Table of Contents

​

​

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

​

FORM 10-K

​

(Mark One)

​

​

​

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020

​

OR

​

​

For the transition period from             to

​

Commission file number: 001-35668

​

10 Hudson Yards, 37^th Floor

New York, NY 10001

(Address of Principal Executive Offices and Zip Code)

(646) 747-1000

(Registrant’s Telephone Number, Including Area Code)

​

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

​

​

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None

​

​

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes ☒ No ☐

​

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. Yes ☐ No ☒

​

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes ☒ No ☐

​

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit such files).Yes ☒ No ☐

​

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, a smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company,” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act:

​

​

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ☐

​

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed a report on and attestation to its management’s assessment of the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting under Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (15 U.S.C. 7262(b)) by the registered public accounting firm that prepared or issued its audit report. ☒

​

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act).Yes ☐ No ☒

​

The aggregate market value of the registrant’s common stock held by non-affiliates as of June 30, 2020, the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter, was $1,259.3 million (computed by reference to the closing price of $47.91 on such date as reported by the Nasdaq Global Select Market). Common stock held by our executive officers, directors and certain stockholders as of such date has been excluded from this calculation because such persons may be deemed to be affiliates. This determination of affiliate status is not necessarily a conclusive determination for other purposes.

​

The number of shares of the registrant’s common stock outstanding as of December 31, 2020 was 33,015,614.

​

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Certain information required by Part III of this Annual Report on Form 10-K is incorporated by reference to the registrant’s definitive proxy statement related to its 2021 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, to be filed pursuant to Regulation 14A not later than 120 days after the end of the fiscal year covered by this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

​

​

​

​

Table of Contents

Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Annual Report on Form 10-K
For the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2020

TABLE OF CONTENTS

​

Unless the context otherwise requires, references in this Annual Report on Form 10-K to “we,” “our,” “us” and the “Company” refer, collectively, to Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and its consolidated subsidiaries.

​

​

i

Table of Contents

CAUTIONARY NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains forward-looking statements, including, but not limited to, statements regarding the progress, timing and results of our clinical trials, including our clinical trials for the treatment of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (“NASH”), the safety and efficacy of our approved product, Ocaliva (obeticholic acid or “OCA”) for primary biliary cholangitis (“PBC”), and our product candidates, including OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH, the timing and acceptance of our regulatory filings and the potential approval of OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH, the review of our New Drug Application for OCA for the treatment of liver fibrosis due to NASH by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (the “FDA”), our intent to work with the FDA to address the issues raised in a complete response letter (“CRL”), the potential commercial success of OCA, as well as our strategy, future operations, future financial position, future revenue, projected costs, financial guidance, prospects, plans and objectives.

​

These statements constitute forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The words “anticipate,” “believe,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intend,” “may,” “plan,” “predict,” “project,” “target,” “potential,” “will,” “would,” “could,” “should,” “possible,” “continue” and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements, although not all forward-looking statements contain these identifying words. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which speak only as of their dates, and we undertake no obligation to update any forward-looking statement except as required by law. These forward-looking statements are based on estimates and assumptions by our management that, although believed to be reasonable, are inherently uncertain and subject to a number of risks.

The following represent some, but not necessarily all, of the factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from historical results or those anticipated or predicted by our forward-looking statements:

ii

Table of Contents

iii

Table of Contents

NOTE REGARDING TRADEMARKS

The Intercept Pharmaceuticals® name and logo and the Ocaliva® name and logo are either registered or unregistered trademarks or trade names of the Company in the United States and/or other countries. All other trademarks, trade names and service marks appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K are the property of their respective owners. Solely for convenience, trademarks and trade names referred to in this Annual Report on Form 10-K may appear without the ® and ™ symbols, but those references are not intended to indicate, in any way, that we will not assert, to the fullest extent under applicable law, our rights or that the applicable owner will not assert its rights to these trademarks and trade names.

​

​

iv

Table of Contents

SUMMARY RISK FACTORS

Investing in our securities involves a high degree of risk. Investors should carefully consider the risks and uncertainties discussed under the caption “Risk Factors” and elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K before deciding whether to invest in our securities. The following is a list of some of these risks:

Risks Related to Our Financial Position and Need for Additional Capital

Risks Related to the Development and the Regulatory Review and

Approval of Our Products and Product Candidates

v

Table of Contents

Risks Related to the Commercialization of Our Products

Risks Related to Our Business and Strategy

Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property

​

Risks Related to Our Indebtedness

​

Risks Related to Ownership of Our Common Stock

​

​

vi

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

constructive and the FDA has provided us with helpful guidance regarding supplemental data we can provide to further characterize OCA’s efficacy and safety profile that could support resubmission based on our Phase 3 REGENERATE 18-month biopsy data, together with a safety update from our ongoing studies. We are advancing accordingly and plan to hold additional meetings with the FDA with the goal of achieving sufficient alignment to proceed on this basis and potentially resubmit our NDA for the treatment of liver fibrosis due to NASH by the end of 2021. In addition, we continue to work collaboratively with the EMA on its review of our MAA.

As part of our product development activities, we expect to continue to invest in evaluating the potential of OCA in progressive non-viral liver diseases. We are currently conducting a Phase 3 clinical trial in NASH patients with compensated cirrhosis, known as the REVERSE trial. In January 2020, we announced that we completed enrollment of the REVERSE trial with over 900 patients randomized. We are also studying OCA in combination with bezafibrate, a pan-peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor agonist, in patients with PBC and potentially may study such combination in other liver diseases. In addition, we have other compounds in early stages of research and development in our pipeline.

Liver Function, Bile Acids and Progressive Non-Viral Liver Diseases

The liver performs many functions that are vital for maintaining health, including the regulation of bile acid metabolism. Bile acids are natural detergent-like emulsifying agents that are released from the gallbladder into the intestine when food is ingested, and are essential for the absorption of dietary cholesterol and other nutrients. Cholesterol bound by bile acids is taken up by the liver, where the cholesterol is then converted into one of two primary bile acids. The bile acids are then actively secreted into bile ducts, which eventually empty into the gallbladder. This digestive cycle of bile flow from gallbladder to intestine to liver and back is called the enterohepatic recirculation of bile.

In addition to facilitating nutrient absorption, bile acids act as important signals that help regulate multiple other biological functions. They are also complex signaling molecules that integrate metabolic and immune pathways involved in the healthy functioning of various tissues and organs. For example, the actions of bile acids in the liver, intestine and kidney regulate repair mechanisms that modulate inflammation and fibrosis (scarring), which can lead to progressive organ damage.

The biological effects of bile acids are mediated through dedicated receptors. The best understood receptor is FXR, a nuclear receptor that regulates bile acid synthesis and clearance from the liver, thereby preventing excessive bile acid build-up in the liver, which may be toxic. As such, FXR is a target for the treatment of several liver diseases such as PBC that involve impaired bile flow, a condition called cholestasis. In cholestasis, the liver is typically exposed to higher than normal levels of bile acids, which can cause significant damage over time. In addition, bile acid activation of FXR is believed to induce anti-fibrotic, anti-inflammatory, anti-steatotic and other mechanisms that are necessary for the normal regeneration of the liver. As a result, FXR is also a target for the treatment of more common liver diseases such as NASH and alcoholic hepatitis. Further, based on the discovery of similar FXR-mediated protective mechanisms in other organs exposed to bile acids, we believe that FXR may also be a potential target for the treatment of a number of intestinal, kidney and other diseases.

OCA is a bile acid analog, a chemical substance that has a structure based on a naturally occurring human bile acid, that selectively binds to and activates FXR. We believe that OCA has broad liver-protective properties and may effectively counter a variety of chronic insults to the liver that cause fibrosis (scarring), which can eventually lead to cirrhosis, liver transplant and death. Due to OCA’s bile acid-like properties, it circulates enterohepatically and engages FXR in both the liver and intestine. FXR engagement in the liver is believed to be critical to successfully treat pathologic injury due to progressive underlying disease.

By virtue of our patent portfolio and the proprietary know-how of our employees and collaboration partners, we believe that we hold a leading position in the fields of bile acid chemistry and therapeutics. Our research and development efforts have resulted in a pipeline of bile acid analogs in addition to OCA and through our on-going work with our collaboration partners such as Professor Roberto Pellicciari, Ph.D., one of our co-founders, and TES Pharma S.r.l., we are continuing our research to rationally design compounds that bind selectively and potently to FXR and other bile acid receptors.

2

Table of Contents

Our Strategy

Our objective is to develop and commercialize novel therapeutics for the treatment of progressive non-viral liver diseases with high unmet medical need. The key elements of our strategy are to:

History and Development of the Company

In September 2002, we were incorporated in Delaware and shortly thereafter began operations in New York. In October 2012, following several rounds of private funding, we completed our initial public offering (the “IPO”) and received net proceeds of approximately $78.7 million therefrom. We used the proceeds from our IPO to fund, among other things, preclinical and clinical development activities, including our Phase 3 POISE trial studying OCA for PBC and work performed in anticipation of our submission of regulatory filings for the approval of OCA for PBC. In addition, between June 2013 and April 2015, we completed four registered public offerings of our common stock and received aggregate net proceeds of approximately $803.4 million therefrom.

In March 2014, we announced the results of our Phase 3 POISE trial of OCA for PBC. In November 2014, results from the FLINT Phase 2b clinical trial of OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH were published in The Lancet. Both of these trials met their primary endpoints.

In June 2015, we submitted a NDA to the FDA seeking accelerated approval of OCA for PBC and a MAA to the EMA seeking conditional approval of OCA for PBC. In September 2015, we announced the initiation of our Phase 3 REGENERATE trial of OCA in patients with liver fibrosis due to NASH.

In May 2016, Ocaliva was approved for PBC by the FDA. We commenced sales and marketing of Ocaliva in the United States shortly after receiving approval. In July 2016, we issued and sold $460.0 million aggregate principal amount of 3.25% Convertible Senior Notes due 2023 (the “2023 Convertible Notes”) in a registered public offering and received net proceeds of approximately $447.6 million therefrom. In December 2016, Ocaliva received conditional approval for PBC from the European Commission.

In January 2017, we commenced our European launch of Ocaliva for PBC. Since January 2017, Ocaliva has also received regulatory approval in several of our target markets outside the United States and Europe, including Canada,

3

Table of Contents

Israel and Australia, and we are pursuing marketing approval of Ocaliva for PBC in our other international target markets. In July 2017, we announced positive results from our Phase 2 CONTROL trial, the goal of which was to characterize the lipid metabolic effects of OCA and cholesterol management effects of concomitant statin administration in NASH patients, as well as positive top-line results from our Phase 2 AESOP trial of OCA for primary sclerosing cholangitis (“PSC”).

In February 2018, we announced our Phase 3 REVERSE trial of OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH patients with compensated cirrhosis. In April 2018, we issued and sold an aggregate of approximately 4.3 million shares of common stock in a registered public offering and a concurrent private placement (the “2018 Concurrent Private Placement”) exempt from the registration requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and received net proceeds of approximately $261.4 million therefrom. In December 2018, we entered into an agreement (the “Aralez Agreement”) with Aralez Pharmaceuticals Canada Inc. (“Aralez”), pursuant to which we acquired (i) Aralez’s license to develop and commercialize bezafibrate in the United States, (ii) Aralez’s investigational new drug application (“IND”) on file with the FDA and other associated regulatory documentation and (iii) a non-exclusive license to certain of Aralez’s intellectual property. We are evaluating the efficacy, safety and tolerability of bezafibrate in combination with OCA in patients with PBC in a Phase 2 study, with the longer-term goal of developing and seeking regulatory approval for a fixed dose combination regimen in this indication and potentially other liver diseases.

In February 2019, we announced topline results from our pivotal Phase 3 REGENERATE trial in patients with liver fibrosis due to NASH. In the primary efficacy analysis, once-daily OCA 25 mg met the primary endpoint agreed with the FDA of fibrosis improvement by at least one stage with no worsening of NASH at the planned 18-month analysis. Adverse events were generally mild to moderate in severity and the most common were consistent with the known profile of OCA.

In May 2019, we issued and sold $230.0 million aggregate principal amount of 2.00% Convertible Senior Notes due 2026 (the “2026 Convertible Notes” and together with the 2023 Convertible Notes, the “Convertible Notes”) in a registered public offering and received net proceeds of approximately $223.4 million therefrom. In May 2019, we issued and sold 2,760,000 shares of common stock in a registered public offering (“the 2019 Public Offering”) and 119,760 shares of common stock in a concurrent private placement of common stock (the “2019 Concurrent Private Placement”) and received net proceeds of approximately $227.3 million.

In September 2019, we submitted a NDA to the FDA seeking accelerated approval of OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH. In November 2019, the FDA accepted our NDA for filing and granted a priority review designation for OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH. Under PDUFA, the FDA has set a target action date of June 26, 2020 for the completion of its review of our NDA, after giving effect to a 90-day extension of its initial target action date. The FDA has also notified us that it has tentatively scheduled an advisory committee meeting relating to our NDA for April 22, 2020.

In December 2019, we submitted a MAA to the EMA seeking conditional approval of OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH. In January 2020, the EMA validated our MAA and thereby confirmed that our MAA was sufficiently complete to begin the formal review process.

In June 2020, we received a complete response letter (“CRL”) from the FDA stating that our NDA for OCA for the treatment of liver fibrosis due to NASH could not be approved in its present form. The CRL indicated that, based on the data the FDA had reviewed, the FDA has determined that the predicted benefit of OCA based on a surrogate histopathologic endpoint remains uncertain and does not sufficiently outweigh the potential risks to support accelerated approval for the treatment of patients with liver fibrosis due to NASH. At that time, the FDA recommended that we submit additional post-interim analysis efficacy and safety data from the ongoing REGENERATE trial in support of potential accelerated approval and that the long-term outcomes phase of the trial should continue.

In October 2020, we had our end of review meeting with the FDA to discuss the FDA’s risk-benefit assessment in the CRL based on its review of the available data, as well as our proposed resubmission of our NDA for the treatment of liver fibrosis due to NASH. The meeting was constructive and the FDA has provided us with helpful guidance regarding supplemental data we can provide to further characterize OCA’s efficacy and safety profile that could support resubmission based on our Phase 3 REGENERATE 18-month biopsy data, together with a safety update from our ongoing studies.

4

Table of Contents

In December 2020, we announced that Mark Pruzanski, M.D. would retire from his position as President and Chief Executive Officer and that Jerome (Jerry) Durso, our Chief Operating Officer at the time, would succeed Dr. Pruzanski as our President and Chief Executive Officer, effective as of January 1, 2021. We also announced that Mr. Durso would be appointed to the Board of Directors (the “Board”) following the transition and that Dr. Pruzanski would remain as a director on the Board and retained adviser to us.

​

For information regarding our financial condition and results of operations, including our revenues, net loss and total assets, see our audited consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Our First Approved Product

Ocaliva

Ocaliva was approved for PBC by the FDA in May 2016 under the accelerated approval pathway. We commenced sales and marketing of Ocaliva in the United States shortly after receiving approval, and Ocaliva is now available to U.S. patients primarily through a network of specialty pharmacy distributors. Ocaliva received conditional approval for PBC from the European Commission in December 2016 and we commenced our European commercial launch in January 2017. We have submitted dossiers and obtained, or are otherwise pursuing, reimbursement from a number of national authorities in Europe. Since January 2017, Ocaliva has also received regulatory approval in several of our target markets outside the United States and Europe, including Canada, Israel and Australia, and we are pursuing marketing approval of Ocaliva for PBC in our other international target markets. Ocaliva received orphan drug designation in both the United States and the European Union for the treatment of PBC.

Overview of PBC

PBC is a rare liver disease that primarily results from autoimmune destruction of the bile ducts that transport bile acids out of the liver, resulting in cholestasis. The build-up of bile acids in the liver damages liver cells. These damaged liver cells, in turn, release abnormal amounts of serum alkaline phosphatase (“ALP”), a liver enzyme that is a key biomarker of the disease pathology. As shown in numerous clinical trials of treatment with UDCA (available generically as ursodiol), a positive therapeutic response is primarily determined by sustained reduction of ALP levels, along with maintenance of normal bilirubin levels, indicating adequately compensated liver function. This biochemical improvement has been shown to correlate well with improved clinical outcomes such as transplant-free survival. As the disease progresses, it causes progressive liver damage marked by chronic inflammation and fibrosis. Despite its rarity, PBC is the most common cholestatic liver disease and is among the leading indications for liver transplant among women in the United States. Disease progression in PBC varies significantly, with median survival in untreated patients estimated to be 7.5 years if symptomatic at diagnosis and up to 16 years if asymptomatic at diagnosis. PBC patients whose disease is progressing have persistently elevated levels of ALP and other liver enzymes, with abnormal bilirubin levels heralding more advanced disease. Data from published long-term studies demonstrate that a significant portion of such patients with advancing disease progress to liver failure, transplant or death within five to ten years.

Based on our analysis of 2016 industry data, there were approximately 290,000 people with PBC at the time of our U.S. launch in the United States, certain European countries, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. An estimated 90% of PBC patients are women, with approximately one in 1,000 women over the age of 40 afflicted by the disease. The mean age of diagnosis is about 40 years old and the typical initial presentation occurs between the ages of 30 and 65 years old. A majority of PBC patients are asymptomatic at the time of initial diagnosis, but most develop symptoms over time. Fatigue and pruritus are the most common symptoms in PBC patients. Less common symptoms include dry eyes and mouth, as well as jaundice, which can be seen in more advanced disease. Based on the guidelines of the American Association for the Study of Liver Disease and the European Association for the Study of the Liver, the clinical diagnosis of PBC is established based on the presence of (i) a positive antimitochondrial antibody (“AMA”), a marker of this autoimmune disease seen in up to 95% of PBC patients and (ii) elevated serum levels of ALP. In the earlier stages of PBC, ALP is often the only abnormally elevated liver enzyme, rising to between two to ten times higher than normal values. Bilirubin is a marker of liver function and is also monitored in PBC to provide an indication of how well the liver is

5

Table of Contents

functioning. Liver biopsy can be used to confirm the diagnosis of PBC, but is not required and is becoming less-frequently performed.

A number of published clinical studies have demonstrated that lower levels of ALP, both independently or in conjunction with normal bilirubin levels, correlate with a significant reduction in adverse clinical outcomes such as liver transplant and/or death in PBC patients. These studies include the result of meta-analyses of PBC clinical outcomes data of more than 6,000 PBC patients from 15 academic centers in eight countries that have been compiled by the Global PBC Study Group, which we sponsored, as well as a dataset of over 6,000 PBC patients across the United Kingdom compiled by the UK PBC Group.

Prior to Ocaliva, the only approved drug indicated for the treatment of PBC was UDCA, which is widely considered the standard first-line therapy for PBC patients. In patients for whom UDCA is effective, the treatment slows the progression of PBC, reducing the likelihood of liver failure and the need for transplant.

Phase 3 POISE Trial

Ocaliva’s accelerated approval in the United States and conditional approval in the European Union was supported by the results of our Phase 3 POISE trial, which was completed in March 2014. The data from the POISE trial showed that Ocaliva, at both a once-daily 10 mg dose and a once-daily 5 mg dose titrated to 10 mg, met the trial’s primary endpoint of achieving a reduction in ALP to below a threshold of 1.67 times the upper limit of normal (“ULN”), with a minimum of a 15% reduction in ALP level from baseline, and a normal bilirubin level after 12 months of therapy. The percentage of patients meeting the POISE trial’s primary endpoint was 10% in the placebo group, 47% in the 10 mg Ocaliva group and 46% in the Ocaliva titration group (both dose groups p < 0.0001 as compared to placebo) in an intent-to-treat analysis. The placebo group experienced a mean decrease in ALP from baseline of 5%, compared to a mean decrease of 39% in the 10 mg Ocaliva dose group and 33% in the Ocaliva titration group (both dose groups p < 0.0001 as compared to placebo). Pruritus, generally mild to moderate, was the most frequently reported adverse event associated with Ocaliva treatment and was observed in 38% of patients on placebo, 70% of patients in the 10 mg Ocaliva group and 56% of patients in the Ocaliva titration group. Eight patients discontinued due to pruritus, of whom none were in the placebo group, seven (10%) were in the 10 mg Ocaliva group and one (1%) was in the Ocaliva titration group. Decreases in high density lipoprotein (“HDL”) cholesterol were also observed during treatment.

