results of all clinical trials and other research they conducted prior to our acquisition of the rights to product candidates, having correctly collected and interpreted the data from these trials and other research and having supplied us with complete information, data sets and reports required to adequately demonstrate the results reported through the date of our acquisition of these product candidates. Problems associated with the pre-acquisition development of our product candidates could result in increased costs and delays in the development of our product candidates, which could harm our ability to generate any future revenue from sales of product candidates, if approved.

Our approach to the discovery and development of product candidates from our targeted protein degradation platform is unproven, which makes it difficult to predict the time, cost of development and likelihood of successfully developing any product candidates from this platform.

Treating diseases using targeted protein degradation is a new treatment approach. Our future success depends in part on the successful development of this novel therapeutic approach. Very few small molecule product candidates using targeted protein degradation have been tested in humans. None have been approved in the United States or Europe, and the data underlying the feasibility of developing these types of therapeutic products is both preliminary and limited. If any adverse learnings are made by other developers of chimeric targeting molecules, development of these product candidates could be materially impacted, which could in turn adversely impact our financial condition and future growth.

The scientific research that forms the basis of our efforts to develop our degrader product candidates is ongoing and the scientific evidence to support the feasibility of developing these treatments is both preliminary and limited. In addition, we may be unable to replicate the scientific evidence supporting our protein degrader candidates observed by our academic collaborators in commercial laboratories.

42

Further, certain cancer patients have shown inherent primary resistance to approved drugs that inhibit disease-causing proteins and other patients have developed acquired secondary resistance to these inhibitors. Although we believe our products candidates may have the ability to degrade the specific mutations that confer resistance to currently marketed inhibitors of disease-causing enzymes, any inherent primary or acquired secondary resistance to our product candidates in patients, or if the research proves to be contradicted, would prevent or diminish their clinical benefit.

We have not yet completed IND-enabling work for, or initiated a clinical trial of, any product candidate associated with our targeted protein degradation platform and we have not yet assessed the safety of any of these product candidates in humans. Although some of our product candidates have produced observable results in animal studies, there is a limited safety data set for their effects in animals. In addition, these product candidates may not demonstrate the same chemical and pharmacological properties in humans and may interact with human biological systems in unforeseen, ineffective or harmful ways. As a result, there could be adverse effects from treatment with any of our current or future product candidates that we cannot predict at this time.

Additionally, the regulatory approval process for novel product candidates such as those associated with our targeted protein degradation platform is uncertain and can be more expensive and take longer than for other, better-known or extensively studied classes of product candidates. Although other companies are also developing therapeutics based on targeted protein degradation, no product candidates of this type have been approved in the United States or Europe. As a result, it is difficult for us to predict the time and cost of developing our product candidates and we cannot predict whether any of these product candidates will receive marketing approval or achieve commercial acceptance. Any development problems we experience in the future related to our targeted protein degradation platform or any of our related research programs may cause significant delays or unanticipated costs or may prevent the development of a commercially viable product. Any of these factors may prevent us from completing our pre-clinical studies or any clinical trials that we may initiate, as well as from commercializing any product candidates we may develop on a timely or profitable basis, if at all.

Certain of our product candidates, including our gene therapy product candidates, are novel, complex and difficult to manufacture. We could experience manufacturing problems that result in delays in our development or commercialization programs or otherwise harm our business.

The manufacturing processes our contract manufacturing organizations (“CMOs”) use to produce our product candidates are complex, novel and have not necessarily been validated for commercial use. Several factors could cause production interruptions, including equipment malfunctions, facility contamination, raw material shortages or contamination, natural disasters, disruption in utility services, human error or disruptions in the operations of our suppliers.

Our gene therapy product candidates may require processing steps that are more complex than those required for most small molecule drugs. Moreover, unlike small molecules, the physical and chemical properties

43

of biologics generally cannot be fully characterized. As a result, assays of the finished product may not be sufficient to ensure that the product is consistent from lot-to-lot or will perform in the intended manner. Accordingly, our CMOs must employ multiple steps to control the manufacturing process to assure that the process is reproducible and the product candidate is made strictly and consistently in compliance with the process. Problems with the manufacturing process, even minor deviations from the normal process, could result in product defects or manufacturing failures that result in lot failures, product recalls, product liability claims or insufficient inventory to conduct clinical trials or supply commercial markets. We may encounter problems achieving adequate quantities and quality of clinical-grade materials that meet the FDA, the EU or other applicable standards or specifications with consistent and acceptable production yields and costs.

In addition, the FDA, the European Medicines Agency (the “EMA”) and other comparable regulatory authorities may require us to submit samples of any lot of any approved product together with the protocols showing the results of applicable tests at any time. Under some circumstances, the FDA, the EMA or other comparable regulatory authorities may require that we not distribute a lot until the agency authorizes its release. Slight deviations in the manufacturing process, including those affecting quality attributes and stability, may result in unacceptable changes in the product that could result in lot failures or product recalls. Lot failures or product recalls could cause us to delay product launches or clinical trials, which could be costly to us and otherwise harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Our CMOs also may encounter problems hiring and retaining the experienced scientific, quality assurance, quality-control and manufacturing personnel needed to operate our manufacturing processes, which could result in delays in production or difficulties in maintaining compliance with applicable regulatory requirements. Any problems in our CMOs’ manufacturing process or facilities could result in delays in planned clinical trials and increased costs, and could make us a less attractive collaborator for potential partners, including larger biotechnology companies and academic research institutions, which could limit access to additional attractive development programs. Problems in our manufacturing process could restrict our ability to meet potential future market demand for products.

We may encounter difficulties enrolling and retaining patients in clinical trials, and clinical development activities could thereby be delayed or otherwise adversely affected.

We may encounter delays or difficulties in enrolling, or be unable to enroll, a sufficient number of patients to complete clinical trials for our product candidates on projected timelines, or at all, and even once enrolled we may be unable to retain a sufficient number of patients to complete clinical trials for these product candidates. Enrollment in our clinical trials may also occur more slowly than we anticipate, leading to delays in the development timelines for our product candidates.

Patient enrollment and retention in clinical trials depends on many factors, including the size of the patient population, the nature of the trial protocol, our ability to recruit clinical trial investigators with the appropriate competencies and experience, delays in enrollment due to travel or quarantine policies, or other factors, related to COVID-19, the existing body of safety and efficacy data with respect to the study drug, the number and nature of competing treatments and ongoing clinical trials of competing drugs for the same indication, the proximity of patients to clinical sites, the eligibility criteria for the trial and the proportion of patients screened that meets those criteria, our ability to obtain and maintain patient consents, our ability to successfully complete prerequisite studies before enrolling certain patient populations. For certain of our product candidates, including IMVT-1401, which targets certain rare autoimmune indications, there are limited patient pools from which to draw in order to complete our clinical trials in a timely and cost-effective manner. In addition, for certain of our early-stage development programs, there may be a limited number of sites where it is feasible to run clinical trials, making such programs particularly susceptible to delays caused by issues at those sites.

Furthermore, any negative results or new safety signals we may report in clinical trials of our product candidates may make it difficult or impossible to recruit and retain patients in other clinical trials we are

44

conducting. Similarly, negative results reported by our competitors about their drug candidates may negatively affect patient recruitment in our clinical trials. Also, marketing authorization of competitors in this same class of drugs may impair our ability to enroll patients into our clinical trials, delaying or potentially preventing us from completing recruitment of one or more of our trials.

Delays or failures in planned patient enrollment or retention may result in increased costs, program delays or both, which could have a harmful effect on our ability to develop our product candidates, or could render further development impossible. In addition, we expect to rely on CROs and clinical trial sites to ensure proper and timely conduct of our future clinical trials, and, while we intend to enter into agreements governing their services, we will be limited in our ability to compel their actual performance.

The results of our clinical trials may not support our proposed claims for our product candidates, or regulatory approvals on a timely basis or at all, and the results of earlier studies and trials may not be predictive of future trial results.

Success in pre-clinical testing and early clinical trials does not ensure that later clinical trials will be successful, and we cannot be sure that the results of later clinical trials will replicate the results of prior pre-clinical testing and clinical trials. Likewise, promising results in interim analyses or other preliminary analyses do not ensure that the clinical trial as a whole will be successful. A number of companies in the pharmaceutical industry, including biotechnology companies, have suffered significant setbacks in clinical trials, even after promising results in earlier pre-clinical studies or clinical trials. These setbacks have been caused by, among other things, pre-clinical findings made while clinical trials were underway and safety or efficacy observations made in clinical trials, including previously unreported adverse events. For example, in February 2021, our subsidiary, Immunovant, voluntarily paused dosing in its clinical trials for IMVT-1401 globally due to elevated total cholesterol and LDL levels observed in patients treated with IMVT-1401, resulting in a delay in Immunovant’s development of IMVT-1401.

The results of pre-clinical studies and early clinical trials of our product candidates may not be predictive of the results of later-stage clinical trials. Product candidates in later stages of clinical trials may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy traits despite having progressed through pre-clinical and initial clinical trials. A future failure of a clinical trial to meet its pre-specified endpoints would likely cause us to abandon our product candidates. Any delay in, or termination of, our clinical trials will delay the submission of an NDA or other similar applications to the FDA or other relevant comparable non-U.S. regulatory authorities and, ultimately, our ability to commercialize our product candidates, if approved, and generate product revenues. Even if our clinical trials are completed as planned, we cannot be certain that their results will support our claims for differentiation or the effectiveness or safety of our product candidates. The FDA has substantial discretion in the review and approval process and may disagree that our data support the differentiated claims we propose. In addition, only a small percentage of product candidates under development result in the submission of an NDA or other similar application to the FDA and other comparable non-U.S. regulatory authorities and even fewer are approved for commercialization.

Interim, top-line or preliminary data from our clinical trials that we announce or publish from time to time may change as more patient data become available and are subject to audit and verification procedures that could result in material changes in the final data.

From time to time, we may publicly disclose preliminary or top-line data from our clinical trials, which is based on a preliminary analysis of then-available top-line data, and the results and related findings and conclusions are subject to change following a full analysis of all data related to the particular trial. We also make assumptions, estimations, calculations and conclusions as part of our analyses of data, and we may not have received or had the opportunity to fully and carefully evaluate all data. As a result, the preliminary and top-line results that we report may differ from future results of the same trials, or different conclusions or considerations may qualify such results, once additional data have been received and fully evaluated. Top-line data also remain

45

subject to audit and verification procedures that may result in the final data being materially different from the top-line data we previously published. As a result, preliminary and top-line data should be viewed with caution until the final data are available. From time to time, we may also disclose interim data from our clinical trials. Interim data from clinical trials that we may complete are subject to the risk that one or more of the clinical outcomes may materially change as patient enrollment continues and more patient data become available. Adverse differences between preliminary, top-line or interim data and final data could significantly harm our business prospects.

Further, others, including regulatory agencies, may not accept or agree with our assumptions, estimates, calculations, conclusions or analyses or may interpret or weigh the importance of data differently, which could impact the value of the particular program, the approvability or commercialization of the particular product candidate or product and our business in general. In addition, the information we choose to publicly disclose regarding a particular study or clinical trial is based on what is typically extensive information, and you or others may not agree with what we determine is the material or otherwise appropriate information to include in our disclosure, and any information we determine not to disclose may ultimately be deemed significant with respect to future decisions, conclusions, views, activities or otherwise regarding a particular product, product candidate or our business. If the top-line data that we report differ from actual results, or if others, including regulatory authorities, disagree with the conclusions reached, our ability to obtain approval for and commercialize product candidates, our business, operating results, prospects or financial condition may be harmed.

Changes in methods of product manufacturing or formulation may result in additional costs or delay.

As product candidates proceed through pre-clinical studies to pivotal clinical trials towards potential approval and commercialization, it is common that various aspects of the development program, such as manufacturing methods and formulation, are altered along the way in an effort to optimize processes and results. Such changes carry the risk that they will not achieve these intended objectives. Any of these changes could cause product candidates to perform differently and affect the results of planned clinical trials or other future clinical trials conducted with the altered materials. Such changes may also require additional testing, FDA notification or FDA approval. Similar requirements apply in other jurisdictions. This could delay completion of clinical trials, require the conduct of bridging clinical trials or the repetition of one or more clinical trials, increase clinical trial costs, delay approval of our product candidates and jeopardize our ability to commence sales and generate revenues.

We rely on third parties to conduct, supervise and monitor our clinical trials, and if those third parties perform in an unsatisfactory manner or fail to comply with applicable requirements, it may harm our business.

We rely on CROs and clinical trial sites to ensure the proper and timely conduct of our clinical trials, and we expect to have limited influence over their actual performance. In addition, we rely upon CROs to monitor and manage data for our clinical programs, as well as the execution of future non-clinical studies. We expect to control only certain aspects of our CROs’ activities. Nevertheless, we will be responsible for ensuring that each of our studies is conducted in accordance with the applicable protocol, legal, regulatory and scientific standards and that clinical trial sites meet applicable protocol and regulatory requirements, and our reliance on the CROs does not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities.

We and our CROs will be required to comply with the Good Laboratory Practices (“GLPs”) and GCPs, which are regulations and guidelines enforced by the FDA and other comparable non-U.S. regulatory authorities, which also require compliance with the International Council for Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (“ICH”) guidelines for any of our product candidates that are in pre-clinical and clinical development. The regulatory authorities enforce GCP regulations through periodic inspections of trial sponsors, principal investigators and clinical trial sites. Although we may rely on CROs to conduct our GLP-compliant nonclinical studies and GCP-compliant clinical trials, we remain responsible for ensuring that each of our GLP nonclinical studies and GCP clinical trials is conducted in accordance with its investigational

46

plan and protocol and applicable laws and regulations, and our expected reliance on the CROs does not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities. If we or our CROs fail to comply with GCPs, the clinical data generated in our clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA or comparable non-U.S. regulatory authorities may reject our marketing applications and require us to perform additional clinical trials before approving our marketing applications. Accordingly, if our CROs fail to comply with these regulations or other applicable laws, regulations or standards, or fail to recruit a sufficient number of subjects, we may be required to repeat clinical trials, which would delay the regulatory approval process. Failure by any future CROs to properly execute study protocols in accordance with applicable law could also create product liability and healthcare regulatory risks for us as sponsors of those studies.

Our CROs will not be our employees, and we will not control whether or not they devote sufficient time and resources to our future clinical and nonclinical 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 competitive position. We face the risk of potential unauthorized disclosure or infringement, misappropriation or other violation of our intellectual property by CROs, which may reduce our trade secret and intellectual property 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 reasons, 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 revenues could be delayed.

If our relationships with these CROs terminate, we may not be able to enter into arrangements with alternative CROs or do so on commercially reasonable terms or in a timely manner. 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 adversely impact our ability to meet our desired clinical development timelines. Though we intend to carefully manage our relationships with the 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 an adverse impact on our business, financial condition and prospects.

We do not have our own manufacturing capabilities and will rely on third parties to produce clinical supplies and commercial supplies of our product candidates and any future product candidate.

We do not own or operate, and do not expect to own or operate, facilities for product manufacturing, storage and distribution, or testing. We will rely on third parties to produce clinical and commercial supplies of our product candidates and any future product candidate.

Third-party vendors may be difficult to identify for our product process and formulation development and manufacturing due to special capabilities required, and they may not be able to meet our quality standards. In addition, certain of our third-party manufacturers and suppliers may encounter delays in providing their services as a result of supply chain constraints. If any third-party manufacturers or third parties in the supply chain for materials used in the production of our product candidates or any future product candidates are adversely impacted by supply chain constraints, our supply chain may be disrupted, limiting our ability to manufacture product candidates for our pre-clinical studies, clinical trials, research and development operations and commercialization. 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 candidate. 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

47

would be a shortage in supply, which would impair our ability to generate revenue from the sale of our product candidates. Moreover, as a result of projected supply constraints for certain materials used in the production of our product candidates, we have in the past and may in the future reserve manufacturing capacity in advance of receiving required efficacy or safety results from our clinical trials, which may involves committing substantial financial resources to current or future potential product candidates that may never be approved or achieve commercialization at scale or at all.

The facilities used by our contract manufacturers to manufacture our product candidates must be approved by the FDA pursuant to inspections that will be conducted after we submit an NDA or other similar application to the FDA. Similar requirements apply in other jurisdictions. We do not control the manufacturing process of, and are completely dependent on, our contract manufacturing partners for compliance with cGMP requirements for manufacture of drug product candidates. If our contract manufacturers cannot successfully manufacture material that conforms to our specifications and the strict regulatory requirements of the FDA or comparable non-U.S. regulatory authorities, we will not be able to secure or maintain regulatory approval for our product candidates. In addition, we have limited control over the ability of our contract manufacturers to maintain adequate quality control, quality assurance and qualified personnel. If the FDA or comparable non-U.S. regulatory authorities do not approve these facilities for the manufacture of our product candidates or if they withdraw 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.

Further, our reliance on third-party manufacturers entails risks to which we would not be subject if we manufactured product candidates ourselves, including:

48

Any of these events could lead to clinical trial delays, cost overruns, delay or failure to obtain regulatory approval or impact our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates as well as potential product liability litigation, product recalls or product withdrawals. Some of these events could be the basis for FDA or other regulatory authority action, including injunction, recall, seizure, or total or partial suspension of production.

If the contract manufacturing facilities on which we rely do not continue to meet regulatory requirements or are unable to meet our requirements, including providing an adequate supply, our business will be harmed.

All entities involved in the preparation of product candidates for clinical trials or commercial sale, including our existing CMOs for all of our product candidates, are subject to extensive regulation. Components of a finished therapeutic product approved for commercial sale or used in late-stage clinical trials must be manufactured in accordance with cGMP, or similar regulatory requirements outside the United States. These regulations govern manufacturing processes and procedures, including recordkeeping, and the implementation and operation of quality systems to control and assure the quality of investigational products and products approved for sale. Poor control of production processes can lead to the introduction of contaminants or to inadvertent changes in the properties or stability of our product candidates. Our failure, or the failure of third-party manufacturers, to comply with applicable regulations could result in the issuance of inspectional observations on FDA’s Form-483, Warning or Untitled Letters, public safety alerts identifying our company or products and sanctions being imposed on us, including clinical holds, import alerts, fines, injunctions, civil penalties, delays, suspension or withdrawal of approvals, license revocation, suspension of production, seizures or recalls of product candidates or marketed drugs, operating restrictions and criminal prosecutions, any of which could significantly and adversely affect clinical or commercial supplies of our product candidates.

We or our CMOs must supply all necessary documentation in support of an NDA or similar regulatory application on a timely basis, and must adhere to regulations enforced by the FDA and other regulatory agencies through their facilities inspection program. Some of our CMOs have never produced a commercially approved pharmaceutical product and therefore have not obtained the requisite regulatory authority approvals to do so. The facilities and quality systems of some or all of our third-party contractors must pass a pre-approval inspection for compliance with the applicable regulations as a condition of regulatory approval of our product candidates or any of our other potential products. In addition, the regulatory authorities may, at any time, audit or inspect a manufacturing facility involved with the preparation of our product candidates or our other potential products or the associated quality systems for compliance with the regulations applicable to the activities being conducted. Although we oversee the CMOs, we cannot control the manufacturing process of, and are completely dependent on, our CMO partners for compliance with the regulatory requirements. If these facilities do not pass a pre-approval plant inspection, regulatory approval of the products may not be granted or may be substantially delayed until any violations are corrected to the satisfaction of the regulatory authority, if ever.

The regulatory authorities also may, at any time following approval of a product for sale, audit the manufacturing facilities of our third-party contractors. If any such inspection or audit identifies a failure to comply with applicable regulations or if a violation of our product specifications or applicable regulations occurs independent of such an inspection or audit, we or the relevant regulatory authority may require remedial measures that may be costly and/or time consuming for us or a third party to implement, and that may include the temporary or permanent suspension of a clinical trial or commercial sales or the temporary or permanent closure of a facility. Any such remedial measures imposed upon us or third parties with whom we contract could materially harm our business.

Additionally, if supply from one approved manufacturer is interrupted, an alternative manufacturer would need to be qualified through an NDA or similar regulatory filing, which could result in further delay. The regulatory agencies may also require additional studies if a new manufacturer is relied upon for commercial production. In some cases, the technical skills required to manufacture our product candidates may be unique or proprietary to the original CMO and we may have difficulty, or there may be contractual restrictions prohibiting us from, transferring such skills to a back-up or alternate supplier, or we may be unable to transfer such skills at

49

all. In addition, if we are required to change CMOs for any reason, we will be required to verify that the new CMO maintains facilities and procedures that comply with quality standards and with all applicable regulations. We will also need to verify, such as through a manufacturing comparability study, that any new manufacturing process will produce our product candidate according to the specifications previously submitted to the FDA or another regulatory authority. The delays associated with the verification of a new CMO could negatively affect our ability to develop product candidates or commercialize our products in a timely manner or within budget. In addition, changes in manufacturers often involve changes in manufacturing procedures and processes, which could require that we conduct bridging studies between our prior clinical supply used in our clinical trials and that of any new manufacturer. We may be unsuccessful in demonstrating the comparability of clinical supplies, which could require the conduct of additional clinical trials. Accordingly, switching manufacturers may involve substantial costs and is likely to result in a delay in our desired clinical and commercial timelines.

These factors could cause us to incur higher costs and could cause the delay or termination of clinical trials, regulatory submissions, required approvals, or commercialization of our product candidates. Furthermore, if our suppliers fail to meet contractual requirements and we are unable to secure one or more replacement suppliers capable of production at a substantially equivalent cost, our clinical trials may be delayed or we could lose potential revenue.

If malignancies arise in patients treated with our gene therapy product candidates, including ARU-1801, or if there are other safety events that require us to halt or delay clinical development of ARU-1801 or other gene therapies, the development of those therapies would be delayed and the commercial potential of those therapies would be materially and negatively impacted.

A potentially significant risk in any gene therapy product candidate using viral vectors is that the vector will insert in or near cancer-causing oncogenes leading to uncontrolled clonal proliferation of mature cancer cells in the patient, known as insertional oncogenesis, which can lead to certain forms of cancer. In early 2021, a company developing a gene therapy for the treatment of sickle cell disease announced that one of its patients has developed acute myelogenous leukemia following treatment. While Aruvant has not experienced any similar safety events to date, any such events arising in patients treated with ARU-1801 could result in delays to the clinical development timeline, the suspension of clinical development altogether or, following approval by the FDA, if received, the product being removed from the market or its market opportunity being significantly reduced. In addition, the sickle cell disease population has an elevated underlying risk of malignancy. As a result, if patients treated with ARU-1801 develop a malignancy, it may be difficult for us to determine the underlying cause of the malignancy and the link, if any, to ARU-1801, potentially causing further delays to our clinical development timeline. Any of the foregoing issues arising in relation to ARU-1801 or other gene therapy product candidates could lead to adverse publicity and have a material adverse effect on our business and the price of the Roivant Common Shares.

Risks Related to Regulatory Approval and Commercialization of Our Product Candidates

Obtaining approval of a new drug is an extensive, lengthy, expensive and inherently uncertain process, and the FDA or another regulator may delay, limit or deny approval. If we are unable to obtain regulatory approval in one or more jurisdictions for any product candidates, our business will be substantially harmed.

We cannot commercialize a product until the appropriate regulatory authorities have reviewed and approved the product candidate. Approval by the FDA and comparable non-U.S. regulatory authorities is lengthy and unpredictable, and depends upon numerous factors, including substantial discretion of the regulatory authorities. Approval policies, regulations, or the type and amount of non-clinical or clinical data necessary to gain approval may change during the course of a product candidate’s development and may vary among jurisdictions, which may cause delays in the approval or the decision not to approve an application. To date, we have not obtained regulatory approval for any product candidates, and it is possible that our current product candidates and any other product candidates which we may seek to develop in the future will not ever obtain regulatory approval. We cannot be certain that any of our product candidates will receive regulatory approval or be successfully commercialized even if we receive regulatory approval.

50

Obtaining marketing approval of a new drug is an extensive, lengthy, expensive and inherently uncertain process and the FDA or other non-U.S. regulatory authorities may delay, limit or deny approval of a product candidate for many reasons, including:

Our future success depends significantly on our ability to successfully complete clinical trials for our product candidates, obtain regulatory approval and then successfully commercialize those product candidates. Any inability to successfully initiate, conduct or complete clinical trials could result in additional costs to us or impair our ability to generate revenue. In addition, if we make manufacturing or formulation changes to our

51

product candidates, we may be required to or we may elect to conduct additional non-clinical studies or clinical trials to bridge data obtained from our modified product candidates to data obtained from non-clinical and clinical research conducted using earlier versions of these product candidates. Clinical trial delays could also shorten any periods during which our products have patent protection and may allow our competitors to bring products to market before we do, which could impair our ability to successfully commercialize product candidates and may harm our business and results of operations.

Delays in the initiation, conduct or completion of any clinical trial of our product candidates will increase our costs, slow down the product candidate development and approval process and delay or potentially jeopardize our ability to receive regulatory approvals, commence product sales and generate revenue. 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. Any of these events could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations and have a negative impact on the price of our common shares.

Our clinical trials may fail to demonstrate substantial evidence of the safety and efficacy of product candidates that we may identify and pursue for their intended uses, which would prevent, delay or limit the scope of regulatory approval and commercialization.

Before obtaining regulatory approvals for the commercial sale of any of our product candidates, we must demonstrate through lengthy, complex and expensive non-clinical studies, pre-clinical studies and clinical trials that the applicable product candidate is both safe and effective for use in each target indication, and in the case of our product candidates regulated as biological products, that the product candidate is safe, pure, and potent for use in its targeted indication. Each product candidate must demonstrate an adequate risk versus benefit profile in its intended patient population and for its intended use.

Clinical testing is expensive and can take many years to complete, and its outcome is inherently uncertain. Failure can occur at any time during the clinical development process. Most product candidates that begin clinical trials are never approved by regulatory authorities for commercialization. We have limited experience in designing clinical trials and may be unable to design and execute a clinical trial to support marketing approval.

We cannot be certain that our current clinical trials or any other future clinical trials will be successful. Additionally, any safety concerns observed in any one of our clinical trials in our targeted indications could limit the prospects for regulatory approval of our product candidates in those and other indications, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. In addition, even if such clinical trials are successfully completed, we cannot guarantee that the FDA or comparable non-U.S. regulatory authorities will interpret the results as we do, and more trials could be required before we submit our product candidates for approval. Moreover, results acceptable to support approval in one jurisdiction may be deemed inadequate by another regulatory authority to support regulatory approval in that other jurisdiction. To the extent that the results of the trials are not satisfactory to the FDA or comparable non-U.S. regulatory authorities for support of a marketing application, we may be required to expend significant resources, which may not be available to us, to conduct additional trials in support of potential approval of our product candidates. Even if regulatory approval is secured for a product candidate, the terms of such approval may limit the scope and use of the specific product candidate, which may also limit its commercial potential.

Our product candidates may cause adverse effects or have other properties that could delay or prevent their regulatory approval, cause us to suspend or discontinue clinical trials, abandon further development or limit the scope of any approved label or market acceptance.

Adverse events caused by our product candidates could cause us, other reviewing entities, clinical trial sites or regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay or halt clinical trials and could result in the denial of regulatory approval. If an unacceptable frequency or severity of adverse events or new safety signals are reported in our

52

clinical trials for our product candidates or any future product candidates, our ability to obtain regulatory approval for such product candidates may be negatively impacted. Treatment-related side effects arising from, or those perceived to arise from, our product candidates or those from other companies targeting similar diseases, could also affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled patients to complete the trial or result in potential product liability claims. In addition, these side effects may not be appropriately recognized or managed by the treating medical staff. For example, in February 2021, our subsidiary Immunovant voluntarily paused dosing in its ongoing trials for IMVT-1401 globally due to elevated total cholesterol and LDL levels observed in patients treated with IMVT-1401, resulting in a delay in Immunovant’s development of IMVT-1401. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition and prospects.

Furthermore, if any of our product candidates are approved and then cause serious or unexpected side effects, a number of potentially significant negative consequences could result, including:

Any of these events could prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of the affected product candidate and could substantially increase the costs of commercializing our product candidates and have a negative impact on the price of our common shares.

The regulatory approval processes of the FDA and comparable non-U.S. regulatory authorities are lengthy, time consuming and inherently unpredictable, and even if we obtain approval for a product candidate in one country or jurisdiction, we may never obtain approval for or commercialize it in any other jurisdiction, which would limit our ability to realize our full market potential.