Following the completion of the double-blind portion of the POISE trial described above, patients were given the option to enroll in a five-year open-label long-term safety and efficacy extension trial, which has been completed. Patients received Ocaliva at a once-daily 5 mg dose for three months, after which patients were titrated based on tolerability. The data from the open-label extension portion of the trial showed that 46% of patients responded after 12 months of treatment with Ocaliva and 50% to 56% of patients responded after 48 to 72 months of treatment with Ocaliva (based on the same criteria used to define the primary endpoint in the 12 month placebo controlled trial). Reductions in ALP were sustained through the double-blind and extension portions of the trial and total bilirubin levels remained stable and within the normal range for most patients for the duration of the trial (ALP p < 0.0001 for all post-baseline visits; total bilirubin: p-values were not consistently significant throughout the extension portion of the POISE trial). Adverse events were consistent with the safety profile of Ocaliva in patients with PBC. The most commonly reported adverse events were pruritis and fatigue, which were generally mild to moderate in severity.

Ongoing Confirmatory Clinical Outcomes Trial and Other Post Marketing Requirements

In connection with Ocaliva’s accelerated approval in the United States and conditional approval in the European Union, we committed to conduct a Phase 4 confirmatory outcomes trial of Ocaliva, known as the COBALT trial, and other clinical trials to satisfy post-marketing regulatory requirements. Continued approval of Ocaliva for PBC in the United States, the European Union and other jurisdictions is contingent upon the verification and description of clinical benefit in the COBALT trial and our satisfaction of our other post-marketing regulatory requirements. Any delay or failure by us to satisfy such requirements, including any delay or failure relating to our Phase 4 COBALT trial, may jeopardize the continued approval of Ocaliva for PBC in the United States, European Union and other jurisdictions.

6

Table of Contents

The goal of the COBALT trial is to confirm that reduction of ALP based upon Ocaliva treatment is associated with a longer-term benefit on liver-related clinical outcomes. COBALT is designed to assess the effect of a once-daily dose of 5 mg or 10 mg of Ocaliva in approximately 430 PBC patients with an inadequate therapeutic response to UDCA or who are unable to tolerate UDCA. In this trial, eligible patients with PBC continue their UDCA treatment, except for those patients unable to tolerate UDCA, have been randomized into one of two treatment arms of approximately 215 patients each. Patients have been randomized to receive either (i) placebo or (ii) Ocaliva starting at 5 mg and increasing over the course of the trial to 10 mg of Ocaliva based on tolerability. Dosing frequency has been determined by disease stage. The primary endpoint of the trial is based on clinical outcomes as measured by time to first occurrence of any of the following adjudicated events: death (all-cause), liver transplant, Model of End Stage Liver Disease (“MELD”) score greater than 15, uncontrolled ascites or hospitalization due to variceal bleeding, hepatic encephalopathy or spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. The study evaluates subjects across the spectrum of PBC disease, including early and advanced PBC.

Further, as part of our post-marketing requirements for Ocaliva, we are undertaking a Phase 4 clinical trial of Ocaliva in patients with PBC who have moderate to severe hepatic impairment (Child-Pugh B and C) (known as the 401 trial). This double-blind, placebo-controlled study is designed to evaluate the pharmacokinetics of Ocaliva and its conjugates, as well as safety and tolerability. Additional objectives include an evaluation of Ocaliva treatment compared to placebo on liver biochemistry, Child-Pugh scores and non-invasive markers of liver fibrosis and stiffness. The trial as designed is targeted to enroll approximately 50 patients in the United States, Europe and other jurisdictions for 48 weeks.

While we remain blinded to safety and efficacy data in the ongoing COBALT trial and 401 trial, a data monitoring committee (“DMC”) reviewed the unblinded results of a pre-specified interim efficacy analysis of the COBALT trial and separately reviewed unblinded safety and pharmacokinetic data from both the COBALT and 401 trials. Following these reviews, the DMC stated that it was not feasible to continue the COBALT trial as designed and noted the challenges in enrolling and maintaining placebo-controlled post-marketing studies in this rare disease setting. No acute safety concerns were noted by the DMC. Given the feasibility concerns noted by the DMC as well as the potential confounding impact of subjects discontinuing treatment and/or transitioning from investigational product to commercial drug during clinical trials, we continue to discuss with the FDA and the EMA proposed modifications to the COBALT trial as well as proposals with respect to the 401 trial. We have notified the FDA and the EMA of the DMC’s recommendation and, as they previously advised, are in ongoing discussions with the FDA on the matter and are seeking formal EU scientific advice with respect to potential alternative study designs. In addition, future changes to our Ocaliva label related to the most advanced PBC patients will influence the modifications to our study design. Both the COBALT and 401 trials are ongoing but not currently enrolling patients.

We are also undertaking a Phase 2 clinical trial of Ocaliva in pediatric patients with biliary atresia, a life-threatening condition in infants in which the bile ducts inside or outside the liver do not have normal openings. This trial, known as the CARE trial, is a part of an EMA-approved Pediatric Investigation Plan (“PIP”) supporting the conditional approval of Ocaliva for PBC in the European Union as PBC is not believed to occur in the pediatric population. The CARE trial is designed to evaluate the effects of 11 weeks of Ocaliva treatment where patients with biliary atresia are randomized to varying doses. The primary endpoint is to evaluate the pharmacokinetics and the safety and tolerability of Ocaliva treatment. In addition, Ocaliva’s effect on hepatobiliary indices and biomarkers will be assessed. This trial is targeted to enroll approximately 60 patients in the United States and Europe.

Ocaliva Label Update

In the course of our post-marketing pharmacovigilance activities, deaths have been reported in PBC patients with moderate or severe hepatic impairment. In an analysis performed by us and in consultation with the FDA, we concluded that certain of these patients were prescribed once daily doses of Ocaliva, which is seven times higher than the recommended weekly dose in such patients. As a result, in September 2017, we issued a Dear Health Care Provider (“DHCP”) letter, and the FDA also subsequently issued its own drug safety communication to reinforce recommended label dosing. Both communications remind healthcare providers of the importance of the recommended reduced dosing of Ocaliva in PBC patients with moderate or severe hepatic impairment, while reiterating the importance of monitoring PBC patients for progression of their disease and the occurrence of liver-related adverse reactions. In addition to the DHCP letter, we took actions to enhance education about appropriate use of Ocaliva. These initiatives included: reeducating physicians on the label, with a focus on ensuring appropriate dosing for patients with moderate or severe hepatic

7

Table of Contents

impairment; enhancing monitoring of patients for liver-related adverse reactions; and adjudicating reported cases of serious liver injury, including in patients with no or mild hepatic impairment.

In February 2018, we announced that the Ocaliva label in the United States had been updated by the FDA to include a boxed warning and a dosing table that reinforced the then-existing dosing schedule for patients with Child-Pugh Class B or C or decompensated cirrhosis. In addition, the FDA issued an updated drug safety communication to accompany the revised label. We remain focused on the safety of all of the patients using Ocaliva within and outside of our ongoing clinical studies and have engaged with relevant regulatory authorities to ensure that the Ocaliva label sufficiently reinforces the importance of appropriate dosing in patients with advanced cirrhosis.

The FDA has notified us that, in the course of its routine safety surveillance, in May 2020 the FDA began to evaluate a newly identified safety signal, or NISS, regarding liver disorder for Ocaliva which the FDA classified as a potential risk. The FDA has informed us that its review of the NISS is focused on a subset of the cirrhotic, or more advanced, PBC patients who have taken Ocaliva. As part of our routine pharmacovigilance efforts, we worked with the FDA to reconcile our internal safety database with the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System database and we completed a comprehensive assessment of all available data, including data from our completed clinical trials, blinded reviews of ongoing clinical trial data, unblinded reviews of certain ongoing clinical trial data by the DMC, post-marketing data and natural history data, which we submitted to the FDA and had a meeting earlier in 2021 to discuss. We are working with the FDA to align on changes to the Ocaliva label regarding patients with the most advanced stages of PBC. Based on our communications with the FDA, this update will come in the form of a safety labeling change. These communications are ongoing.

Our Product Candidates

The following summarizes the current status and the anticipated next steps in our development plans for our product candidates. We continually evaluate each product candidate in an effort to efficiently allocate research and development funds to projects we deem to be in our best interests based on, among other factors, the product candidate’s performance in pre-clinical and/or clinical studies, our expectations regarding the potential future regulatory approval of the product candidate and our view of the potential commercial viability of the product candidate in light of market conditions.

OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH

Our lead product candidate is OCA for the potential treatment of liver fibrosis due to NASH. In February 2019, we announced topline results from the planned 18-month interim analysis of our pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial of OCA in patients with liver fibrosis due to NASH, known as the REGENERATE trial. In the primary efficacy analysis, once-daily OCA 25 mg met the primary endpoint agreed with the FDA of fibrosis improvement by at least one stage with no worsening of NASH at the planned 18-month interim analysis. Adverse events were generally mild to moderate in severity and the most common were consistent with the known profile of OCA. OCA has received breakthrough therapy designation from the FDA for the treatment of NASH patients with liver fibrosis. In September 2019, we submitted a NDA seeking accelerated approval of OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH in the United States and, in December 2019, we submitted a MAA seeking conditional approval of OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH in Europe. The FDA subsequently accepted our NDA for filing and granted a priority review designation for OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH. In January 2020, the EMA validated our MAA and thereby confirmed that our MAA was sufficiently complete to begin the formal review process. In June 2020, we received a complete response letter (“CRL”) from the FDA stating that our NDA for OCA for the treatment of liver fibrosis due to NASH could not be approved in its present form. The CRL indicated that, based on the data the FDA had reviewed, the FDA has determined that the predicted benefit of OCA based on a surrogate histopathologic endpoint remains uncertain and does not sufficiently outweigh the potential risks to support accelerated approval for the treatment of patients with liver fibrosis due to NASH. At that time, the FDA recommended that we submit additional post-interim analysis efficacy and safety data from the ongoing REGENERATE trial in support of potential accelerated approval and that the long-term outcomes phase of the trial should continue. In October 2020, we had our end of review meeting with the FDA to discuss the FDA’s risk-benefit assessment in the CRL based on its review of the available data, as well as our proposed resubmission of our NDA for the treatment of liver fibrosis due to NASH. The meeting was constructive and the FDA has provided us with helpful guidance regarding supplemental data we can provide to further characterize OCA’s efficacy and safety profile that could support resubmission based on our Phase 3 REGENERATE 18-month biopsy data, together with a safety update from our ongoing studies. We are advancing

8

Table of Contents

accordingly and plan to hold additional meetings with the FDA with the goal of achieving sufficient alignment to proceed on this basis and potentially resubmit our NDA for the treatment of liver fibrosis due to NASH by the end of 2021. We also continue to work collaboratively with the EMA on its review of our MAA. In addition, we have conducted a number of other trials and studies in connection with our NASH development program, and our Phase 3 trial in NASH patients with compensated cirrhosis, known as the REVERSE trial, is ongoing.

Overview of NASH

NASH is a serious progressive liver disease caused by excessive fat accumulation in the liver (steatosis) that induces chronic inflammation, resulting in progressive fibrosis (scarring) that can lead to cirrhosis, eventual liver failure, cancer and death. More than 20% of patients with NASH are estimated to progress to cirrhosis within a decade of diagnosis and, compared to the general population, have a ten-fold greater risk of liver-related mortality. The proportion of liver transplants attributable to NASH has increased rapidly in recent years with NASH currently the second leading cause of liver transplantation in the United States and, in females, the leading cause. NASH is anticipated to become the leading indication for liver transplantation in Europe within the next decade. Additionally, NASH is now considered to be the leading, and a rapidly increasing, cause of hepatocellular carcinoma (primary liver cancer), of which up to 40% of cases in NASH patients develop prior to developing cirrhosis.

Although difficult to precisely estimate, epidemiology research estimates that the global prevalence of NASH is approximately 3 – 5% and is expected to increase markedly by 2030. Fibrosis is the most robust predictor of long-term overall mortality, liver transplantation and liver-related events in patients with NASH and advanced fibrosis is associated with a substantially higher risk of liver-related morbidity and mortality in patients with NASH. We believe that a majority of NASH patients diagnosed and under specialist care have fibrosis of stage 2 or greater. Although the prevalence of NASH is lower in children, it has also become a serious disease burden in the pediatric population. Other common co-existing conditions such as obesity and type 2 diabetes, which are present in a majority of NASH patients, raise important risks. NASH has been linked in both developed and developing countries to the adoption of a Western diet, with increased consumption of processed foods containing polyunsaturated fatty acids and fructose.

Generally in clinical trials in NASH, a definitive diagnosis requires a histologic assessment of a liver biopsy for several key features associated with NASH, including, but not limited to, steatosis, lobular inflammation and hepatocyte ballooning. However, we believe that the majority of NASH patients currently under treater care have been assessed for liver fibrosis without a liver biopsy. Several imaging and circulating biomarkers are being investigated as non-invasive diagnostic methods, including transient elastography (an ultrasound technology approved in the United States and Europe for the measurement of liver fibrosis), magnetic resonance imaging and serum biomarkers. NASH diagnosis rates in the United States and the EU5 countries are very low, owing to a lack of approved treatment options and a lack of validated non-invasive diagnosis options. We believe the availability of novel therapeutics and non-invasive technologies will be instrumental in improving diagnosis rates.

There are currently no medications approved for the treatment of NASH in the United States or Europe. However, various therapeutics are used “off-label”, such as vitamin E (an antioxidant), insulin sensitizers (e.g., metformin, pioglitazone), pentoxifylline and UDCA. Lifestyle changes, including modification of diet and exercise to reduce body weight, as well as treatment of concomitant diabetes and dyslipidemia, are commonly accepted as the standard of care, but have not conclusively been shown to prevent disease progression. Although some of the off-label treatments described above have been studied as possible treatments for NASH, none has been approved by the FDA or EMA as a treatment for this disease. Currently, treatment options for NASH patients with advanced cirrhosis are limited. Although liver transplant can be life-saving, many patients fail to receive a donor organ in time, and for those who do, there are very significant clinical risks, such as infection and organ rejection, as well as significant costs. In addition, the post-transplant recurrence rate of NASH has been shown to be as high as 25% at 18 months. Given the lack of available treatment options, we believe that there is a significant unmet need for novel therapies for NASH, particularly in those patients with advanced fibrosis and cirrhosis and those with a high risk of disease progression due to other co-morbidities such as type 2 diabetes.

FXR activation has been shown to play a key role in the regulation of the metabolic pathways relevant to NASH, highlighting FXR as a potential drug target for treatment of the disease. Given the significant unmet medical need of patients with NASH, we believe that the ability of OCA to potently activate FXR has the potential to convey clinical

9

Table of Contents

benefit by improving key histologic parameters of the disease. This is supported by our preclinical and clinical results to date, and is being further investigated in our ongoing clinical trial program.

Phase 3 REGENERATE Trial

We are currently conducting a pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial of OCA in patients with liver fibrosis due to NASH, known as the REGENERATE trial. REGENERATE is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study assessing the safety and efficacy of OCA on liver-related clinical outcomes in patients with liver fibrosis due to NASH. Patients with biopsy proven NASH with fibrosis are randomized 1:1:1 to receive placebo, OCA 10 mg or OCA 25 mg once daily. In August 2019, we announced the completion of the enrollment of the clinical outcomes cohort of REGENERATE, with 2,480 adult NASH patients with fibrosis randomized at over 300 qualified centers worldwide. REGENERATE will continue through clinical outcomes for verification and description of clinical benefit. The end-of-study analysis will evaluate the effect of OCA on all-cause mortality and liver-related clinical outcomes.

An 18-month interim analysis was conducted to assess the effect of OCA in liver histology comparing month 18 biopsy with baseline. Patients without a repeat biopsy due to study discontinuation or other reason were treated as non-responders in the primary efficacy analysis and full efficacy analysis (each as described below). A smaller exploratory cohort of patients with stage 1 liver fibrosis and at least one accompanying comorbidity (specified as diabetes, obesity or alanine transaminase (“ALT”) greater than 1.5 times ULN) were also enrolled in REGENERATE, but were not included in the primary efficacy analysis. As described below, these patients were included in the full efficacy analysis and safety analysis. The end-of-study analysis will evaluate the effect of OCA on all-cause mortality and liver-related clinical outcomes.

In February 2019, we announced topline results from the REGENERATE trial. In the primary efficacy analysis, once-daily OCA 25 mg met, with statistical significance, the primary endpoint agreed with the FDA of fibrosis improvement by at least one stage with no worsening of NASH (defined as no worsening of hepatocellular ballooning, no worsening of lobular inflammation and no worsening of steatosis) at the planned 18-month analysis and adverse events were generally mild to moderate in severity and the most common were consistent with the known profile of OCA. Although a numerically greater proportion of patients in both OCA treatment arms compared to placebo achieved the primary endpoint of NASH resolution with no worsening of liver fibrosis in the primary efficacy analysis, this result did not reach statistical significance. NASH resolution is defined as the overall histopathologic interpretation of (i) no fatty liver disease or (ii) fatty liver disease (simple or isolated steatosis) without steatohepatitis AND a nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (“NAFLD”) activity score (“NAS”) of 0 for ballooning and 0-1 for inflammation. As agreed with the FDA, in order for the primary objective to be met, the study was required to achieve one of the two primary endpoints. In November 2019, the results of the 18-month interim analysis from the REGENERATE trial were published in The Lancet.

The “primary efficacy analysis” (Intent-to-Treat or “ITT”) assessed efficacy at 18 months in 931 patients with stage 2 or 3 liver fibrosis due to NASH. Overall study discontinuations in the primary efficacy analysis population were balanced across treatment arms: 16% in placebo, 17% in OCA 10 mg and 15% in OCA 25 mg. An additional pre-specified “full efficacy analysis” at 18 months added an exploratory cohort of 287 NASH patients with stage 1 liver fibrosis and additional risk factors who were at increased risk of progression to cirrhosis (N = 1,218).

Set forth below is a summary of the 18-month primary efficacy analysis and additional full efficacy analysis from the REGENERATE trial.

10

Table of Contents

11

Table of Contents

In patients with type 2 diabetes, OCA treatment was associated with an early transient increase in fasting glucose and hemoglobin A1c with return to levels similar to placebo by month 6. No clinically meaningful changes were noted in non-diabetic patients.

With respect to hepatobiliary events, more patients (3%) on OCA 25 mg experienced gallstones or cholecystitis compared to < 1% on placebo and 1% on OCA 10 mg. While numerically higher in the OCA 25 mg treatment arm, serious hepatic adverse events were uncommon with < 1% incidence in each of the three treatment arms.

Phase 3 REVERSE Trial

We are currently conducting a Phase 3 clinical trial in NASH patients with compensated cirrhosis, known as the REVERSE trial. REVERSE is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of OCA in NASH patients with compensated cirrhosis. In January 2020, we announced that we completed enrollment of the REVERSE trial with over 900 patients with a biopsy-confirmed diagnosis of cirrhosis due to NASH randomized.