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 or comparable non-U.S. regulatory agencies, that such product candidate is safe and effective for its intended use. Results from non-clinical studies and clinical trials can be interpreted in different ways. Even if we believe the nonclinical or clinical data for a product candidate are promising, such data may not be sufficient to support approval by the FDA and other regulatory authorities. In order to market any products in any particular jurisdiction, we must establish and comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements on a country-by-country basis

53

regarding safety and efficacy. Approval by the FDA does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in any other country or jurisdiction outside the United States. In addition, clinical trials conducted in one country may not be accepted by regulatory authorities in other countries, and regulatory approval in one country does not guarantee regulatory approval in any other country. Approval processes vary among countries and can involve additional product testing and validation, as well as additional administrative review periods. Seeking regulatory approval could result in difficulties and costs for us and require additional nonclinical studies or clinical trials, which could be costly and time consuming. Regulatory requirements can vary widely from country to country and could delay or prevent the introduction of our products in those countries. We do not have any product candidates approved for sale in any jurisdiction, including in international markets, and we do not have experience in obtaining regulatory approval. If we fail to comply with regulatory requirements in international markets or to obtain and maintain required approvals, or if regulatory approvals in international markets are delayed, our target market will be reduced and our ability to realize the full market potential of any product we develop will be unrealized.

Even if we obtain FDA approval for a product candidate in the United States, we may never obtain approval for or commercialize our product candidates in any other jurisdiction, which would limit our ability to realize the drug candidate’s full market potential.

In order to market any products outside of the United States, we must establish and comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of other countries regarding safety and effectiveness. Clinical trials conducted in one country may not be accepted by regulatory authorities in other countries, and regulatory approval in one country does not mean that regulatory approval will be obtained in any other country. Approval processes vary among countries and can involve additional product testing and validation and additional or different administrative review periods from those in the United States, including additional pre-clinical studies or clinical trials, as clinical trials conducted in one jurisdiction may not be accepted by regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions. In many jurisdictions outside the United States, a product candidate must be approved for reimbursement before it can be approved for sale in that jurisdiction. In some cases, the price that we intend to charge for our products is also subject to approval.

Seeking regulatory approval outside of the United States could result in difficulties and costs and require additional nonclinical studies or clinical trials which could be costly and time-consuming. Regulatory requirements can vary widely from country to country and could delay or prevent the introduction of our product candidates in those countries. The regulatory approval outside of the United States process may include all of the risks associated with obtaining FDA approval. We do not have any product candidates approved for sale in any jurisdiction, including international markets, and we do not have experience in obtaining regulatory approval in international markets. If we fail to comply with regulatory requirements in international markets or to obtain and maintain required approvals, or if regulatory approval in international markets is delayed, our target market will be reduced and our ability to realize the full market potential of our products will be harmed.

Even if we obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates, we will still face extensive ongoing regulatory obligations and continued regulatory review, which may result in significant additional expense, and our product may face future development and regulatory difficulties.

Any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval will be subject to extensive and ongoing regulatory requirements, including for manufacturing processes, post-approval clinical data, labeling, packaging, distribution, adverse event reporting, storage, recordkeeping, conduct of potential post-market studies and post-market submission requirements, export, import, advertising and promotional activities for such product, among other things, will be subject to extensive and ongoing requirements of and review by the FDA and other regulatory authorities. These requirements include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, establishment of registration and drug listing requirements, continued compliance with current cGMP, requirements relating to manufacturing, quality control, quality assurance and corresponding maintenance of records and documents, requirements regarding the distribution of samples to physicians, recordkeeping and GCP requirements for any clinical trials that we conduct post-approval. Even if marketing approval of a product

54

candidate is granted, the approval may be subject to limitations on the indicated uses for which the product may be marketed or to the conditions of approval, including any requirement to implement a REMS. If a product candidate receives marketing approval, the accompanying label may limit the approved use of the drug or the FDA or other regulatory authorities may require that contraindications, warnings or precautions, including in some cases, a boxed warning, be included in the product labeling, which could limit sales of the product.

The FDA may also impose requirements for costly post-marketing studies or clinical trials and surveillance to monitor the safety or efficacy of the product. The FDA closely regulates the post-approval marketing and promotion of drugs to ensure drugs are marketed only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved labeling and that promotional and advertising materials and communications are truthful and non-misleading. Regulatory authorities impose stringent restrictions on manufacturers’ communications and if we do not market our product candidates for their approved indications or in a manner which regulators believe to be truthful and non-misleading, we may be subject to enforcement action. Violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act in the United States and other comparable regulations in other jurisdictions relating to the promotion of prescription drugs may lead to enforcement actions and investigations by the FDA, Department of Justice, State Attorneys General and other comparable non-U.S. regulatory agencies alleging violations of United States federal and state health care fraud and abuse laws, as well as state consumer protection laws and comparable laws in other jurisdictions.

In addition, later discovery of previously unknown adverse events or other problems with our product candidates, manufacturers or manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may negatively impact our business and the price of our common shares and may yield various results, including:

55

Breakthrough Therapy Designation, Fast Track Designation, Regenerative Medicine Advanced Therapy Designation or orphan drug designation by the FDA, even if granted for any product candidate, may not lead to a faster development, regulatory review or approval process, and does not necessarily increase the likelihood that any product candidate will receive marketing approval in the United States.

We have sought, or may in the future seek, Breakthrough Therapy Designation, Fast Track Designation, Regenerative Medicine Advanced Therapy Designation or orphan drug designation for certain of our product candidates. ARU-1801, a gene therapy in development by Aruvant for the treatment of sickle cell disease, has received orphan drug designation and rare pediatric designation by the FDA, as well as priority review and orphan designation by the EMA. In addition, two gene therapies under development by Sio Gene Therapies, AXO-AAV-GM1, in development for the treatment of GM1 gangliosidosis, and AXO-AAV-GM2, in development for the treatment of GM2 gangliosidosis, also known as Tay-Sachs and Sandhoff diseases, have received rare pediatric designation and orphan drug designation (in the case of AXO-AAV-GM1) and rare pediatric designation (in the case of AXO-AAV-GM2) from the FDA.

A breakthrough therapy is defined as a therapy that is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other therapies, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the therapy may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. For therapies that have been designated as breakthrough therapies, interaction and communication between the FDA and the sponsor of the trial can help to identify the most efficient path for clinical development while minimizing the number of patients placed in potentially less efficacious control regimens. Therapies designated as breakthrough therapies by the FDA may also be eligible for priority review and accelerated approval. Designation as a breakthrough therapy is within the discretion of the FDA. Accordingly, even if we believe a product candidate meets the criteria for designation as a breakthrough therapy, the FDA may disagree and instead determine not to make such designation. In any event, the receipt of a Breakthrough Therapy Designation for a product candidate may not result in a faster development process, review or approval compared to therapies considered for approval under conventional FDA procedures and does not assure ultimate approval by the FDA. In addition, even if a product candidate qualifies as a breakthrough therapy, the FDA may later decide that such product candidate no longer meets the conditions for qualification or decide that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened.

If a therapy is intended for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening condition and the therapy demonstrates the potential to address unmet medical needs for this condition, the therapy sponsor may apply for Fast Track Designation. The FDA has broad discretion whether or not to grant this designation, so even if we believe a particular product candidate is eligible for this designation, we cannot assure you that the FDA would decide to grant it. Even if we do receive Fast Track Designation, we may not necessarily experience a faster development process, review or approval compared to conventional FDA procedures. The FDA may withdraw Fast Track Designation if we believe that the designation is no longer supported by data from our clinical development program. Fast Track Designation alone does not guarantee qualification for the FDA’s priority review procedures.

Regulatory authorities in some jurisdictions, including the United States and the EEA, may designate drugs and biologics for relatively small patient populations as orphan drugs. In the United States, the FDA may designate a drug or biologic as an orphan drug if it is intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is defined as a disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals annually in the United States or for which there is no reasonable expectation that costs of research and development of the drug for the disease or condition can be recovered by sales of the drug in the United States. Generally, if a product with an orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first marketing approval for the indication for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to a period of marketing exclusivity, which precludes the FDA from approving another marketing application for the same drug or biologic for that time period. In the United States, in order for a product to receive orphan drug exclusivity, FDA must not have previously approved a drug

56

considered the same drug for the same orphan indication, or the subsequent drug must be shown to be clinically superior to such a previously approved sane drug. The applicable period is seven years in the United States. A similar data exclusivity scheme exists in the EEA, whereby no company can make reference to (rely on) the innovator drug company’s pre-clinical and clinical data in order to obtain a marketing authorization for eight years from the date of the first approval of the innovator drug in the EEA and no generic drug can be marketed for ten years from the first approval of the innovator drug in the EEA; the innovator drug may qualify for an extra year’s protection. This additional one year of marketing exclusivity may be obtained in a number of circumstances, such as where the innovator company is granted a marketing authorization for a significant new indication for the relevant medicinal product. In such a situation, the generic company can only market their product after 11 years from the first grant of the innovator company’s marketing authorization for the product in the EEA.

Orphan drug exclusivity may be lost if the FDA or EMA determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient quantity of the drug or biologic to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition. In the EEA, orphan drug designation, and the related benefits, may be lost if it is established before the market authorization is granted that the designation criteria are no longer met.

If we obtain orphan drug exclusivity for a product, that exclusivity may not effectively protect the product from competition because different drugs can be approved for the same condition. Even after an orphan drug is approved, the FDA or the EMA can subsequently approve the same drug for the same condition if the FDA or the EMA concludes that the later drug is clinically superior in that it is shown to be safer, more effective or makes a major contribution to patient care. In the EEA, a marketing authorization may also be granted, for the same therapeutic indication, to a competitor with a similar medicinal product during the exclusivity period if we are unable to supply sufficient quantities of the medicinal product for which we received marketing authorization.

Certain of our gene therapy product candidates are based on novel technologies and the regulatory landscape that governs these product candidates we may develop is rigorous, complex, uncertain and subject to change, which makes it difficult to predict the time and cost of developing the product candidates and subsequently obtaining regulatory approval.

The clinical study requirements of the FDA, the EMA and other regulatory agencies and the criteria these regulators use to determine the safety and efficacy of a product candidate vary substantially according to the type, complexity, novelty and intended use and market of the potential product candidates. The regulatory approval process for novel product candidates such as our gene therapies can be more expensive and take longer than for other, better known or more extensively studied pharmaceutical or other product candidates. Currently, a limited number of gene therapy products have been approved by the FDA, the EMA and the European Commission. Given the few precedents of approved gene therapy products, it is difficult to determine how long it will take or how much it will cost to obtain regulatory approvals for our product candidates in the United States, the EU or other jurisdictions. Approvals by the EMA and the European Commission may not be indicative of what the FDA may require for approval.

Regulatory requirements governing the development of gene therapy products have changed frequently and may continue to change in the future. The FDA has established the Office of Tissues and Advanced Therapies within the CBER, to consolidate the review of gene therapy and related products, and to advise the CBER on its review. The FDA can put an IND on clinical hold if the information in an IND is not sufficient to assess the risks in pediatric patients. In addition to FDA oversight and oversight by IRBs, under guidelines promulgated by the National Institutes of Health (“NIH”) gene therapy clinical trials funded by NIH are also subject to review and oversight by an institutional biosafety committee (“IBC”), a local institutional committee that reviews and oversees research utilizing recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecules at that institution. Before a clinical study can begin at any institution, that institution’s IRB, and, where applicable, its IBC assesses the safety of the research and identifies any potential risk to public health or the environment. While the NIH guidelines are not

57

mandatory unless the research in question is being conducted at or sponsored by institutions receiving NIH funding of recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecule research, many companies and other institutions not otherwise subject to the NIH Guidelines voluntarily follow them. Moreover, serious adverse events or developments in clinical trials of gene therapy product candidates conducted by others may cause the FDA or other regulatory bodies to initiate a clinical hold on our clinical trials or otherwise change the requirements for approval of any of our product candidates. Although the FDA decides whether individual gene therapy protocols may proceed, the review process and determinations of other reviewing bodies can impede or delay the initiation of a clinical trial, even if the FDA has reviewed the trial and approved its initiation.

Adverse developments in pre-clinical studies or clinical trials conducted by others in the field of gene therapy and gene regulation products may cause the FDA, the EMA and other regulatory bodies to revise the requirements for approval of any product candidates we may develop or limit the use of products utilizing gene regulation technologies, either of which could harm our business. In addition, the clinical trial requirements of the FDA, the EMA and other regulatory authorities and the criteria these regulators use to determine the safety and efficacy of a product candidate vary substantially according to the type, complexity, novelty, and intended use and market of the potential products. The regulatory approval process for novel product candidates such as our gene therapies can be more expensive and take longer than for other, better known, or more extensively studied pharmaceutical or other product candidates. In addition, because of the evolving regulatory landscape for novel product candidates such as our gene therapies, there is a heightened risk relating to changes in regulatory requirements, such as the required trial size, the size of safety databases and duration of clinical follow-up required for approval, which could develop in a manner that adversely impacts our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Further, as we are developing novel potential treatments for diseases in which there is little clinical experience with new endpoints and methodologies, there is heightened risk that the FDA, the EMA or other regulatory bodies may not consider the clinical trial endpoints to provide clinically meaningful results, and the resulting clinical data and results may be more difficult to analyze. The prospectively designed natural history studies with the same endpoints as our corresponding clinical trials may not be accepted by the FDA, EMA or other regulatory authorities. Regulatory agencies administering existing or future regulations or legislation may not allow production and marketing of products utilizing gene regulation technology in a timely manner or under technically or commercially feasible conditions. In addition, regulatory action or private litigation could result in expenses, delays, or other impediments to our research programs or the commercialization of resulting products.

Even if our product candidates receive marketing approval, they may fail to achieve market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors or others in the medical community necessary for commercial success.

The commercial success of our product candidates will depend upon their degree of market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors and others in the medical community. Even if any product candidates we may develop receive marketing approval, they may nonetheless fail to gain sufficient market acceptance by physicians, patients, healthcare payors and others in the medical community. The degree of market acceptance for any product candidates we may develop, if approved for commercial sale, will depend on a number of factors, including:

58

Sales of medical products also depend on the willingness of physicians to prescribe the treatment, which is likely to be based on a determination by these physicians that the products are safe, therapeutically effective and cost effective. In addition, the inclusion or exclusion of products from treatment guidelines established by various physician groups and the viewpoints of influential physicians can affect the willingness of other physicians to prescribe such products.

If approved, our products candidates regulated as biologics may face competition from biosimilars approved through an abbreviated regulatory pathway.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (the “ACA”), includes a subtitle called the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (the “BPCIA”), which created an abbreviated approval pathway under section 351(k) of the Public Health Service Act (“PHSA”) for biological products that are biosimilar to or interchangeable with an FDA-licensed reference biological product. Under the BPCIA, a section 351(k) application for a biosimilar or interchangeable product may not be submitted to the FDA until four years following the date that the reference product was first licensed by the FDA. In addition, the approval of a biosimilar or interchangeable product may not be made effective by the FDA until 12 years from the date on which the reference product was first licensed. During this 12-year period of exclusivity, another company may still market a competing version of the reference product if the FDA approves a full BLA for the competing product submitted under section 351(a) of the PHSA containing the competing sponsor’s own pre-clinical data and data from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to demonstrate the safety, purity, and potency of the other company’s product. The law is complex and is still being interpreted and implemented by the FDA. As a result, its ultimate impact, implementation, and meaning are subject to uncertainty.

Whether approval of a biological product qualifies for reference product exclusivity turns on whether FDA consider the approval a “first licensure.” Not every licensure of a biological product is considered a “first licensure” that gives rise to its own exclusivity period. We believe that our product candidates approved as a biological product under a BLA should qualify for the 12-year period of exclusivity. However, there is a risk that this exclusivity could be shortened due to congressional action or otherwise. Other aspects of the BPCIA, some of which may impact the BPCIA exclusivity provisions, have also been the subject of recent litigation. Moreover, the extent to which a biosimilar, once licensed, will be substituted for any one of our reference products in a way that is similar to traditional generic substitution for non-biological products is not yet clear, and will depend on a number of marketplace and regulatory factors that are still developing. If competitors are able to obtain marketing approval for biosimilars referencing our products, our products may become subject to competition from such biosimilars, with the attendant competitive pressure and consequences.

59

If, in the future, we are unable to establish sales and marketing capabilities or enter into agreements with third parties to sell and market any product candidates we may develop, we may not be successful in commercializing those product candidates if and when they are approved.

We do not have a sales or marketing infrastructure and have little experience in the sale, marketing, or distribution of pharmaceutical products. To achieve commercial success for any approved product for which we retain sales and marketing responsibilities, we must either develop a sales and marketing organization or outsource these functions to third parties. In the future, we may choose to build a focused sales, marketing, and commercial support infrastructure to market and sell our product candidates, if and when they are approved. We may also elect to enter into collaborations or strategic partnerships with third parties to engage in commercialization activities with respect to selected product candidates, indications or geographic territories, including territories outside the United States, although there is no guarantee we will be able to enter into these arrangements even if the intent is to do so.

There are risks involved with both establishing our own commercial capabilities and entering into arrangements with third parties to perform these services. For example, recruiting and training a sales force or reimbursement specialists is expensive and time consuming and could delay any product launch. If the commercial launch of a product candidate for which we recruit a sales force and establish marketing and other commercialization capabilities is delayed or does not occur for any reason, we would have prematurely or unnecessarily incurred these commercialization expenses. This may be costly, and our investment would be lost if we cannot retain or reposition commercialization personnel.

Factors that may inhibit our efforts to commercialize any approved product on our own include:

If we enter into arrangements with third parties to perform sales, marketing, commercial support, and distribution services, our product revenue or the profitability of product revenue may be lower than if we were to market and sell any products we may develop internally. In addition, we may not be successful in entering into arrangements with third parties to commercialize our product candidates or may be unable to do so on terms that are favorable to us or them. We may have little control over such third parties, and any of them may fail to devote the necessary resources and attention to sell and market our products effectively or may expose us to legal and regulatory risk by not adhering to regulatory requirements and restrictions governing the sale and promotion of prescription drug products, including those restricting off-label promotion. If we do not establish commercialization capabilities successfully, either on our own or in collaboration with third parties, we will not be successful in commercializing our product candidates, if approved.

60

Our current and future relationships with investigators, health care professionals, consultants, third-party payors, patient support, charitable organizations, customers, and others are subject to applicable healthcare regulatory laws, which could expose us to penalties and other risks.

Our business operations and current and potential future arrangements with investigators, healthcare professionals, consultants, third-party payors, patient support, charitable organizations, customers, and others, expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations. These laws regulate the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we conduct our operations, including how we research, market, sell and distribute our product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. Such laws include, without limitation:

61

Efforts to ensure that our current and future business arrangements with third parties will 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 healthcare laws. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of these or any other applicable health regulatory laws that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant penalties, including the imposition of significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, monetary fines, disgorgement, individual imprisonment, possible exclusion from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other federal healthcare programs, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, additional reporting requirements and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or similar agreement and curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations. Even the mere issuance of a subpoena, civil investigative demand or the fact of an investigation alone, regardless of the merit, may result in negative publicity, a drop in our share price and other harm to our business, financial condition and our results of operations. 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.

62

Healthcare legislative measures aimed at reducing healthcare costs may have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

The United States and many other jurisdictions have enacted or proposed legislative and regulatory changes affecting the healthcare system that could prevent or delay marketing approval of our product candidates or any future product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities and affect our ability to profitably sell any product for which we obtain marketing approval. Changes in regulations, statutes or the interpretation of existing regulations could impact our business in the future by requiring, for example: (i) changes to our manufacturing arrangements; (ii) additions or modifications to product labeling; (iii) the recall or discontinuation of our products; or (iv) additional record-keeping requirements. If any such changes were to be imposed, they could adversely affect the operation of our business.

In the United States, there have been and continue to be a number of legislative initiatives to contain healthcare costs, including costs for pharmaceuticals. For example, in March 2010, the ACA was passed, which substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers, and significantly impacted the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. The ACA, among other things, subjects biological products to potential competition by lower-cost biosimilars, addresses 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, increases the minimum Medicaid rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program and extends the rebate program to individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations, establishes annual fees and taxes on manufacturers of certain branded prescription drugs, and creates a new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program, in which manufacturers must 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.

Since its enactment, there have been numerous judicial, administrative, executive, and legislative challenges to certain aspects of the ACA, and we expect there will be additional challenges and amendments to the ACA in the future. Various portions of the ACA are currently undergoing legal and constitutional challenges in the United States Supreme Court; the former Trump Administration issued various Executive Orders which eliminated cost sharing subsidies and various provisions that would impose a fiscal burden on states or a cost, fee, tax, penalty or regulatory burden on individuals, healthcare providers, health insurers, or manufacturers of pharmaceuticals or medical devices; and Congress has introduced several pieces of legislation aimed at significantly revising or repealing the ACA. The United States Supreme Court is expected to rule on a legal challenge to the constitutionality of the ACA in the coming months. The implementation of the ACA is ongoing, the law appears likely to continue the downward pressure on pharmaceutical pricing, especially under the Medicare program, and may also increase our regulatory burdens and operating costs. Litigation and legislation related to the ACA are likely to continue, with unpredictable and uncertain results.

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA was enacted. In August 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, created measures for spending reductions by Congress. A Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, tasked with recommending a targeted deficit reduction of at least $1.2 trillion for the years 2013 through 2021, was unable to reach required goals, thereby triggering the legislation’s automatic reduction to several government programs. This includes aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect in 2013, and, due to subsequent legislative amendments, will remain in effect through 2029 unless additional Congressional action is taken. Pursuant to the CARES Act and subsequent legislation, these reductions were suspended from May 1, 2020 through December 31, 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. As the legislation currently stands, the reductions will go back into effect as of January 2022 and will remain in effect through 2030 unless additional Congressional action is taken. The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 further reduced Medicare payments to several providers, including hospitals and cancer treatment centers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years.

63

There has been increasing legislative and enforcement interest in the United States with respect to drug pricing practices. Specifically, there have been several recent U.S. Congressional inquiries and proposed federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, reduce the cost of prescription drugs under Medicare, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs. At the federal level, including the former administration’s budget for fiscal year 2020 contained further drug price control 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 former 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. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”), has already implemented several of these provisions to date. In May 2019, CMS issued a final rule to allow Medicare Advantage Plans the option of using step therapy, a type of prior authorization, for Part B drugs beginning January 1, 2020. Additionally, on November 20, 2020, HHS finalized a regulation removing safe harbor protection for price reductions from pharmaceutical manufacturers to plan sponsors under Part D, either directly or through pharmacy benefit managers, unless the price reduction is required by law. The rule also creates a new safe harbor for price reductions reflected at the point-of-sale, as well as a safe harbor for certain fixed fee arrangements between pharmacy benefit managers and manufacturers. These modifications to the safe harbors are being challenged in court and HHS has delayed their implementation until January 1, 2023. Although a number of these and other proposed measures will require authorization through additional legislation to become effective, it is unclear whether the Biden administration will challenge, reverse, revoke or otherwise modify these recent executive and administrative actions.

There have been, and likely will continue to be, legislative and regulatory proposals at the national and state levels in jurisdictions around the world directed at containing or lowering the cost of healthcare, including prescription drugs. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability, or commercialize our product. Such reforms could have an adverse effect on anticipated revenue from product candidates that we may successfully develop and for which we may obtain regulatory approval and may affect our overall financial condition and ability to develop product candidates. We cannot predict the initiatives that may be adopted in the future. The continuing efforts of the government, insurance companies, managed care organizations and other payors of healthcare services to contain or reduce costs of healthcare and/or impose price controls may adversely affect:

We expect that the ACA, as well as other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future, may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding, more rigorous coverage criteria, lower reimbursement and new payment methodologies. This could lower the price that we receive for any approved product. Any denial in coverage or reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government-funded programs may result in a similar denial or reduction in payments from private payors, which may prevent us from being able to generate sufficient revenue, attain profitability or commercialize our product candidates, if approved.

Recent federal legislation and actions by state and local governments in the United States may permit reimportation of drugs from foreign countries into the United States, including foreign countries where the drugs are sold at lower prices than in the United States, which could materially adversely affect our operating results.

64

Coverage and adequate reimbursement may not be available for our product candidates, which could make it difficult for us to sell our product candidates profitably.

Market acceptance and sales of any approved product candidates that we develop will depend in part on the extent to which coverage and adequate reimbursement for these product candidates and related treatments will be available from third-party payors, including government health administration authorities and private health insurers. The target patient populations for our drugs are often relatively small, as a result of which the pricing and reimbursement of our product candidates, if approved, must be adequate to support commercial infrastructure. If we are unable to obtain adequate levels of reimbursement, our ability to successfully market and sell our product candidates will be adversely affected. The manner and level at which reimbursement is provided for services related to our product candidates (e.g., for administration of our product to patients) is also important. Inadequate reimbursement for such services may lead to physician resistance and adversely affect our ability to market or sell our product candidates. There is no assurance that our product candidates, if approved, would achieve adequate coverage and reimbursement levels.

In the United States, no uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for product candidates exists among third-party payors. Third-party payors decide which drugs they will pay for and establish reimbursement levels. Third-party payors often rely upon Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own coverage and reimbursement policies. However, decisions regarding the extent of coverage and amount of reimbursement to be provided for any product candidates that we develop will be made on a plan-by-plan basis. One payor’s determination to provide coverage for a product does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage, and adequate reimbursement, for the product. Additionally, a third-party payor’s decision to provide coverage for a drug does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Each plan determines whether or not it will provide coverage for a drug, what amount it will pay the manufacturer for the drug, on what tier of its formulary the drug will be placed and whether to require step therapy. The position of a drug on a formulary generally determines the co-payment that a patient will need to make to obtain the drug and can strongly influence the adoption of a drug by patients and physicians. Patients who are prescribed treatments for their conditions and providers prescribing such services generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the associated healthcare costs. Patients are unlikely to use our product candidates unless coverage is provided and reimbursement is adequate to cover a significant portion of the cost of the product candidates. Further, from time to time, typically on an annual basis, payment rates are updated and revised by third-party payors. Such updates could impact the demand for our product candidates, to the extent that patients who are prescribed our product candidates, if approved, are not separately reimbursed for the cost of the product.

The process for determining whether a third-party payor will provide coverage for a product may be separate from the process for setting the price of a product or for establishing the reimbursement rate that such a payor will pay for the product. Even if we obtain adequate levels of reimbursement, third-party payors, such as government or private healthcare insurers, carefully review and increasingly question the coverage of, and challenge the prices charged for, product candidates. A primary trend in the U.S. healthcare industry and elsewhere is cost containment. Increasingly, third-party payors are requiring that pharmaceutical companies provide them with predetermined discounts from list prices and are challenging the prices for product candidates. We may also be required to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies to justify the coverage and the amount of reimbursement for particular medications. We cannot be sure that coverage and reimbursement will be available for any product that we commercialize and, if reimbursement is available, what the level of reimbursement will be. Inadequate coverage and reimbursement may impact the demand for, or the price of, any product for which we obtain marketing approval. If coverage and adequate reimbursement are not available, or are available only to limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize any product candidates that we develop.

Additionally, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory proposals to change the healthcare system in the United States and in some other jurisdictions that could affect our ability to sell any future drugs profitably. These legislative and regulatory changes may negatively impact the reimbursement for any future

65

drugs, following approval. There can be no assurance that our candidates, if approved, will be considered medically reasonable and necessary, that they will be considered cost-effective by third-party payors, that coverage or an adequate level of reimbursement will be available, or that reimbursement policies and practices in the United States and in other countries where our product candidates are sold will not harm our ability to sell our product candidates profitably, if they are approved for sale.

Recent federal legislation and actions by state and local governments may permit reimportation of drugs from foreign countries into the United States, including foreign countries where the drugs are sold at lower prices than in the United States, which could materially adversely affect our operating results.

We may face competition in the United States for our product candidates, if approved, from therapies sourced from foreign countries that have placed price controls on pharmaceutical products. In the United States, the Medicare Modernization Act (“MMA”) contains provisions that may change U.S. importation laws and expand pharmacists’ and wholesalers’ ability to import cheaper versions of an approved drug and competing products from Canada, where there are government price controls. These changes to U.S. importation laws will not take effect unless and until the Secretary of the HHS certifies that the changes will pose no additional risk to the public’s health and safety and will result in a significant reduction in the cost of products to consumers. On September 23, 2020, the Secretary of HHS made such certification to Congress, and on October 1, 2020, the FDA published a final rule that allows for the importation of certain prescription drugs from Canada. Under the final rule, States and Indian Tribes, and in certain future circumstances pharmacists and wholesalers, may submit importation program proposals to the FDA for review and authorization. Since the issuance of the final rule, on November 23, 2020, several industry groups filed federal lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, requesting injunctive relief to prevent implementation of the rule. Further, authorities in Canada have passed rules designed to safeguard the Canadian drug supply from shortages. On September 25, 2020, CMS stated drugs imported by States under this rule will not be eligible for federal rebates under Section 1927 of the Social Security Act and manufacturers would not report these drugs for “best price” or Average Manufacturer Price purposes. Since these drugs are not considered covered outpatient drugs, CMS further stated it will not publish a National Average Drug Acquisition Cost for these drugs. Separately, the FDA also issued a final guidance document outlining a pathway for manufacturers to obtain an additional National Drug Code (“NDC”), for an FDA-approved drug that was originally intended to be marketed in a foreign country and that was authorized for sale in that foreign country. If implemented, importation of drugs from Canada may materially and adversely affect the price we receive for any of our product candidates. The regulatory and market implications of the final rule and guidance are unknown at this time. Proponents of drug reimportation may attempt to pass legislation that would directly allow reimportation under certain circumstances. Legislation or regulations allowing the reimportation of drugs, if enacted, could decrease the price we receive for any products that we may develop and adversely affect our future revenues and prospects for profitability.