The primary endpoint for REVERSE is the percentage of subjects with histological improvement in fibrosis by at least one stage with no worsening of NASH using the NASH Clinical Research Network scoring system after 18 months of treatment. Patients are randomized 1:1:1 into one of three treatment arms receiving a once-daily dose of placebo, OCA 10 mg or OCA 10 mg for the first three months with titration in accordance with the study protocol up to OCA 25 mg for the remaining study period. Patients who successfully complete the double-blind phase of REVERSE will be eligible to enroll in an open-label extension phase for up to 12 additional months.

Phase 2 CONTROL Trial

In December 2015, we initiated a Phase 2 clinical trial, known as the CONTROL trial, to characterize the lipid metabolic effects of OCA and cholesterol management effects of concomitant statin administration in NASH patients. CONTROL enrolled approximately 80 NASH patients who were naïve to statin therapy or had undergone a statin washout period. Statin-naïve or washout patients were randomized to receive one of three doses of OCA (5 mg, 10 mg or 25 mg) or placebo. The study included a 16-week double-blind phase followed by an optional long-term safety extension (“LTSE”).

In July 2017, we announced that CONTROL met its primary objective by showing that newly initiated treatment with atorvastatin rapidly reversed OCA-associated increases in LDL cholesterol to below baseline levels. Most of the effect was observed four weeks after initiation of the lowest available dose of atorvastatin and was sustained throughout the study period. OCA treatment in the absence of statin therapy over the first four weeks resulted in an increase in LDL cholesterol across all OCA treatment groups, while the placebo group was relatively unchanged. Treatment with atorvastatin beginning at week four and continuing through week 16 reversed OCA-related increases in LDL cholesterol to below baseline levels in all OCA treatment groups. Dose-dependent pruritus was the most common adverse event in patients treated with OCA, occurring in 5% of patients on placebo, 5% of patients in the OCA 5 mg group, 10% of patients in the OCA 10 mg group and 55% of patients in the OCA 25 mg group. All adverse events were mild to moderate and two patients discontinued treatment in the OCA 25 mg group due to pruritus. Over 95% of the patients completing the double-blind phase of CONTROL enrolled in the LTSE phase of the trial. During the LTSE phase of CONTROL, there was one patient death, which the principal investigator determined was unlikely related to OCA.

Phase 2 Sumitomo Dainippon Trial

In October 2015, we announced the results of a 72-week Phase 2 dose ranging trial of OCA in 200 adult patients with NASH in Japan. The trial was conducted by our former collaborator, Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma Co., Ltd. (“Sumitomo Dainippon”). In this trial, 202 Japanese biopsy-proven NASH patients (NAS of 5-8) were randomized into one of four arms to receive either a 10 mg, 20 mg or 40 mg dose of OCA or placebo, and 200 of these patients (50 per group) initiated treatment for a 72-week double-blind treatment phase, followed by a 24-week off treatment phase. The primary endpoint was histologic improvement defined as at least a two-point improvement in NAS with no worsening of fibrosis.

12

Table of Contents

The primary efficacy analysis was conducted on an ITT basis, testing the dose dependent effects of once daily OCA (10 mg, 20 mg and 40 mg) versus placebo on the primary endpoint. The ITT analysis included all randomized patients who received treatment (50 per group), and patients who discontinued or did not have a repeat biopsy were treated as non-responders. A pre-specified completer analysis was conducted on the patients who had biopsies at both baseline and 72 weeks (45, 44, 44 and 37 patients in the placebo, OCA 10 mg, OCA 20 mg and OCA 40 mg groups, respectively).

The Sumitomo Dainippon trial did not meet statistical significance for the primary endpoint. The ITT results in the table below show a dose dependent increase in the percentage of OCA-treated patients compared to placebo who achieved the primary endpoint (p = 0.053). Dose-dependent trends not reaching statistical significance were observed for several other pre-specified histologic endpoints, including the percentage of patients with steatosis and inflammation improvement, ballooning resolution and NASH resolution. No difference was seen in fibrosis improvement in the OCA groups compared to placebo.

*      Primary efficacy analysis is a stratified Cochran-Armitage test with multiple contrast coefficients. Statistical significance is based on a p-value < 0.05.

**    The secondary efficacy analysis is a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (“CMH”) test stratified by baseline fibrosis stage for Pairwise comparison of each OCA group compared to the placebo group. The multiplicity was not adjusted.

In the completer analysis, similar dose dependent effects were observed, with 51% of patients in the OCA 40 mg dose group compared to 22% in the placebo group meeting the primary endpoint (p = 0.0061).

With the exception of dose dependent pruritus, OCA appeared to be generally safe and well tolerated. The number of pruritus associated discontinuations were 0, 0, 2 and 5 patients in the placebo, OCA 10 mg, OCA 20 mg and OCA 40 mg groups, respectively. Changes in lipid parameters, including LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol and triglycerides, appeared to be consistent with previously reported lipid changes in Western NASH patients. No other meaningful differences in the rate of adverse events between the OCA and placebo groups were noted.

Phase 2b FLINT Trial

In November 2014, the results from a Phase 2b clinical trial for the treatment of NASH, known as the FLINT trial, which was sponsored by the NIDDK, a part of the National Institutes of Health, were published in The Lancet. The FLINT trial was a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of a once-daily dose of OCA 25 mg or placebo given for 72 weeks in 283 patients with biopsy-proven NASH. OCA achieved the primary endpoint in the FLINT trial, which was defined as an improvement of two or more points in NAS with no worsening of liver fibrosis.

The percentage of patients meeting the primary histological endpoint, based on liver biopsies, in the FLINT trial was 45% in the OCA treatment group and 21% in the placebo group (p = 0.0002, n = 219). The mean pre-treatment baseline NAS for patients in the OCA treatment group was 5.3 of a total possible score of eight (comprised of a NAS of 0-2 for hepatocellular ballooning, 0-3 for lobular inflammation and 0-3 for steatosis). Subgroup analyses showed significant response rates in the OCA treatment group in patients with risk factors for disease progression, including baseline fibrosis stage, co-morbid type 2 diabetes mellitus, ALT, insulin resistance and severe obesity (each factor p < 0.05 for OCA compared to placebo based on 95% confidence interval of published odds ratios).

A significantly greater number of OCA-treated patients also achieved the secondary endpoint of improvement of at least one fibrosis stage (35% versus 19%, p = 0.004), with OCA showing greater response rates as compared to placebo across all stages of fibrosis. Based on our retrospective analyses of the FLINT data, more OCA-treated patients exhibited fibrosis improvement of at least two fibrosis stages (15% versus 6%, not significant) and exhibited fibrosis improvements regardless of baseline fibrosis stage and a significantly greater number of OCA-treated patients also achieved complete

13

Table of Contents

resolution of fibrosis (17% versus 5%, p = 0.0018). Also, our retrospective analysis of the FLINT data showed that fewer OCA-treated patients progressed to bridging fibrosis (15% versus 18%, not significant) or to cirrhosis (2% versus 5%, not significant). Retrospective analyses after the unblinding of results can potentially introduce bias and regulatory authorities typically give greatest weight to results from pre-specified analyses as compared to retrospective analyses. The NASH Clinical Research Network fibrosis staging system was used to categorize the pattern of fibrosis and architectural remodeling of the liver: no fibrosis (F0), perisinuoidal or periportal fibrosis (F1), perisinusoidal and periportal fibrosis (F2), bridging fibrosis (F3) and cirrhosis (F4). Fibrosis sub-stages 1a, 1b and 1c were considered F1 for the analysis.

​

The secondary endpoint of NASH resolution, based on a global histological assessment, also showed improvement, although not statistically significant (22% versus 13%, p = 0.0832). A central reading of all baseline and end-of-trial biopsies was performed at the end of the trial, based on which only 80% of patients were confirmed to have definite NASH, while the remaining 20% were diagnosed as borderline NASH (10%) or not-NASH (10%). A retrospective subgroup analysis on the completer population comprised only of definite NASH patients at baseline showed that a significantly greater number of OCA-treated patients achieved NASH resolution compared with placebo-treated patients (19% versus 8%; p = 0.0278).

​

In an additional retrospective analysis of data from the FLINT trial conducted in a REGENERATE-matched patient cohort published in 2018, (i) approximately 40% of OCA-treated patients as compared to approximately 21% of patients on placebo achieved at least a one-stage improvement in liver fibrosis without any worsening of NASH (p = 0.02) and (ii) approximately 20% of OCA-treated patients as compared to approximately 7% of patients on placebo achieved NASH resolution with no worsening of fibrosis (p = 0.03) using the definition we selected for NASH resolution in the REGENERATE trial.

​

In the FLINT trial, more OCA-treated patients experienced significant improvements in the major histological features of NASH, including steatosis (61% versus 38%, p = 0.001), lobular inflammation (53% versus 35%, p = 0.006) and hepatocellular ballooning (46% versus 31%, p = 0.03), as compared to the placebo treatment group. Trends were similar between the two treatment groups for portal inflammation, which is not a component of NAS and is typically mild in adult NASH patients.

​

The histological improvements observed in OCA-treated patients versus placebo were accompanied by statistically significant reductions in relevant biochemical parameters, including the serum liver enzymes ALT (p < 0.0001), aspartate aminotransferase (“AST”) (p = 0.0001) and gamma-glutamyl transferase (“GGT”) (p < 0.0001), each of which were above generally accepted normal limits at baseline, and total bilirubin (p = 0.002). A modest but statistically significant increase in ALP (p < 0.0001) in the OCA treatment group was also observed, but levels remained within typical normal limits.

​

OCA treatment was associated with serum lipid changes, including increases in total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol and a decrease in HDL cholesterol, that developed within 12 weeks of treatment initiation, then reversed through the end of treatment and returned to baseline during the 24-week post-treatment follow-up phase. Based on these observations, lipid management was emphasized partway into the trial, using accepted guidelines. At 72 weeks as compared to baseline, the following effects were observed in the OCA treatment group: an increase in mean total cholesterol (0.16 mmol/L or 6 mg/dL increase OCA versus 0.19 mmol/L or 7mg/dL decrease placebo, p = 0.0009), an increase in mean LDL cholesterol (0.22 mmol/L or 9 mg/dL increase OCA versus 0.22 mmol/L or 8 mg/dL decrease placebo, p < 0.0001), a decrease in mean HDL cholesterol (0.02 mmol/L or 1 mg/dL decrease OCA versus 0.03 mmol/L or 1 mg/dL increase placebo, p = 0.01) and a decrease in triglycerides (0.22 mmol/L or 20 mg/dL decrease OCA versus 0.08 mmol/L or 7 mg/dL decrease placebo, p = 0.88, not significant). These changes in cholesterol levels, along with the achievement of predefined efficacy criteria, played a role in the decision of the FLINT data and safety monitoring board to terminate the treatment phase of the FLINT trial, and the publication of the FLINT results noted the need for further study of these changes.

​

A post-hoc analysis showed OCA-treated patients who initiated statins during the FLINT trial (n = 26) experienced a rapid reversal of their observed mean LDL cholesterol increase to below baseline levels, with a mean decrease after 72 weeks of treatment of -18.9 mg/dL. In contrast, other OCA-treated patients with no reported initiation or change in statin therapy experienced an increase in LDL cholesterol that peaked at week 12 and was sustained over the 72-week treatment period. Patients treated with statins at baseline who maintained statin treatment over the duration of the study (n = 50) experienced a mean LDL cholesterol increase of 8.7 mg/dL at 72 weeks. Patients not treated with statins during the study

14

Table of Contents

(n = 65) experienced a mean LDL cholesterol increase of 16.0 mg/dL. Treatment related LDL cholesterol increases in all groups reversed with treatment discontinuation. This analysis suggests that the OCA-associated LDL cholesterol increase reaches a maximum peak and plateaus soon after initiation of therapy and that concomitant statin use in NASH patients receiving OCA may mitigate treatment-related LDL cholesterol increases.

​

In the FLINT trial, statistically significant weight loss of an average of 2.3 kilograms was observed in OCA patients compared to no weight loss in the placebo group (p = 0.008), and this weight loss reverted towards baseline during the 24-week follow-up phase. A pre-specified sensitivity analysis conducted by the investigators showed that weight loss was not a driver of the primary endpoint. An increase in a marker of hepatic insulin resistance known as homoeostasis model assessment – estimated insulin resistance (“HOMA-IR”) (calculated using the product of fasting plasma insulin and glucose) was observed at 72 weeks in the OCA treatment group (p = 0.01). However, there was an imbalance in baseline plasma insulin levels (201 pmol/L OCA versus 138 pmol/L placebo), and an even larger relative and absolute increase in HOMA-IR was observed in the placebo group at the conclusion of the 24-week follow-up phase. This is potentially attributable to the inherent variability in HOMA-IR measurements, particularly in patients with type 2 diabetes, that have been shown to make single time-point to time-point changes of this magnitude clinically uninterpretable. There were virtually no changes in mean hemoglobin A1c, a measure of average blood sugar control over a period of approximately three months, in either OCA or placebo groups at 72 weeks. In an earlier study of OCA in diabetic NAFLD patients employing the hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic insulin clamp, the gold standard for detecting changes in insulin resistance, OCA improved the glucose disposal rate consistent with reduced insulin resistance.

​

OCA was generally well tolerated in the FLINT trial. Adverse events were generally mild to moderate in severity and the incidence in the OCA and placebo treatment groups was similar for all symptoms except pruritus. Pruritus occurred more frequently in the OCA treatment group than in the placebo treatment group (23% vs. 6%, p < 0.0001) and at a higher grade (predominately moderate pruritus) but resulted in only one patient discontinuation. The incidence of severe or life-threatening events was not different between the two treatment groups and most of the events in both groups were deemed to be unrelated to treatment, including all severe or life-threatening cardiovascular events. There were two patient deaths in the Phase 2b FLINT trial and neither death was considered related to OCA treatment.

​

OCA and Bezafibrate

In December 2018, we entered into the Aralez Agreement, pursuant to which we acquired (i) Aralez’s license to develop and commercialize bezafibrate in the United States (as amended and restated in connection therewith, the “Bezafibrate License”), (ii) Aralez’s IND on file with the FDA and other associated regulatory documentation and (iii) a non-exclusive license to certain of Aralez’s intellectual property. Pursuant to the Aralez Agreement, we paid $9.0 million to Aralez in connection with the closing of the transactions in December 2018 and are obligated to make a $2.0 million milestone payment to Aralez based on the occurrence of specified regulatory-related events. Bezafibrate, a PPAR agonist that has been studied in PBC, is not approved in the U.S. for any indication. We are evaluating the efficacy, safety and tolerability of bezafibrate in combination with OCA in patients with PBC in a Phase 2 study outside of the United States, and we filed an IND with the FDA in January 2021 to prepare to expand such development into the United States, with the longer-term goal of developing and seeking regulatory approval for a fixed dose combination regimen in this indication and potentially may study this combination in other liver diseases. Pursuant to the Bezafibrate License, we are also obligated to make a $2.5 million milestone payment based on the occurrence of specified regulatory-related events with respect to such a combination product, as well as mid-single digit percentage royalty payments based on the net sales of such a combination product.

Other Product Candidates

The discovery and development of safe and effective new product candidates and the development of additional uses for our existing product candidates and approved products, are important for the continued strength of our business. We, together with our collaborators, have discovered several bile acid chemistry-based compounds that are in the early stages of research and development. Among these compounds is INT-787. INT-787 is an FXR agonist that we are currently evaluating in preclinical studies. INT-787 has distinct pharmacological properties that differ from those of OCA and has shown potential anti-fibrotic and anti-inflammatory effects in animal models. We believe that bile acid analogs may have

15

Table of Contents

utility in a broad range of diseases beyond non-viral liver disease and we have in the past, and may in the future, explore the potential application of our development compounds outside of our core areas of focus.

​

The process from discovery to development to regulatory approval of a product candidate can take more than ten years. Product candidates can fail at any stage of the process, and product candidates may not receive regulatory approval even after many years of research and development and significant investment. In addition, we may decide to terminate or deprioritize the development of our product candidates due to a number of factors, including our views of the relevant regulatory development pathway, competitive landscape, commercial viability of the product candidate, or superior alternative uses of capital. For example, we have studied OCA for PSC, a rare, serious, chronic cholestatic liver disease characterized by a progressive, autoimmune-based destruction of bile ducts with eventual onset of cirrhosis. While we believe that the results of our Phase 2 AESOP trial announced in 2017 established a proof of concept of OCA in a second cholestatic liver disease, we have deprioritized development of OCA in PSC based, in part, on the lack of clarity on the regulatory pathway for this rare but serious disease. In addition, we are no longer actively developing INT-767, an orally administered dual FXR and TGR5 agonist derived from the primary human bile acid chenodeoxycholic acid.

​

Competition

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are intensely competitive and subject to rapid and significant technological change. We have competitors in the United States, Europe and other jurisdictions, including major multinational pharmaceutical companies, established biotechnology companies, specialty pharmaceutical and generic drug companies and universities and other research institutions. Many of our competitors have financial, sales and marketing, manufacturing and distribution, legal, regulatory and product development resources substantially greater than ours. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large, established companies.

The ability of Ocaliva for PBC, OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH, if approved, and other future approved products, if any, to compete with products sold by other companies will depend on a number of factors, including efficacy, safety and tolerability, reliability, convenience of dosing, price, the level of branded and generic competition and reimbursement. We believe that the competitive environment for Ocaliva for PBC and, if approved, OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH is as follows.

Ocaliva for PBC

Ocaliva competes with UDCA (or ursodiol), a first-line therapy approved for the treatment of PBC that is available generically at a significantly lower cost than Ocaliva. Additional product candidates in Phase 3 or earlier clinical or preclinical development for the treatment of PBC include Genfit SA’s dual PPAR alpha/delta agonist (elafibranor), CymaBay’s PPAR delta agonist (seladelpar), Genkyotex’s NOX1/NOX4 inhibitor (setanaxib), HighTide’s AMPK activator/FXR agonist combination (HTD1801) and Fast Forward Pharmaceuticals BV’s anti-CD40 monoclonal antibody (FFP104). Additionally, several companies have product candidates aimed at the cholestatic-induced pruritus associated with PBC, including apical sodium dependent bile acid transport inhibitors being developed by GlaxoSmithKline plc (GSK2330672).

Off-label uses of other potential treatments may also compete with Ocaliva for PBC. For example, while fibrates are not approved for use in PBC, off-label use of fibrate drugs has been reported. Bezafibrate, a fibrate that is not approved by the FDA for any indication and is only available outside of the United States, has been studied in PBC.

OCA for Liver Fibrosis Due to NASH

There are currently no medications approved for the treatment of NASH. However, various therapeutics are used off-label for the treatment of NASH, including vitamin E (an antioxidant), insulin sensitizers (e.g., metformin, pioglitazone), antihyperlipidemic agents (e.g., gemfibrozil), pentoxifylline and UDCA. There are several product candidates in Phase 3 or earlier clinical or preclinical development for the treatment of NASH, including Madrigal’s THR beta agonist (resmetirom), Novo Nordisk’s GLP1 agonist (semaglutide), and Inventiva’s pan-PPAR agonist (lanifibranor), as well as

16

Table of Contents

FXR agonists from Novartis AG (tropifexor, nidufexor), Metacrine (MET409, MET642), Terns Pharmaceuticals (TERN-101), Gilead Sciences, Inc. (cilofexor) and Enanta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (EDP-305).

Additional pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies with product candidates in development for the treatment of NASH include AstraZeneca plc, Altimmune Inc., Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Durect Corporation, Galectin Therapeutics Inc., Galmed Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Immuron Ltd., Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Islet Sciences, Inc., Madrigal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., MediciNova, Inc., MiNA Therapeutics, NGM Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., NuSirt Sciences Inc., Pfizer Inc., Viking Therapeutics, Inc. and Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc. NASH is a complex disease and we believe that it is unlikely that any one therapeutic option will be optimal for every NASH patient.

In addition, many universities and private and public research institutions may become active in our target disease areas. The results from our clinical trials and the approval of Ocaliva for PBC have brought more attention to our targeted indications and bile acid chemistry. As a result, we believe that additional companies and organizations may seek to compete with us in the future. Our competitors may succeed in developing, acquiring or licensing on an exclusive basis, technologies and drug products that are more effective or less costly than OCA or any other product candidates that we are currently developing or that we may develop, which could render our products or product candidates obsolete and noncompetitive. Our ability to compete may also be affected because, in many cases, insurers or other third-party payors seek to encourage the use of generic products.

Intellectual Property

Protecting our intellectual property, such as our patents, is a key part of our strategy. We are the owner of record of numerous issued U.S. and non-U.S. patents with claims directed to pharmaceutical compounds, pharmaceutical compositions, methods of making these compounds and methods of using these compounds in various indications. In addition, we are the owner of record of numerous pending U.S. and non-U.S. patent applications, and regularly pursue additional patent applications in various jurisdictions. We also have numerous trademark and service mark registrations and pending trademark and service mark applications in the United States and abroad.

The patent portfolio for OCA contains U.S. and non-U.S. patents and patent applications directed to compositions of matter, methods of use and manufacturing methods. Our primary composition of matter patent for OCA was to expire in 2022. In light of the U.S. marketing approval of Ocaliva for PBC in May 2016, we applied for an extension of the patent term for this patent in the United States into 2027, which extension has been granted. In addition, in connection with the conditional approval of Ocaliva for PBC in the European Union, we have applied for supplementary patent certification (“SPC”) to extend the patent term for this patent in the European Union into 2027. To date, we have received grants of SPC in Austria, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Norway, Portugal, Spain and Sweden and we expect to take similar actions in other jurisdictions and countries where similar regulations exist.

The table set forth below summarizes the U.S. patents covering OCA that are listed in the FDA’s Orange Book List of Approved Drug Products With Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations (the “Orange Book”). The issued patents covering OCA are expected to expire in 2022 at the earliest and 2036 at the latest if the appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity, or other government fees are paid. We expect that the patents in the OCA portfolio that are listed in the Orange Book would expire as set forth below, assuming the appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity or other governmental fees are paid.

​

17

Table of Contents

​

​

In addition, we have intellectual property protecting OCA that we would expect to list in the Orange Book if OCA is approved for the treatment of NASH.

We may rely on trade secrets to protect our proprietary technologies, especially where we do not believe patent protection is appropriate or obtainable. However, trade secrets are difficult to protect. We rely in part on confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants, outside scientific collaborators, sponsored researchers and other advisors to protect our trade secrets and other proprietary information. We also seek to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of our data, trade secrets and know-how by maintaining physical security of our premises and physical and electronic security of our information technology systems.

Our commercial success will depend in part on our ability to obtain and maintain patent, trademark and trade secret protection covering our products such as Ocaliva and product candidates, as well as our ability to successfully defend our intellectual property against third-party challenges. Our ability to stop third parties from making, using, selling, offering to sell or importing our products is dependent upon the extent to which we have regulatory exclusivity or intellectual property-based exclusivity rights under valid and enforceable patents or other intellectual property that cover our products. If we fail to obtain and maintain adequate intellectual property protection, we may not be able to prevent third parties from launching generic versions of our products, from using our proprietary technologies or from marketing products that are very similar or identical to ours. The patent positions of pharmaceutical companies can be highly uncertain and involve complex legal and factual questions for which important legal principles remain unresolved. No consistent policy regarding the breadth of claims allowed in pharmaceutical patents has emerged to date in the United States or in foreign jurisdictions, and the legal standards relating to the patentability, validity and enforceability of pharmaceutical patents are evolving.

Changes in either the patent laws or in interpretations of patent laws in U.S. and foreign jurisdictions may diminish the value of our intellectual property. Accordingly, we cannot predict the breadth of claims that may be enforced in the patents that we currently own or that may issue from the applications we have filed or may file in the future or those that we may license from third parties. Additionally, our currently pending or future patent applications may not result in issued patents, and any term extensions that we seek may not be granted. Further, if any patents we obtain or license are deemed invalid or unenforceable, it could impact our ability to commercialize or license our technology or enable third parties to develop and market products that are similar or identical to ours.

18

Table of Contents

Manufacturing and Supply

We do not own or operate manufacturing facilities for the production of Ocaliva, OCA or any of our other product candidates, and we do not have any plans to develop our own manufacturing operations in the foreseeable future. We rely on third-party contract manufacturers for all of our required raw materials, API and finished product for our commercial sales and for our clinical trials and preclinical studies.

We source the manufacture and commercial supply of API from such manufacturers, for use in Ocaliva and, if approved, OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH. We believe that we have secured supplies of API sufficient to meet our PBC and NASH commercial supply requirements during the initial stages of our NASH launch following the expected approval of OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH. One such supply agreement is with PharmaZell GmbH (“PharmaZell”). That contract does not require us to purchase a specific percentage of our annual commercial requirements of API from PharmaZell. We have also qualified an additional API supplier from which we may currently acquire API on a purchase order basis and continue to engage in activities intended to ensure that our long-term commercial supply requirements are satisfied. In connection with such efforts, we entered into an agreement with a third potential supplier of API for the manufacture of Ocaliva and, if approved, OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH, under which we may in the future be obligated to purchase a portion of our API requirements in the event of the achievement of agreed regulatory and product development milestones.

We do not have long-term supply agreements for any of our product candidates other than OCA, and regularly obtain supplies and services relating to our product candidates from third-party contract manufacturers on a purchase order basis. Contract manufacturers are subject to extensive governmental regulation and we depend on them for compliance with the requirements of U.S. and non-U.S. regulators for the manufacture of our finished products, including Ocaliva. We intend to continue to rely on third-party manufacturers for the manufacture of clinical supplies of our product candidates and commercial supplies of our approved products, including Ocaliva and, if approved, OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH. We believe this manufacturing strategy will enable us to direct financial resources to the development and commercialization of products rather than diverting resources to establishing a manufacturing infrastructure. If  PharmaZell and our other current and future suppliers are not able to meet our on-going commercial supply requirements, including those relating to Ocaliva or, if approved, OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH, on acceptable terms, or at all, our business may be materially and adversely affected. See “Risk Factors — Risks Related to the Development and the Regulatory Review and Approval of Our Products and Product Candidates — We rely entirely on third parties for the manufacture of our product requirements for our preclinical studies and clinical trials, as well as our commercial supply of Ocaliva and, if approved, OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH and our other product candidates, and also depend on third-party vendors and CROs for certain of our clinical trial and product development activities. Our business could be harmed if our third-party manufacturers fail to provide us with sufficient quantities of drug product, or fail to do so at acceptable quality levels or prices, or if our third-party vendors or CROs assisting us with our clinical trials and product development activities fail to comply with their contractual commitments or applicable regulatory obligations or if we lose our relationships with our third-party vendors and CROs.”

Sales and Marketing

Ocaliva is our first approved product and the commercial launch of Ocaliva for PBC is our first product launch. We are commercializing Ocaliva for PBC using a combination of our internal commercial organization, a contract sales organization and third-party distributors depending on the jurisdiction. We are developing our commercialization strategy for OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH, if approved, and have not yet decided on our commercialization strategy for OCA for other indications or for our other product candidates, in each case, if approved. We intend to continue to evaluate how best to commercialize our product candidates, if approved, in the United States and internationally, and may choose to collaborate with third parties that have sales and marketing capabilities and established distribution systems, either to augment our own capabilities or in lieu thereof.

Customers

We commenced our commercial launch of Ocaliva for the treatment of PBC in the United States in June 2016. In December 2016, the European Commission granted conditional approval for Ocaliva for the treatment of PBC and we

19

Table of Contents

commenced our European commercial launch in January 2017. Since January 2017, Ocaliva has also received regulatory approval in several of our target markets outside the United States and Europe, including Canada, Israel and Australia. We recognized net product sales of Ocaliva of $312.7 million, $249.6 million and $177.8 million for the years ended December 31, 2020, 2019 and 2018, respectively. We sell Ocaliva to a limited number of specialty pharmacies which dispense the product directly to patients. The specialty pharmacies are referred to as our customers. For a discussion of our customer concentration, see Note 2 to our audited consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Government Regulation and Product Approval

Government authorities in the United States, at the federal, state and local level, and analogous authorities in other countries extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, recordkeeping, approval, labeling, packaging, promotion, storage, advertising, distribution, marketing, sampling, post-approval monitoring and reporting and export and import of products such as Ocaliva and those we are developing. Our product candidates must be approved by the FDA through the NDA process before they may be legally marketed in the United States and by the European Commission following a favorable assessment provided by the EMA through the MAA process for a product falling within the scope of the Centralized procedure or a national MAA process (albeit through the process of Mutual Recognition or Decentralized procedure) before they may be legally marketed in the European Union. Our product candidates will be subject to similar requirements in other countries prior to marketing in those countries. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with applicable federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources.

United States Government Regulation

NDA Approval Processes

In the United States, the FDA regulates drugs under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended (the “FDCA”) and implementing regulations. An applicant seeking approval to market and distribute a new drug product in the United States must typically undertake the following:

20

Table of Contents

Preclinical and Clinical Studies

Once a pharmaceutical candidate is identified for development, it enters the preclinical or nonclinical testing stage. Nonclinical tests include laboratory evaluations of product chemistry, toxicity and formulation, as well as animal studies. An IND sponsor must submit the results of the nonclinical tests, together with manufacturing information and analytical data, to the FDA as part of the IND. Some nonclinical testing may continue even after the IND is submitted. In order to conduct clinical research, an IND sponsor must submit an IND. An IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA, within the 30-day time period, or any time thereafter, places the IND on clinical hold. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before clinical trials can begin or continue. A clinical hold may affect one or more specific studies or all studies conducted under the IND.

All clinical trials must be conducted under the supervision of one or more qualified investigators in accordance with GCPs. They must be conducted under protocols detailing the objectives of the trial, dosing procedures, research subject selection and exclusion criteria and the safety and effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. Each protocol must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND, and progress reports detailing the status of the clinical trials must be submitted to the FDA annually. Sponsors also must timely report to the FDA serious and unexpected adverse reactions, any clinically important increase in the rate of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the protocol or investigation brochure, or any findings from other studies or animal or in vitro testing that suggest a significant risk in humans exposed to the drug. An IRB at each institution must, among other things, review and approve the protocol before a clinical trial commences at such institution, and approve the consent form that must be provided to each research subject or the subject’s legal representative, monitor the study until completed and otherwise comply with regulations applicable to the IRB.

Human clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases, although the phases may overlap or be combined:

Human clinical trials are inherently uncertain and Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 testing may not be successfully completed. The FDA or the sponsor may suspend a clinical trial at any time for a variety of reasons, including a finding that the research subjects or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or

21

Table of Contents

terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the drug has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients. In some cases, clinical trials are overseen by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the trial sponsor, or the clinical monitoring board or data monitoring committee. This group typically provides recommendations to the trial sponsor for whether or not a trial may move forward at designated check points. These decisions are based on the data monitoring committee’s independent review of data from the ongoing trial.

Sponsors of clinical trials of certain FDA-regulated products, including prescription drugs, are required to register and disclose clinical trial information related to the product, patient population, phase of investigation, clinical trial sites and investigator, and other aspects of the clinical trial on a public website maintained by the U.S. National Institutes of Health. Sponsors are also obligated to disclose the results of these clinical trials after completion. For a new product or a new indication for a previously approved product, sponsors can delay submission of clinical study results for up to two years until the product has been approved or approved for the new use. Competitors and others may use this publicly-available information to gain knowledge regarding the design and progress of our development programs.

During the development of a new drug, sponsors are given opportunities to meet with the FDA at certain points, including prior to the submission of an IND, at the end of Phase 2 and before a NDA is submitted. Meetings at other times may be requested. These meetings can provide an opportunity for the sponsor to share information about the data gathered to date and for the FDA to provide advice and feedback on the next phase of development. Sponsors typically use the meeting at the end of Phase 2 to discuss their Phase 2 clinical results and present their plans for the pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial(s) that they believe will support the approval of the new drug. If a Phase 2 clinical trial is the subject of discussion at the end of Phase 2 meeting with the FDA, a sponsor may be able to request a special protocol assessment (“SPA”), the purpose of which is to reach agreement with the FDA on the Phase 3 clinical trial protocol design and analysis that will form the primary basis of an efficacy claim.

According to published guidance on the SPA process, a sponsor which meets the prerequisites may make a specific request for an SPA and provide information regarding the design and size of the proposed clinical trial. The FDA is supposed to evaluate the protocol within 45 days of the request to assess whether the proposed trial is adequate, and that evaluation may result in discussions and a request for additional information. An SPA request must be made before the proposed trial begins, and all open issues must be resolved before the trial begins. If a written agreement is reached, it will be documented and made part of the record. The agreement is generally expected to be binding on the FDA, in that the critical design elements agreed to as part of an SPA agreement may not be changed by the sponsor or the FDA after the trial begins except with the written agreement of the sponsor and the FDA or if the FDA determines that a substantial scientific issue essential to determining the safety or efficacy of the drug was identified after the testing began. The presence of an SPA agreement does not guarantee that a marketing application will be filed or approved, even if the trial is conducted in accordance with the protocol and achieves the specified endpoints. In rare cases, the FDA may rescind an SPA agreement.

Concurrent with clinical trials, sponsors usually complete additional animal safety studies and also develop additional information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the drug and finalize a process for manufacturing commercial quantities of the product in accordance with cGMP requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the drug and the manufacturer must develop methods for testing the quality, purity and potency of the drug prior to release. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the drug candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its proposed shelf-life.

The results of product development, nonclinical studies and clinical trials, along with descriptions of the manufacturing process, analytical tests and other control mechanisms, proposed labeling and other relevant information are submitted to the FDA as part of a NDA requesting approval to market the product. The submission of a NDA is subject to the payment of user fees, but a waiver of such fees may be obtained under specified circumstances. Currently, the application fee is approximately $2.9 million for NDAs with clinical data and approximately $1.5 million for NDAs without clinical data. The sponsor under an approved NDA is also subject to annual program user fees, currently approximately $336,000. Program fees are assessed for each approved prescription drug product identified in an approved application, up to five program fees per application. These fees are typically modified annually. The FDA reviews all

22

Table of Contents

NDAs submitted to ensure that they are sufficiently complete for substantive review before it accepts them for filing. It may request additional information rather than accept a NDA for filing. In this event, the NDA must be resubmitted with the additional information. The resubmitted application also is subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing.

Once the NDA is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth review. NDAs receive either standard or, as discussed more fully below, priority review. The FDA may refuse to approve a NDA if the applicable regulatory criteria are not satisfied or may require additional clinical or other data. Even if such data are submitted, the FDA may ultimately decide that the NDA does not satisfy the criteria for approval. The FDA reviews a NDA to determine, among other things, whether a product is safe, effective, and can be properly manufactured for its intended use or uses. The FDA may refer the NDA to an advisory committee for review and recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendation of an advisory committee. Before approving a NDA, the FDA will inspect the facility or facilities where the product is manufactured and tested to ensure compliance with cGMPs. An approval letter from the FDA authorizes commercial marketing of the product and specifies the prescribing information for the approved indication(s).

Fast Track, Breakthrough Therapy, Priority Review and Accelerated Approval

The FDA is authorized to designate certain products for expedited review if they are intended to address an unmet medical need in the treatment of a serious or life-threatening disease or condition. These programs include fast track designation, breakthrough therapy designation and priority review designation.

Specifically, the FDA may designate a product for fast track review if it is intended, whether alone or in combination with one or more other drugs, for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, and it demonstrates the potential to address unmet medical needs for such a disease or condition. For fast track designated products, sponsors may have a higher number of interactions with the FDA and the FDA may initiate review of sections of a fast track product’s NDA before the application is complete.

A product may also be designated as a breakthrough therapy if it is intended, either alone or in combination with one or more other drugs, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. The FDA may take certain actions with respect to breakthrough therapies, including holding meetings with the sponsor throughout the development process; providing timely advice to the product sponsor regarding development and approval; involving more senior staff in the review process; assigning a cross-disciplinary project lead for the review team; and taking other steps to design the clinical trials in an efficient manner.

The FDA may also designate a product for priority review if it would provide a significant improvement in the safety or effectiveness of the treatment, diagnosis or prevention of a serious condition. Certain other applications may also qualify for priority review. The FDA determines, on a case-by-case basis, whether the proposed drug represents a significant improvement when compared with other available therapies. A priority designation by the FDA is intended to direct the agency’s attention and resources to the evaluation of such applications, and to shorten the FDA’s goal for taking action on a marketing application from ten months to six months.

In addition, the FDA may grant accelerated approval to a drug for a serious or life-threatening condition that provides meaningful therapeutic advantage to patients over existing treatments based upon a determination that the drug has an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. The FDA may also grant accelerated approval for such a condition when the product has an effect on an intermediate clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality, and that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity, or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. Drugs granted accelerated approval must meet the same statutory standards for safety and effectiveness as those granted traditional approval. In the case of unprecedented accelerated approval endpoints, this determination occurs during the review of the NDA. Unless otherwise informed by the FDA, an applicant must submit to the FDA for consideration during the preapproval review period copies of all promotional materials, including promotional labeling as well as advertisements, intended for dissemination or publication within 120

23

Table of Contents

days following marketing approval. After 120 days following marketing approval, unless otherwise informed by the FDA, the applicant must submit promotional materials at least 30 days prior to the intended time of initial dissemination of the labeling or initial publication of the advertisement.

As a condition of a grant of accelerated approval, the FDA may require that the sponsor perform one or more controlled post-marketing clinical trials. Approval of a drug may be withdrawn if these trials fail to verify clinical benefit or do not demonstrate sufficient clinical benefit to justify the risks associated with the drug (e.g., show a significantly smaller magnitude or duration of benefit than was anticipated based on the observed effect on the surrogate).

Ocaliva was granted fast track designation by the FDA for the treatment of patients with PBC who have an inadequate response to or are intolerant of UDCA. In August 2015, the FDA accepted for review our NDA and granted priority review for Ocaliva in PBC. On May 27, 2016, Ocaliva was approved under the accelerated approval pathway in the United States for PBC in combination with UDCA in adults with an inadequate response to UDCA, or as monotherapy in adults unable to tolerate UDCA.

In January 2015, OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH was granted breakthrough therapy designation by the FDA for the treatment of patients with NASH with liver fibrosis. In November 2019, the FDA accepted for review our NDA and granted priority review for OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH. In June 2020, we received a complete response letter (“CRL”) from the FDA stating that our NDA for OCA for the treatment of liver fibrosis due to NASH could not be approved in its present form. The CRL indicated that, based on the data the FDA had reviewed, the FDA has determined that the predicted benefit of OCA based on a surrogate histopathologic endpoint remains uncertain and does not sufficiently

outweigh the potential risks to support accelerated approval for the treatment of patients with liver fibrosis due to NASH.

At that time, the FDA recommended that we submit additional post-interim analysis efficacy and safety data from the ongoing REGENERATE trial in support of potential accelerated approval and that the long-term outcomes phase of the

trial should continue. We are in discussions with the FDA with respect to the potential resubmission of our NDA seeking accelerated approval of OCA for the treatment of liver fibrosis due to NASH. We had our end of review meeting with the FDA in October 2020 to discuss the FDA’s risk-benefit assessment in the CRL based on its review of the available data, as well as our proposed resubmission of our NDA for the treatment of liver fibrosis due to NASH. The meeting was constructive and the FDA has provided us with helpful guidance regarding supplemental data we can provide to further characterize OCA’s efficacy and safety profile that could support resubmission based on our Phase 3 REGENERATE 18-month biopsy data, together with a safety update from our ongoing studies. We are advancing accordingly and plan to hold additional meetings with the FDA with the goal of achieving sufficient alignment to proceed on this basis and potentially resubmit our NDA for the treatment of liver fibrosis due to NASH by the end of 2021.