Other Risks Related to Our Business and Industry

We depend on the knowledge and skills of our senior leaders, and may not be able to manage our business effectively if we are unable to attract and retain key personnel.

We have benefited substantially from the leadership, performance and vision of our senior leaders, in particular, our founder and Executive Chairman, Vivek Ramaswamy, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, Matthew Gline, and other senior executives at Roivant and the Vants. We rely greatly on the investment experience and medical and scientific expertise of our senior leadership team to identify product candidates and guide future investments and opportunities, as well as the drug development expertise of our and the Vants’ senior leadership to guide the pre-clinical and clinical development of our product candidates. Our success will depend on our ability to retain our current management team. In addition, while we expect to engage in an orderly transition process as we integrate newly appointed officers and managers, we face a variety of risks and uncertainties relation to management transition, including diversion of management attention from business concerns, failure to retain other key personnel or loss of institutional knowledge. Competition for senior leadership in the healthcare investment industry is intense, and we cannot guarantee that we will be able to retain key personnel at Roivant or the Vants.

66

Our senior leaders and key employees may terminate their positions with us at any time. Due to the small number of employees at some of the Vants, the loss of key employee may have a larger impact on our business. In particular, we rely on a limited number of employees in certain key jurisdictions, including the UK, Switzerland and Bermuda. If we lose one or more members of our or the Vants’ senior leadership teams or other key employees, our ability to successfully implement our business strategies could be adversely impacted. Replacing these individuals may be difficult, cause disruption and may take an extended period of time due to the limited number of individuals in our industry with the breadth of skills and experience required to develop, gain regulatory approval of, and commercialize product candidates successfully. Competition to hire from this limited pool is intense, and we may be unable to hire, train, retain or motivate additional key personnel. We do not maintain “key person” insurance for any members of our senior leadership team or other employees.

To encourage valuable employees to remain at our company, in addition to salary and cash incentives, we have provided certain equity awards that vest over time. The value to employees of equity awards that vest over time may be significantly affected by movements in our share price that are beyond our control and may at any time be insufficient to counteract more lucrative offers from other companies. Despite our efforts to retain invaluable employees, members of our management, scientific and development teams may terminate their employment with us at any time. Although we have employment agreements with our key employees, certain of these employment agreements provide for at-will employment, which means that any of our employees could leave our employment at any time. Our success also depends on our ability to continue to attract, retain and motivate high skilled junior, mid-level and senior managers as well as junior, mid-level and senior scientific and medical personnel.

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

The ability of the FDA to review and approve new products or take action with respect to other regulatory matters can be affected by a variety of factors, including government budget and funding levels, ability to hire and retain key personnel and accept payment of user fees, the availability of personnel and other resources in light of governmental “stay at home” orders in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and statutory, regulatory and policy changes. Average review times at the agency have fluctuated in recent years as a result. In addition, government funding of the SEC and other government agencies on which our operations may rely, including those that fund research and development activities is subject to the political process, which is inherently fluid and unpredictable.

Disruptions at the FDA and other agencies may also slow the time necessary for new drugs to be reviewed and/or approved, or for other actions to be taken, by relevant government agencies, which would adversely affect our business. For example, over the last several years, including for 35 days beginning on December 22, 2018, the U.S. government has shut down several times and certain regulatory agencies, such as the FDA and the SEC, have had to furlough critical FDA, SEC and other government employees and stop critical activities. Since March 2020, foreign and domestic inspections by the FDA have largely been on hold due to impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, with the FDA announcing plans in July 2020 to resume prioritized domestic inspections. With respect to pre-approval inspections, FDA has been using other tools and approaches where possible, including requesting existing inspection reports from other foreign regulatory partners, requesting information from applicants, and requesting records and other information directly from facilities and other inspected entities. Should FDA determine that an inspection is necessary for approval of a marketing application and an inspection cannot be completed during the review cycle due to restrictions on travel, the FDA has stated that it generally intends to issue a complete response letter. Further, if there is inadequate information to make a determination on the acceptability of a facility, the FDA may defer action on the application until an inspection can be completed. In 2020, several companies announced receipt of complete response letters due to the FDA’s inability to

67

complete required inspections for their applications. Regulatory authorities outside the United States may adopt similar restrictions or other policy measures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and may experience delays in their regulatory activities. Additionally, as of June 23, 2020, the FDA noted it is continuing to ensure timely reviews of applications for medical products during the COVID-19 pandemic in line with its user fee performance goals. On July 16, 2020, the FDA noted that it is continuing to expedite oncology product development with its staff teleworking full-time. However, the FDA may not be able to continue its current pace and approval timelines could be extended, including where a pre-approval inspection or an inspection of clinical sites is required and due to the COVID-19 pandemic and travel restrictions the FDA is unable to complete such required inspections during the review period. If a prolonged government shutdown or disruption to the operations of the FDA occurs, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. Similarly, a prolonged government shutdown or disruption to the operations of the USPTO could prevent the timely review of our patent applications, which could delay the issuance of any U.S. patents to which we might otherwise be entitled. Future government shutdowns and similar events could impact our ability to access the public markets and obtain necessary capital in order to properly capitalize and continue our operations.

We will need to expand our organization and may experience difficulties in managing this growth, which could disrupt operations.

In connection with our continued growth and the Business Combination, we expect to hire, either directly or through our current or future affiliates, additional employees for our managerial, finance and accounting, clinical, scientific and engineering, regulatory, operational, manufacturing, sales and marketing teams. We may have difficulties in connection with identifying, hiring and integrating new personnel. Future growth would impose significant additional responsibilities on management, including the need to identify, recruit, maintain, motivate and integrate additional employees, consultants and contractors. Also, management may need to divert a disproportionate amount of its attention away from our day-to-day activities and devote a substantial amount of time to managing these growth activities. We may not be able to effectively manage the expansion of operations across our entities, which may result in weaknesses in infrastructure, give rise to operational mistakes, loss of business opportunities, loss of employees and reduced productivity among remaining employees. Our future growth could require significant capital expenditures and may divert financial resources from other projects, such as the development of product candidates. If our management is unable to effectively manage our growth, our expenses may increase more than expected, our ability to generate and/or grow revenues could be reduced, and we may not be able to implement our business strategy. Our future financial performance and ability to commercialize product candidates and new technologies and compete effectively will partly depend on our ability to effectively manage any future growth.

Many of the other pharmaceutical and healthcare technology companies that we compete against for qualified personnel and consultants have greater financial and other resources, different risk profiles and a longer operating history in the industry than us. They also may provide more diverse opportunities and better chances for career advancement. Some of these opportunities may be more appealing to high-quality candidates and consultants than what we have to offer. If we are unable to continue to attract and retain high-quality personnel and consultants, the rate and success at which we can discover and develop product candidates and our business will be harmed.

Our international operations may expose us to business, legal, regulatory, political, operational, financial and economic risks associated with conducting business globally.

Part of our business strategy involves potential expansion internationally with third-party collaborators to seek regulatory approval for our product candidates globally. Doing business internationally involves a number of risks, including but not limited to:

68

Any of these risks, if encountered, could significantly harm our future international expansion and operations and, consequently, negatively impact our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Unfavorable global economic conditions could adversely affect our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Our ability to invest in and expand our business and meet our financial obligations, to attract and retain third-party contractors and collaboration partners and to raise additional capital depends on our operating and financial performance, which, in turn, is subject to numerous factors, including the prevailing economic and political conditions and financial, business and other factors beyond our control, such as the rate of unemployment, the number of uninsured persons in the United States, political influences and inflationary pressures. For example, an overall decrease in or loss of insurance coverage among individuals in the United States as a result of unemployment, underemployment or the repeal of certain provisions of the ACA may decrease the demand for healthcare services and pharmaceuticals. If fewer patients are seeking medical care because they do not have insurance coverage, we may experience difficulties in any eventual commercialization of our product candidates and our business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows could be adversely affected.

In addition, our results of operations could be adversely affected by general conditions in the global economy and in the global financial markets upon which pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical companies such as us are dependent for sources of capital. In the past, global financial crises have caused extreme volatility and disruptions in the capital and credit markets. A severe or prolonged economic downturn could result in a variety of risks to our business, including a reduced ability to raise additional capital when needed on acceptable terms, if at all, and weakened demand for our product candidates. A weak or declining economy could also strain our suppliers, possibly resulting in supply disruption. Any of the foregoing could harm our business and we cannot anticipate all of the ways in which the current economic climate and financial market conditions could adversely impact our business.

We face significant competition in an environment of rapid technological and scientific change, and there is a possibility that our competitors may achieve regulatory approval before us or develop therapies that are safer, more advanced or more effective than ours, which may negatively impact our ability to successfully market or commercialize any product candidates we may develop and ultimately harm our financial condition.

The development and commercialization of new drug products is highly competitive. We may face competition with respect to any product candidates that we seek to develop or commercialize in the future from major pharmaceutical companies, specialty pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology companies worldwide.

69

Potential competitors also include academic institutions, government agencies and other public and private research organizations that conduct research, seek patent protection, and establish collaborative arrangements for research, development, manufacturing, and commercialization.

There are a number of large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies that are currently pursuing the development and commercialization of products for the treatment of the indications that we are pursuing, including, but not limited to:

If any of these or other competitors, including competitors for our other product candidates, receive FDA approval before we do, our product candidates would not be the first treatment on the market, and our market share may be limited. In addition to competition from other companies targeting our target indications, any products we may develop may also face competition from other types of therapies.

Many of our current or potential competitors, either alone or with their strategic partners, have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, pre-clinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals and marketing approved products than we do.

Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel and establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs. Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, are more convenient, or are less expensive than any products that we may develop. Furthermore, currently approved products could be discovered to have application for treatment of our targeted disease indications or similar indications, which could give such products significant regulatory and market timing advantages over our product candidates. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours and may obtain orphan product exclusivity from the FDA for indications that we are targeting, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market. Additionally, products or technologies developed by our competitors may render our potential product candidates uneconomical or obsolete and we may not be successful in marketing any product candidates we may develop against competitors.

In addition, we could face litigation or other proceedings with respect to the scope, ownership, validity and/or enforceability of our patents relating to our competitors’ products and our competitors may allege that our products infringe, misappropriate or otherwise violate their intellectual property. The availability of our competitors’ products could limit the demand, and the price we are able to charge, for any products that we may develop and commercialize.

70

The markets in which our healthcare technology Vants participate are competitive, and if we do not compete effectively, our business and operating results could be adversely affected.

The overall market for healthcare technologies and software is global, rapidly evolving, competitive and subject to changing technology and shifting customer focus. Our healthcare technology Vants, including Datavant, a healthcare data infrastructure company, Lokavant, a clinical trial technology company, and Alyvant, a salesforce technology company, face competition from well-established providers of these solutions, certain of which may have long-standing relationships with many of our current and potential customers, including large biopharmaceutical companies. We also face competition from solutions that biopharmaceutical companies develop internally and from smaller companies that offer products and services directed at more specific markets than we target, enabling these smaller competitors to focus a greater proportion of their efforts and resources on these markets, as well as a large number of companies that have been founded with the goal of applying machine learning technologies to drug discovery.

Many of our competitors are able to devote greater resources to the development, promotion, and sale of their software solutions and services. Third parties with greater available resources and the ability to initiate or withstand substantial price competition could acquire our current or potential competitors. Our competitors may also establish cooperative relationships among themselves or with third parties that may further enhance their product offerings or resources. If our competitors’ products, services or technologies become more accepted than our solutions, if our competitors are successful in bringing their products or services to market earlier than ours, if our competitors are able to respond more quickly and effectively to new or changing opportunities, technologies, or customer requirements, or if their products or services are more technologically capable than ours, then the business and prospects of these Vants could be adversely affected.

Roivant and its subsidiaries are subject to litigation and investigation risks which could adversely affect their business, results of operations and financial condition and could cause the market value of the Roivant Common Shares to decline. Insurance coverage may not be available for, or adequate to cover, all potential exposure for litigation and other business risks.

Roivant and its subsidiaries are from time to time subject to various litigation matters and claims, including regulatory proceedings, administrative proceedings, securities litigation and other lawsuits, and governmental investigations. In addition, Roivant and its subsidiaries may receive requests for information from governmental agencies in connection with their regulatory or investigatory authority or from private third parties pursuant to subpoena. These proceedings may be complex and prolonged, and may occupy the resources of Roivant’s and its subsidiaries’ management and employees. These proceedings are also costly to prosecute and defend and may involve substantial awards or damages payable by Roivant or its subsidiaries if not favorably resolved. Roivant and its subsidiaries may be required to pay substantial amounts or grant certain rights on unfavorable terms in order to settle such proceedings. We also face risks relating to litigation arising from judgments made by us and the Vants’ as to the materiality of any developments in our businesses, including with respect to pre-clinical and clinical data, and the resulting disclosure (or lack thereof) may give rise to securities litigation.

We maintain insurance policies for litigation and various business risks, but such policies may not be adequate to compensate us for potential losses. In addition, such insurance may not be available to us in the future on economically reasonable terms, or at all. Further, our insurance may not cover all claims made against us and defending a suit, regardless of its merit, could be costly and divert management’s attention. Because of the uncertain nature of litigation, investigations and insurance coverage decisions, it is not possible to predict the outcome of these matters, which could have a material adverse effect on the business, results of operations, and financial condition of Roivant and its subsidiaries, as applicable, could impact the ability to consummate a transaction that is challenged or otherwise subject to such litigation and could cause the market value of the Roivant Common Shares to decline.

71

Negative public opinion and increased regulatory scrutiny of gene therapy and genetic research may damage public perception of our gene therapy product candidates and any future products or adversely affect our ability to conduct our business or obtain and maintain marketing approvals for our product candidates.

Public perception may be influenced by claims that gene therapy, including gene editing technologies, is unsafe or unethical, and research activities and adverse events in the field, even if not ultimately attributable to us or our product candidates, could result in increased governmental regulation, unfavorable public perception, challenges in recruiting patients to participate in our clinical studies, potential regulatory delays in the testing or approval of our potential products, stricter labeling requirements for those product candidates that are approved and a decrease in demand for any such product. More restrictive government regulations or negative public opinion would have a negative effect on our business or financial condition and may delay or impair the development and commercialization of our product candidates or demand for any approved products.

We may not hold a controlling stake in certain of our subsidiaries and thus may not be able to direct our business or the development of our product candidates.

For certain of the Vants, including Arbutus, Datavant and Sio Gene Therapies, we hold less than a majority ownership interest or are otherwise limited in our ability to direct or control the business and the development of the product candidates or technologies at the Vant. In addition, for certain other Vants, including Immunovant, we may in the future come to hold less than a majority ownership interest in the Vant. Furthermore, even if we own a majority ownership interest in a Vant, we may not necessarily be able to control the outcome of certain corporate actions. If the business or development of a product candidate at one of these Vants were to face challenges, we would be adversely affected as a result and would be limited in our ability to cause or influence the Vant in question to take appropriate remediative actions.

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

Our computer systems, as well as those of various third parties on which we presently rely, or may rely on in the future, including our CROs and other contractors, consultants and law and accounting firms, may sustain damage from computer viruses, unauthorized access, data breaches, phishing attacks, cybercriminals, natural disasters (including hurricanes and earthquakes), terrorism, war and telecommunication and electrical failures. Such information technology systems are additionally vulnerable to security breaches from inadvertent or intentional actions by our employees, third-party vendors, contractors, consultants, business partners, and/or other third parties. Any of the foregoing may compromise our system infrastructure, or that of our third-party vendors and other contractors and consultants, or lead to data leakage. The risk of a security breach or disruption, particularly through cyber-attacks or cyber intrusion, including by computer hackers, sovereign governments and cyber terrorists, has generally increased along with the number, intensity and sophistication of attempted attacks and intrusions from around the world.

We rely on our third-party providers to implement effective security measures and to identify and correct for any such failures, deficiencies or breaches. Although we seek to supervise such third parties’ security measures, our ability to do so is limited. If the information technology systems of our third-party vendors and other contractors and consultants become subject to disruptions or security breaches, we may have insufficient recourse against such third parties and we may have to expend significant resources to mitigate the impact of such an event, and to develop and implement protections to prevent future events of this nature from occurring.

We may not be able to anticipate all types of security threats and we cannot assure you that our data protection efforts and our investment in information technology will prevent significant breakdowns, data leakages, breaches in our systems, or those of our third-party vendors and other contractors and consultants, or other cyber incidents that could have a material adverse effect upon our reputation, business, operations, or financial condition. If any of the aforementioned security events were to occur, it could result in a material

72

disruption of our drug development programs and business operations. For example, the loss of nonclinical or clinical trial data from completed, ongoing or planned trials could result in delays in our regulatory approval efforts and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data. Similarly, we rely on third parties to supply components for and manufacture our product candidates and to conduct clinical trials, and similar events relating to their computer systems could also have a material adverse effect on our business. To the extent that any disruption or security breach were to result in a loss of or damage to our data or applications, or inappropriate disclosure of personal, confidential or proprietary information, we could incur liability and reputational damage and the further development of any product candidate could be delayed. The costs related to significant security breaches or disruptions could be material and exceed the limits of the cybersecurity insurance we maintain against such risks.

We are subject to stringent privacy laws, information security laws, regulations, policies and contractual obligations related to data privacy and security and changes in such laws, regulations, policies and contractual obligations could adversely affect our business, including in particular our healthcare technology businesses.

We are subject to data privacy and protection laws and regulations that apply to the collection, transmission, storage and use of personally-identifying information, which among other things, impose certain requirements relating to the privacy, security and transmission of personal information. The legislative and regulatory landscape for privacy and data protection continues to evolve in jurisdictions worldwide, and there has been an increasing focus on privacy and data protection issues with the potential to affect our business, including in particular our healthcare technology businesses. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations could result in enforcement action against us, including fines, imprisonment of company officials and public censure, claims for damages by affected individuals, damage to our reputation and loss of goodwill, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or prospects.

There are numerous U.S. federal and state laws and regulations related to the privacy and security of personal information. In particular, regulations promulgated pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) establish privacy and security standards for covered entities that limit the use and disclosure of individually identifiable health information, or protected health information, and require the implementation of administrative, physical and technological safeguards to protect the privacy of protected health information and ensure the confidentiality, integrity and availability of electronic protected health information. While we generally do not receive protected health information subject to HIPAA in our business, we do business with various entities that are subject to HIPAA or that process protected health information, and as HIPAA obligations or our business evolves, we may have to expend resources to understand our obligations, adjust contractual relationships, or change business practices.

In addition, many states in which we operate have laws that protect the privacy and security of sensitive and personal information. Certain state laws may be more stringent or broader in scope, or offer greater individual rights, with respect to sensitive and personal information than federal, international or other state laws, and such laws may differ from each other, which may complicate compliance efforts. For example, the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (the “CMIA”), a statute similar to HIPAA that expressly applies to pharmaceutical companies, imposes stringent data privacy and security requirements and obligations with respect to the personal health information of California residents. Among other things, the CMIA requires that a patient or employee provide a signed, written authorization for disclosure of his or her personal health information, with limited exceptions, and requires security measures to protect the information. The CMIA authorizes administrative fines and civil penalties of up to $25,000 for willful violations and up to $250,000 if the violation is for purposes of financial gain, as well as criminal fines. In addition, the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (the “CCPA”), which went into effect on January 1, 2020, requires covered businesses to provide substantial disclosures to California residents and honor such residents’ data protection and privacy rights, including the right to opt-out of certain sales of personal information. The CCPA provides for civil penalties for violations, as well as a private right of action for certain data breaches that result in the compromise of highly

73

sensitive personal information, which may increase the likelihood of, and risks associated with, data breach litigation. The CCPA has been amended several times, and will be significantly updated from the California Privacy Rights Act (the “CPRA”), a ballot initiative that passed in November 2020. Effective in most material aspects starting on January 1, 2023, the CPRA’s amendments to the CCPA will expand California residents’ rights with respect to certain sensitive personal information and give California residents’ a right to opt out of the sharing of certain personal information for targeted online advertising. The CPRA also created a new state agency vested with authority to implement and enforce the CCPA and the CPRA. Virginia also recently enacted a CCPA/CPRA-like law, the Virginia Consumer Data Privacy Act (the “VDCPA”), to provide its residents with similar rights. New legislation enacted in various other states will continue to shape the data privacy environment nationally. Certain state laws may be more stringent or broader in scope, or offer greater individual rights, with respect to confidential, sensitive and personal information than federal, international or other state laws, and such laws may differ from each other, which may complicate compliance efforts. The effects on our business of the CMIA, CCPA, CPRA, VDCPA and other similar state laws and general consumer protection authorities are potentially significant, and may require us to modify our data processing practices and policies and to incur substantial costs and expenses in an effort to comply. Privacy laws are changing rapidly and there is discussion in Congress of a new federal data protection and privacy law to which we may be subject.

Outside of the United States, laws, regulations and standards in many jurisdictions apply broadly to the collection, use, retention, security, disclosure, transfer and other processing of personal information. For example, in the European Economic Area (the “EEA”), the collection and use of personal data is governed by the provisions of the General Data Protection Regulation (the “GDPR”). The GDPR came into effect in May 2018, superseding the European Union Data Protection Directive, and imposing more stringent data privacy and security requirements on companies in relation to the processing of personal data. The GDPR, together with national legislation, regulations and guidelines of the EU member states governing the processing of personal data, impose strict obligations on controllers, including inter alia: (i) accountability and transparency requirements, and enhanced requirements for obtaining valid consent; (ii) obligations to consider data protection as any new products or services are developed and to limit the amount of personal data processed; (iii) obligations to comply with data protection rights of data subjects; and (iv) reporting of certain personal data breaches to the supervisory authority without undue delay (and no later than 72 hours where feasible). The GDPR also prohibits the transfer of personal data from the EEA to countries outside of the EEA unless made to a country deemed to have adequate data privacy laws by the European Commission or a data transfer mechanism has been put in place. Until recently, one such data transfer mechanism was the EU-US Privacy Shield, but the Privacy Shield was invalidated for international transfers of personal data in July 2020 by the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”). The CJEU upheld the validity of standard contractual clauses (“SCCs”) as a legal mechanism to transfer personal data but companies relying on SCCs will, subject to additional guidance from regulators in the EEA and the UK, need to evaluate and implement supplementary measures that provide privacy protections additional to those provided under SCCs. It remains to be seen whether SCCs will remain available and whether additional means for lawful data transfers will become available. The GDPR authorizes fines for certain violations of up to 4% of global annual revenue or €20 million, whichever is greater. Such fines are in addition to any civil litigation claims by customers and data subjects. European data protection authorities may interpret the GDPR and national laws differently and impose additional requirements, which contributes to the complexity of processing personal data in or from the EEA.

Further, as of January 1, 2021, and the expiry of transitional arrangements agreed to between the United Kingdom and EU (i.e., following the United Kingdom’s exit from the EU – otherwise known as Brexit), data processing in the United Kingdom is governed by a United Kingdom version of the GDPR (combining the GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018), exposing us to two parallel regimes, each of which potentially authorizes similar fines and other potentially divergent enforcement actions for certain violations. Pursuant to the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, which went into effect on January 1, 2021, the United Kingdom and the EU agreed to a specified period during which the United Kingdom will be treated like an EU member state in relation to transfers of personal data from the EU to the United Kingdom for four months from January 1, 2021 provided the UK makes no substantive changes to its data protection laws and as such, data flows remain unrestricted. This

74

“bridging period” may be extended by two further months. Unless the European Commission makes an “adequacy finding” in respect of the United Kingdom before the expiration of the bridging period, the United Kingdom will become an “inadequate third country” under the GDPR and transfers of data from the EEA to the United Kingdom will require the implementation of a “transfer mechanism,” such as the SCCs. Furthermore, following the expiration of the Brexit transition period, there is increasing scope for divergence in application, interpretation and enforcement of the data protection law as between the United Kingdom and EEA. Other countries have also passed or are considering passing laws requiring local data residency or restricting the international transfer of data.

If we or our third party service providers are unable to properly protect the privacy and security of personal information, or other sensitive data we process in our business, we could be found to have breached our contracts. Further, if we fail to comply with applicable privacy laws, we could face civil and criminal penalties. Enforcement activity from state Attorneys General, the FTC, EU Data Protection Authorities and other regulatory authorities in relation to privacy and cybersecurity matters can result in financial liability and reputational harm, and responses to such enforcement activity can consume significant internal resources. We cannot be sure how these privacy laws and regulations will be interpreted, enforced or applied to our operations. In addition to the risks associated with enforcement activities and potential contractual liabilities, our ongoing efforts to comply with evolving laws and regulations at the federal and state level may be costly and require ongoing modifications to our policies, procedures and systems.

Data privacy remains an evolving landscape at both the domestic and international level, with new regulations coming into effect. It is possible that these laws may be interpreted and applied in a manner that is inconsistent with our practices and our efforts to comply with the evolving data protection rules may be unsuccessful. Significant resources are needed to understand and comply with this changing landscape. Failure to comply with federal, state and international laws regarding privacy and security of personal information could expose us to penalties under such laws. Any such failure to comply with data protection and privacy laws could result in government-imposed fines or orders requiring that we change our practices or unwind certain lines of business, claims for damages or other liabilities, regulatory investigations and enforcement action, litigation and significant costs for remediation, any of which could adversely affect our business. Even if we are not determined to have violated these laws, government investigations into these issues typically require the expenditure of significant resources and generate negative publicity, which could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations or prospects.

Our or our affiliates’ employees, independent contractors, principal investigators, consultants, commercial collaborators, service providers and other vendors or potential collaborators may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including noncompliance with regulatory standards and requirements, which could harm our results of operations.

We are exposed to the risk that our or our affiliates’ employees and contractors, including principal investigators, CROs, CMOs, consultants, commercial collaborators, service providers and other vendors may engage in misconduct or other illegal activity. Misconduct by these parties could include intentional, reckless or negligent conduct or other unauthorized activities that violate the laws and regulations of the FDA and other similar regulatory bodies, including those laws that require the reporting of true, complete and accurate information to such regulatory bodies; manufacturing and the FDA’s GCP, GLP and GMP standards; federal, state and foreign healthcare fraud and abuse laws and data privacy; or laws that require the true, complete and accurate reporting of financial information or data. In particular, sales, marketing and other business arrangements in the healthcare industry are subject to extensive laws intended to prevent fraud, kickbacks, self-dealing, bribery, corruption, antitrust violations and other abusive practices. These laws may restrict or prohibit a wide range of business activities, including research, manufacturing, distribution, pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, sales commission, customer incentive programs and other business arrangements. Activities subject to these laws also involve the improper use or misrepresentation of information obtained in the course of clinical trials, creating fraudulent data in our nonclinical studies or clinical trials or illegal misappropriation of

75

drug product, which could result in regulatory sanctions and serious harm to our reputation. It is not always possible to identify and deter employee or third-party misconduct, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to comply with such laws or regulations.

Additionally, we are subject to the risk that a person, including any person who may have engaged in any fraud or misconduct, or government agency could allege such fraud or other misconduct, even if none occurred. Furthermore, we rely on our CROs and clinical trial sites to adequately report data from our ongoing clinical trials. Moreover, in some instances, our licensing partners conduct clinical trials with respect to product candidates in different territories and we rely on any such partners to share data from their ongoing clinical trials as required under our agreements with such partners. For example, any failure by such parties to adequately report safety signals to us in a timely manner from any such trials may also affect the approvability of our product candidates or cause delays and disruptions for the approval of our product candidates, if at all. If our or our affiliates’ employees, independent contractors, principal investigators, consultants, commercial collaborators, service providers or other vendors are alleged or found to be in violation of any such regulatory standards or requirements, or become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or similar agreement and curtailment of our operations, it could have a significant impact on our business and financial results, including the imposition of significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, monetary fines, suspension or delay in our clinical trials, possible exclusion from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other federal healthcare programs, FDA debarment, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, and additional reporting requirements and oversight, any of which could harm our ability to operate our business and our results of operations.