​

Post-approval Requirements

Drugs manufactured or distributed pursuant to FDA approvals are subject to pervasive and continuing regulation by the FDA post-approval, including, among other things, requirements relating to recordkeeping, periodic reporting, product sampling and distribution, advertising and promotion and reporting of adverse experiences with the product. Once an approval is granted, the FDA may withdraw the approval if compliance with regulatory requirements is not maintained or if safety or other problems occur after the product reaches the market. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product may result in new labeling information (e.g., warnings), customer training and/or education requirements, restrictions on the product or even complete withdrawal of the product from the market. After approval, some types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications, manufacturing changes and additional labeling claims, are subject to further FDA review and approval. In addition, the FDA may require studies, trials, analyses, and surveillance programs to monitor or evaluate the effect of approved products that have been commercialized, and the FDA has the power to limit further marketing of a product, or seek withdrawal of approval, based on the results of these post-marketing programs.

Drug manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved drugs are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies, and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and some state agencies for compliance with cGMP and other laws. Changes to the manufacturing process are strictly regulated and often require prior FDA approval before being implemented. FDA regulations also require investigation and correction of any deviations from cGMP and impose reporting and documentation requirements upon

24

Table of Contents

the sponsor and any third-party manufacturers that the sponsor may decide to use. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money, and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain cGMP compliance.

Failure to comply with the applicable U.S. requirements at any time during the product development process or approval process, or after approval, may subject us to judicial, regulatory or statutory sanctions, any of which could have a material adverse effect on us.

These sanctions could include:

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

The FDA and other U.S. state and federal authorities regulate marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of products that are placed on the market. Drugs may be promoted only for the approved indications and in a manner otherwise consistent with the provisions of the approved label and FDA regulations. The FDA and other authorities actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting false, misleading, deceptive, or off-label promotional practices; violations of these prohibitions can lead to significant liability. Additional regulations apply for advertising and promotion of products approved under the accelerated approval pathway. For example, unless otherwise informed by the FDA, an applicant must submit to the FDA for consideration during the preapproval review period copies of all promotional materials, including promotional labeling as well as advertisements, intended for dissemination or publication within 120 days following marketing approval. After 120 days following marketing approval, unless otherwise informed by the FDA, the applicant must submit promotional materials at least 30 days prior to the intended time of initial dissemination of the labeling or initial publication of the advertisement.

We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties for the production of clinical and commercial quantities of our products. Future FDA and state inspections may identify compliance issues at the facilities of our contract manufacturers that may disrupt production or distribution, or require substantial resources to correct.

From time to time, legislation is introduced and passed in Congress that could significantly change the statutory provisions governing the approval, manufacturing and marketing of products regulated by the FDA. In addition, FDA regulations and guidance are often revised or reinterpreted by the agency in ways that may significantly affect our business and our products. It is impossible to predict whether legislative changes will be enacted, or FDA regulations, guidance or interpretations changed or what the impact of such changes, if any, may be.

In accordance with the applicable requirements under the accelerated approval pathway, we initiated our Phase 4 COBALT clinical outcomes confirmatory trial for Ocaliva in PBC in December 2014, following discussions with the FDA. The study evaluates subjects across the spectrum of PBC disease, including early and advanced PBC. We have also agreed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of Ocaliva in patients with moderate to severe hepatic impairment in a study known as the 401 trial and as monotherapy in patients with PBC. In addition, we have agreed to develop and characterize a lower dose formulation of Ocaliva to allow for once daily dosing in patients with moderate or advanced hepatic impairment. We

25

Table of Contents

are in discussions with the FDA and the EMA with respect to the status of the COBALT trial and the 401 trial and proposals for modifications to these post-marketing studies.

Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy

The Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 created a new section of the FDCA which authorizes the FDA to require a REMS as a condition of NDA approval, or based upon new safety information regarding an approved drug, when the FDA determines a REMS is necessary to ensure that the benefits of a drug outweigh the potential risks. Under a REMS, the FDA may require various measures to address serious risks, such as medication guides, communication plans, training or registries, as well as steps to monitor and assess the effectiveness of those measures. Such requirements may impose significant burdens on prescribers, pharmacists or patients. The requirement for a REMS may materially affect the potential market and profitability of a drug.

We do not have a REMS for Ocaliva for the treatment of PBC.

Patent Term Extension and Data Exclusivity

Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of FDA approval of the use of our drug candidates, some of our U.S. patents may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, (the “Hatch-Waxman Act”). The Hatch-Waxman Act permits an extension of a patent term of up to five years as compensation for patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review process. However, the extension of patent term cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the product’s approval date. The patent term extension period is generally one-half the time between the effective date of an IND, and the submission date of a NDA, plus the time between the submission date of a NDA and the approval of that application. Only one patent applicable to an approved drug is eligible for the extension and the application for extension must be made prior to expiration of the patent. The United States Patent and Trademark Office, in consultation with the FDA, reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension or restoration. Our primary composition of matter patent for OCA was to expire in 2022, but in light of the U.S. marketing approval of Ocaliva for PBC in May 2016, we applied for an extension of the patent term for this patent in the United States into 2027, which extension has been granted. In addition, in connection with the conditional approval of Ocaliva for PBC in the European Union, we have applied for SPC to extend the patent term for this patent in the European Union into 2027. To date, we have received grants of SPC in Austria, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Norway, Portugal, Spain and Sweden and we expect to take similar actions in other jurisdictions and countries where similar regulations exist.

Data exclusivity provisions under the FDCA also can delay the submission or the approval of certain applications. The FDCA provides a five-year period of non-patent data exclusivity within the United States to the first applicant to gain approval of a NDA for a new chemical entity. A drug is considered a new chemical entity if the FDA has not previously approved any other new drug containing the same active moiety, which is the molecule or ion responsible for the action of the drug substance as further defined in FDA regulations. During the exclusivity period, the FDA may not accept for review an abbreviated new drug application (“ANDA”) or a 505(b)(2) NDA for a drug with the same active moiety. However, an application may be submitted four years from the NDA approval date if it contains a paragraph IV certification that a reference product patent is invalid or not infringed by the ANDA or 505(b)(2) product. The FDCA also provides three years of marketing exclusivity for a NDA, 505(b)(2) NDA or supplement to an approved NDA if new clinical investigations, other than bioavailability studies, that were conducted or sponsored by the applicant are deemed by the FDA to be essential to the approval of the application, for example, for new indications, dosages or strengths of an existing drug. This three-year exclusivity covers only the conditions associated with the new clinical investigations and does not prohibit the FDA from approving ANDAs or 505(b)(2) NDAs for drugs containing the original active moiety for other conditions of use. Five-year and three-year exclusivity will not delay the submission or approval of a full NDA; however, an applicant submitting a full NDA may be required to conduct or obtain a right of reference to all of the preclinical studies and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials necessary to demonstrate safety and effectiveness.

26

Table of Contents

Pediatric Exclusivity and Pediatric Use

Under the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act, sponsors may obtain a six month extension of unexpired regulatory exclusivities and terms of unexpired Orange Book-listed patents relating to their drug, if pediatric studies substantially complying with a written request are completed and submitted by the sponsor to the FDA within the statutory time frame. We have not received such a written request from the FDA for such pediatric studies, although we may ask the FDA to issue a written request for such studies in the future.

In addition, under the Pediatric Research Equity Act (the “PREA”), a NDA or supplement to a NDA for certain drugs must contain data to assess the safety and effectiveness of the drug for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective, unless the sponsor receives a deferral or waiver. However, the FDA has recently issued guidance limiting a sponsor’s ability to waive the PREA study requirements.

Orphan Drug Designation

Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan drug designation to drugs intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally a disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or more than 200,000 individuals in the United States and for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making available in the United States a drug for this type of disease or condition will be recovered from sales in the United States for that drug. Orphan drug designation must be requested before submitting a NDA. After the FDA grants orphan drug designation, the identity of the therapeutic agent and its potential orphan use are disclosed publicly by the FDA. Orphan drug designation does not convey any advantage in or shorten the duration of the regulatory review and approval process.

If a product that has orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for the disease for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan drug exclusivity, which means that the FDA may not approve any applications from any other party to market the same drug for the same indication for seven years, except in very limited circumstances such as where there is a demonstration of clinical superiority. Orphan drug exclusivity, however, could also work to block the approval of one of our product candidates for seven years if a competitor develops the same drug as one of our product candidates and obtains approval and orphan exclusivity for the same indication or disease for which our product candidate is being developed. Orphan drug exclusivity would not block approval of the same drug developed by a competitor for a use different from our orphan-protected approved use. If a drug or drug product designated as an orphan product ultimately receives marketing approval for an indication broader than what was designated in its orphan product application, it may not be entitled to orphan exclusivity for the full scope of its approved use.

As in the United States, we may apply for designation of a product as an orphan drug for the treatment of a specific indication in the European Union before the application for marketing authorization is made. Orphan drugs in Europe enjoy economic and marketing benefits, including up to ten years of market exclusivity for the approved indication. The market exclusivity period for the authorized therapeutic indication may be reduced to six years if, at the end of the fifth year, it is established that the orphan designation criteria are no longer met, including where it is shown that the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify maintenance of market exclusivity. In addition, a competing similar medicinal product may in limited circumstances be authorized prior to the expiration of the market exclusivity period, including if it is shown to be safer, more effective or otherwise clinically superior to the orphan-designated product.

OCA has received orphan drug designation in the United States and the European Union for the treatment of PBC and PSC. In the United States, Ocaliva has also received orphan exclusivity for its approved PBC indication that runs until May 27, 2023.

Regulation Outside of the United States

In addition to regulations in the United States, we are subject to regulations of other countries governing clinical trials and commercial sales and distribution of our products. Whether or not we obtain FDA approval for a product, we must obtain approval by the comparable regulatory authorities of countries outside of the United States before we can commence

27

Table of Contents

clinical trials in such countries and approval of the regulators of such countries or economic areas, such as the European Union, before we may market products in those countries or areas. The approval process and requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary greatly from place to place, and the time may be longer or shorter than that required for FDA approval.

Under European Union regulatory systems, a company may submit marketing authorization applications under the centralized, decentralized or mutual recognition marketing authorization procedure. The centralized procedure provides for the grant of a single marketing authorization for a medicinal product by the European Commission on the basis of an opinion provided by the EMA’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (the “CHMP”). A centralized marketing authorization is valid for all European Union member states and the European Economic Area States (Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway). The decentralized marketing authorization procedure involves the submission of an application for marketing authorization to the competent authorities in each of the European Union member states chosen by the applicant in which the product is to be marketed. One national competent authority, selected by the applicant (Reference Member State) leads the assessment of the application for marketing authorization. The competent authorities of the other chosen European Union member states concerned by the procedure (Concerned Member States) are subsequently required to review the initial evaluation and, if the assessment is positive and all issues are resolved, grant marketing authorization for their territory on the basis of the assessment, except where grounds of potential serious risk to public health require the application for authorization to be refused. The mutual recognition procedure provides for mutual recognition of a marketing authorization which has already been granted by the national competent authority of a European Union member state by the competent authorities of the other European Union member states where further marketing authorizations are progressively sought. The holder of a national marketing authorization may submit an application to the competent authority of a European Union member state requesting the recognition of the marketing authorization granted by the competent authority of another European Union member state.

Prior to obtaining a marketing authorization in the European Union submitted as a full stand-alone dossier, applicants have to demonstrate compliance with all measures included in an EMA-approved PIP covering all subsets of the pediatric population, unless the EMA has granted (1) a product-specific waiver, (2) a class waiver, or (3) a deferral for one or more of the measures included in the PIP. In the case of orphan medicinal products, completion of an approved PIP can result in an extension of the aforementioned market exclusivity period from ten to twelve years.

It is also possible that a centralized marketing authorization could be conditional on post-approval studies and not considered a full approval, but subject to annual renewal until comprehensive data are provided to confirm the benefit/risk assessment. A manufacturer’s ability to obtain and maintain conditional marketing authorization in the European Union will be limited to specific circumstances and subject to several conditions and obligations, if obtained at all. Conditional marketing authorizations can be granted, based on a clinical dataset that is not comprehensive. Granting of such an authorization may be granted for a limited number of medicinal products for human use referenced in the applicable European Union law governing conditional marketing authorization, including products designated as orphan medicinal products under European Union law, if (1) the risk-benefit balance of the product is positive, (2) it is likely that the applicant will be in a position to provide the required comprehensive clinical trial data, (3) unmet medical needs will be fulfilled and (4) the benefit to public health of the immediate availability on the market of the medicinal product outweighs the risk inherent in the fact that additional data are still required. Specific obligations, including with respect to the completion of ongoing or new studies, and with respect to the collection of pharmacovigilance data, may be specified in the conditional marketing authorization. Conditional marketing authorizations are valid for one year, and may be renewed annually, if the risk-benefit balance remains positive, and after an assessment of the need for additional or modified conditions.

Similarly to the United States, both marketing authorization holders and manufacturers of medicinal products are subject to comprehensive regulatory oversight by the EMA and the competent authorities of the individual European Union member states both before and after grant of the manufacturing and marketing authorizations. This includes European Union cGMP rules, which govern quality control of the manufacturing process and require documentation policies and procedures. We and our third-party manufacturers are required to ensure that all of our processes, methods, and equipment are compliant with cGMP.

28

Table of Contents

Failure by us or by any of our third-party partners, including suppliers, manufacturers, and distributors to comply with European Union laws and the related national laws of individual European Union member states governing the conduct of clinical trials, manufacturing approval, marketing authorization of medicinal products and manufacturing and marketing of such products, both before and after grant of marketing authorization, may result in administrative, civil or criminal penalties. These penalties could include delays in or refusals to authorize the conduct of clinical trials or the grant of marketing authorizations, product withdrawals and recalls, product seizures, suspensions, withdrawals, or variations of previously granted marketing authorizations, total or partial suspensions of production, distribution, manufacturing, or clinical trials, operating restrictions, injunctions, suspension of licenses, fines and criminal penalties.

In October 2016, the CHMP of the EMA adopted a positive opinion recommending the granting of a conditional marketing authorization of Ocaliva in PBC. Based on the CHMP’s positive recommendation, the European Commission granted a conditional marketing authorization of Ocaliva in PBC in December 2016. Although we have successfully renewed our conditional marketing authorization in the European Union in the past, there can be no assurance that we will be able to continue to do so in the future. Failure to renew our conditional marketing authorization would prevent us from continuing to market Ocaliva for PBC in Europe. PBC is not believed to occur in the pediatric population. Therefore, in accordance with applicable regulations, the PBC marketing authorization required demonstration of compliance with all measures included in an EMA-approved Pediatric Investigation Plan for OCA for the treatment of biliary atresia, a pediatric cholestatic disease.

Pricing and Reimbursement

Sales of our products will depend, in part, on the extent to which the costs of our products will be covered by third-party payors, such as government healthcare programs, commercial insurance plans and managed healthcare organizations. These third-party payors are increasingly challenging the prices charged for medical products and services. Additionally, the containment of healthcare costs has become a priority for federal and state governments and the prices of drugs have been a focus in this effort. The U.S. government, state legislatures and foreign governments have shown significant interest in implementing cost-containment programs, including price controls, restrictions on reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic products. Adoption of new or more restrictive price controls and cost-containment measures in the jurisdictions in which we operate could materially and adversely impact our net sales and financial results.

Third-party payers are responsible for managing overall pharmaceutical drug spending for their client membership. Third-party payers continue to scrutinize and manage the prices charged for pharmaceutical products and services, and many also limit reimbursement for newly-approved or innovating products and indications. If these third-party payors do not consider our products to be cost-effective compared to other therapies, they may (i) not cover our approved products as part of their plans’ benefits, (ii) apply utilization management restrictions or high patient cost-sharing obligations or (iii) restrict the level of reimbursement for our approved products and any such actions may affect our ability to sell our approved products on a profitable basis or at all.

Medicare is a U.S. federal healthcare program that provides coverage for certain healthcare items and services to individuals aged 65 years or older, as well as individuals of any age with certain disabilities and illnesses. The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (“MMA”) imposed new requirements for the distribution and pricing of prescription drugs for Medicare beneficiaries. Under Part D of the MMA, Medicare beneficiaries may enroll in prescription drug plans offered by private entities which provide coverage for outpatient prescription drugs. Part D plans include both stand-alone prescription drug benefit plans and prescription drug coverage as part of Medicare Advantage plans. Unlike Medicare Part A and B, Part D prescription drug plan sponsors are not required to pay for all outpatient drugs, and each Part D plan can develop its own drug formulary that identifies which drugs it will cover and at what tier or level. However, Part D plan drug formularies must include at least two drugs within each therapeutic category and class of Part D drugs, though not necessarily all the drugs in each category or class. Any formulary used by a Part D prescription drug plan must be developed and reviewed by a pharmacy and therapeutics committee. Part D plan coverage and reimbursement may increase demand for our products for which we receive marketing approval in the United States. Moreover, while Part D provides prescription drug benefits only to Medicare beneficiaries, private payors often follow Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own payment rates. Any reduction in reimbursement by Medicare may result in a similar reduction in payments from non-governmental payors. Medicare Part D may affect reimbursement of our products upon approval.

29

Table of Contents

Medicaid is a U.S. healthcare program that provides coverage for certain healthcare items and services to low-income children, families, pregnant women and people with disabilities. It is jointly funded by the federal and state governments, and it is administered by individual states within parameters established by the federal government. Therefore, coverage and reimbursement for drugs may vary by state Medicaid program. A manufacturer must enter into a Medicaid Drug Rebate Agreement to have its products covered by Medicaid. Under the Medicaid program, and per the Medicaid Drug Rebate Agreement, manufacturers agree to report certain prices to the government and pay rebates to state Medicaid programs based on Medicaid utilization of the manufacturer’s covered drugs.

In addition to the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, federal law requires companies to participate in the Public Health Service’s 340B Drug Pricing Program in order to have the manufacturer’s drugs covered under Medicaid. The 340B Drug Pricing Program requires participating manufacturers to charge statutorily-defined covered entities no more than the 340B “ceiling price” for the manufacturer’s covered outpatient drugs. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010 (collectively, the “ACA”), extended eligibility to participate in the 340B program to certain additional types of hospitals (including critical access hospitals, sole community hospitals, rural referral centers and freestanding cancer hospitals). For purposes of these newly eligible covered entities, the ACA specifically excluded from the definition of “covered outpatient drugs” certain drugs designated as “orphan drugs” under section 526 of the FDCA. We are also required as a condition of Medicaid participation to discount our products to authorized users of the Federal Supply Schedule of the General Services Administration, including the TRICARE retail pharmacy program, under which additional laws and requirements apply.

These programs require submission of pricing data and calculation of discounts and rebates pursuant to complex statutory formulas, and the guidance governing such calculations is not always clear. Compliance with such requirements can require significant investment in personnel, systems and resources, but failure to properly calculate prices, or offer required discounts or rebates can subject manufacturers to substantial penalties.

In 2010, the ACA was enacted to, among other things, expand access and increase consumer insurance protections while reducing the cost of health care for consumers. The law substantially changed the way health care is financed by both governmental and private insurers in the United States. The ACA requires manufacturers to provide discounts on the prices of brand named drugs in the coverage gap under Medicare Part D and increased the rebates paid by pharmaceutical companies on drugs covered by Medicaid. The ACA also imposes an annual fee, which increases each year, on sales by branded pharmaceutical manufacturers. Since its enactment, there have been a number of judicial, executive and legislative challenges to the ACA, including tax legislation that removed the financial penalties for people who do not carry health insurance (known as the “individual mandate”) and an Executive Order signed in October 2017 by former President Trump directing federal agencies to modify how the ACA is implemented. Congress may continue to consider legislation to repeal and replace some or all elements of the ACA. Further, in December 2018, a federal district court in Texas ruled that the entire ACA was unconstitutional because it could not be considered an exercise of Congressional taxing authority following the repeal of the individual mandate penalties. In December 2019, a federal court of appeals upheld the district court's decision that the ACA individual mandate was unconstitutional absent financial penalties, but remanded the case back to the district court to determine whether the remaining provisions of the ACA were nonetheless valid. However, in March 2020, before the district court could rule on the ACA’s remaining provisions, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the case and oral arguments were held in November 2020. A decision is expected before June 2021. We cannot predict the outcome of this, or any other, litigation regarding the ACA or the impact it may have on our business.

There has been particular and increasing legislative and enforcement interest in the United States with respect to drug pricing practices, particularly with respect to drugs that have been subject to relatively large price increases over relatively short time periods. At the federal level, there have been several U.S. Congressional inquiries, proposed bills, and proposed administrative rules designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs. The outcome and potential effects of these proposals, and other proposals that may be forthcoming is unclear. At the state level, legislatures have increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing.

30

Table of Contents

In addition, in some non-U.S. jurisdictions, the proposed pricing for a drug must be approved before its cost may be funded within the respective national healthcare systems. The requirements governing drug pricing vary widely from country to country. For example, European Union member states can restrict the range of medicinal products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and may control the prices of medicinal products for human use. A member state may approve a specific price for the medicinal product or it may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profits the medicinal product generates for the company placing it on the market. There can be no assurance that any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for pharmaceutical products will allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements for any of our products on cost-effectiveness grounds. Historically, products launched in countries in the European Union do not follow price structures of the United States and generally their prices tend to be significantly lower.

U.S. Fraud and Abuse Laws

Interactions and arrangements with third-party payors, healthcare providers and professionals and customers, including patients and patient advocacy groups, are subject to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations that may restrict certain marketing and contracting practices. These laws include, federal and state anti-kickback and false claims statutes as well as other statutes and regulations pertaining to healthcare fraud and abuse. Other pharmaceutical companies have settled alleged or admitted violations of these fraud and abuse laws with state and federal authorities in recent years and in some cases these settlements have amounted to hundreds of millions, or even billions, of dollars in damages, fines, and penalties, as well as the imposition of compliance program obligations through Corporate Integrity Agreements and other means. Lawsuits, or enforcement actions brought under fraud and abuse laws, can be extremely costly to defend, even if a company has strong defenses and ultimately succeeds in getting the allegations or enforcement action dismissed.

The federal Anti-Kickback Statute (42 U.S.C. §1320a-7b(b)) prohibits, among other things, knowingly and willfully soliciting, receiving, offering or providing remuneration, directly or indirectly, to induce either the referral of an individual, or the furnishing, recommending, or arranging for any good or service, for which payment may be made under federal and state healthcare programs such as Medicare, Medicaid or other federally financed healthcare programs. Remuneration is not defined in the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and has been broadly interpreted by regulators to include for example, cash payments, gifts, discounts, coupons, and the furnishing of free or discounted services or supplies, and other items or services of value to the recipient. This statute has been broadly interpreted to apply to manufacturer arrangements with prescribers, purchasers, formulary managers and patients, among others. Although there are a number of statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting certain common activities from prosecution or other regulatory sanctions, the exceptions and safe harbors are drawn narrowly, and practices that involve remuneration intended to induce prescribing, purchases or recommendations may be subject to scrutiny if they do not qualify for such exceptions or safe harbors.

The federal False Claims Act imposes civil penalties, including treble damages and significant per-claim penalties, which may be pursued through civil whistleblower or qui tam actions, against individuals or entities for knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, to the federal government, claims for payment that are false or fraudulent or making a false statement to avoid, decrease or conceal an obligation to pay money to the federal government. The government and qui tam relators have brought False Claims Act actions against pharmaceutical companies on the theory that their practices have caused false claims to be presented to the government. There is also a separate false claims provision imposing criminal penalties.

Other federal healthcare fraud-related laws also impose criminal liability for violations. The Criminal Healthcare Fraud statute (18 U.S.C. §1347) prohibits knowingly and willfully executing a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program, including private third-party payers. Federal criminal law also prohibits knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services.

A number of states also have statutes or regulations similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and False Claims Act that apply to items and services reimbursed under Medicaid and other state programs. Some state anti-kickback statutes apply not just to government payors, but to all payors, including commercial payors and patients.

31

Table of Contents

Other Laws

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (collectively, “HIPAA”), imposes obligations, on “covered entities,” including health plans and healthcare providers, and their business associates with respect to safeguarding the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information. Although drug manufacturers are not directly subject to HIPAA, we could be subject to criminal penalties if we knowingly obtain individually identifiable health information from a HIPAA-covered entity in a manner that is not authorized or permitted by HIPAA. We are also subject to state, federal and international privacy and security laws governing the processing and security of personal identifiable information.

The federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act requirements under the ACA, and its implementing regulations, require manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologics and medical supplies to report to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services information related to certain direct and indirect payments and other transfers of value made to covered recipients, such as physicians and teaching hospitals, as well as ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members. Payments made to physicians and research institutions for clinical trials are included within the ambit of this law. We are also subject to similar laws in several states and various European Union countries where we have operations. Some of these state and EU laws are broader in scope than federal laws.

In addition, several states now require prescription drug companies to report expenses relating to the marketing and promotion of drug products. Several states prohibit providing certain payments or items of value to healthcare providers or other enumerated individuals or entities, as well as various other marketing-related activities. Certain states require the posting of information relating to clinical studies and their outcomes. In addition, California, Connecticut, Nevada and Massachusetts require pharmaceutical companies to implement compliance programs and marketing codes. Several additional states are considering similar proposals. Some of the state laws are broader in scope than federal laws. Compliance with these laws is challenging and requires significant time and resources, and any failure to comply with such laws could result in significant civil penalties and other adverse consequences.

Human Capital Resources

As of December 31, 2020, we had 498 employees, of which 359 were based in the United States, including at our facilities in New York and San Diego, and 139 were based outside the United States, including at our offices in London. A significant percentage of our employees have obtained advanced degrees in their professions. We consider the intellectual capital of our employees to be an essential driver of our business and key to our future prospects. Given our unique opportunity as a leader in the treatment of progressive non-viral liver disease coupled with our disciplined management of our financial resources, we continue to be able to fill the vacated positions and, if needed, grow our headcount in support of our commercial organization and our pipeline of research and development programs and product candidates. We monitor our compensation programs closely and provide what we consider to be a very competitive mix of compensation and insurance benefits for all our employees, as well as participation in our equity programs. None of our employees is represented by a labor union and we consider our employee relations to be good. In addition, we continually evaluate our headcount with respect to our business needs and opportunities and seek to balance in house expertise and capacity with outsourced expertise and capacity. In August 2020, we adopted a plan to reduce our workforce in light of the receipt of the CRL from the FDA regarding our NDA for OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH (the “2020 Workforce Plan”). The 2020 Workforce Plan sought to streamline our operations and reduce operating expenses, while maintaining the critical resources needed to continue to support the NASH and PBC clinical programs, pursue the approval of OCA for the treatment of liver fibrosis due to NASH and support our successful PBC business.

Corporate and Available Information

We were incorporated in Delaware in September 2002. Our principal executive offices are located at 10 Hudson Yards, 37^th Floor, New York, NY 10001 and our telephone number is (646) 747-1000. We have several additional offices, including those in San Diego, California and London, United Kingdom. Our corporate website address is www.interceptpharma.com. We make available on our website, free of charge, our Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K and any amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), as soon as

32

Table of Contents

reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it to, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). Our SEC reports can be accessed through the Investors & Media section of our internet website. The references to www.interceptpharma.com herein are inactive textual references only, and the information found on our internet website is not incorporated by reference into this Annual Report on Form 10-K or any other report we file with or furnish to the SEC. The SEC maintains an internet website that contains reports, proxy and information statements and other information about issuers, like us, that file electronically with the SEC. The address of that site is http://www.sec.gov.

​

​

33

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

We have never been profitable. We expect to incur losses for the foreseeable future, and we may never achieve or sustain profitability.

We have never been profitable and do not expect to be profitable in the foreseeable future. We incurred net losses of $274.9 million, $344.7 million and $309.2 million for the years ended December 31, 2020, 2019 and 2018, respectively. To date, we have financed our operations primarily through public offerings and private placements of our securities, sales of product and payments received under licensing and collaboration agreements. At December 31, 2020, we had $477.2 million in cash, cash equivalents, restricted cash and investment debt securities.

​

We have devoted substantially all of our resources to the development of our product candidates, including the conduct of our clinical trials, the launch and commercialization of Ocaliva for PBC, preparation for a potential launch of OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH and general and administrative operations, including the protection of our intellectual property.

​

We expect to continue to incur losses for the foreseeable future, and we expect these losses to be significant as we, among other things, develop and seek regulatory approval for our product candidates, including OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH, maintain our regulatory approvals and commercialize our approved products. We believe our prospects and ability to significantly grow revenues will be dependent on our ability to successfully develop and commercialize OCA for indications other than PBC, such as NASH. As a result, we expect a significant amount of resources to continue to be devoted to our development programs for OCA.

​

As part of our product development activities, we currently expect to continue our Phase 3 clinical program of OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH, including our Phase 3 REGENERATE trial in patients with liver fibrosis due to NASH through clinical outcomes for verification and description of clinical benefit and our Phase 3 REVERSE trial for NASH patients with compensated cirrhosis. Our expenses could increase if we are required by the FDA or the EMA to perform studies or trials in addition to those currently expected, if our current trials are modified for any reason, or if there are any issues or delays in completing our clinical trials or the development of any of our product candidates, due to COVID-19 or otherwise. For example, in June 2020 we received a CRL from the FDA with respect to our NDA for OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH. The CRL indicated that, based on the data the FDA had reviewed, the FDA has determined that the predicted benefit of OCA based on a surrogate histopathologic endpoint remains uncertain and does not sufficiently outweigh the potential risks to support accelerated approval for the treatment of patients with liver fibrosis due to NASH. The FDA recommended that we submit additional post-interim analysis efficacy and safety data from the ongoing REGENERATE trial in support of potential accelerated approval and that the long-term outcomes phase of the trial should continue. Although we are in discussions with the FDA with respect to the potential resubmission of our NDA seeking accelerated approval of OCA for the treatment of liver fibrosis due to NASH, there is no assurance that we will be successful or that OCA will be approved for liver fibrosis due to NASH on an accelerated basis, or at all. Accordingly, our previously anticipated U.S. commercial launch of OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH has been postponed, we do not expect to generate revenues for this indication until it has been approved, and we may incur significantly greater costs than previously anticipated in connection with the development of OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH.

​

We intend to continue to develop OCA and our other existing product candidates, alone or in combination, for non-viral liver diseases. If OCA or any of our other product candidates fails in clinical trials or does not gain or maintain regulatory approval, or if OCA or any of our other product candidates does not achieve market acceptance, we may never become profitable. Our net losses and negative cash flows have had, and will continue to have, an adverse effect on our stockholders’ equity and working capital. Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with pharmaceutical product development and commercialization, we are unable to predict with certainty the timing or amount of our expenses, whether such expenses may increase, or when, or if, we will be able to achieve profitability. The amount of our future net losses will depend, in part, on our future expenses, whether and by how much such expenses increase and our ability to generate revenues.

​

35

Table of Contents

We will require substantial additional funding, which may not be available to us on acceptable terms, if at all. If adequate funds are not available to us, we may be required to delay, limit, reduce or cease our operations.

​

We are currently developing OCA for additional indications, including NASH, and other product candidates through various stages of clinical and preclinical development. Developing pharmaceutical products, including conducting preclinical studies and clinical trials, is expensive. If, for example, the FDA, EMA or other regulatory authorities require that we perform additional studies beyond those that we currently expect, our expenses could increase materially beyond what we currently anticipate, and the timing of any potential product approval may be delayed.

​

In addition, we have incurred and anticipate that we will continue to incur significant research and development, product sales, marketing, manufacturing and distribution expenses relating to the commercialization of Ocaliva for PBC. As part of our longer-term strategy, we anticipate that we will incur significant expenses in connection with our research and development efforts, the commercialization of our other products such as OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH, if approved, and the build-out of our general and administrative infrastructure in the United States and abroad. We may also engage in business development activities that involve potential in- or out-licensing of products or technologies or acquisitions of other products, technologies or businesses.

​

As of December 31, 2020, we had $477.2 million in cash, cash equivalents, restricted cash and investment debt securities. We currently expect to continue to incur significant operating expenses in the fiscal year ending December 31, 2020. These expenses are planned to support, among other initiatives, the continued commercialization of Ocaliva for PBC in the United States and our other markets, our continued clinical development of OCA for PBC and NASH and our other earlier stage research and development programs. Although we believe that our existing capital resources, together with our net sales of Ocaliva for PBC, will be sufficient to fund our anticipated operating requirements for the next twelve months, we may need to raise additional capital to fund our operating requirements beyond that period. Furthermore, in light of our receipt in June 2020 of a CRL from the FDA with respect to our NDA for OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH and the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with pharmaceutical product development and commercialization, any delays in, or unanticipated costs associated with, our development, regulatory or commercialization efforts could significantly increase the amount of capital required by us to fund our operating requirements. Accordingly, we may seek to access the public or private capital markets whenever conditions are favorable, even if we do not have an immediate need for additional capital at that time.

Our forecasts regarding the period of time that our existing capital resources will be sufficient to meet our operating requirements and the timing of our future funding requirements, both near and long-term, will depend on a variety of factors, many of which are outside of our control. Such factors include, but are not limited to:

36

Table of Contents

37

Table of Contents

We have no committed external sources of funding and additional funds may not be available when we need them on terms that are acceptable to us, or at all. In addition, in recent months global markets have experienced significant volatility in connection with concerns over the impact of COVID-19, and such concerns may in the future materially and adversely affect our ability to raise funds. If adequate funds are not available to us, we may not be able to make scheduled debt payments on a timely basis, or at all, and may be required to delay, limit, reduce or cease our operations.

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

Unless and until we generate sufficient cash flow from sales of our products, including Ocaliva for PBC and, if approved, OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH, we expect to finance our future cash needs through public or private equity or debt financings, government or other third-party funding, marketing and distribution arrangements or other collaborations, strategic alliances and licensing arrangements, or a combination of these sources. Additional funding may not be available to us on acceptable terms, if at all.

The terms of any future financing may adversely affect the interests of our existing securityholders. For example, to the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, our stockholders’ ownership interest will be diluted, and the terms of these securities may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect the rights of our common stockholders. Debt financing, if available, may involve agreements that include covenants limiting or restricting our ability to take specific actions, such as incurring additional debt, making capital expenditures or declaring dividends. We also could be required to seek funds through arrangements with licensing or collaborative partners or otherwise that may require us to relinquish rights to some of our technologies or product candidates or otherwise agree to terms unfavorable to us. If we are unable to raise additional funds through equity or debt financings when needed, we may be required to delay, limit, reduce or terminate our product development or future commercialization efforts or grant rights to develop and market product candidates that we would otherwise prefer to develop and market ourselves.

38

Table of Contents

We have a limited operating history as a commercial organization, which may make it difficult to predict our future performance, and we expect to continue to face a number of factors that may cause operating results to fluctuate.

We are a biopharmaceutical company with a limited operating history as a commercial organization. Prior to the launch and commercialization of Ocaliva for PBC, our operations were limited to developing our technology, undertaking preclinical studies and clinical trials of our product candidates and preparing for the commercial launch of Ocaliva for PBC. Other than Ocaliva for PBC, none of our other product candidates have received regulatory approval. Consequently, any predictions regarding our future success or viability may not be as accurate as they could be if we had a longer operating history or greater experience commercializing approved products.

The commercialization of Ocaliva for PBC has been and will continue to be, and, if approved, the commercialization of OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH will be, expensive and time-consuming, and we cannot be certain that we will be able to generate sufficient revenues from sales of Ocaliva for PBC and, if approved, OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH in our target markets to offset such costs. Furthermore, our financial condition and operating results have varied significantly in the past and are expected to continue to significantly fluctuate from quarter-to-quarter and year-to-year due to a variety of factors, many of which are outside of our control. Such factors include, but are not limited to:

39

Table of Contents

40

Table of Contents

Risks Related to the Development and the Regulatory Review and

Approval of Our Products and Product Candidates

We cannot be certain whether Ocaliva will receive full approval for PBC in jurisdictions where it has previously received accelerated or conditional approval, or that Ocaliva will be approved for PBC in any jurisdictions beyond those in which it is currently approved. Furthermore, OCA may not be approved on an accelerated basis, or at all, for NASH or any other indication beyond PBC and we may not receive regulatory approval for any other product candidate. Without regulatory approval, we will not be able to market and commercialize our product candidates.

The development, testing, manufacture, packaging, labeling, storage, approval, promotion, advertising, distribution, marketing and export and import, among other things, of our products and product candidates are subject to extensive regulation by the FDA in the United States, the EMA in Europe and various regulatory authorities in other countries, with regulations differing from country to country. We are not permitted to market our product candidates in the United States or Europe until we receive approval of a NDA, from the FDA, or a MAA, from the European Commission, respectively. Currently, our ability to generate product sales depends on the successful marketing of Ocaliva for PBC in the jurisdictions in which it has received regulatory approval. In the future, our ability to generate product sales in addition to those of Ocaliva for PBC will depend on whether we are successful in obtaining regulatory approval of our other product candidates, including OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH.

Ocaliva is our only drug that has been approved for sale and it has only been approved for the treatment of PBC in combination with UDCA in adults with an inadequate response to UDCA or as monotherapy in adults unable to tolerate UDCA. In the United States, Ocaliva was approved for PBC under the accelerated approval pathway. Accelerated approval was granted for Ocaliva for PBC based on a reduction in ALP; however, an improvement in survival or disease-related symptoms has not yet been established. Continued approval of Ocaliva for PBC in the United States is contingent upon the verification and description of clinical benefit in confirmatory trials and our satisfaction of our other post-marketing regulatory requirements. Any delay of the COBALT trial or failure by us to confirm the clinical benefit of Ocaliva for PBC due to COVID-19 or other factors may jeopardize the continued approval of Ocaliva for PBC. As specified by the applicable post-marketing requirements, our COBALT trial includes patients across the spectrum of PBC disease, including early and advanced PBC. We have agreed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of Ocaliva in patients with moderate to severe hepatic impairment and as a monotherapy in patients with PBC. In addition, we agreed to develop and characterize a lower dose formulation of Ocaliva to allow for once daily dosing in patients with moderate or advanced hepatic impairment, and we have fulfilled this commitment.

We commenced our commercial launch of Ocaliva for PBC in certain European countries in 2017 following the European Commission’s grant of conditional approval in December 2016. Our marketing authorization in the European Union is conditioned on the successful completion of the COBALT trial and in our 401 trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of Ocaliva in patients with moderate to severe hepatic impairment.

Since January 2017, Ocaliva has also received regulatory approval in several of our target markets outside the United States and Europe, including Canada, Israel and Australia, and we are pursuing marketing approval of Ocaliva for PBC in our other international target markets. If obtained, continued approval of Ocaliva for PBC in such jurisdictions may be

41

Table of Contents

contingent upon the verification and description of clinical benefit in confirmatory trials. Any delay or failure in satisfying the post-marketing regulatory commitments and requirements to which we are or may become subject, including our COBALT trial, may jeopardize the continued approval of Ocaliva for PBC in the United States, European Union and other jurisdictions. In some markets where regulatory approval has been obtained for Ocaliva, discussions with national public health system authorities regarding reimbursement are ongoing.