Potential product liability lawsuits against us could cause us to incur substantial liabilities and limit commercialization of any product candidates that we may develop.

The use of existing product candidates in clinical trials and the sale of any product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval exposes us to the risk of product liability claims. Product liability claims might be brought against us by consumers, health care providers, other pharmaceutical companies or others taking or otherwise coming into contact with our product candidates. On occasion, large judgments have been awarded in class action lawsuits where drugs have had unanticipated harmful effects. If we cannot successfully defend against product liability claims, it could incur substantial liability and costs. In addition, regardless of merit or eventual outcome, product liability claims may result in:

The product liability insurance we currently carry, and any additional product liability insurance coverage we acquire in the future, may not be sufficient to reimburse us for any expenses or losses we may suffer. Moreover, insurance coverage is becoming increasingly expensive and in the future we may not be able to

76

maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost or in sufficient amounts to protect us against losses due to liability. If we obtain marketing approval for product candidates, we intend to acquire insurance coverage to include the sale of commercial product candidates; however, it may be unable to obtain product liability insurance on commercially reasonable terms or in adequate amounts. A successful product liability claim or series of claims brought against us could adversely affect our results of operations and business, including preventing or limiting the commercialization of any product candidates, if approved, that we develop.

If we fail to comply with environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, we could become subject to fines or penalties or incur costs that could harm our business.

We are subject to numerous environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, including those governing laboratory procedures and the handling, use, storage, treatment and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes. Certain of our operations may involve the use of hazardous and flammable materials, including chemicals and biological materials, and may also produce hazardous waste products. We generally contract with third parties for the disposal of these materials and wastes. We cannot eliminate the risk of contamination or injury from these materials. In the event of contamination or injury resulting from our use of hazardous materials, we could be held liable for any resulting damages, and any liability could exceed our resources. We also could incur significant costs associated with civil or criminal fines and penalties for failure to comply with such laws and regulations.

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

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

We or the third parties upon whom we depend may be adversely affected by earthquakes, outbreak of disease or other natural disasters and our business continuity and disaster recovery plans may not adequately protect us from a serious disaster.

Earthquakes or other natural disasters could severely disrupt our operations, and have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects. If a natural disaster, power outage or other event occurred that prevented us from using all or a significant portion of our offices, that damaged critical infrastructure, such as the manufacturing facilities of our third-party CMOs, or that otherwise disrupted operations, it may be difficult or, in certain cases, impossible for us to continue our business for a substantial period of time. The disaster recovery and business continuity plans we have in place currently are limited and are unlikely to prove adequate in the event of a serious disaster or similar event. We may incur substantial expenses as a result of the limited nature of our disaster recovery and business continuity plans, which, particularly when taken together with our lack of earthquake insurance, could have a material adverse effect on our business.

The increasing use of social media platforms presents new risks and challenges.

Social media is increasingly being used to communicate about our research, product candidates, investigational medicines and the diseases our product candidates and investigational medicines are being developed to treat. Social media practices in the biopharmaceutical industry continue to evolve and regulations relating to such use are not always clear. This evolution creates uncertainty and risk of noncompliance with regulations applicable to our business, resulting in potential regulatory actions against us. For example, patients

77

may use social media channels to comment on their experience in an ongoing blinded clinical study or to report an alleged adverse event. When such disclosures occur, there is a risk that we fail to monitor and comply with applicable adverse event reporting obligations or we may not be able to defend our business or the public’s legitimate interests in the face of the political and market pressures generated by social media due to restrictions on what we may say about our development candidates and investigational medicines. There is also a risk of inappropriate disclosure of sensitive information or negative or inaccurate posts or comments about us on any social networking website. Furthermore, our employees, affiliates and/or business partners may use social media for their personal use, and their activities on social media or in other forums could result in adverse publicity for us. Any negative publicity as a result of social media posts, whether or not such claims are accurate, could adversely impact us. If any of these events were to occur or we otherwise fail to comply with applicable regulations, we could incur liability, face regulatory actions, or incur other harm to our business.

The United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union may adversely impact our ability to obtain regulatory approvals of our product candidates in the European Union and may require us to incur additional expenses in order to develop, manufacture and commercialize our product candidates in the European Union.

Our headquarters are located in the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom formally exited the EU, commonly referred to as Brexit, on January 31, 2020. Under the terms of its departure, the United Kingdom entered a transition period (the “Transition Period”), during which it continued to follow all EU rules. The Transition Period ended on December 31, 2020. On December 30, 2020, the United Kingdom and European Union signed the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, which includes an agreement on free trade between the two parties.

There is considerable uncertainty resulting from a lack of precedent and the complexity of the United Kingdom and the EU’s intertwined legal regimes as to how Brexit (following the Transition Period) will impact the life sciences industry in Europe, including our company, including with respect to ongoing or future clinical trials. The impact will largely depend on the model and means by which the United Kingdom’s relationship with the EU is governed post-Brexit and the extent to which the United Kingdom chooses to diverge from the EU regulatory framework. For example, following the Transition Period, Great Britain will no longer be covered by the centralized procedures for obtaining EU-wide marketing authorizations and our products will therefore require a separate marketing authorization to allow us to market such products in Great Britain. It is unclear as to whether the relevant authorities in the EU and the United Kingdom are adequately prepared for the additional administrative burden caused by Brexit. Any delay in obtaining, or an inability to obtain, any marketing approvals, as a result of Brexit or otherwise, would prevent us from or delay us commercializing our product candidates in the United Kingdom and/or the EEA and restrict our ability to generate revenue and achieve and sustain profitability. In the short term, following the expiry of the Transition Period there is a risk of disrupted import and export processes due to a lack of administrative processing capacity by the respective United Kingdom and EU customs agencies that may delay time-sensitive shipments and may negatively impact our product supply chain. Further, under current plans, orphan designation in the United Kingdom (or Great Britain, depending on whether there is a prior centralized marketing authorization in the EEA) following Brexit is to be based on the prevalence of the condition in Great Britain as opposed to the current position where prevalence in the EU is the determinant. It is therefore possible that conditions that are currently designated as orphan conditions in the United Kingdom will no longer be and that conditions are not currently designated as orphan conditions in the European Union will be designated as such in the United Kingdom.

If any of these outcomes occur, we may be forced to restrict or delay efforts to seek regulatory approval in the United Kingdom and/or EEA for our product candidates, which could significantly and materially harm our business. There is a degree of uncertainty regarding the overall impact that Brexit will have on (i) the marketing of pharmaceutical products, (ii) the process to obtain regulatory approval in the United Kingdom for product candidates or (iii) the award of exclusivities that are normally part of the EU legal framework (for instance Supplementary Protection Certificates, Pediatric Extensions or Orphan exclusivity).

78

Brexit may also result in a reduction of funding to the EMA once the United Kingdom no longer makes financial contributions to European institutions, such as the EMA. If funding to the EMA is so reduced, it could create delays in the EMA issuing regulatory approvals for our product candidates and, accordingly, have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or prospects.

In addition, we may be required to pay taxes or duties or be subjected to other hurdles in connection with the importation of our product candidates into the EU, or we may incur expenses in establishing a manufacturing facility in the EU in order to circumvent such hurdles. If any of these outcomes occur, we may be forced to restrict or delay efforts to seek regulatory approval in the United Kingdom or the EU for our product candidates, or incur significant additional expenses to operate our business, which could significantly and materially harm or delay our ability to generate revenues or achieve profitability of our business.

As a result of Brexit, other EU Member States may seek to conduct referenda with respect to their continuing membership with the EU. Given these possibilities and others we may not anticipate, as well as the absence of comparable precedent, it is unclear what financial, regulatory and legal implications the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU will have and how such withdrawal will affect us, and the full extent to which our business could be adversely affected.

Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property

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

We rely upon a combination of patents, trademarks, trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements with employees, consultants, collaborators, advisors and other third parties to protect the intellectual property related to our 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 product candidates and any future product candidates. We seek to protect our proprietary position by in-licensing or acquiring intellectual property and filing 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 may not be able to file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner. Furthermore, there is always a risk that our licensed or owned issued patents and any pending and future patent applications may not protect our product candidates, in whole or in part, and may not effectively prevent others from commercializing competitive product candidates, or that an alteration to product candidates or processes may provide sufficient basis for a competitor to avoid infringing our patent claims. The risks associated with patent rights generally apply to patent rights that we in-license now or in the future, as well as patent rights that we may own now or in the future.

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. Although we enter into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with parties who have access to confidential or patentable aspects of their research and development output, such as employees, corporate collaborators, outside scientific collaborators, CROs, contract manufacturers, consultants, advisors and other third parties, any of these parties may breach the agreements and disclose such output before a patent application is filed, thereby jeopardizing our ability to obtain patent protection. In addition, while we have pre-publication review procedures in effect, premature or inadvertent publication of potentially patentable subject matter could preclude our ability to obtain patent protection. We may choose not to seek patent protection for certain innovations or product candidates and may choose not to pursue patent protection in certain jurisdictions, and under the laws of certain jurisdictions, patents or other intellectual property rights may be unavailable and, in any event, any patent protection we obtain may be limited. As a result, product candidates may not be protected by patents in all jurisdictions. We generally apply for patents in those countries where we intend to make, have made, use, offer for sale, or sell product candidates and

79

where we assess the risk of infringement to justify the cost of seeking patent protection. However, we do not seek protection in all countries where we intend to sell product candidates and we may not accurately predict all the countries where patent protection would ultimately be desirable. If we fail to timely file a patent application in any such country, we may be precluded from doing so at a later date. The patent applications that we own or in-license may fail to result in issued patents with claims that cover product candidates in the United States or in other countries. We may also inadvertently make statements to regulatory agencies during the regulatory approval process that may be inconsistent with positions that have been taken during prosecution of our patents, which may result in such patents being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable.

The patent applications that we own or in-license may fail to result in issued patents with claims that cover our product candidates or any future product candidate in the United States or in other countries. Our pending PCT patent applications are not eligible to become issued patents until, among other things, we file a national stage patent application within 30 months in the countries in which we seek patent protection. If we do not timely file any national stage patent applications, we may lose our priority date with respect to our PCT patent applications and any patent protection on the inventions disclosed in such PCT patent applications. We cannot guarantee any current or future patents will provide us with any meaningful protection or competitive advantage. For example, any issued patents might not cover the pharmaceutical composition of the product candidate that is ultimately commercialized. There is no assurance that all of the potentially relevant prior art relating to our patents and patent applications has been found, which can prevent a patent from issuing from a pending patent application or be used to invalidate an issued patent. The examination process may require us to narrow our claims, which may limit the scope of patent protection that we may ultimately obtain. Even if patents do successfully issue and even if such patents cover our product candidates or any future product candidate, third parties may challenge their validity, enforceability or scope, which may result in such patents being narrowly construed, invalidated, or held unenforceable, any of which could limit our ability to prevent competitors and other third parties from developing and marketing similar product candidates or limit the length of terms of patent protection we may have for our product candidates and technologies. Other companies may also design around technologies we have patented, licensed or developed. In addition, the issuance of a patent does not give us the right to practice the patented invention. Third parties may have blocking patents that could prevent us from marketing product candidates or practicing our own patented technology or impose a substantial royalty burden to do so. 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. 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. If any of our patents are challenged, invalidated, circumvented by third parties or otherwise limited or expire prior to the commercialization of our product candidates, and if we do not own or have exclusive rights to other enforceable patents protecting our product candidates or other technologies, competitors and other third parties could market product candidates and use processes that are substantially similar to, or superior to, ours and our business would suffer.

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

The patent position of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies generally is highly uncertain, involves complex legal and factual questions and has in recent years been the subject of much litigation. The standards that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the “USPTO”) and its counterparts in other countries use to grant patents are not always applied predictably or uniformly. In addition, the laws of countries other than the United States may not protect our rights to the same extent as the laws of the United States, and many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending such rights in such jurisdictions. For example, European patent law restricts the patentability of methods of treatment of the human body more than United States law does.

80

Other parties have developed technologies that may be related or competitive to our own technologies and such parties may have filed or may file patent applications, or may have received or may receive patents, claiming inventions that may overlap or conflict with those claimed in our own or licensed patent applications or issued patents. Furthermore, publications of discoveries in scientific literature often lag behind the actual discoveries, and patent applications in the United States and other jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing, or in some cases not at all. Therefore, we cannot know with certainty whether we or our licensors were the first to make the inventions claimed in our owned or licensed patents or pending patent applications, or that we or our licensors 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. Our pending and future patent applications may not result in patents being issued which protect our technology or product candidates, in whole or in part, or which effectively prevent others from commercializing competitive technologies and product candidates. 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.

Patent reform legislation in the United States, including the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“the Leahy-Smith Act”), could increase those uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents. The Leahy-Smith Act was signed into law on September 16, 2011 and includes a number of significant changes to U.S. patent law. These include provisions that affect the way patent applications are prosecuted, redefine prior art and provide more efficient and cost-effective avenues for competitors to challenge the validity of patents. These include allowing third-party submission of prior art to the USPTO during patent prosecution and additional procedures to challenge the validity of a patent by USPTO administered post-grant proceedings, including post-grant review, inter partes review, and derivation proceedings. After March 15, 2013, under the Leahy-Smith Act, the United States transitioned to a first inventor to file system in which, assuming that the other statutory requirements are met, the first inventor to file a patent application will be entitled to the patent on an invention regardless of whether a third party was the first to invent the claimed invention. The Leahy-Smith Act and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications, our ability to obtain future patents, and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents, all of which could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

The issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity or enforceability, and our owned and licensed patents may be challenged in the courts or patent offices in the United States and abroad. We are currently and may in the future be subject to third-party pre-issuance submissions of prior art to the USPTO or its equivalents and we or our licensors have in the past, and may in the future, become involved in opposition, derivation, reexamination, inter partes review, post-grant review or interference proceedings in the U.S. or in other jurisdictions challenging our patent rights or the patent rights of others. A third party may also claim that our owned or licensed patent rights are invalid or unenforceable in a litigation. For example, three U.S. patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 8,058,069 , 9,364,435 and 9,404,127) relating to lipid nanoparticle molar ratios and the aggregation of lipid nanoparticles that Genevant exclusively licenses from Arbutus Biopharma Corp. (“Arbutus”) were the subject of inter partes review proceedings brought by Moderna Therapeutics, Inc. (“Moderna”) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the USPTO (“PTAB”). The PTAB upheld all claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,058,069, invalidated some of the claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,364,435 and invalidated all claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,404,127. The PTAB’s decisions with respect to U.S. Patent Nos. 8,058,069 and 9,364,435 are currently on appeal at the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the PTAB’s decision on U.S. Patent No. 9,494,127, and the PTAB’s decision with respect to U.S. Patent No. 9,494,127 patent is currently held in administrative abeyance, pending a Supreme Court ruling in an unrelated case. Additionally, one European patent (EU patent no. EP2279254) relating to lipid nanoparticle molar ratios that Genevant exclusively licenses from Arbutus is the subject of an opposition proceeding brought by Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation and Moderna at the European Patent Office Opposition Division. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. An adverse determination in any such submission, proceeding or litigation could reduce the scope of, or invalidate, our patent rights, allow

81

third parties to commercialize our technology or product candidates and compete directly with us, without payment to us, result in our inability to manufacture or commercialize product candidates without infringing third-party patent rights or result in our breach of agreements pursuant to which we license such rights to our collaborators or licensees. In addition, if the breadth or strength of protection provided by our patents and patent applications is threatened, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to license, develop or commercialize current or future product candidates. Such challenges may result in loss of exclusivity or freedom to operate or in patent claims being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable, in whole or in part, which could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical technology and product candidates, or limit the duration of the patent protection of our technology and product candidates. Such challenges also may result in substantial cost and require significant time from our scientists and management, even if the eventual outcome is favorable to us. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Even if they are unchallenged, our owned and licensed patents and pending patent applications, if issued, may not provide us with any meaningful protection or prevent competitors from designing around our patent claims to circumvent our owned or licensed patents by developing similar or alternative technologies or therapeutics in a non-infringing manner. For example, a third party may develop a competitive product that provides benefits similar to one or more of our product candidates but that falls outside the scope of our patent protection. Moreover, patents have a limited lifespan. In the United States, the natural expiration of a patent is generally 20 years after it is filed. Various extensions may be available; however the life of a patent, and the protection it affords, is limited. Without patent protection for our current or future product candidates, it may be open to competition from generic versions of such product candidates. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting such candidates might expire before or shortly after such candidates are commercialized. As a result, our owned and licensed patent portfolio may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing product candidates similar or identical to our own and, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Patent terms and their scope may be inadequate to protect our competitive position on current and future 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. In certain instances, the patent term may be adjusted to add additional days to compensate for delays incurred by the USPTO in issuing the patent. Also, the patent term may be extended for a period of time to compensate for at least a portion of the time a product candidate was undergoing FDA regulatory review. However, the life of a patent, and the protection it affords, is limited. Even if patents covering product candidates are obtained, once the patent life has expired, we may be open to competition from competitive product candidates, including generics or biosimilars. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting such candidates might expire before or shortly after such candidates are commercialized. For example, the patent covering the use of tapinarof as an active ingredient to treat psoriasis and atopic dermatitis, but not limited to any formulation, expired in December 2020. 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.

We do not currently and may not in the future own or license any issued composition of matter patents covering certain of our product candidates, including tapinarof, and we cannot be certain that any of our other issued patents will provide adequate protection for such product candidates.

Composition-of-matter patents on the active pharmaceutical ingredient (“API”) in prescription drug products are generally considered to be the strongest form of intellectual property protection for drug products because those types of patents provide protection without regard to any particular method of use or manufacture

82

or formulation of the API used. While we generally seek composition of matter patents for our product candidates, such patents may not be available for all of our product candidates. For example, we do not own or in-license any issued composition of matter patents in the United States or any other jurisdiction with respect to tapinarof. Instead, we rely on an issued U.S. patent claiming topical formulations of tapinarof, including the formulation studied in Phase 3, and an issued U.S. patent covering methods of using the patented topical formulations to treat inflammatory diseases, including psoriasis and atopic dermatitis. The formulation and method-of-use patents have natural expiration dates in 2036. We additionally rely on a drug substance (“DS”) patent covering the high purity commercial crystal form of the DS, the commercial DS synthesis and several novel intermediates that are formed in the synthesis, which has a natural expiration date in 2038.

Method-of-use patents protect the use of a product for the specified method and formulation patents cover formulations of the API. These types of patents do not prevent a competitor or other third party from developing or marketing an identical product for an indication that is outside the scope of the patented method or from developing a different formulation that is outside the scope of the patented formulation. Moreover, with respect to method-of-use patents, even if competitors or other third parties do not actively promote their product for our targeted indications or uses for which we may obtain patents, physicians may recommend that patients use these products off-label, or patients may do so themselves. Although off-label use may infringe or contribute to the infringement of method-of-use patents, the practice is common, and this type of infringement is difficult to prevent or prosecute.

Our owned and licensed patents and pending patent applications, if issued, may not adequately protect our intellectual property or prevent competitors or others from designing around our patent claims to circumvent our owned or licensed patents by developing similar or alternative technologies or therapeutics in a non-infringing manner. If the breadth or strength of protection provided by the patents and patent applications we own or license with respect to our product candidates is not sufficient to impede such competition or is otherwise threatened, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to develop, and threaten our ability to commercialize, our product candidates. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

If we do not obtain protection under the Hatch-Waxman Amendments by extending the patent term, our business may be harmed.

Our commercial success will largely depend on our ability to obtain and maintain patent and other intellectual property in the United States and other countries with respect to our proprietary technology, product candidates and our target indications. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting our product candidates might expire before or shortly after such candidate begins to be commercialized. We expect to seek extensions of patent terms in the United States and, if available, in other countries where we are prosecuting patents.

Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of FDA marketing approval of product candidates, one or more of our U.S. patents may be eligible for a limited patent term extension (“PTE”) under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, referred to as the Hatch-Waxman Amendments. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments permit a patent restoration term of up to five years beyond the normal expiration of the patent as compensation for patent term lost during development and the FDA regulatory review process, which is limited to the approved indication (and potentially additional indications approved during the period of extension) covered by the patent. This extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval and is limited to only one patent that covers the approved product, the approved use of the product, or a method of manufacturing the product. However, the applicable authorities, including the FDA and the USPTO in the United States, and any equivalent regulatory authority in other countries, may not agree with our assessment of whether such extensions are available, and may refuse to grant extensions to our patents, or may grant more limited extensions than we request. We may not be granted an extension because of, for example, failing to apply within applicable deadlines, failing to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents or otherwise failing to

83

satisfy applicable requirements. Moreover, the applicable time-period or the scope of patent protection afforded could be less than we request. Even if we are able to obtain an extension, the patent term may still expire before or shortly after we receive FDA marketing approval.

If we are unable to extend the expiration date of our existing patents or obtain new patents with longer expiry dates, our competitors may be able to take advantage of our investment in development and clinical trials by referencing our clinical and pre-clinical data to obtain approval of competing product candidates following our patent expiration and launch their product earlier than might otherwise be the case.

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 as a result of non-compliance with these requirements.

Periodic maintenance fees on any issued patent are due to be paid to the USPTO and other patent agencies in other jurisdictions in several stages over the lifetime of the patent. The USPTO and various national or international patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar provisions during the patent application process. In certain circumstances, we rely on our licensing partners to pay these fees due to U.S. and non-U.S. patent agencies and to take the necessary action to comply with these requirements with respect to our licensed intellectual property. 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 patent rights include, but are not limited to, failure to timely file national and regional stage patent applications based on our international patent applications, 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 product candidates or any future product candidate, our competitors might be able to enter the market earlier than anticipated, which would have an adverse effect on our business.

We rely on certain in-licensed patents and other intellectual property rights in connection with our development of certain product candidates and, 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.

Our ability to develop and commercialize product candidates is dependent on licenses to patent rights and other intellectual property granted to it by third parties. Further, development and commercialization of our current product candidates, and development of any future product candidates, may require us to enter into additional license or collaboration agreements.

Our current license agreements impose, and future agreements may impose, various development, diligence, commercialization and other obligations on us and require us to meet development timelines, or to exercise commercially reasonable efforts to develop and commercialize licensed products, in order to maintain the licenses. If we fail to comply with our obligations under these licenses, our licensors may have the right to terminate these license agreements, in which event we may not be able to market our product candidates. Termination of any of our license agreements or reduction or elimination of our licensed rights may also result in our having to negotiate new or reinstated licenses with less favorable terms. Additionally, certain provisions in our intellectual property agreements may be susceptible to multiple interpretations. The resolution of any contract interpretation disagreement that may arise could affect the scope of our rights to the relevant intellectual property or technology, or affect financial or other obligations under the relevant agreement, either of which could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. For example, disputes may arise with respect to our current or future licensing agreement include disputes relating to:

84

If disputes over intellectual property that we have licensed prevent or impair our ability to maintain our current licensing arrangements on acceptable terms, we may be unable to successfully develop and commercialize our product candidates. If our licenses are terminated, we may lose our rights to develop and market our technology and product candidates, lose patent protection for our product candidates and technology, experience significant delays in the development and commercialization of our product candidates, or incur liability for damages. In addition, we may need to obtain additional licenses from our licensors and, in connection with obtaining such licenses, we may agree to amend our existing licenses in a manner that may be more favorable to the licensors, including by agreeing to terms that could enable third parties, including our competitors, to receive licenses to a portion of the intellectual property that is subject to our existing licenses and to compete with our product candidates.

Furthermore, if our licenses are terminated, or if the underlying patents fail to provide the intended exclusivity, competitors or other third parties would have the freedom to seek regulatory approval of, and to market, products identical or competitive to ours and we may be required to cease our development and commercialization of certain of our product candidates. Moreover, if disputes over intellectual property that we license prevent or impair our ability to maintain other licensing arrangements on commercially acceptable terms, we may be unable to successfully develop and commercialize the affected product candidates. In addition, certain of these license agreements, may not be assignable by us without the consent of the respective licensor, which may have an adverse effect on our ability to engage in certain transactions. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

In addition, in some circumstances, we may not have the right to control the preparation, filing and prosecution of patent applications, or to maintain or enforce the patents, covering technology that it licenses from third parties. For example, pursuant to the CCHMC License Agreement, as defined below, CCHMC controls such activities for certain patents licensed to ASG under such agreement, subject to ASG’s right to review and comment. Therefore, we cannot be certain that these or other patents will be prosecuted, maintained and enforced in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business. Additionally, we may not have sufficient ability to provide input into the patent prosecution, maintenance and defense process with respect to such patents, and our licensors may fail to take the steps that we believe are necessary or desirable in order to obtain, maintain, defend and enforce the licensed patents. If our current or future licensors or collaboration partners fail to obtain, maintain, defend, protect or enforce any patents or patent applications licensed to us, our rights to such patents and patent applications may be reduced or eliminated and our right to develop and commercialize product candidates that are the subject of such licensed rights could be adversely affected.

Furthermore, certain of our current and future licenses may not provide us with exclusive rights to use the licensed intellectual property and technology, or may not provide us with rights to use such intellectual property and technology in all relevant fields of use and in all territories in which we may wish to develop or commercialize our technology and product candidates in the future. The intellectual property portfolio licensed to us by our licensors at least in some respects, may therefore be used by such licensors or licensed to third parties,

85

and such third parties may have certain enforcement rights with respect to such intellectual property. For example, Immunovant does not have rights to develop, manufacture, use or commercialize IMVT-1401 or file or enforce patents relating to these assets in territories other than the United States, Canada, Mexico, the E.U., the U.K., Switzerland, the Middle East, North Africa and Latin America, as such rights in other jurisdictions have been retained by HanAll or licensed by HanAll to third parties. Additionally, Dermavant does not have the right to develop, manufacture, use or commercialize tapinarof in China, including Hong Kong, Macau or Taiwan, as such rights were retained by Welichem. Patents licensed to us could be put at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly in litigation filed by or against our licensors or another licensee or in administrative proceedings brought by or against our licensors or another licensee in response to such litigation or for other reasons. As a result, we may not be able to prevent competitors or other third parties from developing and commercializing competitive products, including in territories covered by our licenses.

Third party claims or litigation alleging infringement, misappropriation or other violations of third-party patents or other proprietary rights or seeking to invalidate our patents or other proprietary rights, may delay or prevent the development and commercialization of our product candidates and any future product candidate.

Our commercial success depends in part on our avoidance of infringement, misappropriation and other violations of the patents and proprietary rights of third parties. However, our research, development and commercialization activities may be subject to claims that we infringe, misappropriate or otherwise violate patents or other intellectual property rights owned or controlled by third parties. Our competitors or other third parties may assert infringement claims against us, alleging that our product candidates are covered by their patents. We cannot be certain that we do not infringe existing patents or that we will not infringe patents that may be granted in the future. There is a substantial amount of litigation, both within and outside the United States, involving patent and other intellectual property rights in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, including patent infringement lawsuits, interferences, derivation and administrative law proceedings, inter partes review, and post-grant review before the USPTO, as well as oppositions and similar processes in other jurisdictions. Numerous U.S. and non-U.S. issued patents and pending patent applications, which are owned by third parties, exist in the fields in which we and our collaborators are developing product candidates. As the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries expand and more patents are issued, and as we gain greater visibility, the risk increases that our product candidates or other business activities may be subject to claims of infringement of the patent and other proprietary rights of third parties. Third parties may assert that we are infringing their patents or employing their proprietary technology without authorization. There may be third-party patents or patent applications with claims to materials, formulations, methods of manufacture or methods for treatment related to the use or manufacture of our product candidates. For example, we are aware of third-party patents that, if issued as patents, patent applications, could be construed in a manner that negatively impacts the commercialization of ARU-1801. If any such patents were held by a court of competent jurisdiction to cover ARU-1801, we may be required to cease development or commercialization of ARU-1801 unless we obtain a license under the applicable patents, or until such patents expire. Such a license may not be available on commercially reasonable terms, may only be available on a non-exclusive basis or may not be available at all. We could also be required to pay damages, which could be significant, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees if we are found to have willfully infringed such patents.

Additionally, because patent applications can take many years to issue, there may be currently pending patent applications which may later result in issued patents that our product candidates may infringe. In addition, third parties may obtain patents in the future and claim that use of our technologies infringes upon these patents. If any third-party patents were held by a court of competent jurisdiction to cover any of our product candidates, 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. Similarly, if any third-party patent were held by a court of competent jurisdiction to cover aspects of our formulations, processes for manufacture or methods of use, including combination therapy, the holders of any such patent may be able to block our ability to develop and commercialize the applicable product candidate unless we obtained a license or

86

until such patent expires. In either case, such a license may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Claims that we have misappropriated the confidential information or trade secrets of third parties could have a similar negative impact on our business. In addition, we may be subject to claims that we are infringing other intellectual property rights, such as trademarks or copyrights, or misappropriating the trade secrets of others, and to the extent that our employees, consultants or contractors use intellectual property or proprietary information owned by others in their work for us, disputes may arise as to the rights in related or resulting know-how and inventions, which could be time-consuming and divert the attention of senior management.