While we remain blinded to safety and efficacy data in the ongoing COBALT trial and 401 trial, the DMC reviewed the unblinded results of a pre-specified interim efficacy analysis of the COBALT trial and separately reviewed unblinded safety and pharmacokinetic data from both the COBALT and 401 trials. Following these reviews, the DMC stated that it was not feasible to continue the COBALT trial as designed and noted the challenges in enrolling and maintaining placebo-controlled post-marketing studies in this rare disease setting. No acute safety concerns were noted by the DMC. Given the feasibility concerns noted by the DMC as well as the potential confounding impact of subjects discontinuing treatment and/or transitioning from investigational product to commercial drug during clinical trials, we continue to discuss with the FDA and the EMA proposed modifications to the COBALT trial as well as proposals with respect to the 401 trial. We have notified the FDA and the EMA of the DMC’s recommendation and, as they previously advised, are in ongoing discussions with the FDA on the matter and are seeking formal EU scientific advice with respect to potential alternative study designs. In addition, future changes to our Ocaliva label related to the most advanced PBC patients will influence the modifications to our study design. If we are unable to satisfactorily address the data monitoring committee’s recommendation with the FDA and/or the EMA and the COBALT trial cannot be timely completed, cannot be completed as designed or fails, we may not be able to maintain our previously granted marketing approval of Ocaliva for PBC. Ocaliva is not approved for any indication other than PBC. We currently have no other products approved for sale and we cannot guarantee that we will ever have additional marketable products or that OCA will be approved for use in additional indications such as NASH. NDAs and MAAs must include extensive preclinical and clinical data and supporting information to establish the product candidate’s safety and effectiveness for each desired indication. NDAs and MAAs must also include significant information regarding the chemistry, manufacturing and controls for the product. Obtaining approval of a NDA or a MAA is a lengthy, expensive and uncertain process, and we may not be successful in obtaining approval. The FDA and the EMA review processes can take years to complete and approval is not guaranteed. Even after the submission of a NDA, the FDA may decide not to accept the submission for filing and review or may determine that the submission does not support approval. For example, in June 2020 we received a CRL from the FDA with respect to our NDA for OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH. The CRL indicated that, based on the data the FDA had reviewed, the FDA had determined that the predicted benefit of OCA based on a surrogate histopathologic endpoint remains uncertain and does not sufficiently outweigh the potential risks to support accelerated approval for the treatment of patients with liver fibrosis due to NASH. The FDA recommended that we submit additional post-interim analysis efficacy and safety data from the ongoing REGENERATE study in support of potential accelerated approval and that the long-term outcomes phase of the study should continue. Similarly, there are a number of factors that may result in delays in the EMA’s review process following the submission of a MAA, or the EMA may determine that the submission does not support approval on a conditional basis, or at all. The United Kingdom left the European Union on January 31, 2020, in what is often referred to as “Brexit,” and the end of the transition period was December 31, 2020. At present, the regulatory framework in the United Kingdom is currently aligned with European Union directives and regulations. However, over time, Brexit may result in material changes to the regulatory regime applicable to many of our current operations, including those relating to Ocaliva for PBC and, if approved, OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH, because of the nature of the Brexit deal (the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement) between the United Kingdom and the EU, such that the UK is no longer a member of the single market or the customs union. COVID-19 could also affect the operations of the FDA, EMA and other health authorities, which could delay our clinical development efforts and the review and approval of our product candidates, including OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH.

As is the case with the approval of Ocaliva for PBC, any future approvals or potential future approvals may also be conditional upon the completion of one or more clinical trials. In addition, delays in approvals or rejections of marketing applications in the United States, Europe or other countries may be based upon many factors, including, for example, regulatory requests for additional analyses, reports, data, preclinical studies and clinical trials, regulatory endpoint requirements, regulatory questions regarding safety or risk-benefit profile, different interpretations of data and results, changes in regulatory policy during the period of product development and the emergence of new information regarding our product candidates or approved products. Initial and continued regulatory approval is also dependent on successfully passing regulatory inspection requirements applicable to us, our clinical sites and our key vendors, including requirements

42

Table of Contents

that we and such parties comply with applicable good clinical, pharmacovigilance, laboratory and manufacturing practices regulations. Critical findings could jeopardize or delay the approval of our NDAs or MAAs or impair our ability to maintain our marketing approvals.

Prior to receiving regulatory approval, we must finalize the product label for each of our product candidates in each jurisdiction in which we seek regulatory approval. Even if our product is approved, the FDA, EMA or other applicable regulatory authorities may limit the indications or uses for which our product may be marketed, require extensive warnings on the product labeling or require expensive and time-consuming clinical trials, risk mitigation programs such as a REMS, monitoring or reporting as a condition of approval. Also, regulatory approval for our approved products may be withdrawn. In addition, obtaining regulatory approval for the marketing of our product in one country does not ensure that we will be able to obtain regulatory approval for such product in any other country.

In order to obtain and/or maintain regulatory approval for OCA for indications other than PBC, we will need to complete additional clinical trials and studies. For example, in connection with our Phase 3 clinical program of OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH, we are currently conducting our Phase 3 REGENERATE trial in patients with liver fibrosis due to NASH through clinical outcomes for verification and description of clinical benefit and our Phase 3 REVERSE trial for NASH patients with compensated cirrhosis. While our ongoing Phase 3 REGENERATE and REVERSE trials are fully enrolled and we have taken measures intended to minimize disruptions and protect and retain patients participating in such trials due to COVID-19, we cannot predict the degree to which such measures will ultimately prove effective. Our ability to obtain and maintain the regulatory approvals necessary to commercialize OCA for indications other than PBC, including NASH, will depend on our ability to successfully design, conduct and complete these trials, the efficacy, safety and risk-benefit profile of OCA demonstrated by such trials and our ability to prepare and submit complex regulatory filings in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements.

There can be no assurance that OCA will receive marketing approval on an accelerated or conditional basis, or at all, for PBC in jurisdictions where it has not yet been approved or for NASH in any jurisdiction, or that any of our other product candidates will receive marketing approval for any indication in any jurisdiction. We cannot predict whether our clinical trials and studies for our product candidates, including OCA for PBC, NASH or any other indication, will be successful, whether regulatory authorities will agree with our conclusions relating to the clinical trials and studies we conduct, or whether such regulatory authorities will require us to conduct additional clinical trials or studies. For example, while OCA received breakthrough therapy designation from the FDA in January 2015 for the treatment of NASH patients with liver fibrosis and we filed a NDA in the United States and a MAA in Europe based on the results from the 18-month analysis of our Phase 3 REGENERATE trial in patients with liver fibrosis due to NASH, we do not know if one pivotal clinical trial will be sufficient for marketing approval or if regulatory authorities in the United States, Europe or our other target markets will approve OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH on an accelerated or conditional basis, or at all. Our Phase 3 REGENERATE trial remains blinded after the interim analysis and is expected to continue to follow patients until the occurrence of a pre-specified number of adverse clinical outcomes, including progression to cirrhosis, for verification and description of clinical benefit.

If we are unable to obtain regulatory approval for OCA for PBC in the jurisdictions in which it is not currently approved or obtain regulatory approval in the United States, European Union and other jurisdictions for OCA for other indications, such as NASH, or for our other product candidates, we may not be able to generate sufficient revenue to become profitable or to continue our operations.

We are developing product candidates for the treatment of rare diseases or diseases for which there are no or limited therapies, such as PBC and NASH, and for some of which there is little clinical experience, and our development approach involves new endpoints and methodologies. As a result, there is a heightened risk that we will not be able to gain agreement with regulatory authorities regarding an acceptable development plan, that the outcome of our clinical trials will not be favorable or that, even if favorable, regulatory authorities may not find the results of our clinical trials to be sufficient for marketing approval.

We are focused on developing therapeutics for the treatment of rare diseases and diseases for which there are no or limited treatments. As a result, the design and conduct of our clinical trials for these indications is subject to heightened risk.

43

Table of Contents

In the United States, the FDA generally requires two adequate and well-controlled pivotal clinical trials to approve a NDA. Furthermore, for full approval of a NDA, the FDA requires a demonstration of efficacy based on a clinical benefit endpoint. The FDA may grant accelerated approval based on a surrogate endpoint reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. Even though our pivotal clinical trials for a specific indication, such as our Phase 3 REGENERATE trial of OCA in patients with liver fibrosis due to NASH and our Phase 3 REVERSE trial for NASH patients with compensated cirrhosis, may achieve their primary endpoints and are reasonably believed by us to be likely to predict clinical benefit, the FDA may not accept the results of such trials or approve our product candidate on an accelerated basis, or at all. It is also possible that the FDA may refuse to accept for filing and review any regulatory application we submit for regulatory approval in the United States. Even if our regulatory application is accepted for review, there may be delays in the FDA’s review process and the FDA may determine that such regulatory application does not contain adequate clinical or other data or support the approval of the product candidate. In such a case, the FDA may issue a CRL that may require that we conduct and/or complete additional clinical trials and preclinical studies or provide additional information or data before it will reconsider our application for approval. For example, in June 2020 we received a CRL from the FDA regarding our NDA for OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH. The CRL indicated that, based on the data the FDA had reviewed, the FDA had determined that the predicted benefit of OCA based on a surrogate histopathologic endpoint remains uncertain and does not sufficiently outweigh the potential risks to support accelerated approval for the treatment of patients with liver fibrosis due to NASH. The FDA recommended that we submit additional post-interim analysis efficacy and safety data from the ongoing REGENERATE study in support of potential accelerated approval and that the long-term outcomes phase of the study should continue. The requirements imposed by the FDA may be substantial, expensive and time-consuming, and there is no guarantee that we will continue to pursue any such application or that the FDA will ultimately decide that any such application supports the approval of the product candidate on an accelerated basis, or at all. The FDA may also refer any regulatory application to an advisory committee for review and recommendation as to whether, and under what conditions, the application should be approved. While the FDA is not bound by the recommendation of an advisory committee, it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions.

Even if we receive accelerated approval for any of our product candidates, we may be required to conduct or complete a post-approval clinical outcomes trial to confirm the clinical benefit of such product candidates by demonstrating the correlation of the surrogate endpoint therapeutic response in patients with a significant reduction in adverse clinical outcomes over time. For example, interim analysis results at 18 months in our Phase 3 REGENERATE trial were based on surrogate endpoints and the impact on clinical outcomes has not been confirmed. The REGENERATE trial is ongoing for verification and description of clinical benefit of OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH. There can be no assurance that the clinical outcomes portion of our REGENERATE trial will confirm that the surrogate endpoint used as the basis of the regulatory submissions we have made or expect to make seeking approval of OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH will eventually show an adequate correlation with clinical outcomes. In addition, as a condition of the accelerated approval of Ocaliva for PBC in the United States, we are required to conduct a clinical outcomes study with respect to Ocaliva for PBC. Following discussions with regulatory authorities, we initiated our COBALT clinical outcomes confirmatory trial for PBC in December 2014 prior to the approval of Ocaliva for PBC. The COBALT trial includes subjects across the spectrum of PBC disease, including early and advanced PBC. We have also agreed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of Ocaliva in patients with moderate to severe hepatic impairment in the 401 trial and as a monotherapy in patients with PBC. There can be no assurance that our COBALT trial conducted as part of our post-marketing obligations will confirm that the surrogate endpoint used for accelerated approval of Ocaliva for PBC will eventually show an adequate correlation with clinical outcomes or that our clinical 401 trial in PBC patients with moderate to severe hepatic impairment will be successful.

While we remain blinded to safety and efficacy data in the ongoing COBALT trial and 401 trial, the DMC reviewed the unblinded results of a pre-specified interim efficacy analysis of the COBALT trial and separately reviewed unblinded safety and pharmacokinetic data from both the COBALT and 401 trials. Following these reviews, the DMC stated that it was not feasible to continue the COBALT trial as designed and noted the challenges in enrolling and maintaining placebo-controlled post-marketing studies in this rare disease setting. No acute safety concerns were noted by the DMC. Given the feasibility concerns noted by the DMC and the potential confounding impact of subjects discontinuing treatment and/or transitioning from investigational product to commercial drug during clinical trials, we continue to discuss with the FDA and the EMA proposed modifications to the COBALT trial as well as proposals with respect to the 401 trial. We have notified the FDA and the EMA of the DMC’s recommendation and, as they previously advised, are in ongoing discussions with the FDA on the matter and are seeking formal EU scientific advice with respect to potential alternative study designs.

44

Table of Contents

In addition, future changes to our Ocaliva label related to the most advanced PBC patients will influence the modifications to our study design. If we are unable to satisfactorily address the DMC’s recommendation with the FDA and/or the EMA and the COBALT trial cannot be timely completed, cannot be completed as designed or fails, we may not be able to maintain our previously granted marketing approval of Ocaliva for PBC. Similarly, if approved based on a surrogate endpoint, continued approval of OCA for other indications, or of any of our other product candidates, may be contingent upon the verification and description of clinical benefit in confirmatory trials.

Our marketing authorization in the European Union for Ocaliva for the treatment of PBC is not a full approval. Instead, it is conditional on the conduct of certain post-approval studies, including the COBALT trial. Our ability to maintain conditional marketing authorization of Ocaliva for PBC in the European Union is limited to specific circumstances and subject to several conditions and obligations that we may be unable to satisfy in whole or at all, including the completion of one or more clinical outcomes trials to confirm the clinical benefit of Ocaliva for PBC. Conditional marketing authorizations based on incomplete clinical data may be granted for a limited number of listed medicinal products for human use, including products designated as orphan medicinal products under European Union law, if (i) the risk-benefit balance of the product is positive, (ii) it is likely that the applicant will be in a position to provide the required comprehensive clinical trial data, (iii) unmet medical needs will be fulfilled and (iv) the benefit to public health of the immediate availability on the market of the medicinal product outweighs the risk inherent in the fact that additional data are still required. Specific obligations, including obligations relating to the timely and successful completion of ongoing or new studies and the collection of pharmacovigilance data, may be specified in the conditional marketing authorization. Conditional marketing authorizations are valid for one year, and may be renewed annually, if the risk-benefit balance remains positive, and after an assessment of the need for additional or modified conditions. Although we have successfully renewed our conditional marketing authorization in the European Union in the past, there can be no assurance that we will be able to continue to do so in the future. Failure to renew our conditional marketing authorization would prevent us from continuing to market Ocaliva for PBC in Europe.

Our ongoing Phase 3 REGENERATE trial of OCA in patients with liver fibrosis due to NASH incorporates an interim primary surrogate endpoint that may serve as the basis for accelerated approval in the United States and as the basis for a conditional approval in Europe. Accelerated approval in the United States and conditional approval in the European Union for OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH are subject to similar risks as discussed above in relation to OCA for PBC. In the REGENERATE primary efficacy analysis, once-daily OCA 25 mg met, with statistical significance, the primary endpoint agreed with the FDA of fibrosis improvement by at least one stage with no worsening of NASH (defined as no worsening of hepatocellular ballooning, no worsening of lobular inflammation and no worsening of steatosis) at the planned 18-month analysis. Although a numerically greater proportion of patients in both OCA treatment groups compared to placebo achieved the primary endpoint of NASH resolution with no worsening of liver fibrosis in the primary efficacy analysis, this result did not reach statistical significance. As agreed with the FDA, in order for the primary objective to be met, the study was required to achieve one of the two primary endpoints. Notwithstanding the results of the REGENERATE 18-month analysis, the recent CRL issued by the FDA indicated that, based on the data the FDA had reviewed, the FDA had determined that the predicted benefit of OCA based on a surrogate histopathologic endpoint remains uncertain and does not sufficiently outweigh the potential risks to support accelerated approval for the treatment of patients with liver fibrosis due to NASH. The FDA recommended that we submit additional post-interim analysis efficacy and safety data from the ongoing REGENERATE study in support of potential accelerated approval and that the long-term outcomes phase of the study should continue. Although we are in discussions with the FDA with respect to the potential resubmission of our NDA seeking accelerated approval of OCA for the treatment of liver fibrosis due to NASH, there is no assurance that we will be successful or that OCA will be approved for liver fibrosis due to NASH on an accelerated basis, or at all. Furthermore, in November 2018, the EMA issued a draft position paper in which it presented its preliminary views with respect to various NASH clinical development matters, including with respect to potential surrogate endpoints, and requested comments thereon by August 2019. Although we did not reach agreement with the EMA on the definition and analysis of a surrogate endpoint prior to the readout of the 18-month analysis of the REGENERATE trial, we believe that the totality of the REGENERATE interim analysis data supports the MAA we filed with the EMA. However, the data that we have submitted to the EMA may not ultimately be found by the EMA to be sufficient for marketing approval on a conditional basis, or at all. In June 2019, the FDA issued new draft guidance on the development of drugs for the treatment of NASH patients with compensated cirrhosis. Although we believe that, if successful, our Phase 3 REVERSE trial will support a regulatory submission seeking accelerated approval of OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH with compensated

45

Table of Contents

cirrhosis in the U.S., we do not know if achievement of the primary endpoint will ultimately be found sufficient by the FDA for approval on an accelerated basis, or at all.

While OCA received breakthrough therapy designation from the FDA in January 2015 for the treatment of NASH patients with liver fibrosis and we have filed a NDA in the United States and a MAA in Europe for approval of OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH based on the results from the 18-month interim analysis of our Phase 3 REGENERATE trial, we do not know if one pivotal clinical trial will be sufficient for marketing approval or if regulatory authorities in the United States, Europe or our other target markets will approve OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH on an accelerated or conditional basis, or at all. There may be delays in the FDA and EMA review processes and the FDA and/or the EMA may also require that we continue our Phase 3 REGENERATE trial until completion to assess the potential benefits of OCA treatment on liver-related and other clinical outcomes. Our regulatory pathway for OCA for the treatment of NASH will depend upon our discussions with the FDA and the EMA. As a result, we may face difficulty in establishing an acceptable registration strategy with respect to our Phase 3 REGENERATE and REVERSE trials, as well as other trials we may conduct in other subpopulations of NASH patients.

Prior to any approval of OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH or OCA for PBC in jurisdictions in which it is not currently approved or the approval of our other product candidates, the FDA, EMA or other applicable regulatory authorities may require additional preclinical studies and/or clinical trials, which may be expensive and time consuming to conduct and complete. Consequently, any such requirement that we conduct additional preclinical studies or clinical trials could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. Furthermore, even if we receive such approval, any risk mitigation programs such as a REMS, and any related restrictions, limitations and/or warnings contained in the label of our approved products could impact our commercial success in our target markets including with respect to future revenues generated by Ocaliva.

Delays or difficulties in the commencement, enrollment and completion of our clinical trials and studies could increase our product development costs and delay, limit or prevent us from obtaining regulatory approval for OCA and our other product candidates.

Delays or difficulties in the commencement, enrollment and completion of our clinical trials and studies could increase our product development costs and limit or prevent us from obtaining or maintaining regulatory approval for OCA and our other product candidates. We are currently conducting a number of clinical trials, including our Phase 4 COBALT clinical outcomes confirmatory trial of Ocaliva for PBC, our Phase 3 REGENERATE trial of OCA in patients with liver fibrosis due to NASH through clinical outcomes in order to confirm clinical benefit and our Phase 3 REVERSE trial of OCA for NASH patients with compensated cirrhosis. We are also conducting our CARE trial of OCA in pediatric patients with biliary atresia as a part of an EMA-approved PIP supporting the conditional approval of Ocaliva for PBC. The results from these clinical trials and our other clinical trials and studies may not be available when we anticipate and we may be required to conduct additional clinical trials or studies not currently planned in order for our product candidates, including OCA for PBC and NASH, to be approved or to maintain approvals in the U.S., Europe or the other jurisdictions in which our products are approved. In addition, our clinical programs are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties, such as the results of other trials, patient enrollment, safety issues or regulatory interactions that could result in a change of trial design or timing. For example, we recently paused enrollment in our Phase 4 COBALT confirmatory outcomes trial evaluating Ocaliva for PBC and in our Phase 4 clinical trial of Ocaliva in patients with PBC who have moderate to severe hepatic impairment (Child-Pugh B and C) known as the 401 trial pending the results of discussions with the FDA and the EMA regarding proposals with respect to such trials. Any delays or difficulties completing such trials as a result of the pause in enrollment could increase our product development costs and limit or prevent us from obtaining or maintaining regulatory approval. Consequently, we do not know whether our current or future clinical trials or studies of OCA or our other product candidates will be completed on schedule, if at all.