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. 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. In the event of a successful infringement or other intellectual property claim against it, we may have to pay substantial damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees for willful infringement, obtain one or more licenses from third parties, pay royalties or redesign our affected product candidates, which may be impossible or require substantial time and monetary expenditure. We cannot predict whether any such license would be available at all or whether it would be available on commercially reasonable terms. 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 that event, we would be unable to further develop and commercialize one or more of our product candidates, which could harm our business significantly. We cannot provide any assurances that third-party patents do not exist which might be enforced against our product candidates, resulting in either an injunction prohibiting our sales, or, with respect to our sales, an obligation on our part to pay royalties and/or other forms of compensation to third parties.

Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of complex intellectual property litigation more effectively than we can because the competitors have substantially greater resources. In addition, intellectual property litigation, regardless of its outcome, may cause negative publicity, adversely impact prospective customers, cause product shipment delays, or prohibit us from manufacturing, marketing or otherwise commercializing our product candidates, services, and technology. Any uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of any litigation could adversely impact our ability to raise additional funds or otherwise harm our business, results of operation, financial condition or cash flows.

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, which could adversely impact the price of our common shares.

We may not identify relevant third-party patents or may incorrectly interpret the relevance, scope or expiration of a third-party patent, which might harm 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 or may be relevant to or necessary for the commercialization of product candidates in any jurisdiction. Patent applications in the United States and elsewhere are not published until 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. In addition, U.S. patent applications filed before November 29, 2000 and certain U.S. patent applications filed after that date that will not be filed outside the United States remain confidential until patents issue. 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 product candidates or the use of our product candidates.

87

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 and we may incorrectly conclude that a third-party patent is invalid or unenforceable. 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 or services so 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 may be 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, misappropriate or otherwise violate our patents, the patents of our licensors or our other intellectual property rights. To counter infringement or unauthorized use, we may be required to file and prosecute legal claims against one or more third parties, which can be expensive and time-consuming, even if ultimately successful. 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. As a result, we cannot predict with certainty how much protection, if any, will be given to our patents if we attempt to enforce them and they are challenged in court. Further, even if we prevail against an infringer in U.S. district court, there is always the risk that the infringer will file an appeal and the district court judgment will be overturned at the appeals court and/or that an adverse decision will be issued by the appeals court relating to the validity or enforceability of our patents. 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. 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 written description or 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 reexaminations, 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 it 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. 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. Additionally, any adverse outcome could allow third parties to commercialize our 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.

88

Even if we establish infringement, the court may decide not to grant an injunction against further infringing activity and instead award only monetary damages, which may or may not be an adequate remedy. We may not be able to detect or prevent, alone or with our licensors, misappropriation of our intellectual property rights, particularly in countries where the laws may not protect those rights as fully as in the United States. 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 have sufficient financial or other resources to adequately conduct such litigation or proceedings. Some of our competitors or other third parties 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. Because of the expense and uncertainty of litigation, we may conclude that even if a third party is infringing our issued patent, any patents that may be issued as a result of our pending or future patent applications or other intellectual property rights, the risk-adjusted cost of bringing and enforcing such a claim or action may be too high or not in the best interest of our company or our shareholders. In such cases, we may decide that the more prudent course of action is to simply monitor the situation or initiate or seek some other non-litigious action or solution.

Because many of the patents we own are owned by our subsidiaries, and in certain cases by subsidiaries that are not or will not be directly commercializing products, we may not be in a position to obtain a permanent injunction against a third party that is found to infringe our patents.

Many patents that we own are assigned to our subsidiaries or to their respective subsidiaries. For example, any patents that Immunovant owns are assigned to its wholly-owned subsidiary Immunovant Sciences GmbH and any patents that Dermavant owns are assigned to its wholly-owned subsidiary Dermavant Sciences GmbH. If a third party is found to be infringing such patents, we and our direct subsidiaries may not be able to permanently enjoin the third party from making, using, offering for sale or selling the infringing product or activity for the remaining life of such patent in the United States or other jurisdictions when the patent is assigned to a subsidiary, which is not the entity that is or would be commercializing a potentially competitive product or service. In such a circumstance, such third party may be able to compete with us or our subsidiaries, which could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

Changes in U.S. patent law or the patent law of other countries or jurisdictions could diminish the value of patents in general, thereby impairing our ability to protect our product candidates.

The United States has recently enacted and implemented wide-ranging patent reform legislation. In addition, patent reform legislation may pass in the future that could lead to additional uncertainties and increased costs surrounding the prosecution, enforcement and defense of our patents and pending patent applications. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on several patent cases in recent years, either narrowing the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances or weakening the rights of patent owners in certain situations. 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. For example, the Biden administration recently indicated its support for a proposal at the World Trade Organization to waive patent rights with respect to COVID-19 vaccines. Any waiver of our patent or other intellectual property protection by the U.S. and other foreign governments, including with respect to Genevant’s licensed LNP delivery technology as used in connection with mRNA vaccine delivery, could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

89

Depending on actions by the U.S. Congress, the federal courts, and the USPTO, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that would weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce patents that we have licensed or that we might obtain in the future. Similarly, changes in patent law and regulations in other countries or jurisdictions or changes in the governmental bodies that enforce them or changes in how the relevant governmental authority enforces patent laws or regulations may weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce patents that we have licensed or that we may obtain in the future. We cannot predict future changes in the interpretation of patent laws or changes to patent laws that might be enacted into law by United States and non-U.S. legislative bodies. Those changes may materially affect our patents or patent applications and our ability to obtain additional patent protection in the future.

In addition, the United States federal government retains certain rights in inventions produced with its financial assistance under the Bayh-Dole Act. The federal government retains a “nonexclusive, nontransferable, irrevocable, paid-up license” for its own benefit. The Bayh-Dole Act also provides federal agencies with “march-in rights.” March-in rights allow the government, in specified circumstances, to require the contractor or successors in title to the patent to grant a “nonexclusive, partially exclusive, or exclusive license” to a “responsible applicant or applicants.” For example, the research resulting in certain of our in-licensed patent rights and technology for certain product candidates was funded in part by the U.S. federal government. As a result, the federal government may have certain rights to such patent rights and technology, which include march-in rights. If the federal government decides to exercise these rights, it is not required to engage us as its contractor in connection with doing so. The federal government’s rights may also permit it to disclose our confidential information to third parties and to exercise march-in rights to use or allow third parties to use our licensed technology. The federal government can exercise its march-in rights if it determines that action is necessary because we fail to achieve practical application of the government-funded technology, or because action is necessary to alleviate health or safety needs, to meet requirements of federal regulations, or to give preference to U.S. industry. Further, the recipient of U.S. government funding is required to comply with certain other requirements, including timely disclosing the inventions claimed in such patent rights to the U.S. government and timely electing title to such inventions. The U.S. government has the right to take title to such intellectual property rights if we, or the applicable licensor, fail to disclose the invention to the government and fail to file an application to register the intellectual property within specified time limits. Intellectual property generated under a government funded program is also subject to certain reporting requirements, compliance with which may require us or the applicable licensor to expend substantial resources. In addition, our rights in such inventions may be subject to certain requirements to manufacture product candidates embodying such inventions in the United States. We cannot be certain that our current or future licensors will comply with the disclosure or reporting requirements of the Bayh-Dole Act at all times, or be able to rectify any lapse in compliance with these requirements. Any exercise by the government of any of the foregoing rights or by any third party of its reserved rights could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

The validity, scope and enforceability of any patents listed in the Orange Book that cover our product candidates or patents that cover our biologic product candidates can be challenged by third parties.

If one of our product candidates is approved by the FDA and if a third party files an application under Section 505(b)(2) or an abbreviated new drug application (“ANDA”) under Section 505(j) for a generic product containing any of our product candidates, including tapinarof (which, following the natural expiration of our method of use patent family, will be protected only by our formulation patent), and relies in whole or in part on studies conducted by or for us, the third party will be required to certify to the FDA that either: (1) there is no patent information listed in the Orange Book with respect to our NDA for the applicable approved product candidate; (2) the patents listed in the Orange Book have expired; (3) the listed patents have not expired, but will expire on a particular date and approval is sought after patent expiration; or (4) the listed patents are invalid or will not be infringed by the manufacture, use or sale of the third party’s generic product. A certification under 21 CFR § 314.94(a)(12)(i)(A)(4) that the new product will not infringe the Orange Book-listed patents for the applicable approved product candidate, or that such patents are invalid, is called a paragraph IV certification. If

90

the third party submits a paragraph IV certification to the FDA, a notice of the paragraph IV certification must also be sent to us once the third party’s ANDA is accepted for filing by the FDA. We may then initiate a lawsuit to defend the patents identified in the notice. The filing of a patent infringement lawsuit within 45 days of receipt of the notice automatically prevents the FDA from approving the third party’s ANDA until the earliest of 30 months or the date on which the patent expires, the lawsuit is settled, or the court reaches a decision in the infringement lawsuit in favor of the third party. If we do not file a patent infringement lawsuit within the required 45-day period, the third party’s ANDA will not be subject to the 30-month stay of FDA approval.

Moreover, a third party may challenge the current patents, or patents that may issue in the future, within our portfolio, which could result in the invalidation of some or all of the patents that might otherwise be eligible for listing in the Orange Book for one of our products. If a third party successfully challenges all of the patents that might otherwise be eligible for listing in the Orange Book for one of our products before an ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA is filed we will be unable to obtain a 30-month stay of FDA approval of a 505(b)(2) or ANDA.

For example, our three issued U.S. patents covering tapinarof may not provide adequate protection from competitive products developed by 505(b)(1) NDA, 505(b)(2) NDA or 505(j) ANDA applicants containing paragraph IV certifications if such applicants are able to design around the three patents. One or more competitors may circumvent these patents by filing a marketing application with the FDA under Sections 505(b)(2) or 505(j) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act containing a paragraph IV certification for a competitive product containing the active moiety in tapinarof and successfully challenging the validity of the three patents or successfully designing around the three patents. Any successful challenge against the three patents and/or designing around one or more of the patents could result in a generic version of tapinarof being commercialized before the expiration of the three patents. If the three patents are successfully challenged or designed around, our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects would be harmed.

For biologics, the BPCIA provides a mechanism for one or more third parties to seek FDA approval to manufacture or sell a biosimilar or interchangeable versions of brand name biological product candidates. Due to the large size and complexity of biological product candidates, as compared to small molecules, a biosimilar must be “highly similar” to the reference product with “no clinically meaningful differences between the two.” The BPCIA does not require reference product sponsors to list patents in the FDA’s Orange Book and does not include an automatic 30-month stay of FDA approval upon the timely filing of a lawsuit. The BPCIA, however, does require a formal pre-litigation process which includes the exchange of information between a biosimilar applicant and a reference biologic sponsor that includes the identification of relevant patents and each parties’ basis for infringement and invalidity. After the exchange of this information, we may then initiate a lawsuit within 30 days to defend the patents identified in the exchange. If the biosimilar applicant successfully challenges the asserted patent claims, it could result in the invalidation of, or render unenforceable, some or all of the relevant patent claims or result in a finding of non-infringement.

If we are unsuccessful in enforcing our patents against generics or biosimilars, our products could face competition prior to the expiration of the patents which cover such products, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Furthermore, any such litigation or other proceedings to enforce or defend intellectual property rights are often very complex in nature, may be very expensive and time-consuming, may divert management’s attention from our core business, and may result in unfavorable results that could limit our ability to prevent third parties from competing with product candidates.

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

Filing, prosecuting and defending patents on 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. The requirements for patentability may differ in certain countries, particularly developing countries, and the breadth of patent claims allowed can be inconsistent. In addition, the laws of some countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as laws of the United States.

91

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 product candidates 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 product candidates and may also export infringing product candidates to territories where we have patent protection, but enforcement is not as strong as that in the United States. These product candidates 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.

We do not have patent rights in all countries in which a market may exist. Moreover, in jurisdictions where we do have patent rights, proceedings to enforce such rights 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. Additionally, such proceedings 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. Thus, we may not be able to stop a competitor from marketing and selling in other countries product candidates and services that are the same as or similar to our product candidates and services, and our competitive position would be harmed.

Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in other 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 product candidates, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patents or marketing of competing product candidates in violation of our proprietary rights generally. Proceedings to enforce our patent rights in other 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.

Many countries, including European Union countries, India, Japan and China, have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner may be compelled under specified circumstances to grant licenses to third parties. In addition, many countries limit the enforceability of patents against government agencies or government contractors. In those countries, we may have limited remedies, which could materially diminish the value of those patents. This could limit our potential revenue opportunities. 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.

If we are unable to protect the confidentiality of any trade secrets, our business and competitive position would be harmed.

In addition to seeking patents for any product candidates, we may rely on trade secrets, including unpatented software, know-how, technology and other proprietary information, to maintain our competitive position. We seek to protect this software and information, 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.

Because we rely and expect to continue to rely on third parties to manufacture our product candidates and future product candidates, and we collaborate and expect to continue to collaborate with third parties on the development of current and future product candidates, we must, at times, share trade secrets with them. We also conduct joint research and development programs that may require us to share trade secrets under the terms of

92

our research and development partnerships or similar agreements. We seek to protect our proprietary technology in part by entering into confidentiality agreements and, if applicable, material transfer agreements, consulting agreements or other similar agreements with our advisors, employees, third-party contractors 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, including our trade secrets. Despite the contractual provisions employed when working with third parties, the need to share 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. Any disclosure, either intentional or unintentional, by our employees, the employees of third parties with whom we share facilities or third-party consultants and vendors that we engage to perform research, clinical trials or manufacturing activities, or misappropriation by third parties (such as through a cybersecurity breach) of our trade secrets or proprietary information could enable competitors to duplicate or surpass our technological achievements, thus eroding our competitive position in the market. Further, adequate remedies may not exist in the event of unauthorized use or disclosure. 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 have an adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

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. Policing unauthorized use of our or our licensors’ intellectual property is difficult, expensive and time-consuming, and we may be unable to determine the extent of any unauthorized use. Moreover, 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 inside and outside the United States are less willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets. Despite our efforts to protect our trade secrets, our competitors and other third parties may discover our trade secrets, including our proprietary software, 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 or other third party’s discovery of our trade secrets, including our proprietary software, would impair our competitive position and have an adverse impact on our business.

We cannot guarantee that we have entered into non-disclosure, confidentiality agreements, material transfer agreements or consulting agreements with each party that may have or have had access to our trade secrets or proprietary software, technology and processes. Despite these efforts, any of these parties may breach the agreements and disclose our proprietary information, including our trade secrets and proprietary software, and we may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for such breaches. Monitoring unauthorized uses and disclosures of our intellectual property is difficult, and we do not know whether the steps we have taken to protect our intellectual property will be effective. In addition, we may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for any 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 inside and outside the United States are less willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets. If any of our trade secrets, including our proprietary software, were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor or other third party, we would have no right to prevent them, or those to whom they communicate it, from using that technology or information to compete with us. If any of our trade secrets, including our proprietary software, were to be disclosed to or independently developed by a competitor or other third party, our competitive position would be harmed.

Certain software utilized in our computational drug discovery efforts may include -third party open source software. Any failure to comply with the terms of one or more open source software licenses could adversely affect our business, subject us to litigation, or create potential liability.

Certain software utilized in our computational drug discovery efforts may include third party open source software and we expect to continue to incorporate open source software in the future. The use of open source software involves a number of risks, many of which cannot be eliminated and could negatively affect our

93

business. For example, we cannot ensure that we have effectively monitored our use of open source software or that we are in compliance with the terms of the applicable open source licenses or our current policies and procedures. There have been claims against companies that use open source software asserting that the use of such open source software infringes the claimants’ intellectual property rights. As a result, we could be subject to suits by third parties claiming infringement on such third parties’ intellectual property rights. Litigation could be costly for us to defend, have a negative effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations, or require us to devote additional research and development resources to modify our computational drug discovery platform.

Use of open source software may entail greater risks than use of third-party commercial software, as open source licensors generally do not provide warranties, controls on the origin of the software or other contractual protections regarding infringement claims or the quality of the code, including with respect to security vulnerabilities. In addition, certain open source licenses require that source code for software programs that interact with such open source software be made available to the public at no cost and that any modifications or derivative works to such open source software continue to be licensed under the same terms as the open source software license. The terms of various open source licenses have not been interpreted by courts in the relevant jurisdictions, and there is a risk that such licenses could be construed in a manner that imposes unanticipated conditions or restrictions on our ability to market our solutions. By the terms of certain open source licenses, if portions of our proprietary software are determined to be subject to an open source license or if we combine our proprietary software with open source software in a certain manner, we could be required to release the source code of our proprietary software and to make our proprietary software available under open source licenses, each of which could reduce or eliminate the effectiveness of our computational discovery efforts. We may also face claims alleging noncompliance with open source license terms or misappropriation or other violation of open source technology. Any of these events could create liability for us and damage our reputation, which could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

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 employ individuals who were previously employed at universities or other software, biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our licensors, competitors or potential competitors. Although we seek to protect our ownership of intellectual property rights by ensuring that our agreements with our employees, collaborators and other third parties with whom we do business include provisions requiring such parties to not use the confidential information of their former employer, we may be subject to claims that we or our employees, consultants, independent contractors or other third parties have inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed confidential information of our employees’ former employers or other third parties. We may also be subject to claims that former employers or other third parties have an ownership interest in our owned or licensed patents or patent applications. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. There is no guarantee of success in defending these claims, and 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, which could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar technology and therapeutics, without payment to us, could limit the duration of the patent protection covering our technology and product candidates and could result in our inability to develop, manufacture or commercialize our product candidates without infringing third-party patent rights. 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 current or future product candidates. Such a license may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Even if we are successful, litigation could result in substantial cost and be a distraction to our management and other employees. Moreover, any such litigation or the threat thereof may harm our reputation, our ability to form strategic alliances or sublicense our rights to collaborators, engage with scientific advisors or hire employees or consultants, each of which would harm our business, results of operations and financial condition.

94

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

We rely on a combination of internally developed and in-licensed intellectual property rights and we or our licensors may be subject to claims that former employees, collaborators or other third parties have an interest in our owned or in-licensed patents, trade secrets, or other intellectual property as an inventor or co-inventor. For example, we or our licensors may have inventorship disputes arise from conflicting obligations of employees, consultants or other third parties who are involved in developing product candidates. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these and other claims challenging inventorship or our or our licensors’ ownership of our owned or in-licensed patents, trade secrets or other intellectual property. If we or our licensors 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, intellectual property that is important to product candidates. 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. Any of the foregoing could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

In addition, while it is our policy to require our employees, contractors and other third parties who may be involved in the development of intellectual property to execute agreements assigning such intellectual property to us, we may be unsuccessful in executing such an agreement with each party who in fact develops intellectual property that we regard as our own. Our invention assignment agreements may not be self-executing or may be breached, and we may not have adequate remedies for any such breach. Additionally, we may be forced to bring claims against third parties, or defend claims they may bring against us, to determine the ownership of what we regard as our intellectual property. Furthermore, individuals executing agreements with us may have preexisting or competing obligations to a third party, such as an academic institution, and thus an agreement with us may be ineffective in perfecting ownership of inventions developed by that individual.

Intellectual property litigation could cause us to spend substantial resources and distract our personnel from their normal responsibilities, and have a harmful effect on the success of our business.

Even if resolved in our favor, litigation or other legal proceedings relating to intellectual property claims may cause us to incur significant expenses, and could distract our technical and management personnel from their normal responsibilities. 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 adversely impact 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 conduct such litigation or proceedings adequately. 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.

Accordingly, despite our efforts, we may not be able to prevent third parties from infringing upon or misappropriating our intellectual property. In addition, the uncertainties associated with litigation could compromise our ability to raise the funds necessary to continue our clinical trials and internal research programs, or in-license needed technology or other future product candidates. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings could compromise our ability to compete in the marketplace, including compromising our ability to raise the funds necessary to continue our clinical trials, continue our research programs, license necessary technology from third parties, or enter into development collaborations that would help us commercialize product candidates, if approved. Any of the foregoing could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

95

We may not be successful in obtaining necessary intellectual property rights to future product candidates through acquisitions and in-licenses.

A third party may hold intellectual property, including patent rights, that are important or necessary to the development of our product candidates. Accordingly, we may seek to acquire or in-license patented or proprietary technologies to develop such product candidates or to grow our product offerings and technology portfolio. However, we may be unable to acquire or in-license intellectual property rights relating to, or necessary for, any such product candidate or technology from third parties on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Even if we are able to in-license any such necessary intellectual property, it could be on non-exclusive terms, thereby giving our competitors and other third parties access to the same intellectual property licensed to us, and it could require us to make substantial licensing and royalty payments. In that event, we may be unable to develop or commercialize such product candidates or technology. We may also be unable to identify product candidates or technology that we believe are an appropriate strategic fit for our company and protect intellectual property relating to, or necessary for, such product candidate and technology.

The in-licensing and acquisition of third-party intellectual property rights for any future product candidate is a competitive area, and a number of more established companies are also pursuing strategies to in-license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights for product candidates that we may consider attractive or necessary. These established companies may have a competitive advantage over us due to their size, cash resources and greater clinical development and commercialization capabilities. Furthermore, companies that perceive us to be a competitor may be unwilling to assign or license rights to us. If we are unable to successfully obtain rights to additional technologies or product candidates, our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects for growth could suffer.

In addition, we expect that competition for the in-licensing or acquisition of third-party intellectual property rights for any future product candidate and technologies that are attractive to us may increase in the future, which may mean fewer suitable opportunities for us as well as higher acquisition or licensing costs. We may be unable to in-license or acquire the third-party intellectual property rights for product candidates or technology on terms that would allow us to make an appropriate return on our investment.

Any trademarks we have obtained or may obtain may be infringed or successfully challenged, resulting in harm to our business.

We rely on trademarks as one means to distinguish product candidates that are approved for marketing from the product candidates of our competitors. Our current and future trademark applications in the United States and in other jurisdictions may not be allowed or may subsequently be opposed, challenged, infringed, circumvented, declared generic or determined to be infringing other marks. Additionally, once we select new trademarks and apply to register them, our trademark applications may not be approved. Third parties have in the past opposed, are currently opposing and may in the future oppose or attempt to cancel our trademark applications or trademarks, or otherwise challenge our use of the trademarks. In the event that our trademarks are successfully challenged, we could be forced to rebrand product candidates, which could result in loss of brand recognition and could require us to devote resources to advertising and marketing new brands. Our competitors may infringe our trademarks and we may not have adequate resources to enforce our trademarks. If we attempt to enforce our trademarks and assert trademark infringement claims, a court may determine that the marks we have asserted are invalid or unenforceable, or that the party against whom we have asserted trademark infringement has superior rights to the marks in question. In this case, we could ultimately be forced to cease use of such trademarks.

We may not be able to protect our rights to these trademarks and trade names, which we need to build name recognition among potential partners or customers in our markets of interest. At times, competitors may adopt trade names or trademarks similar to ours, thereby impeding our ability to build brand identity and possibly leading to market confusion. In addition, there could be potential trade name or trademark infringement claims brought by owners of other registered trademarks or trademarks that incorporate variations of our registered or

96

unregistered trademarks or trade names. Over the long term, if we are unable to establish name recognition based on our trademarks and trade names, then we may not be able to compete effectively and our business may be adversely affected. Our efforts to enforce or protect our proprietary rights related to trademarks, trade secrets, domain names, copyrights or other intellectual property may be ineffective and could result in substantial costs and diversion of resources. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

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

Once granted, patents may remain open to invalidity challenges including opposition, interference, re-examination, post-grant review, inter partes review, nullification or derivation action in court or 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 intellectual property rights have limitations, and may not adequately protect our business, provide a barrier to entry against our competitors or potential competitors, or permit us to maintain our competitive advantage.

Moreover, if a third party has intellectual property rights that cover the practice of our technology, we may not be able to fully exercise or extract value from our intellectual property rights. The following examples are illustrative:

97

Should any of these events occur, they could significantly harm our business and results of operations.

Risks Related to MAAC and the Business Combination

For purposes of this subsection only, “we,” “us” or “our” refer to (i) MAAC prior to the consummation of the Business Combination or (ii) Roivant following the consummation of the Business Combination, unless the context otherwise requires.

MAAC’s Sponsor, officers and directors have agreed to vote in favor of the Business Combination, regardless of how MAAC’s public stockholders vote.

Unlike certain blank check companies in which the initial stockholders agree to vote their founder shares in accordance with the majority of the votes cast by the public stockholders in connection with an initial Business Combination, MAAC Sponsor, officers and directors have agreed (and their permitted transferees will agree), pursuant to the terms of a letter agreement entered into with MAAC, to vote any founder shares, placement shares or MAAC Class A Shares held by them, in favor of MAAC’s Business Combination. As of the date of this proxy statement/prospectus, MAAC’s initial stockholders own approximately 20% of MAAC’s issued and outstanding shares. As a result, in addition to MAAC’s initial stockholders’ shares, MAAC would need only 15,401,934, or 37.50%, of the 41,071,823 MAAC Class A Shares outstanding as of the date of this proxy statement/prospectus to be voted in favor of the Business Combination (assuming all outstanding shares are voted) in order to have the Business Combination approved. Accordingly, it is more likely that the necessary stockholder approval will be received than would be the case if such persons agreed to vote their shares in accordance with the affirmative vote of the holders of a majority of MAAC Shares outstanding as of the date of the stockholder meeting.

MAAC’s Sponsor, directors, officers and their affiliates may elect to purchase shares from public stockholders in connection with the Business Combination, which may influence the vote on the Business Combination and reduce the public “float” of the Roivant Common Shares.

MAAC’s Sponsor, directors, officers or their affiliates may purchase shares in privately negotiated transactions or in the open market either prior to or following the completion of the Business Combination, although they are under no obligation to do so. Please see “Information about MAAC — Permitted Purchases of MAAC’s Securities” for a description of how such persons will determine which stockholders to seek to acquire shares from. Such purchases may include a contractual acknowledgement that such stockholder, although still the record holder of MAAC’s shares, is no longer the beneficial owner thereof and therefore agrees not to exercise its redemption rights. In the event that MAAC’s Sponsor, directors, officers or their affiliates purchase shares in privately negotiated transactions from public stockholders who have already elected to exercise their redemption rights, such selling stockholders would be required to revoke their prior elections to redeem their shares. The price per share paid in any such transaction may be different than the amount per share a public stockholder would receive if it elected to redeem its shares in connection with the Business Combination. The purpose of such purchases could be to vote such shares in favor of the Business Combination and thereby increase the

98

likelihood of obtaining stockholder approval or to satisfy the closing condition that requires MAAC to have a minimum amount of cash at the Closing of the Business Combination, where it appears that such requirement would otherwise not be met. This may result in the completion of the Business Combination although it may not otherwise have been possible. Any such purchases will be reported pursuant to Sections 13 and 16 of the Exchange Act to the extent such purchasers are subject to such reporting requirements.

In addition, if such purchases are made, the public float of MAAC Class A Shares or public warrants and the number of beneficial holders of MAAC securities may be reduced, possibly making it difficult to maintain the quotation, listing or trading of MAAC securities on a national securities exchange, including Nasdaq.

If third parties bring claims against MAAC, the proceeds held in the Trust Account could be reduced and the per share redemption amount received by stockholders may be less than $10.00 per share (which was the offering price in MAAC’s initial public offering).

MAAC’s placing of funds in the Trust Account may not protect those funds from third-party claims against MAAC. Although MAAC has sought and will seek to have all vendors, service providers (other than its independent registered public accounting firm), prospective target businesses or other entities with which MAAC does business execute agreements with MAAC waiving any right, title, interest or claim of any kind in or to any monies held in the Trust Account, there is no guarantee that they will execute such agreements or even if they execute such agreements that they would be prevented from bringing claims against the Trust Account, including, but not limited to, fraudulent inducement, breach of fiduciary responsibility or other similar claims, as well as claims challenging the enforceability of the waiver, in each case in order to gain advantage with respect to a claim against MAAC’s assets, including the funds held in the Trust Account. If any third party refuses to execute an agreement waiving such claims to the monies held in the Trust Account, MAAC’s management will perform an analysis of the alternatives available to it and will only enter into an agreement with a third party that has not executed a waiver if management believes that such third party’s engagement would be significantly more beneficial to MAAC than any alternative.

Examples of possible instances where MAAC may engage a third party that refuses to execute a waiver include the engagement of a third party consultant whose particular expertise or skills are believed by management to be significantly superior to those of other consultants that would agree to execute a waiver or in cases where management is unable to find a service provider willing to execute a waiver. In addition, there is no guarantee that such entities will agree to waive any claims they may have in the future as a result of, or arising out of, any negotiations, contracts or agreements with MAAC and will not seek recourse against the Trust Account for any reason. Upon redemption of MAAC Class A Shares, if MAAC is unable to complete its business combination within the prescribed time frame, or upon the exercise of a redemption right in connection with its business combination, MAAC will be required to provide for payment of claims of creditors that were not waived that may be brought against it within the ten years following redemption. Accordingly, the per share redemption amount received by public stockholders could be less than the $10.00 per share initially held in the Trust Account, due to claims of such creditors. In order to protect the amounts held in the Trust Account, Sponsor has agreed to be liable to MAAC if and to the extent any claims by a vendor for services rendered or products sold to MAAC, or a prospective target business with which MAAC has discussed entering into a transaction agreement, reduces the amount of funds in the Trust Account. This liability will not apply with respect to any claims by a third party who executed a waiver of any right, title, interest or claim of any kind in or to any monies held in the Trust Account or to any claims under our indemnity of the underwriters of MAAC’s initial public offering against certain liabilities, including liabilities under the Securities Act. Moreover, even in the event that an executed waiver is deemed to be unenforceable against a third party, Sponsor will not be responsible to the extent of any liability for such third party claims. MAAC has not independently verified whether Sponsor has sufficient funds to satisfy its indemnity obligations and has not asked Sponsor to reserve for such indemnification obligations. Therefore, MAAC cannot assure you that Sponsor would be able to satisfy those obligations. None of MAAC’s officers will indemnify it for claims by third parties including, without limitation, claims by vendors and prospective target businesses.

99

Additionally, if MAAC is forced to file a bankruptcy case or an involuntary bankruptcy case is filed against it that is not dismissed, or if MAAC otherwise enters compulsory or court supervised liquidation, the proceeds held in the Trust Account could be subject to applicable bankruptcy law, and may be included in MAAC’s bankruptcy estate and subject to the claims of third parties with priority over the claims of its stockholders. To the extent any bankruptcy claims deplete the Trust Account, MAAC may not be able to return to its public stockholders $10.00 per share (which was the offering price in its initial public offering).

MAAC has not obtained an opinion from an independent investment banking firm or from an independent accounting firm, and consequently, you may have no assurance from an independent source that the price MAAC is paying for the business is fair to MAAC’s stockholders from a financial point of view.

Since the Business Combination is not with an affiliated entity, MAAC is not required to obtain an opinion from an independent investment banking firm or another independent firm that commonly renders valuation opinions for the type of company MAAC is seeking to acquire or from an independent accounting firm that the price MAAC is paying for a target is fair to MAAC’s stockholders from a financial point of view, unless MAAC’s Board of Directors cannot independently determine the fair market value of the target business or businesses. Since no opinion has been obtained, MAAC’s stockholders are relying on the judgment of MAAC’s Board of Directors, who determined fair market value based on standards generally accepted by the financial community. Such standards are disclosed in this proxy statement/prospectus under “The Business Combination— Satisfaction of 80% Test.”

MAAC’s stockholders will experience immediate dilution due to the issuance of common shares to the MAAC stockholders as consideration in the Business Combination. Having a minority share position likely reduces the influence that MAAC’s current stockholders have on its management following the Business Combination.

Based on MAAC’s current capitalization, MAAC anticipates Roivant issuing (or reserving for issuance) an aggregate of              common shares, subject to adjustment, to the MAAC stockholders as consideration in the Business Combination. It is anticipated that, upon completion of the Business Combination, assuming no redemptions MAAC’s public stockholders will own approximately 5.9% outstanding of Roivant Common Shares, assuming that no shares are elected to be redeemed in connection with the Business Combination. In addition, this does not take into account:

If any of MAAC’s shares are redeemed in connection with the Business Combination, the percentage of Roivant’s outstanding common shares held by public stockholders will decrease and the percentages of Roivant’s outstanding common shares held immediately following the Closing of the Business Combination by each of Roivant’s initial shareholders will increase. See the section entitled “Summary—Impact of the Business Combination on the Company’s Public Float” and “Unaudited Pro Forma Combined

100

Financial Information” for further information. To the extent that any of the outstanding warrants or options are

exercised for Roivant Common Shares, or awards are issued under the 2021 EIP, MAAC’s existing stockholders may experience substantial dilution. Such dilution could, among other things, limit the ability of MAAC’s current stockholders to influence management through the election of directors following the Business Combination.

In addition, the issuance of additional common stock will significantly dilute the equity interests of existing holders of MAAC securities, and may adversely affect prevailing market prices for Roivant Common Shares and/or Roivant Warrants.

Since holders of MAAC’s founder shares and private placement warrants will lose their entire investment in us if MAAC’s initial business combination is not completed, a conflict of interest may arise in determining whether Roivant is an appropriate target for the Business Combination.

MAAC’s initial holders currently own 10,267,956 founder shares, which will be worthless if MAAC does not consummate its initial business combination. Sponsor has purchased 10,214,365 private placement warrants for an aggregate purchase price of $10,214,365. There will be no redemption rights or liquidating distributions from the Trust Account with respect to the founder shares, placement shares or placement warrants, which will expire worthless if MAAC does not consummate a business combination prior to October 9, 2022. If MAAC does not consummate the Business Combination or another initial business combination, Sponsor will realize a loss on the private placement warrants it purchased. As a result, the personal and financial interests of certain of MAAC’s officers and directors, directly or as members of Sponsor, in consummating the Business Combination or another initial business combination, may have influenced their motivation in identifying and selecting Roivant as the target for the Business Combination and, if the Business Combination is not consummated, may in the future influence their motivation in identifying and selecting a target business for an alternative initial business combination and completing an initial business combination that is not in the best interests of MAAC’s stockholders. Consequently, the discretion of MAAC’s officers and directors, in identifying and selecting Roivant or another suitable target business combination may result in a conflict of interest when determining whether the terms, conditions and timing of the Business Combination or another initial business combination are appropriate and in the best interest of MAAC’s public stockholders.

Since MAAC Sponsor and MAAC’s officers and directors will not be eligible to be reimbursed for their out-of-pocket expenses if MAAC’s initial business combination is not completed, a conflict of interest may arise in determining whether the Business Combination or an alternative initial business combination target is appropriate for MAAC’s initial business combination.

At the Closing of the Business Combination or, if the Business Combination is not consummated, at the closing of an alternative initial business combination, Sponsor and MAAC’s officers and directors, or any entities with which they are affiliated, will be reimbursed for any out-of-pocket expenses incurred in connection with activities on MAAC’s behalf such as identifying Roivant or any alternative target businesses and performing due diligence on suitable business combinations. There is no cap or ceiling on the reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses incurred in connection with activities on MAAC’s behalf. These financial interests of Sponsor and MAAC’s officers and directors may influence their motivation in identifying and selecting Roivant or an alternative target business combination and completing the Business Combination or an alternative initial business combination.

The exercise of MAAC’s directors’ and executive officers’ discretion in agreeing to changes or waivers in the terms of the Business Combination may result in a conflict of interest when determining whether such changes to the terms of the Business Combination or waivers of conditions are appropriate and in MAAC’s stockholders’ best interest.

In the period leading up to the closing of the Business Combination, events may occur that, pursuant to the Business Combination Agreement, would require MAAC to agree to amend the Business Combination

101

Agreement, to consent to certain actions taken by Roivant or to waive rights that MAAC is entitled to under the Business Combination Agreement. Such events could arise because of changes in the course of Roivant’s business, a request by Roivant to undertake actions that would otherwise be prohibited by the terms of the Business Combination Agreement or the occurrence of other events that would have a material adverse effect on Roivant’s business and would entitle MAAC to terminate the Business Combination Agreement. In any of such circumstances, it would be at MAAC’s discretion, acting through its board of directors, to grant its consent or waive those rights. The existence of financial and personal interests of one or more of the directors described in the preceding risk factors may result in a conflict of interest on the part of such director(s) between what he or they may believe is best for MAAC and its stockholders and what he or they may believe is best for himself or themselves in determining whether or not to take the requested action. As of the date of this proxy statement/prospectus, MAAC does not believe there will be any changes or waivers that MAAC’s directors and executive officers would be likely to make after stockholder approval of the Business Combination Proposal has been obtained. While certain changes could be made without further stockholder approval, MAAC intends to circulate a new or amended proxy statement/prospectus and resolicit MAAC’s stockholders if changes to the terms of the transaction that would have a material impact on its stockholders are required prior to the vote on the Business Combination Proposal.

Subsequent to consummation of the Business Combination, MAAC may be required to subsequently take write-downs or write-offs, restructuring and impairment or other charges that could have a significant negative effect on MAAC’s financial condition, results of operations and the share price of its securities, which could cause you to lose some or all of your investment.

MAAC cannot assure you that the due diligence conducted in relation to Roivant has identified all material issues or risks associated with Roivant, its business or the industry in which it competes. As a result of these factors, MAAC may incur additional costs and expenses and MAAC may be forced to later write-down or write-off assets, restructure its operations, or incur impairment or other charges that could result in MAAC reporting losses. Even if MAAC’s due diligence has identified certain risks, unexpected risks may arise and previously known risks may materialize in a manner not consistent with its preliminary risk analysis. If any of these risks materialize, this could have a material adverse effect on MAAC’s financial condition and results of operations and could contribute to negative market perceptions about MAAC’s securities or Roivant. Accordingly, any stockholders of MAAC who choose to remain shareholders of Roivant following the Business Combination could suffer a reduction in the value of their investment. Such stockholders are unlikely to have a remedy for such reduction in value unless they are able to successfully pursue claims under applicable state law or federal securities laws.

Termination of the Business Combination Agreement could negatively impact Roivant and MAAC.

If the Business Combination is not completed for any reason, including as a result of MAAC’s stockholders declining to approve the proposals required to effect the Business Combination, the ongoing business of MAAC may be adversely impacted and, without realizing any of the anticipated benefits of completing the Business Combination, MAAC would be subject to a number of risks, including the following:

102

Roivant and the Vants will be subject to business uncertainties and contractual restrictions while the Business Combination is pending.

Uncertainty about the effect of the Business Combination on employees and other stakeholders may have an adverse effect on Roivant and consequently on MAAC. These uncertainties may impair Roivant’s ability to attract, retain and motivate key personnel until the Business Combination is completed, and could cause Roivant’s counterparties to seek to change existing business relationships. Retention of certain employees may be challenging during the pendency of the Business Combination, as certain employees may experience uncertainty about their future roles. If key employees depart because of issues relating to the uncertainty and difficulty of integration or a desire not to remain with the business, Roivant’s business following the Business Combination could be negatively impacted. In addition, the Business Combination Agreement restricts Roivant from taking certain specified actions without the consent of MAAC until the Business Combination occurs. These restrictions may prevent Roivant from pursuing attractive business opportunities that may arise prior to the completion of the Business Combination. See “The Business Combination—Covenants of the Parties.” Additionally, Roivant is a clinical stage biopharmaceutical and healthcare technology company with a limited operating history and has never generated any revenue from the sale of its product candidates. Roivant has not yet demonstrated an ability to manufacture a commercial scale product or arrange for a third party to do so on its behalf or conduct sales and marketing activities necessary for successful product commercialization. Accordingly, there is no guarantee that Roivant will be profitable, continue to grow or otherwise execute its business strategy successfully in the future.

MAAC is attempting to complete the Business Combination with a private company about which little information is available, which may result in a business combination that is not as profitable as MAAC suspected, if at all.

MAAC is seeking to effectuate the Business Combination with a privately held company. MAAC cannot assure that the due diligence conducted in relation to Roivant has identified all material issues or risks associated with Roivant and its business, because little public information generally exists about private companies, including Roivant. MAAC’s board of directors was required, and MAAC’s stockholders will be required to evaluate the Business Combination on the basis of limited information, which may result in the Business Combination being less profitable than MAAC suspected, if at all.

Nasdaq may not list Roivant’s securities on its exchange, and if they are listed MAAC may be unable to satisfy listing requirements in the future, which could limit investors’ ability to effect transactions in MAAC securities and subject MAAC to additional trading restrictions.

As a result of the Business Combination, Nasdaq rules require that MAAC apply for the listing of Roivant Common Shares and Roivant Warrants. While MAAC will apply to have Roivant Common Shares and Roivant Warrants listed on the Nasdaq upon consummation of the Business Combination, Roivant will be required to meet Nasdaq’s initial listing requirements. Roivant may be unable to meet those requirements. Even if Roivant’s securities are listed on the Nasdaq immediately following the Business Combination, it may be unable to maintain the listing of its securities in the future.

If Roivant fails to meet the initial listing requirements and Nasdaq does not list Roivant’s securities on its exchange, or if Roivant is delisted, there could be significant material adverse consequences, including:

103

If Roivant’s performance following the Business Combination does not meet market expectations, the price of its securities may decline.

If Roivant’s performance following the Business Combination does not meet market expectations, the price of Roivant Common Shares may decline from the price of MAAC Class A Shares prior to the Closing of the Business Combination. The market value of MAAC Class A Shares prior to the Business Combination may vary significantly from the price of Roivant Common Shares on the date the Business Combination is consummated, the date of this proxy statement/prospectus, or the date on which our shareholders vote on the Business Combination. Because the number of Roivant Common Shares issued as consideration in the Business Combination will not be adjusted to reflect any changes in the market price of MAAC Class A Shares, the value of Roivant Common Shares issued in the Business Combination may be higher or lower than the value of the same number of MAAC Class A Shares on earlier dates.

In addition, if an active market for Roivant Common Shares develops and continues, the trading price of Roivant Common Shares following the Business Combination could be volatile and subject to wide fluctuations in response to various factors, some of which are beyond its control. Prior to the Business Combination, there has not been a public market for Roivant Common Shares, and trading in Roivant Common Shares has not been active. Accordingly, the valuation ascribed to Roivant Common Shares in the Business Combination may not be indicative of the price that will prevail in the trading market following the Business Combination. Any of the factors listed below could have a material adverse effect on the price of Roivant Common Shares.

Factors affecting the trading price of Roivant Common Shares following the Business Combination may include:

Broad market and industry factors may depress the market price of Roivant Common Shares irrespective of Roivant’s or the Vants’ operating performance. The stock market in general has experienced price and volume fluctuations that have often been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of the particular companies affected. The trading prices and valuations of these stocks, and of Roivant’s securities, may not be

104

predictable. A loss of investor confidence in the market for companies engaging in digital payments or the stocks of other companies which investors perceive to be similar to Roivant could depress our stock price regardless of its business, prospects, financial conditions or results of operations. A decline in the market price of Roivant Common Shares also could adversely affect Roivant’s ability to issue additional securities and Roivant’s ability to obtain additional financing in the future.

Provisions in MAAC’s amended and restated Certificate of Incorporation and Delaware law may have the effect of discouraging lawsuits against its directors and officers.

MAAC’s amended and restated Certificate of Incorporation requires, unless it consents in writing to the selection of an alternative forum, that (i) any derivative action or proceeding brought on its behalf, (ii) any action asserting a claim of breach of a fiduciary duty owed by any director, officer or other employee to MAAC or its stockholders, (iii) any action asserting a claim against MAAC, its directors, officers or employees arising pursuant to any provision of the DGCL or MAAC’s amended and restated Certificate of Incorporation or amended and restated bylaws, or (iv) any action asserting a claim against MAAC, its directors, officers or employees governed by the internal affairs doctrine may be brought only in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware, except any claim (A) as to which the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware determines that there is an indispensable party not subject to the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery (and the indispensable party does not consent to the personal jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery within ten days following such determination), (B) which is vested in the exclusive jurisdiction of a court or forum other than the Court of Chancery, or (C) for which the Court of Chancery does not have subject matter jurisdiction. If an action is brought outside of Delaware, the stockholder bringing the suit will be deemed to have consented to service of process on such stockholder’s counsel. Although MAAC believes this provision benefits it by providing increased consistency in the application of Delaware law in the types of lawsuits to which it applies, a court may determine that this provision is unenforceable, and to the extent it is enforceable, the provision may have the effect of discouraging lawsuits against MAAC’s directors and officers, although MAAC’s stockholders will not be deemed to have waived our compliance with federal securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, MAAC’s amended and restated Certificate of Incorporation provides that the exclusive forum provision will not apply to suits brought to enforce a duty or liability created by the Exchange Act or any other claim for which the federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction. Section 27 of the Exchange Act creates exclusive federal jurisdiction over all suits brought to enforce any duty or liability created by the Exchange Act or the rules and regulations thereunder. Although MAAC believes this provision benefits it by providing increased consistency in the application of Delaware law in the types of lawsuits to which it applies, the provision may have the effect of discouraging lawsuits against MAAC’s directors and officers.

Our warrant agreement designates the courts of the State of New York or the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York as the sole and exclusive forum for certain types of actions and proceedings that may be initiated by holders of our warrants, which could limit the ability of warrant holders to obtain a favorable judicial forum for disputes with our company.

Our warrant agreement provides that, subject to applicable law, (i) any action, proceeding or claim against us arising out of or relating in any way to the warrant agreement, including under the Securities Act, will be brought and enforced in the courts of the State of New York or the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and (ii) that we irrevocably submit to such jurisdiction, which jurisdiction shall be the exclusive forum for any such action, proceeding or claim. We waive any objection to such exclusive jurisdiction and that such courts represent an inconvenient forum.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, these provisions of the warrant agreement do not apply to suits brought to enforce any liability or duty created by the Exchange Act or any other claim for which the federal district courts of the United States of America are the sole and exclusive forum. Any person or entity purchasing or otherwise acquiring any interest in any of our warrants shall be deemed to have notice of and to have consented to the

105

forum provisions in our warrant agreement. If any action, the subject matter of which is within the scope the forum provisions of the warrant agreement, is filed in a court other than a court of the State of New York or the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (a “foreign action”) in the name of any holder of our warrants, such holder shall be deemed to have consented to: (x) the personal jurisdiction of the state and federal courts located in the State of New York in connection with any action brought in any such court to enforce the forum provisions (an “enforcement action”) and (y) having service of process made upon such warrant holder in any such enforcement action by service upon such warrant holder’s counsel in the foreign action as agent for such warrant holder.

This choice-of-forum provision may limit a warrant holder’s ability to bring a claim in a judicial forum that it finds favorable for disputes with our company, which may discourage such lawsuits. Alternatively, if a court were to find this provision of our warrant agreement inapplicable or unenforceable with respect to one or more of the specified types of actions or proceedings, we may incur additional costs associated with resolving such matters in other jurisdictions, which could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and result in a diversion of the time and resources of our management and board of directors.

You do not have any rights or interests in funds from the Trust Account, except under certain limited circumstances. If MAAC does not complete the Business Combination, to liquidate your investment, therefore, you may be forced to sell your MAAC Class A Shares or MAAC Warrants, potentially at a loss.

MAAC’s public stockholders will be entitled to receive funds from the Trust Account only upon the earlier to occur of: (i) the completion of MAAC’s initial business combination, (ii) the redemption of any MAAC Class A Shares properly tendered in connection with a stockholder vote to amend MAAC’s amended and restated certificate of incorporation to (A) modify the substance or timing of MAAC’s obligation to redeem 100% of MAAC Class A Shares if MAAC does not complete its initial business combination by October 9, 2022 or (B) with respect to any other provision relating to stockholders’ rights and (iii) the redemption of all MAAC Class A Shares if MAAC is unable to complete MAAC’s initial business combination by October 9, 2022, subject to applicable law and as further described herein. In no other circumstances will a public stockholder have any right or interest of any kind in the Trust Account. Holders of warrants will not have any right to the proceeds held in the Trust Account with respect to the warrants. Accordingly, to liquidate your investment, you may be forced to sell your MAAC Class A Shares or MAAC Warrants, potentially at a loss.

The ability of MAAC’s stockholders to exercise redemption rights with respect to MAAC Class A Shares may prevent MAAC from completing the Business Combination or optimizing its capital structure.

MAAC does not know how many stockholders will ultimately exercise their redemption rights in connection with the Business Combination. As such, the Business Combination is structured based on MAAC’s expectations (and those of the other parties to the Business Combination Agreement) as to the number of shares that will be submitted for redemption. In addition, if a larger number of shares are submitted for redemption than MAAC initially expected, MAAC may need to seek to arrange for additional third party financing to be able to satisfy the Aggregate Trust Account Proceeds Condition (or such lower amount designated by the seller if the seller waives the condition).

If too many public stockholders elect to redeem their shares and additional third-party financing is not available to MAAC, MAAC may not be able to complete the Business Combination. Even if such third-party financing is available, MAAC’s ability to obtain such financing is subject to restrictions set forth in the Business Combination Agreement. For information regarding the parameters of such restrictions, please see the sections of this proxy statement/prospectus entitled “Business Combination Proposal—Conditions to Closing of the Business Combination.”

Furthermore, raising such additional financing may involve dilutive equity issuances or the incurrence of indebtedness at higher than desirable levels.

106

The unaudited pro forma condensed combined financial information included in this proxy statement/prospectus is preliminary, and the actual financial condition and results of operations after the merger may differ materially.

The unaudited pro forma financial information included in this proxy statement/prospectus is presented for illustrative purposes only and is not necessarily indicative of what Roivant’s actual financial position or results of operations would have been had the Business Combination been completed on the date(s) indicated. The preparation of the pro forma financial information is based upon available information and certain assumptions and estimates that MAAC and Roivant currently believe are reasonable. The unaudited pro forma financial information reflects adjustments, which are based upon preliminary estimates, among other things, to allocate the purchase price to Roivant’s net assets. The purchase price allocation reflected in this proxy statement/prospectus is preliminary, and the final allocation of the purchase price will be based upon the actual purchase price and the fair value of the assets and liabilities of Roivant as of the date of the completion of the Business Combination. In addition, following the completion of the Business Combination, there may be further refinements of the purchase price allocation as additional information becomes available. Accordingly, the final purchase accounting adjustments may differ materially from the pro forma adjustments reflected in this proxy statement/prospectus. See “Unaudited Pro Forma Condensed Combined Financial Information” in this proxy statement/prospectus.

MAAC has identified a material weakness in its internal controls over financial reporting. This material weakness could continue to adversely affect its ability to report its results of operations and financial condition accurately and in a timely manner.

MAAC’s management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with GAAP. MAAC’s management also evaluates the effectiveness of its internal controls and will disclose any changes and material weaknesses identified through such evaluation in those internal controls. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal controls over financial reporting, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of MAAC’s annual or interim financial statements will not be prevented or detected on a timely basis.

MAAC identified a material weakness in its internal control over financial reporting related to the classification of its warrants as equity instead of liabilities. On May 11, 2021, its audit committee authorized management to restate its audited financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2020, and, accordingly, management concluded that the control deficiency that resulted in the incorrect classification of its warrants constituted a material weakness as of December 31, 2020. This material weakness resulted in a material misstatement of MAAC’s warrant liabilities, change in fair value of warrant liabilities, additional paid-in capital, accumulated deficit and related financial disclosures for the affected periods.

MAAC has implemented a remediation plan to remediate the material weakness surrounding its historical presentation of its warrants but can give no assurance that the measures MAAC has taken will prevent any future material weaknesses or deficiencies in internal control over financial reporting. Even though MAAC has strengthened its controls and procedures, in the future those controls and procedures may not be adequate to prevent or identify irregularities or errors or to facilitate the fair presentation of its financial statements.

The MAAC Warrants are accounted for as derivative liabilities with changes in fair value each period included in earnings, which may have an adverse effect on the market price of our securities or may make it more difficult for it to consummate an initial business combination.

The MAAC Warrants are accounted for as derivative warrant liabilities. At each reporting period (1) the accounting treatment of the warrants will be re-evaluated for proper accounting treatment as a liability or equity

107

and (2) the fair value of the liability of the public warrants and private placement warrants will be remeasured and the change in the fair value of the liability will be recorded as other income (expense) in our income statement. The impact of changes in fair value on earnings may have an adverse effect on the market price of our securities.

The provisions of MAAC’s amended and restated Certificate of Incorporation that relate to our pre-Business Combination activity (and corresponding provisions of the agreement governing the release of funds from its Trust Account) may be amended with the approval of holders of at least 60% of MAAC Shares, which is a lower amendment threshold than that of some other blank check companies. It may be easier for MAAC, therefore, to amend its amended and restated Certificate of Incorporation to facilitate the completion of an initial business combination that some of its stockholders may not support.

Some other blank check companies have a provision in their charter which prohibits the amendment of certain of its provisions, including those which relate to a company’s pre-Business Combination activity, without approval by a certain percentage of the company’s stockholders. In those companies, amendment of these provisions typically requires approval by 90% of the company’s stockholders attending and voting at an annual meeting. MAAC’s amended and restated Certificate of Incorporation provides that any of its provisions related to pre-Business Combination activity (including the requirement to deposit proceeds of MAAC’s initial public offering and the private placement of warrants into the Trust Account and not release such amounts except in specified circumstances, and to provide redemption rights to Public Stockholders as described herein) may be amended if approved by holders of 60% of MAAC Shares entitled to vote thereon and corresponding provisions of the trust agreement governing the release of funds from its Trust Account may be amended if approved by holders of at least 60% of MAAC Shares entitled to vote thereon. In all other instances, MAAC’s amended and restated Certificate of Incorporation may be amended by holders of a majority of outstanding MAAC Shares entitled to vote thereon, subject to applicable provisions of the DGCL or applicable stock exchange rules. MAAC Sponsor and its permitted transferees, if any, who collectively beneficially own, on an as converted basis, 20% of MAAC Class A Shares upon the closing of MAAC’s initial public offering (assuming they did not purchase any units), will participate in any vote to amend MAAC’s amended and restated Certificate of Incorporation and/or trust agreement and have the discretion to vote in any manner they choose. As a result, MAAC may be able to amend the provisions of MAAC’s amended and restated Certificate of Incorporation which govern MAAC’s pre-Business Combination behavior more easily than some other blank check companies, and this may increase its ability to complete a business combination with which you do not agree. MAAC’s stockholders may pursue remedies against us for any breach of its amended and restated Certificate of Incorporation.

MAAC Sponsor, executive officers and directors have agreed, pursuant to a written agreement with MAAC, that they will not propose any amendment to MAAC’s amended and restated Certificate of Incorporation that would affect the substance or timing of MAAC’s obligation to allow redemption in connection with MAAC’s initial Business Combination or to redeem 100% of MAAC Class A Shares if MAAC does not complete an initial business combination within 24 months from the closing of its initial public offering, unless MAAC provides holders of MAAC Class A Shares with the opportunity to redeem their MAAC Class A Shares upon approval of any such amendment at a per-share price, payable in cash, equal to the aggregate amount then on deposit in the Trust Account, including interest earned on the funds held in the Trust Account and not previously released to us to pay MAAC’s taxes, if any (less up to $100,000 of interest to pay dissolution expenses) divided by the number of then outstanding MAAC Class A Shares. These agreements are contained in letter agreements that MAAC entered into with MAAC Sponsor, MAAC’s directors and each member of MAAC’s management team. MAAC’s stockholders are not parties to, or third-party beneficiaries of, these agreements and, as a result, do not have the ability to pursue remedies against MAAC Sponsor, executive officers or directors for any breach of these agreements. As a result, in the event of a breach, MAAC’s stockholders would need to pursue a stockholder derivative action, subject to applicable law.

108

The Business Combination may give rise to a taxable event for U.S. Holders of MAAC Class A Shares or MAAC Warrants.

Subject to the limitations and qualifications described in “The Business Combination Proposal — Material Tax Consideration — Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Considerations —U.S. Federal Income Taxation of U.S. Holders — Tax Consequences to U.S. Holders of the Merger” below, the Business Combination is generally intended to be tax-deferred to U.S. Holders (as defined in “The Business Combination Proposal — Material Tax Considerations — Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Considerations”) of MAAC Class A Shares and MAAC Warrants for U.S. federal income tax purposes, except to the extent that such U.S. Holders of MAAC Class A Shares receive cash pursuant to the exercise of redemption rights. However, there are significant factual and legal uncertainties as to whether the Merger qualifies for tax-deferred treatment as a reorganization under Section 368(a) of the Code. Under Section 368(a) of the Code, the acquiring corporation must continue, either directly or indirectly through certain controlled corporations, either a significant line of the acquired corporation’s historic business or use a significant portion of the acquired corporation’s historic business assets in a business. However, there is an absence of guidance directly on point as to how the provisions of Section 368(a) of the Code apply in the case of an acquisition of a corporation with investment-type assets, such as MAAC. There are significant factual and legal uncertainties concerning the determination of this requirement. Moreover, qualification of the Merger for tax-deferred treatment is based on facts which will not be known until or following the closing of the Merger, and the closing of the Merger is not conditioned upon the receipt of an opinion of counsel that the Merger qualifies for tax-deferred treatment, and neither MAAC nor Roivant intends to request a ruling from the United States Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”) regarding the U.S. federal income tax treatment of the Merger.

If any requirement for Section 368(a) of the Code is not met, then a U.S. Holder of MAAC Class A Shares or MAAC Warrants may recognize gain or loss in an amount equal to the difference, if any, between the fair market value (as of the Closing Date) of Roivant Common Shares received in the Merger or MAAC Warrants assumed by Roivant in the Merger, over such U.S. Holder’s aggregate tax basis in the corresponding MAAC Class A Shares surrendered by such U.S. Holder in the Merger or MAAC Warrants assumed by Roivant in the Merger, respectively.

Section 367(a) of the Code and the Treasury Regulations promulgated thereunder, in certain circumstances, may impose additional requirements for certain U.S. Holders to qualify for tax-deferred treatment with respect to the exchange of MAAC Class A Shares and/or the assumption of MAAC Warrants by Roivant in the Merger. The requirements for tax-deferred treatment, including Section 367(a) of the Code, and the U.S. federal income tax consequences to U.S. Holders if such requirements are not met are discussed in more detail under the sections entitled “Material Tax Considerations — Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Considerations — U.S. Federal Income Taxation of U.S. Holders — Tax Consequences to U.S. Holders of the Merger” and “Material Tax Considerations — Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Considerations — U.S. Federal Income Taxation of U.S. Holders — Additional Requirements for Tax Deferral.” If you are a U.S. Holder exchanging MAAC Class A Shares in the Merger or holding MAAC Warrants at the time of the consummation of the Merger, you are urged to consult your tax advisor to determine the tax consequences thereof.

Furthermore, if a U.S. Holder exercises its redemption rights to receive cash from the trust account in exchange for a portion or, if such U.S. Holder maintains its ownership of MAAC Warrants, all of its MAAC Class A Shares, such redemption may be treated as integrated with the Merger rather than as a separate transaction. In such case, cash received by such U.S. Holder in the redemption may also be treated as taxable boot received in a “reorganization” which, depending on the circumstances applicable to such U.S. Holder, may be treated as capital gain (but not loss) or dividend income. If the IRS were to assert, and a court were to sustain such a contrary position, such U.S. Holder may be required to recognize more gain or income than if the redemption of MAAC Class A Shares was treated as a separate transaction from the exchanges pursuant to the Merger. For further discussion on the tax implications of such treatment, please see the discussion under the

108.1

headings “Material Tax Considerations — Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Considerations — U.S. Federal Income Taxation of U.S. Holders — Tax Consequences to U.S. Holders of Exercising Redemption Rights.” If you are a U.S. Holder exercising your redemption rights with respect to the MAAC Class A Shares, you are urged to consult your tax advisor to determine the tax consequences if the Merger and the redemption of MAAC Class A Shares are to be treated as an integrated transaction.

The IRS may not agree that Roivant should be treated as a non-U.S. corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

Under current U.S. federal income tax law, a corporation generally will be considered to be a U.S. corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes only if it is created or organized in the United States or under the law of the United States or of any State. Accordingly, under generally applicable U.S. federal income tax rules, Roivant, which is not created or organized in the United States or under the law of the United States or of any State but is instead a Bermuda incorporated entity and tax resident of the UK, would generally be classified as a non-U.S. corporation. Section 7874 of the Code and the Treasury regulations promulgated thereunder, however, contain specific rules that may cause a non-U.S. corporation to be treated as a U.S. corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes. If it were determined that Roivant is treated as a U.S. corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes under Section 7874 of the Code and the Treasury regulations promulgated thereunder, Roivant would be liable for U.S. federal income tax on its income just like any other U.S. corporation and certain distributions made by Roivant to its shareholders that are not U.S. Holders (as defined in “Material Tax Considerations — Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Considerations”) of Roivant would be subject to U.S. withholding tax. As more fully described in “Material Tax Considerations — Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Considerations,” Roivant believes it should not be treated as a U.S. corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes under Section 7874 of the Code. However, whether the requirements for such treatment have been satisfied must be finally determined after the completion of the Business Combination, by which time there could be adverse changes to the relevant facts and circumstances. Furthermore, the interpretation of Treasury regulations relating to the required ownership of Roivant is subject to uncertainty and there is limited guidance regarding their application. Accordingly, there can be no assurance that the IRS will not take a contrary position to those described above or that a court will not agree with a contrary position of the IRS in the event of litigation. You are urged to consult your tax advisor to determine the tax consequences if the classification of Roivant as a non-U.S. corporation is not respected.

108.2

We may amend the terms of the warrants in a manner that may be adverse to holders of public warrants with the approval by the holders of at least 50% of the then outstanding public warrants. As a result, the exercise price of your warrants could be increased, the exercise period could be shortened and the number of shares purchasable upon exercise of a warrant could be decreased, all without your approval.

Our warrants were issued in registered form under a warrant agreement between Continental Stock Transfer & Trust Company, as warrant agent, and us.

The warrant agreement provides that the terms of the warrants may be amended without the consent of any holder for the purpose of (i) curing any ambiguity or correct any mistake or defective provision (ii) amending the provisions relating to cash dividends on common stock as contemplated by and in accordance with the warrant agreement or (iii) adding or changing any provisions with respect to matters or questions arising under the warrant agreement as the parties to the warrant agreement may deem necessary or desirable and that the parties deem to not adversely affect the rights of the registered holders of the warrants, provided that the approval by the holders of at least 50% of the then-outstanding public warrants is required to make any change that adversely affects the interests of the registered holders of public warrants. Accordingly, we may amend the terms of the public warrants in a manner adverse to a holder if holders of at least 50% of the then outstanding public warrants approve of such amendment. Although our ability to amend the terms of the public warrants with the consent of at least 50% of the then outstanding public warrants is unlimited, examples of such amendments could be amendments to, among other things, increase the exercise price of the warrants, convert the warrants into cash, shorten the exercise period or decrease the number of MAAC Class A Shares purchasable upon exercise of a warrant.

Risks Related to the Redemption

Unless the context otherwise requires, any reference in this section to “MAAC,” the “Company,” “we,” “us” or “our” refers to MAAC prior to the Business Combination and to Roivant and its subsidiaries and affiliates in the present tense or from and after the consummation of the Business Combination.

Public Stockholders who wish to redeem their MAAC Class A Shares for a pro rata portion of the Trust Account must comply with specific requirements for redemption that may make it more difficult for them to exercise their redemption rights prior to the deadline. If stockholders fail to comply with the redemption requirements specified in this proxy statement/prospectus, they will not be entitled to redeem their MAAC Class A Shares for a pro rata portion of the funds held in the Trust Account.

A public stockholder will be entitled to receive cash for any MAAC Class A Shares to be redeemed only if such public stockholder: (i)(a) holds MAAC Class A Shares, or (b) if the public stockholder holds MAAC Class A Shares through units, the public stockholder elects to separate its units into the underlying MAAC Class A Shares and public warrants prior to exercising its redemption rights with respect to the MAAC Class A Shares; (ii) submits a written request to Continental, MAAC’s transfer agent, in which it (a) requests that Roivant redeem all or a portion of its MAAC Class A Shares for cash, and (b) identifies itself as a beneficial holder of the MAAC Class A Shares and provides its legal name, phone number and address; and (iii) delivers its MAAC Class A Shares to Continental, MAAC’s transfer agent, physically to Continental or electronically through DWAC. Holders must complete the procedures for electing to redeem their MAAC Class A Shares in the manner described above prior to                , 2021 (two days prior to the initial vote on the Business Combination) in order for their shares to be redeemed. In order to obtain a physical share certificate, a stockholder’s broker and/or clearing broker, DTC and Continental, MAAC’s transfer agent, will need to act to facilitate this request. It is MAAC’s understanding that stockholders should generally allot at least two weeks to obtain physical certificates from the transfer agent. However, because MAAC does not have any control over this process or over DTC, it may take significantly longer than two weeks to obtain a physical stock certificate. If it takes longer than anticipated to obtain a physical certificate, public stockholders who wish to redeem their MAAC Class A Shares may be unable to obtain physical certificates by the deadline for exercising their redemption rights and thus will be unable to redeem their shares.

109

If the Business Combination is consummated, and if a public stockholder properly exercises its right to redeem all or a portion of the MAAC Class A Shares that it holds and timely delivers its shares to Continental, MAAC’s transfer agent, Roivant will redeem such MAAC Class A Shares for a per-share price, payable in cash, equal to the pro rata portion of the Trust Account established at the consummation of our initial public offering, calculated as of two business days prior to the consummation of the Business Combination. Please see the section entitled “Special Meeting of MAAC Stockholders—Redemption Rights” for additional information on how to exercise your redemption rights.

If a public stockholder fails to receive notice of MAAC’s offer to redeem MAAC Class A Shares in connection with the Business Combination, or fails to comply with the procedures for tendering its shares, such shares may not be redeemed.

If, despite MAAC’s compliance with the proxy rules, a public stockholder fails to receive MAAC’s proxy materials, such public stockholder may not become aware of the opportunity to redeem his, her or its MAAC Class A Shares. In addition, the proxy materials that MAAC is furnishing to holders of MAAC Class A Shares in connection with the Business Combination describes the various procedures that must be complied with in order to validly redeem the MAAC Class A Shares. In the event that a public stockholder fails to comply with these procedures, its MAAC Class A Shares may not be redeemed. Please see the section entitled “Special Meeting of MAAC Stockholders—Redemption Rights” for additional information on how to exercise your redemption rights.

If the minimum Trust Account condition is waived, MAAC does not have a specified maximum redemption threshold. The absence of such a redemption threshold may make it possible for us to complete the Business Combination with which a substantial majority of MAAC’s stockholders do not agree.

The Existing Governing Documents do not provide a specified maximum redemption threshold, except that MAAC will not redeem MAAC Class A Shares in an amount that would cause MAAC’s net tangible assets to be less than $5,000,001 after giving effect to the transactions contemplated by the Business Combination Agreement, the PIPE Financing and all of the MAAC stockholder redemptions (as determined in accordance with Rule 3a51-1(g)(1) of the Exchange Act).

As a result, MAAC may be able to complete the Business Combination even though a substantial portion of public stockholders do not agree with the transaction and have redeemed their shares or have entered into privately negotiated agreements to sell their shares to Sponsor, directors or officers or their affiliates. As of the date of this proxy statement/prospectus, no agreements with respect to the private purchase of MAAC Class A Shares by MAAC or the persons described above have been entered into with any such investor or holder. MAAC will file or submit a Current Report on Form 8-K to disclose any material arrangements entered into or significant purchases made by any of the aforementioned persons that would affect the vote on the proposals to be put to the extraordinary general meeting or the redemption threshold. Any such report will include descriptions of any arrangements entered into or significant purchases by any of the aforementioned persons.

If you or a “group” of stockholders of which you are a part are deemed to hold an aggregate of more than 15% of the MAAC Class A Shares, you (or, if a member of such a group, all of the members of such group in the aggregate) will lose the ability to redeem all such shares in excess of 15% of the MAAC Class A Shares.

A public stockholder, together with any of his, her or its affiliates or any other person with whom it is acting in concert or as a “group” (as defined under Section 13 of the Exchange Act), will be restricted from redeeming in the aggregate his, her or its shares or, if part of such a group, the group’s shares, in excess of 15% of the MAAC Class A Shares. In order to determine whether a stockholder is acting in concert or as a group with another stockholder, MAAC will require each public stockholder seeking to exercise redemption rights to certify to MAAC whether such stockholder is acting in concert or as a group with any other stockholder. Such certifications, together with other public information relating to stock ownership available to MAAC at that time, such as Section 13D, Section 13G and Section 16 filings under the Exchange Act, will be the sole basis on which MAAC makes the above-referenced determination. Your inability to redeem any such excess shares will reduce your influence over MAAC’s ability to

110

consummate the Business Combination and you could suffer a material loss on your investment in MAAC if you sell such excess shares in open market transactions. Additionally, you will not receive redemption distributions with respect to such excess shares if MAAC consummates the Business Combination. As a result, you will continue to hold that number of shares aggregating to more than 15% of the MAAC Class A Shares and, in order to dispose of such excess shares, would be required to sell your stock in open market transactions, potentially at a loss. MAAC cannot assure you that the value of such excess shares will appreciate over time following the Business Combination or that the market price of the MAAC Class A Shares will exceed the per-share redemption price. Notwithstanding the foregoing, stockholders may challenge MAAC’s determination as to whether a stockholder is acting in concert or as a group with another stockholder in a court of competent jurisdiction.

However, MAAC’s stockholders’ ability to vote all of their shares (including such excess shares) for or against the Business Combination is not restricted by this limitation on redemption.

There is no guarantee that a stockholder’s decision whether to redeem its shares for a pro rata portion of the Trust Account will put the stockholder in a better future economic position.

MAAC can give no assurance as to the price at which a stockholder may be able to sell its MAAC Class A Shares in the future following the completion of the Business Combination or any alternative business combination. Certain events following the consummation of any initial business combination, including the Business Combination, may cause an increase in MAAC share price, and may result in a lower value realized now than a stockholder of MAAC might realize in the future had the stockholder not redeemed its shares. Similarly, if a stockholder does not redeem its shares, the stockholder will bear the risk of ownership of the MAAC Class A Shares after the consummation of any initial business combination, and there can be no assurance that a stockholder can sell its shares in the future for a greater amount than the redemption price set forth in this proxy statement/prospectus. A stockholder should consult the stockholder’s own financial advisor for assistance on how this may affect his, her or its individual situation.

The securities in which we invest the funds held in the Trust Account could bear a negative rate of interest, which could reduce the value of the assets held in trust such that the per-share redemption amount received by public stockholders may be less than $10.00 per share.

The proceeds held in the Trust Account will be invested only in U.S. government treasury obligations with a maturity of 185 days or less or in money market funds meeting certain conditions under Rule 2a-7 under the Investment Company Act, which invest only in direct U.S. government treasury obligations. While short-term U.S. government treasury obligations currently yield a positive rate of interest, they have briefly yielded negative interest rates in recent years. Central banks in Europe and Japan pursued interest rates below zero in recent years, and the Open Market Committee of the Federal Reserve has not ruled out the possibility that it may in the future adopt similar policies in the United States. In the event that we are unable to complete our initial business combination or make certain amendments to our amended and restated memorandum and articles of association, our public stockholders are entitled to receive their pro-rata share of the proceeds held in the Trust Account, plus any interest income, net of income taxes paid or payable (less, in the case we are unable to complete our initial business combination, $100,000 of interest to pay dissolution expenses). Negative interest rates could reduce the value of the assets held in trust such that the per-share redemption amount received by public stockholders may be less than $10.00 per share.

Risks if the Adjournment Proposal is Not Approved

If the Adjournment Proposal is not approved, and an insufficient number of votes have been obtained to authorize the consummation of the Business Combination, the MAAC Board will not have the ability to adjourn the special MAAC meeting to a later date in order to solicit further votes, and, therefore, the Business Combination will not be approved, and, therefore, the Business Combination may not be consummated.

The MAAC Board is seeking approval to adjourn the special MAAC meeting to a later date or dates if, at the extraordinary general meeting, based upon the tabulated votes, there are insufficient votes to approve each of

111

the Condition Precedent Proposals. If the Adjournment Proposal is not approved, the MAAC Board will not have the ability to adjourn the extraordinary general meeting to a later date and, therefore, will not have more time to solicit votes to approve the proposals. In such events, the Business Combination would not be completed.

Risks Related to Roivant Following the Consummation of the Business Combination

Unless the context otherwise requires, references in this subsection “—Risks Related to Roivant Following the Consummation of the Business Combination” to “we,” “us,” “our” and the “Company” refer to Roivant and its subsidiaries and affiliates from and after the consummation of the Business Combination.

Roivant will incur increased costs as a result of operating as a public company, and its management will devote substantial time to new compliance initiatives.

If the Business Combination is completed and Roivant becomes a public company, it will incur significant legal, accounting and other expenses that it did not incur as a private company, and these expenses may increase even more after Roivant is no longer an emerging growth company, as defined in Section 2(a) of the Securities Act. In addition, we expect to record share based compensation expense of approximately $                 in connection with the consummation of the Business Combination.

As a public company, Roivant will be subject to the reporting requirements of the Exchange Act, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the Dodd-Frank Act, as well as rules adopted, and to be adopted, by the SEC and the Nasdaq. Roivant’s management and other personnel will need to devote a substantial amount of time to these compliance initiatives. Moreover, Roivant expects these rules and regulations to substantially increase its legal and financial compliance costs and to make some activities more time-consuming and costly. For example, Roivant expects these rules and regulations to make it more difficult and more expensive for it to obtain director and officer liability insurance and it may be forced to accept reduced policy limits or incur substantially higher costs to maintain the same or similar coverage. Roivant cannot predict or estimate the amount or timing of additional costs it may incur to respond to these requirements. The impact of these requirements could also make it more difficult for Roivant to attract and retain qualified persons to serve on its board of directors, its board committees or as executive officers.

Roivant’s failure to timely and effectively implement controls and procedures required by Section 404(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act that will be applicable to it after the Business Combination is consummated could have a material adverse effect on its business.

Roivant is currently not subject to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. However, following the consummation of the Business Combination, Roivant will be required to provide management’s attestation on internal controls. The standards required for a public company under Section 404(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act are significantly more stringent than those required of Roivant as a privately-held company. Management may not be able to effectively and timely implement controls and procedures that adequately respond to the increased regulatory compliance and reporting requirements that will be applicable after the Business Combination. If Roivant is not able to implement the additional requirements of Section 404(a) in a timely manner or with adequate compliance, it may not be able to assess whether its internal controls over financial reporting are effective, which may subject it to adverse regulatory consequences and could harm investor confidence and the market price of its securities.

Failure to properly implement internal controls on a timely basis may lead to the identification of one or more material weaknesses or control deficiencies in the future, which may prevent us from being able to report our financial results accurately on a timely basis or help prevent fraud, and could cause our reported financial results to be materially misstated and result in the loss of investor confidence or delisting and cause the market price of our common shares to decline. If we have material weaknesses in the future, it could affect the

112

financial results that we report or create a perception that those financial results do not fairly state our financial position or results of operations. Either of those events could have an adverse effect on the value of our common shares.

Further, even if we conclude that our internal control over financial reporting provides reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with GAAP, because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect fraud or misstatements. Failure to implement required new or improved controls, or difficulties encountered in their implementation, could harm our results of operations or cause us to fail to meet our future reporting obligations.

Roivant may redeem your unexpired warrants prior to their exercise at a time that is disadvantageous to you, thereby making your warrants worthless.

Following the Business Combination, Roivant has the ability to redeem outstanding warrants at any time after they become exercisable and prior to their expiration, at a price of $0.01 per warrant, provided that the last reported sales price of Roivant Common Shares is equal to or exceeds $18.00 per share (as adjusted for share sub divisions, share capitalizations, rights issuances, subdivisions, reorganizations, recapitalizations and the like) for any 20 trading days within a 30 trading-day period ending on the third trading day prior to the date they send the notice of redemption to the warrant holders. If and when the warrants become redeemable by Roivant, they may not exercise their redemption right if the issuance of shares upon exercise of the warrants is not exempt from registration or qualification under applicable state blue sky laws or Roivant is unable to effect such registration or qualification. Roivant will use its best efforts to register or qualify such shares under the blue sky laws of the state of residence in those states in which the warrants were offered by us in this offering. Redemption of the outstanding warrants could force you (i) to exercise your warrants and pay the exercise price therefor at a time when it may be disadvantageous for you to do so, (ii) to sell your warrants at the then-current market price when you might otherwise wish to hold your warrants or (iii) to accept the nominal redemption price which, at the time the outstanding warrants are called for redemption, is likely to be substantially less than the market value of your warrants.

In addition, following the Business Combination, Roivant may redeem your warrants at any time after they become exercisable and prior to their expiration at a price of $0.10 per warrant upon a minimum of 30 days’ prior written notice of redemption provided that holders will be able to exercise their warrants prior to redemption for a number of common shares determined based on the redemption date and the fair market value of Roivant Common Shares. Please see “Description of Securities — Redeemable Warrants — Public Shareholders’ Warrants — Redemption of warrants for common shares when the price per common share equals or exceeds $10.00.” The value received upon exercise of the warrants (1) may be less than the value the holders would have received if they had exercised their warrants at a later time where the underlying share price is higher and (2) may not compensate the holders for the value of the warrants, including because the number of shares received is capped at 0.361 common shares per warrant (subject to adjustment) irrespective of the remaining life of the warrants. None of the private placement warrants will be redeemable by us (except as set forth under “Description of Securities — Warrants — Public Shareholders’ Warrants — Redemption of warrants for common shares when the price per common share equals or exceeds $10.00”) so long as they are held by MAAC Sponsor or its permitted transferees.

Following the Business Combination, Roivant’s management will have the ability to require holders of Roivant’s warrants to exercise such warrants on a cashless basis, which will cause holders to receive fewer common shares upon their exercise of the warrants than they would have received had they been able to exercise their warrants for cash.

If Roivant calls the public warrants for redemption after the redemption criteria described elsewhere in this prospectus have been satisfied, Roivant’s management will have the option to require any holder that wishes to

113

exercise their warrant (including any warrants held by MAAC Sponsor, MAAC’s former officers or directors, other purchasers of MAAC’s founders’ units, or their permitted transferees) to do so on a “cashless basis.” If Roivant’s management chooses to require holders to exercise their warrants on a cashless basis, the number of common shares received by a holder upon exercise will be fewer than it would have been had such holder exercised his warrant for cash. This will have the effect of reducing the potential “upside” of the holder’s investment in Roivant’s company.

Changes in laws or regulations, or a failure to comply with any laws and regulations, may adversely affect Roivant’s business, investments and results of operations.

Roivant is subject to laws and regulations enacted by national, regional and local governments. In particular, it will be required to comply with certain SEC and other legal requirements. Compliance with, and monitoring of, applicable laws and regulations may be difficult, time consuming and costly. Those laws and regulations and their interpretation and application may also change from time to time and those changes could have a material adverse effect on Roivant’s business, investments and results of operations. In addition, a failure to comply with applicable laws or regulations, as interpreted and applied, could have a material adverse effect on Roivant’s business and results of operations.

Risks Related to the Ownership of Roivant Common Shares Following the Business Combination

Unless the context otherwise requires, references in this subsection “—Risks Related to Roivant Following the Consummation of the Business Combination” to “we,” “us,” “our” and the “Company” refer to Roivant and its subsidiaries and affiliates from and after the consummation of the Business Combination.

Anti-takeover provisions in Roivant’s memorandum of association, proposed bye-laws and Bermuda law could delay or prevent a change in control, limit the price investors may be willing to pay in the future for Roivant Common Shares and could entrench management.

Roivant’s memorandum of association and proposed bye-laws contain provisions that could make it more difficult for a third-party to acquire us without the consent of our board of directors. These provisions provide for:

These provisions may make more difficult the removal of management and may discourage transactions that otherwise could involve payment of a premium over prevailing market prices for Roivant’s securities. These provisions could also discourage proxy contests and make it more difficult for you and other shareholders to elect directors of your choosing and cause us to take corporate actions other than those you desire, any of which could harm Roivant’s share price. See “Description of Securities Post-Business Combination.”

Our largest shareholders and certain members of our management own a significant percentage of our stock and will be able to exert significant control over matters subject to shareholder approval.

Roivant’s founder and certain of our largest shareholders are expected to hold approximately     % of our common shares following the Business Combination. As a result, these holders will have the ability to

114

substantially influence Roivant and exert significant control through this ownership position and, in the case of certain holders, service on Roivant’s board of directors. For example, these holders may be able to control elections of directors, issuance of equity, including to Roivant’s employees under equity incentive plans, amendments of Roivant’s organizational documents, or approval of any merger, amalgamation, sale of assets or other major corporate transaction. These holders’ interests may not always coincide with Roivant’s corporate interests or the interests of other shareholders, and it may exercise its voting and other rights in a manner with which you may not agree or that may not be in the best interests of Roivant’s other shareholders. So long as these holders continue to own a significant amount of Roivant’s equity, they will continue to be able to strongly influence and effectively control Roivant’s decisions.

Future sales and issuances of our or the Vants’ equity securities or rights to purchase equity securities, including pursuant to our or the Vants’ equity incentive and other compensatory plans, will result in additional dilution of the percentage ownership of our shareholders and could cause our share price to fall.

We and the Vants will need additional capital in the future to continue our planned operations. To the extent we raise additional capital by issuing equity securities, including in our subsidiaries, our shareholders may experience substantial dilution. We or the Vants may sell common shares, convertible securities or other equity securities in one or more transactions at prices and in a manner we determine from time to time. If we sell common shares, convertible securities or other equity securities in more than one transaction, investors may be materially diluted by subsequent sales. In addition, new investors could gain rights superior to our existing shareholders.

Pursuant to our 2021 Equity Incentive Plan (the “2021 EIP”), we are authorized to grant options and other share-based awards to our employees, directors and consultants. The aggregate number of shares initially reserved for issuance under the 2021 EIP will be increased annually on the first day of each fiscal year during the term of the plan in an amount equal to the lesser of (i) 5% of the number of Roivant Common Shares outstanding as of the day of the immediately preceding fiscal year and (ii) such number of Roivant Common Shares as determined by our board of directors in its discretion. As a result of this annual increase, or if our board of directors elects in the future to make any additional increase in the number of shares available for future grant under the 2021 EIP, and if our shareholders approve of any such additional increase, our shareholders may experience additional dilution, and our share price may fall.

Issuance of options and other share-based awards pursuant to equity incentive plans at the Vants may indirectly have a similar effect of diluting your ownership in Roivant since a portion of the value of Roivant Common Shares is tied to the value of the Vants, which would be diluted in the event of a grant of options or other similar equity grants to the employees of the Vants.     

If securities analysts do not publish research or reports about our business or if they publish negative evaluations of our shares, the price of our shares could decline.

The trading market for Roivant’s securities will be influenced by the research and reports that industry or securities analysts may publish about Roivant, its business, market or competitors. Securities and industry analysts do not currently, and may never, publish research on Roivant. If no securities or industry analysts commence coverage of Roivant, Roivant’s share price and trading volume would likely be negatively impacted. If any of the analysts who may cover Roivant change their recommendation regarding Roivant Common Shares adversely, or provide more favorable relative recommendations about its competitors, the price of Roivant Common Shares would likely decline. If any analyst who may cover Roivant were to cease coverage or fail to regularly publish reports, Roivant could lose visibility in the financial markets, which in turn could cause its share price or trading volume to decline.

115

Roivant’s founder and certain of our largest shareholders will own a substantial portion of our common shares. As a result, there may be limited liquidity for our common shares.

Roivant’s founder and certain of our largest shareholders are expected to hold approximately     % of our common shares following the Business Combination. Such shareholders are subject to the lock-ups described elsewhere in this prospectus, and as a result there may initially be limited liquidity in the trading market for our common shares. In addition, even once the applicable lock-up periods expire, the liquidity for our common shares may remain limited given the substantial holdings of such shareholders, which could make the price of our common shares more volatile and may make it more difficult for investors to buy or sell large amounts of our common shares.

Because there are no current plans to pay cash dividends on Roivant Common Shares for the foreseeable future, you may not receive any return on investment unless you sell Roivant Common Shares for a price greater than that which you paid for it.

Roivant may retain future earnings, if any, for future operations, expansion and debt repayment and has no current plans to pay any cash dividends for the foreseeable future. Any decision to declare and pay dividends as a public company in the future will be made at the discretion of Roivant’s board of directors and will depend on, among other things, Roivant’s results of operations, financial condition, cash requirements, contractual restrictions, applicable law and other factors that Roivant’s board of directors may deem relevant. In addition, Roivant’s ability to pay dividends may be limited by covenants of any existing and future outstanding indebtedness it or its subsidiaries incur. As a result, you may not receive any return on an investment in Roivant Common Shares unless you sell your shares of for a price greater than that which you paid for it.

We are an exempted company limited by shares incorporated under the laws of Bermuda and following the completion of the Business Combination it may be difficult for you to enforce judgments against us or our directors and executive officers.

We are an exempted company limited by shares incorporated under the laws of Bermuda. As a result, the rights of our shareholders following the completion of the Business Combination will be governed by Bermuda law and our memorandum of association and proposed bye-laws. The rights of shareholders under Bermuda law may differ from the rights of shareholders of companies incorporated in another jurisdiction. It may be difficult for investors to enforce in the U.S. judgments obtained in U.S. courts against us based on the civil liability provisions of the U.S. securities laws. It is doubtful whether courts in Bermuda will enforce judgments obtained in other jurisdictions, including the U.S., against us or our directors or officers under the securities laws of those jurisdictions or entertain actions in Bermuda against us or our directors or officers under the securities laws of other jurisdictions.

Bermuda law differs from the laws in effect in the U.S. and may afford less protection to our shareholders.

We are incorporated under the laws of Bermuda. As a result, our corporate affairs are governed by the Bermuda Companies Act 1981, as amended, (the “Companies Act”) which differs in some material respects from laws typically applicable to U.S. corporations and shareholders, including the provisions relating to interested directors, amalgamations, mergers and acquisitions, takeovers, shareholder lawsuits and indemnification of directors. Generally, the duties of directors and officers of a Bermuda company are owed to the company only. Shareholders of Bermuda companies typically do not have rights to take action against directors or officers of the company and may only do so in limited circumstances. Shareholder class actions are not available under Bermuda law. The circumstances in which shareholder derivative actions may be available under Bermuda law are substantially more proscribed and less clear than they would be to shareholders of U.S. corporations. The Bermuda courts, however, would ordinarily be expected to permit a shareholder to commence an action in the name of a company to remedy a wrong to the company where the act complained of is alleged to be beyond the

116

corporate power of the company or illegal or would result in the violation of the company’s memorandum of association or bye-laws. Furthermore, consideration would be given by a Bermuda court to acts that are alleged to constitute a fraud against the minority shareholders or, for instance, where an act requires the approval of a greater percentage of the company’s shareholders than those who actually approved it.

When the affairs of a company are being conducted in a manner that is oppressive or prejudicial to the interests of some shareholders, one or more shareholders may apply to the Supreme Court of Bermuda, which may make such order as it sees fit, including an order regulating the conduct of the company’s affairs in the future or ordering the purchase of the shares of any shareholders by other shareholders or by the company. Additionally, under our Proposed Bye-laws that will be in effect from the completion of the Business Combination, and as permitted by Bermuda law, each shareholder will waive any claim or right of action against our directors or officers for any action taken by directors or officers in the performance of their duties, except for actions involving fraud or dishonesty. In addition, the rights of our shareholders and the fiduciary responsibilities of our directors under Bermuda law are not as clearly established as under statutes or judicial precedent in existence in jurisdictions in the U.S., particularly the State of Delaware. Therefore, following the completion of the Business Combination, our shareholders may have more difficulty protecting their interests than would shareholders of a corporation incorporated in a jurisdiction within the U.S.

There are regulatory limitations on the ownership and transfer of our common shares.

Common shares may be offered or sold in Bermuda only in compliance with the provisions of the Companies Act and the Bermuda Investment Business Act 2003, which regulates the sale of securities in Bermuda. In addition, the Bermuda Monetary Authority must approve all issues and transfers of shares of a Bermuda exempted company. However, the Bermuda Monetary Authority has, pursuant to its statement of June 1, 2005, given its general permission under the Exchange Control Act 1972 and related regulations for the issue and free transfer of our common shares to and among persons who are non-residents of Bermuda for exchange control purposes as long as the shares are listed on an appointed stock exchange, which includes Nasdaq. Additionally, we have sought and have obtained a specific permission from the Bermuda Monetary Authority for the issue and transfer of our common shares up to the amount of our authorized capital from time to time, and options, warrants, depository receipts, rights, loan notes, debt instruments and our other securities to persons resident and non-resident for exchange control purposes with the need for prior approval of such issue or transfer. The general permission or the specific permission would cease to apply if we were to cease to be listed on the Nasdaq or another appointed stock exchange.

Legislation enacted in Bermuda as to economic substance may affect our operations.

Pursuant to the Economic Substance Act 2018 of Bermuda, as amended (the “Economic Substance Act”) that came into force on January 1, 2019, a registered entity other than an entity which is resident for tax purposes in certain jurisdictions outside Bermuda (a “non-resident entity”) that carries on as a business any one or more of the “relevant activities” referred to in the Economic Substance Act must comply with economic substance requirements. The Economic Substance Act may require in-scope Bermuda entities which are engaged in such “relevant activities” to be directed and managed in Bermuda, have an adequate level of qualified employees in Bermuda, incur an adequate level of annual expenditure in Bermuda, maintain physical offices and premises in Bermuda or perform core income-generating activities in Bermuda. The list of “relevant activities” includes carrying on any one or more of: banking, insurance, fund management, financing, leasing, headquarters, shipping, distribution and service centre, intellectual property and holding entities.

Based on the Economic Substance Act currently, for so long as we are a non-resident entity, we are not required to satisfy any such economic substance requirements other than providing the Bermuda Registrar of Companies annually information on the jurisdiction in which it claims to be resident for tax purposes together with sufficient evidence to support that tax residence. We currently do not anticipate material impact on our business or operations from the Economic Substance Act. However, since such legislation is new and remains

117

subject to further clarification and interpretation, it is not currently possible to ascertain the precise impact of the Economic Substance Act on us. If we ceased to be a non-resident entity, we may be unable to comply with the Economic Substance Act or may have to restructure our business to comply with the Economic Substance Act, either of which may have a material adverse effect on our business.

We may become subject to unanticipated tax liabilities and higher effective tax rates.

We are incorporated under the laws of Bermuda. We are centrally managed and controlled in the U.K., and under current U.K. tax law, a company which is centrally managed and controlled in the U.K. is regarded as resident in the U.K. for taxation purposes. Accordingly, we expect to be subject to U.K. taxation on our income and gains, and subject to U.K.’s controlled foreign company rules, except where an exemption applies. We may be treated as a dual resident company for U.K. tax purposes. As a result, our right to claim certain reliefs from U.K. tax may be restricted, and changes in law or practice in the U.K. could result in the imposition of further restrictions on our right to claim U.K. tax reliefs. We may also become subject to income, withholding or other taxes in certain jurisdictions by reason of our activities and operations, and it is also possible that taxing authorities in any such jurisdictions could assert that we are subject to greater taxation than we currently anticipate. Any such additional tax liability could materially adversely affect our results of operations.

The intended tax effects of our corporate structure and intercompany arrangements depend on the application of the tax laws of various jurisdictions and on how we operate our business.

We are incorporated under the laws of Bermuda. We currently have subsidiaries in the U.S., U.K., Switzerland, China and certain other jurisdictions. If we succeed in growing our business, we expect to conduct increased operations through our subsidiaries in various countries and tax jurisdictions, in part through intercompany service agreements between our subsidiaries and us. In that case, our corporate structure and intercompany transactions, including the manner in which we develop and use our intellectual property, will be organized so that we can achieve our business objectives in a tax-efficient manner and in compliance with applicable transfer pricing rules and regulations. If two or more affiliated companies are located in different countries or tax jurisdictions, the tax laws and regulations of each country generally will require that transfer prices be the same as those between unrelated companies dealing at arm’s length and that appropriate documentation be maintained to support the transfer prices. While we believe that we operate in compliance with applicable transfer pricing laws and intend to continue to do so, our transfer pricing procedures are not binding on applicable taxing authorities. If taxing authorities in any of these countries were to successfully challenge Roivant’s transfer prices as not reflecting arm’s length transactions, they could require it to adjust its transfer prices and thereby reallocate its income to reflect these revised transfer prices, which could result in a higher tax liability to Roivant. In addition, if the country from which the income is reallocated does not agree with the reallocation, both countries could tax the same income, resulting in double taxation. If taxing authorities were to allocate income to a higher tax jurisdiction, subject Roivant’s income to double taxation or assess interest and penalties, it would increase its consolidated tax liability, which could adversely affect Roivant’s financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Significant judgment is required in evaluating our tax positions and determining our provision for income taxes. During the ordinary course of business, there are many transactions and calculations for which the ultimate tax determination is uncertain. For example, our effective tax rates could be adversely affected by changes in foreign currency exchange rates or by changes in the relevant tax, accounting, and other laws, regulations, principles, and interpretations. As we intend to operate in numerous countries and taxing jurisdictions, the application of tax laws can be subject to diverging and sometimes conflicting interpretations by tax authorities of these jurisdictions. It is not uncommon for taxing authorities in different countries to have conflicting views, for instance, with respect to, among other things, the manner in which the arm’s length standard is applied for transfer pricing purposes, or with respect to the valuation of intellectual property.

118

In addition, tax laws are dynamic and subject to change as new laws are passed and new interpretations of the law are issued or applied. We continue to assess the impact of such changes in tax laws and interpretations on our business and may determine that changes to our structure, practice, tax positions or the manner in which we conduct our business are necessary in light of such changes and developments in the tax laws of other jurisdictions in which we operate. Such changes may nevertheless be ineffective in avoiding an increase in our consolidated tax liability, which could adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Changes in our effective tax rate may reduce our net income in future periods.

Our tax position could be adversely impacted by changes in tax rates, tax laws, tax practice, tax treaties or tax regulations or changes in the interpretation thereof by the tax authorities in Europe (including the U.K. and Switzerland), the U.S., Bermuda, China and other jurisdictions, as well as being affected by certain changes currently proposed by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development and their action plan on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting. Such changes may become more likely as a result of recent economic trends in the jurisdictions in which we operate, particularly if such trends continue. If such a situation were to arise, it could adversely impact our tax position and our effective tax rate. Failure to manage the risks associated with such changes, or misinterpretation of the laws providing such changes, could result in costly audits, interest, penalties, and reputational damage, which could adversely affect our business, results of our operations, and our financial condition.

Our actual effective tax rate may vary from our expectation and that variance may be material. A number of factors may increase our future effective tax rates, including: (1) the jurisdictions in which profits are determined to be earned and taxed; (2) the resolution of issues arising from any future tax audits with various tax authorities; (3) changes in the valuation of our deferred tax assets and liabilities; (4) increases in expenses not deductible for tax purposes, including transaction costs and impairments of goodwill in connection with acquisitions; (5) changes in the taxation of stock-based compensation; (6) changes in tax laws or the interpretation of such tax laws, and changes in U.S. generally accepted accounting principles; and (7) challenges to the transfer pricing policies related to our structure.

U.S. holders that own 10% or more of the combined voting power or value of our common shares may suffer adverse tax consequences because we and our non-U.S. subsidiaries may be characterized as “controlled foreign corporations” (“CFCs”), under Section 957(a) of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”).

A non-U.S. corporation is considered a CFC if more than 50% of (1) the total combined voting power of all classes of stock of such corporation entitled to vote, or (2) the total value of the stock of such corporation, is owned, or is considered as owned by applying certain constructive ownership rules, by U.S. shareholders (U.S. persons who own stock representing 10% or more of the combined voting power or value of all outstanding stock of such non-U.S. corporation) on any day during the taxable year of such non-U.S. corporation. Certain U.S. shareholders of a CFC generally are required to include currently in gross income such shareholders’ share of the CFC’s “Subpart F income”, a portion of the CFC’s earnings to the extent the CFC holds certain U.S. property, and a portion of the CFC’s “global intangible low-taxed income” (as defined under Section 951A of the Code). Such U.S. shareholders are subject to current U.S. federal income tax with respect to such items, even if the CFC has not made an actual distribution to such shareholders. “Subpart F income” includes, among other things, certain passive income (such as income from dividends, interests, royalties, rents and annuities or gain from the sale of property that produces such types of income) and certain sales and services income arising in connection with transactions between the CFC and a person related to the CFC. “Global intangible low-taxed income” may include most of the remainder of a CFC’s income over a deemed return on its tangible assets.

119

We believe that we will not be classified as a CFC in the current taxable year. However, it is possible that our non-U.S. subsidiaries could be classified as CFCs in the current taxable year. For U.S. holders who hold 10% or more of the combined voting power or value of our common shares, this may result in adverse U.S. federal income tax consequences, such as current U.S. taxation of Subpart F income (regardless of whether we make any distributions), taxation of amounts treated as global intangible low-taxed income under Section 951A of the Code with respect to such shareholder, and being subject to certain reporting requirements with the IRS. Any such U.S. holder who is an individual generally would not be allowed certain tax deductions or foreign tax credits that would be allowed to a U.S. corporation. If you are a U.S. holder who holds 10% or more of the combined voting power or value of our common shares, you should consult your own tax advisors regarding the U.S. tax consequences of acquiring, owning, or disposing of our common shares.

U.S. holders of our common shares may suffer adverse tax consequences if we are characterized as a passive foreign investment company.

Generally, if, for any taxable year, at least 75% of our gross income is passive income, or at least 50% of the average quarterly value of our assets is attributable to assets that produce passive income or are held for the production of passive income, including cash, we would be characterized as a passive foreign investment company (a “PFIC”) for U.S. federal income tax purposes. For purposes of these tests, passive income generally includes dividends, interest, gains from the sale or exchange of investment property and rents and royalties other than rents and royalties which are received from unrelated parties in connection with the active conduct of a trade or business. Additionally, a look-through rule generally applies with respect to 25% or more owned subsidiaries. If we are characterized as a PFIC, U.S. holders of our common shares may suffer adverse tax consequences, including having gains realized on the sale of our common shares treated as ordinary income rather than capital gain, the loss of the preferential tax rate applicable to dividends received on our common shares by individuals who are U.S. holders, and having interest charges apply to certain distributions by us and the proceeds of sales or other dispositions of our common shares that result in a gain to the U.S. holder. In addition, special information reporting may be required.

Our status as a PFIC will depend on the nature and composition of our income and the nature, composition and value of our assets from time to time. The 50% passive asset test described above is generally based on the fair market value of each asset. If we are a CFC (determined by disregarding certain downward attribution rules) and not publicly traded for the relevant taxable year, however, the test shall be applied based on the adjusted basis of our assets.

Recently adopted Treasury regulations (the “New Regulations”), modify certain of the rules described above. Such modifications include, for example, permitting asset value to be determined more frequently than on a quarterly basis and treating a non-U.S. corporation as publicly traded for a taxable year if the stock of such corporation is publicly traded, other than in de minimis quantities, for at least twenty trading days during such taxable year.

The New Regulations generally apply to taxable years of shareholders beginning on or after January 14, 2021. A shareholder, however, may choose to apply such rules for any open taxable year beginning before January 14, 2021, provided that, with respect to a non-U.S. corporation being tested for PFIC status, the shareholder consistently applies certain of the provisions of the New Regulations and certain other Treasury regulations for such year and all subsequent years. Investors who are U.S. holders should consult their own tax advisors regarding the impact and applicability of the New Regulations.

If we are considered “publicly traded” for the current taxable year that ends on March 31, 2022 (i.e., the Business Combination closes within such current taxable year and Roivant Common Shares are publicly traded, other than in de minimis quantities, for at least twenty days during the current taxable year) we would apply the 50% passive asset test using the fair market value of our assets. This determination, however, is subject to uncertainty. In addition, our status may also depend, in part, on how quickly we utilize our cash on-hand and cash from future financings in our business.

120

Based on the foregoing, with respect to the taxable year that ended on March 31, 2021, we believe that we were not a PFIC (based in part on our belief that we were not classified as a CFC in the taxable year that ended on March 31, 2021) and presently do not anticipate that we will be a PFIC based upon the expected value of our assets, including any goodwill, and the expected nature and composition of our income and assets. However, our status as a PFIC is a fact-intensive determination made on an annual basis, and we cannot provide any assurances regarding our PFIC status for the current or future taxable years. Our U.S. counsel expresses no opinion with respect to our PFIC status for the current or future taxable years. We will determine our PFIC status for each taxable year and make such determination available to U.S. holders.

We have implemented structures and arrangements intended to mitigate the possibility that we will be classified as a PFIC. There can be no assurance that the IRS will not successfully challenge these structures and arrangements, which may result in an adverse impact on the determination of whether we are classified as a PFIC in the current and future taxable years. In addition, recently finalized U.S. Treasury regulations, of which we are continuing to assess the impact, may also adversely affect the treatment of these structures and arrangements with respect to our PFIC status.

121

SPECIAL MEETING OF MAAC STOCKHOLDERS

General

MAAC is furnishing this proxy statement/prospectus to its stockholders as part of the solicitation of proxies by the MAAC board of directors for use at the MAAC Special Meeting to be held on                 , 2021 and at any adjournment or postponement thereof. This proxy statement/prospectus is first being furnished to MAAC’s stockholders on or about                 , 2021 in connection with the vote on the proposals described in this proxy statement/prospectus. This proxy statement/prospectus provides MAAC’s stockholders with information they need to know to be able to vote or direct their vote to be cast at the MAAC Special Meeting.

Date, Time and Place

The MAAC Special Meeting will be held on                 , 2021, at                 , Eastern Time, on                 , 2021, via a virtual meeting. In light of COVID-19 pandemic and to support the well-being of MAAC’s stockholders and employees, the MAAC Special Meeting will be completely virtual. MAAC stockholders may attend the MAAC Special Meeting and vote their shares electronically during the meeting via live audio webcast by visiting                 . MAAC Stockholders will need the control number that is printed on their proxy card to enter the MAAC Special Meeting. MAAC recommends that stockholders log in at least 15 minutes before the meeting to ensure they are logged in when the MAAC Special Meeting starts. MAAC stockholders will not be able to attend the MAAC Special Meeting in person.

Purpose of MAAC Special Meeting

MAAC stockholders are being asked to consider and vote upon:

Voting Power; Record Date

You will be entitled to vote or direct votes to be cast at the MAAC Special Meeting if you owned MAAC Shares at the close of business on                 , 2021, which is the record date for the MAAC Special Meeting. You are entitled to one vote for each MAAC Share that you owned as of the close of business on the MAAC record date. If your shares are held in “street name” through a broker, bank or other nominee, your broker, bank or other nominee will send you separate instructions describing the procedure for voting your shares. On the MAAC record date, there were 51,339,779 MAAC Shares outstanding.

Vote of the MAAC Sponsor and MAAC’s Directors and Officers

The MAAC Sponsor has agreed to vote any MAAC Class B Shares, and any MAAC Class A Shares held by it as of the record date, in favor of the Business Combination Proposal. Further, the MAAC Sponsor intends to vote in favor of all of the proposals.

The MAAC Sponsor has waived any redemption rights in connection with Business Combination. The MAAC Class B Shares held by the MAAC Sponsor has no redemption rights upon MAAC’s liquidation and will be worthless if no business combination is effected by MAAC by October 9, 2022. However, the MAAC Sponsor is entitled to redemption rights upon MAAC’s liquidation with respect to any MAAC Class A Shares it may own.

The MAAC Sponsor owns 10,167,956 MAAC Class B Shares as of the record date.

121.1

Quorum and Required Vote for Proposals for the MAAC Special Meeting

A quorum of MAAC stockholders is necessary to hold a valid meeting. A quorum will be present at the MAAC Special Meeting if a majority of the outstanding MAAC Shares as of the MAAC record date at the MAAC Special Meeting is represented virtually or by proxy. Abstentions and broker non-votes will be counted as present for the purpose of determining a quorum. The holders of the MAAC Class B Shares, who currently own 20% of the issued and outstanding MAAC Shares, will count towards this quorum. As of the MAAC record date for the MAAC Special Meeting,              MAAC Shares would be required to achieve a quorum.

Approval of the Business Combination Proposal requires that the initial Business Combination be approved by the affirmative vote of the holders of a majority of MAAC Shares outstanding as of the date of the stockholder meeting held to consider such initial Business Combination. Approval of the Adjournment Proposal requires the affirmative vote of a majority of shares present in person or represented by proxy at the MAAC Special Meeting and entitled to vote thereon, regardless of whether a quorum is present. The MAAC board of directors has approved each of the proposals.

If MAAC stockholders fail to approve the Business Combination Proposal, then the Business Combination will not occur. The Business Combination is not conditioned upon the Adjournment Proposal. It is important for you to note that, in the event that the Business Combination Proposal does not receive the requisite vote for approval, then the Business Combination will not be consummated. If MAAC does not consummate the Business Combination and fails to otherwise complete a business combination by October 9, 2022, MAAC will be required to dissolve and liquidate its Trust Account by returning the then remaining funds in such account to the public stockholders.

Recommendation of the MAAC Board of Directors

MAAC’s board of directors unanimously determined that the Business Combination Agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby, including the Merger, were advisable and in the best interests of, MAAC and its stockholders. Accordingly, MAAC’s board of directors unanimously recommends that its stockholders vote “FOR” the Business Combination Proposal and, if required, “FOR” the Adjournment Proposal.

When you consider the recommendation of MAAC’s board of directors in favor of approval of these proposals, you should keep in mind that MAAC’s directors and officers have interests in the Business Combination that are different from or in addition to (and which may conflict with) your interests as a stockholder. These interests include, among other things:

121.2

MAAC Placement Agents and Advisory Fees

Upon consummation of the closing of the purchase of the applicable securities and the Business Combination, (i) J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, SVB Leerink LLC, Citigroup Global Markets Inc. and Truist Securities, Inc. (collectively, the “Placement Agents”) will be entitled to customary fees in connection with their role as MAAC’s joint placement agents for the PIPE Financing. If the Business Combination is not consummated, the Placement Agents will not be entitled to such fees.

Abstentions and Broker Non-Votes

If you are a holder of MAAC Shares that attends the MAAC Special Meeting virtually and fails to vote, or if you vote abstain, your failure to vote or abstention will have the same effect as a vote “AGAINST” the Business Combination Proposal and the Adjournment Proposal. Broker non-votes, while considered present for the purposes of establishing a quorum, will not count as shares entitled to vote or votes cast at the MAAC Special Meeting, and otherwise will have no effect on the Adjournment Proposal. Broker non-votes will have the same effect as a vote “AGAINST” the Business Combination Proposal.

Voting Your Shares

If you are a stockholder of record of MAAC as of                 , 2021, the record date, you may submit your proxy before the MAAC Special Meeting in any of the following ways, if available:

Stockholders who choose to participate in the MAAC Special Meeting can vote their shares electronically during the meeting via live audio webcast by visiting www.                    .com. You will need the control number that is printed on your proxy card to enter the MAAC Special Meeting. MAAC recommends that you log in at least 15 minutes before the meeting to ensure you are logged in when the MAAC Special Meeting starts.

If your shares are held in “street name” through a broker, bank or other nominee, your broker, bank or other nominee will send you separate instructions describing the procedure for voting your shares. “Street name”

121.3

stockholders who wish to vote at the MAAC Special Meeting will need to obtain legal proxy form from their broker, bank or other nominee.

Revoking Your Proxy

You may change your vote at any time before your proxy is voted at the MAAC Special Meeting (provided that you do not hold your shares through a broker, bank or other nominee).

You may do this in one of two ways:

Any proxy that you submitted may also be revoked by submitting a new proxy by mail, or online or by telephone, not later than 11:59 p.m., Eastern Time, on                 , 2021, or by voting online at the MAAC Special Meeting. Simply attending the MAAC Special Meeting will not revoke your proxy. If you have instructed a broker, bank or other nominee to vote your MAAC Shares, you must follow the directions you receive from your broker, bank or other nominee in order to change or revoke your vote.

Who Can Answer Your Questions About Voting Your Shares

If have any questions about how to vote or direct a vote in respect of your MAAC Shares, you may call , the proxy solicitation agent for MAAC, toll-free at (800)                (banks and brokers call                ) or email                at                 .

Redemption Rights

If you are a holder of MAAC Class A Shares, you have the right to redeem such shares for a pro rata portion of the cash held in the Trust Account, which holds the net proceeds of MAAC’s initial public offering, as of two business days prior to the consummation of the transactions contemplated by the Business Combination Agreement (including interest earned on the funds held in the Trust Account and not previously released to MAAC to pay taxes, if any) upon the closing of the transactions contemplated by the Business Combination Agreement.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, a holder of MAAC Class A Shares, together with any affiliate of such holder or any other person with whom such holder is acting in concert or as a “group” (as defined in Section 13(d)(3) of the Exchange Act), will be restricted from seeking redemption with respect to more than 15% of the MAAC Class A Shares.

Holders of the outstanding MAAC Warrants do not have redemption rights with respect to such warrants in connection with the transactions contemplated by the Business Combination Agreement.

Under the Pre-Closing MAAC Certificate of Incorporation, the Business Combination may be consummated only if MAAC has at least $5,000,001 of net tangible assets after giving effect to redemptions by all holders of MAAC Class A Shares that properly demand redemption of their MAAC Class A Shares for cash.

You may exercise your redemption rights whether you vote your MAAC Class A Shares for or against, or whether you abstain from voting on, the Business Combination Proposal or any other proposal described in this proxy statement/prospectus. As a result, the Business Combination Proposal can be approved by stockholders who will redeem their MAAC Class A Shares and will no longer be stockholders and the Business Combination may be consummated even though the funds available from the Trust Account and the number of public stockholders are substantially reduced as a result of redemptions by public stockholders. With fewer MAAC

121.4

Class A Shares and public stockholders, the trading market for MAAC Class A Shares may be less liquid than the market for MAAC Class A Shares prior to the Business Combination and MAAC may not be able to meet the listing standards of a national securities exchange, including Nasdaq. In addition, with fewer funds available from the Trust Account, the capital infusion from the Trust Account into Roivant’s business will be reduced and the amount of working capital available to Roivant following the Business Combination may be reduced. Your decision to exercise your redemption rights with respect to MAAC Class A Shares will have no effect on the MAAC Warrants you may also hold.

If you are a holder of MAAC Class A Shares and wish to exercise your redemption rights, you are required to tender your share certificates or deliver your shares to the transfer agent electronically using The Depository Trust Company’s DWAC (Deposit/Withdrawal At Custodian) System, at your option, in each case no later than two business days prior to the initially scheduled vote to approve the Business Combination. Accordingly, you have until two days prior to the initial vote on the Business Combination to tender your shares if you wish to exercise your redemption rights. Given the relatively short period in which to exercise redemption rights, it is advisable for you to use electronic delivery of your shares. If you exercise your redemption right, your shares will be redeemed for a pro rata portion of the amount then in the Trust Account (which, for illustrative purposes, was approximately $410,803,411, or approximately $10.00 per share, as of December 31, 2020). Such amount, including interest earned on the funds held in the Trust Account and not previously released to MAAC to pay its taxes, if any, will be paid promptly upon consummation of the Business Combination. However, under Delaware law, the proceeds held in the Trust Account could be subject to claims that could take priority over those of MAAC’s public stockholders exercising redemption rights, regardless of whether such holders vote for or against the Business Combination Proposal. The per share distribution from the Trust Account in such a situation may be less than originally anticipated due to such claims. Your vote on any proposal other than the Business Combination Proposal will have no impact on the amount you will receive if you exercise your redemption rights.

MAAC’s transfer agent can be contacted at the following address:

Continental Stock Transfer & Trust Company

One State Street, 30th Floor

New York, NY 10004

Attn:                

Email:                

Any request for redemption, once made by a holder of MAAC Class A Shares, may be withdrawn at any time up to two days prior to the vote on the Business Combination Proposal at the MAAC Special Meeting. If you deliver your shares for redemption to MAAC’s transfer agent and later decide, prior to the MAAC Special Meeting, not to redeem your shares, you may request that MAAC’s transfer agent return the shares electronically.

No demand will be effectuated unless the holder’s MAAC Class A Shares have been delivered electronically to the transfer agent prior to the vote on the Business Combination Proposal at the MAAC Special Meeting.

If a holder of MAAC Class A Shares properly makes a request for redemption and the MAAC Class A Shares are delivered to MAAC’s transfer agent no later than two business days prior to the initially scheduled vote to approve the Business Combination, then, if the Business Combination is consummated, MAAC will redeem these shares for a pro rata portion of funds deposited in the Trust Account. If you exercise your redemption rights, then you will be exchanging your MAAC Class A Shares for cash.

For a discussion of the material U.S. federal income tax considerations for holders of MAAC Class A Shares with respect to the exercise of these redemption rights, see “Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Consequences — Tax Consequences of a Redemption of MAAC Public Shares.”

121.5

Appraisal Rights

Appraisal rights are not available to holders of MAAC Shares in connection with the Business Combination.

Proxy Solicitation Costs

MAAC is soliciting proxies on behalf of its board of directors. This solicitation is being made by mail but also may be made by telephone. MAAC and its directors, officers and employees may also solicit proxies online. MAAC will file with the SEC all scripts and other electronic communications as proxy soliciting materials. MAAC will bear the cost of the solicitation.

MAAC has hired                 to assist in the proxy solicitation process. MAAC will pay to                a fee of $                , plus disbursements.

MAAC will ask banks, brokers and other institutions, nominees and fiduciaries to forward the proxy materials to their principals and to obtain their authority to execute proxies and voting instructions. MAAC will reimburse them for their reasonable expenses.

121.6