The commencement, enrollment and completion of our clinical trials and studies may be delayed, suspended or otherwise adversely affected for a variety of reasons, including:

46

Table of Contents

For example, our Phase 3 REGENERATE trial is a large and complicated clinical trial in a disease without any approved therapies and involves serial liver biopsies over many years. While we announced topline results from the 18-month analysis of our pivotal Phase 3 REGENERATE trial in February 2019, the study is currently planned to continue through clinical outcomes in order to confirm clinical benefit and there can be no assurance that we will retain a sufficient number of patients in the full study cohort or complete the clinical outcomes trial in accordance with the study protocol or on a timely basis, if at all. Similarly, our COBALT clinical outcomes confirmatory trial for PBC includes subjects across the spectrum of PBC disease, including early and advanced PBC. Enrolling and retaining patients in such trials is challenging and there can be no assurance that we will complete the clinical outcomes trial in accordance with the study protocol or on a timely basis, if at all. As we engage in other large and complicated trials and trials in advanced disease populations, we may experience a number of challenges that may negatively affect or delay our plans and development programs.

47

Table of Contents

We have in the past experienced difficulties enrolling and retaining patients enrolled in our clinical trials. Difficulties in enrolling and retaining patients, including due to COVID-19, may delay our clinical trials or result in negative or inconclusive outcomes, and we or our collaborators may decide, or regulatory authorities may require us, to conduct additional clinical trials or additional analyses of existing clinical trials. Any delay or compromises with respect to the validity of our clinical trials may have a material adverse effect on our business or decrease our competitive position relative to other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies with whom we compete.

In addition, if we or any of our collaborators are required to conduct additional preclinical or clinical studies or other development work on our product candidates beyond that contemplated, our ability to obtain regulatory approval of these product candidates and generate revenue from their sales would be similarly harmed.

COVID-19 could materially and adversely affect our clinical trials.

COVID-19 is a global pandemic, affecting the U.S., Europe, and other countries in which we are engaged in, or plan to engage in, clinical development activities. We continue to closely monitor the COVID-19 pandemic and, together with our contract research organizations, study sites and other partners, have taken measures intended to minimize disruptions and protect and retain patients enrolled in our clinical trials, including, where appropriate, the use of telemedicine, home care visits, direct delivery of investigational product and other measures. Notwithstanding our efforts, some of the sites participating in our clinical trials have been affected by site closings or reduced capacity, particularly in regions that are experiencing heightened impact from COVID-19. While we continue to monitor the situation closely, if there was a meaningful negative impact on the data capture or data quality of any of our clinical trials, such trials may not be successful or we could be required to repeat, extend the duration of, increase the size of, or otherwise modify such trials, which could prevent or significantly delay the potential commercialization of our product candidates and require greater expenditures. We cannot at this time predict with certainty the scope of the impact of COVID-19 on our ability to execute our clinical trials. The extent to which COVID-19 may impact our clinical trials will depend on future developments, which are highly uncertain, such as the continued geographic spread of the disease, the duration of the pandemic, public health restrictions on travel and in-person interactions, business closures and disruptions, and the effectiveness of actions taken to contain and treat the disease. As a result, our clinical trials may not be successful or we may experience issues due to COVID-19 that could severely impact our clinical trials, including:

48

Table of Contents

Any such delay, interruption or issue could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Failure can occur at any stage of clinical development. The results of earlier clinical trials are not necessarily predictive of future results and any product candidate we or our collaborators advance through clinical trials, including OCA, may not have favorable results in later clinical trials or receive or maintain regulatory approval.

Clinical failure can occur at any stage of clinical development. Clinical trials may produce negative or inconclusive results, and we or our collaborators may decide, or regulators may require us, to conduct additional clinical trials or preclinical studies. In addition, data obtained from trials and studies are susceptible to varying interpretations, and regulators may not interpret our data as favorably as we do, which may delay, limit or prevent regulatory approval. Success in preclinical studies and early clinical trials does not ensure that subsequent clinical trials will generate the same or similar results or otherwise provide adequate data to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of our product candidates. A number of companies in the pharmaceutical industry, including those with greater resources and experience than us, have suffered significant setbacks in Phase 3 clinical trials and at other stages of clinical development, even after seeing promising results in earlier clinical trials.

In addition, the design of clinical trials, including trial endpoints, protocols and statistical analysis plans, can determine whether such trials will support product approvals, and flaws in the design of such trials may not become apparent until such trials are well-advanced. We may be unable to design and execute clinical trials to support regulatory approval. Further, clinical trials of product candidates often reveal that it is not practical or feasible to continue development efforts. If OCA or our other product candidates are found to be unsafe or lack sufficient efficacy for any indication, we will not be able to obtain or maintain regulatory approval for them, and our prospects and business may be materially and adversely affected.

There may be significant variability in the safety and/or efficacy results we see in different trials studying OCA or our other product candidates due to numerous factors, including differences in the underlying disease being studied, changes or differences in trial protocols or statistical analysis plans, differences in the composition of the patient populations or clinical trial sites, differences in adherence to the dosing regimen and other aspects of the trial protocols and differences in the rate of dropouts among clinical trial participants. We do not know whether any Phase 2, Phase 3 or other clinical trials we or any of our collaborators may conduct on our product candidates will demonstrate consistent or adequate efficacy and safety or result in the approval of our product candidates by regulatory authorities. If we are unable to bring any of our current or future product candidates to market, acquire any previously approved products or maintain approval for our approved products, our ability to create long-term stockholder value will be limited.

Although Ocaliva for PBC has received accelerated approval in the United States and conditional approval in the European Union, its full approval depends on the timely completion and results of post-marketing clinical trials, including our Phase 4 COBALT trial. We cannot assure you that these trials will be timely completed or that the results of such trials

49

Table of Contents

will support the full approval of Ocaliva in the United States, European Union or our other target markets where Ocaliva has not received full approval.

In December 2014, we received comprehensive datasets from the Phase 2b FLINT trial for the treatment of NASH, which met its primary endpoint with statistical significance. In October 2015, we announced that the Phase 2 dose ranging trial of OCA in 200 adult NASH patients in Japan conducted by our former collaborator, Sumitomo Dainippon, did not meet its primary endpoint with statistical significance. In the Sumitomo Dainippon trial, there was a dose dependent, although not statistically significant, increase in the percentage of OCA-treated patients compared to placebo who achieved the primary endpoint (p = 0.053). In addition, no difference was seen in fibrosis improvement in the OCA groups compared to placebo. The Sumitomo Dainippon Phase 2 trial involved different doses of OCA being administered to the trial subjects than those utilized in the Phase 2b FLINT trial. Furthermore, the baseline characteristics between the patients in the Japanese Phase 2 dose ranging trial conducted by Sumitomo Dainippon were distinct in a number of ways from those of the Western patients included in the Phase 2b FLINT trial.

In February 2019, we announced topline results from the 18-month analysis of our pivotal Phase 3 REGENERATE trial in patients with liver fibrosis due to NASH. In the primary efficacy analysis, once-daily OCA 25 mg met, with statistical significance, the primary endpoint agreed with the FDA of fibrosis improvement by at least one stage with no worsening of NASH (defined as no worsening of hepatocellular ballooning, no worsening of lobular inflammation and no worsening of steatosis) at the planned 18-month analysis. Although a numerically greater proportion of patients in both OCA treatment groups compared to placebo achieved the primary endpoint of NASH resolution with no worsening of liver fibrosis in the primary efficacy analysis, this result did not reach statistical significance. As agreed with the FDA, in order for the primary objective to be met, the study was required to achieve one of the two primary endpoints. Notwithstanding the results of the REGENERATE 18-month analysis, the recent CRL issued by the FDA indicated that, based on the data the FDA had reviewed, the FDA had determined that the predicted benefit of OCA based on a surrogate histopathologic endpoint remains uncertain and does not sufficiently outweigh the potential risks to support accelerated approval for the treatment of patients with liver fibrosis due to NASH. The FDA recommended that we submit additional post-interim analysis efficacy and safety data from the ongoing REGENERATE study in support of potential accelerated approval and that the long-term outcomes phase of the study should continue. Although we are in discussions with the FDA with respect to the potential resubmission of our NDA seeking accelerated approval of OCA for the treatment of liver fibrosis due to NASH, there is no assurance that we will be successful or that OCA will be approved for liver fibrosis due to NASH on an accelerated basis, or at all. While OCA received breakthrough therapy designation from the FDA in January 2015 for the treatment of NASH patients with liver fibrosis and we filed a NDA in the United States and a MAA in Europe for approval of OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH based on the results from the 18-month analysis of our Phase 3 REGENERATE trial in patients with liver fibrosis due to NASH, we do not know if one pivotal clinical trial will be sufficient for marketing approval or if regulatory authorities in the United States, Europe or our other target markets will approve OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH on an accelerated or conditional basis, or at all. Additionally, interim analysis results at 18 months were based on surrogate endpoints and the impact on clinical outcomes has not been confirmed. Our Phase 3 REGENERATE trial remains ongoing through clinical outcomes for verification and description of clinical benefit of OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH.

Our product candidates may have undesirable side effects which may delay or prevent marketing approval, or, if approval is received, require that our products be taken off the market or include new or additional safety warnings. Any such events may limit our existing and future product sales and materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

​

OCA has been shown to be a potent FXR agonist. With the exception of the endogenous human bile acid chenodeoxycholic acid and cholic acid, there are no approved FXR agonists and the adverse effects from long-term exposure to this drug class are unknown. Unforeseen side effects from any of our product candidates, including OCA, could arise either during clinical development or, if approved, after the approved product has been marketed. Serious adverse events, including deaths, in patients taking OCA have occurred in clinical trials and in the post-marketing setting, and we cannot assure you that additional serious adverse events in patients taking OCA in clinical trials or in the post-marketing setting will not occur.

50

Table of Contents

The most common side effects observed in clinical trials of OCA for PBC were pruritus, fatigue, headaches, nausea, constipation and diarrhea. In our Phase 3 POISE trial, pruritus, generally mild to moderate, was the most frequently reported adverse event associated with OCA treatment for PBC and was observed in 38% of patients on placebo, 70% of patients in the OCA 10 mg group and 56% of patients in the OCA titration group (5 mg to 10 mg). Eight patients discontinued due to pruritus, of whom none were in the placebo group, seven (10%) were in the OCA 10 mg group and one (1%) was in the OCA titration group. Pruritus also has been observed in other clinical trials of OCA. Decreases in high density lipoprotein HDL cholesterol were also observed during treatment in our Phase 3 POISE trial. In our Phase 2 trials for OCA for PBC, a dose-response relationship was observed in the occurrence of liver-related adverse reactions, including jaundice, ascites and primary biliary cholangitis flare with dosages of OCA of 10 mg once daily to 50 mg once daily (up to 5-times the highest recommended dosage), as early as one month after starting treatment with OCA. The European label for Ocaliva also notes that elevations in alanine amino transferase and aspartate aminotransferase were observed in patients treated with OCA.

In the course of our post-marketing pharmacovigilance activities, deaths have been reported in PBC patients with moderate or severe hepatic impairment. In an analysis performed by us and in consultation with the FDA, we concluded that certain of these patients were prescribed once daily doses of Ocaliva, which is seven times higher than the recommended weekly dose in such patients. As a result, in September 2017, we issued a Dear Health Care Provider (“DHCP”) letter, and the FDA also subsequently issued its own drug safety communication to reinforce recommended label dosing. Both communications remind healthcare providers of the importance of the recommended reduced dosing of Ocaliva in PBC patients with moderate or severe hepatic impairment, while reiterating the importance of monitoring PBC patients for progression of their disease and the occurrence of liver-related adverse reactions. In addition to the DHCP letter, we took actions to enhance education about appropriate use of Ocaliva. These initiatives included: reeducating physicians on the label, with a focus on ensuring appropriate dosing for patients with moderate or severe hepatic impairment; enhancing monitoring of patients for liver-related adverse reactions; and adjudicating reported cases of serious liver injury, including in patients with no or mild hepatic impairment. In February 2018, we announced that the Ocaliva label in the United States had been updated by the FDA to include a boxed warning and a dosing table that reinforced the then-existing dosing schedule for patients with Child-Pugh Class B or C or decompensated cirrhosis. In addition, the FDA issued an updated drug safety communication to accompany the revised label. We remain focused on the safety of all of the patients using Ocaliva within and outside of our ongoing clinical studies and have engaged with relevant regulatory authorities to ensure that the Ocaliva label sufficiently reinforces the importance of appropriate dosing in patients with advanced cirrhosis.

The FDA has notified us that, in the course of its routine safety surveillance, in May 2020 the FDA began to evaluate a newly identified safety signal, or NISS, regarding liver disorder for Ocaliva which the FDA classified as a potential risk. The FDA has informed us that its review of the NISS is focused on a subset of the cirrhotic, or more advanced, PBC patients who have taken Ocaliva. As part of our routine pharmacovigilance efforts, we worked with the FDA to reconcile our internal safety database with the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System database and we completed a comprehensive assessment of all available data, including data from our completed clinical trials, blinded reviews of ongoing clinical trial data, unblinded reviews of certain ongoing clinical trial data by the DMC, post-marketing data and natural history data, which we submitted to the FDA and had a meeting earlier in 2021 to discuss. We are working with the FDA to align on changes to the Ocaliva label regarding patients with the most advanced stages of PBC. Based on our communications with the FDA, this update will come in the form of a safety labeling change. These communications are ongoing and any safety concerns associated with Ocaliva, perceived or real, may adversely affect the successful development and commercialization of our product candidates and approved products, including Ocaliva, and materially and adversely affect our business including future revenue generated by Ocaliva.

Ocaliva is contraindicated for PBC patients with complete biliary obstruction in the United States and the European Union. For PBC patients with HDL reductions and no response to Ocaliva after one year at the maximum tolerated dose, the U.S. label asks prescribing physicians to weigh the risks against the benefits of continuing treatment.

In the 18-month analysis of our pivotal Phase 3 REGENERATE trial in patients with liver fibrosis due to NASH, the safety population included 1,968 randomized patients who received at least one dose of investigational product (OCA or placebo) with exposures up to 37 months. Adverse events were generally mild to moderate in severity and the most common were consistent with the known profile of OCA. The frequency of serious adverse events was similar across

51

Table of Contents

treatment groups (11% in placebo, 11% in OCA 10 mg and 14% in OCA 25 mg), and no serious adverse event occurred in > 1% of patients in any treatment group. There were 3 deaths in the study (2 in placebo: bone cancer and cardiac arrest and 1 in OCA 25 mg: glioblastoma) and none were considered related to treatment. The most common adverse event reported was dose-related pruritus (19% in placebo, 28% in OCA 10 mg and 51% in OCA 25 mg). The incidence of pruritus across all three treatment groups was highest in the first three months and decreased thereafter. The large majority of pruritus events were mild to moderate, with severe pruritus occurring in a small number of patients (< 1% in placebo, < 1% in OCA 10 mg and 5% in OCA 25 mg). A higher incidence of pruritus-associated treatment discontinuation was observed for OCA 25 mg (< 1% in placebo, < 1% in OCA 10 mg and 9% in OCA 25 mg). According to the clinical study protocol, investigator assessed severe pruritus mandated treatment discontinuation. Consistent with observations from previous NASH studies, OCA treatment was associated with an increase in low density lipoprotein (“LDL”) cholesterol, with a peak increase of 22.6 mg/dL at 4 weeks and subsequently reversing and approaching baseline at month 18 (4.0 mg/dL increase from baseline). Triglycerides rapidly and continually decreased in the OCA treatment groups through month 18. There were few and varied serious cardiovascular events and incidence was balanced across the three treatment groups (2% in placebo, 1% in OCA 10 mg and 2% in OCA 25 mg). In patients with type 2 diabetes, OCA treatment was associated with an early transient increase in fasting glucose and hemoglobin A1c with return to levels similar to placebo by month 6. No clinically meaningful changes were noted in non-diabetic patients.

With respect to hepatobiliary events, more patients (3%) on OCA 25 mg experienced gallstones or cholecystitis compared to < 1% on placebo and 1% on OCA 10 mg. While hepatic serious adverse events were rare (< 1% incidence in each of the three treatment groups), more occurred in the OCA 25 mg group with no pattern attributable to OCA.

In the Phase 2b FLINT trial, pruritus occurred more frequently in the OCA treatment group than in the placebo treatment group (23% vs. 6%, p < 0.0001) and at a higher grade (predominately moderate pruritus). OCA treatment was also associated with changes in serum lipid levels, including increases in total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol and a decrease in HDL cholesterol, that were observed within 12 weeks of initiating treatment, peaked and then decreased in magnitude while on treatment, and reversed further during the 24-week post-treatment period. These changes in cholesterol levels, along with the achievement of pre-defined efficacy criteria, played a role in the decision of the FLINT data and safety monitoring board to terminate the treatment phase of the Phase 2b FLINT trial, and the publication of the FLINT results noted the need for further study of these changes. There were two patient deaths in the Phase 2b FLINT trial, and neither death was considered related to OCA treatment.

Furthermore, the Phase 2 dose ranging trial of OCA in 200 adult NASH patients in Japan conducted by our former collaborator, Sumitomo Dainippon, did not meet statistical significance for the primary endpoint. The primary endpoint in the Sumitomo Dainippon trial was histologic improvement defined as at least a two-point improvement in the nonalcoholic fatty liver disease activity score with no worsening of fibrosis. In this trial, there was a dose dependent, although not statistically significant, increase in the percentage of OCA-treated patients compared to placebo who achieved the primary endpoint (p = 0.053). In addition, no difference was seen in fibrosis improvement in the OCA groups compared to placebo.

In December 2015, we initiated a Phase 2 clinical trial, known as the CONTROL trial, to characterize the lipid metabolic effects of OCA and cholesterol management effects of concomitant statin administration in NASH patients. CONTROL enrolled 80 NASH patients who were naïve to statin therapy or had undergone a statin washout period. The study included a 16-week double-blind phase followed by an optional long-term safety extension (“LTSE”) phase of the trial. OCA treatment in the absence of statin therapy over the first four weeks resulted in an increase in LDL across all OCA treatment groups, while the placebo group was relatively unchanged. Treatment with atorvastatin beginning at week four and continuing through week 16 reversed OCA-related increases in LDL to below baseline levels in all OCA treatment groups. Dose-dependent pruritus was the most common adverse event in patients treated with OCA, occurring in 5% of patients on placebo, 5% of patients in the OCA 5 mg group, 10% of patients in the OCA 10 mg group and 55% of patients in the OCA 25 mg group. All adverse events were mild to moderate and two patients discontinued treatment in the OCA 25 mg group due to pruritus. Over 95% of the patients completing the double-blind phase of CONTROL enrolled in the LTSE phase of the trial.

During the LTSE phase of CONTROL, there was one patient death. This patient was a 64 year-old male with a history of NASH associated liver cirrhosis, morbid obesity (BMI >40) and type 2 diabetes. At baseline, this patient had blood tests consistent with impaired liver function (e.g., low LDL and low platelets). The patient was randomized to placebo for the

52

Table of Contents

double-blind phase of the study. Early in the double-blind phase, the patient had serum biochemistry changes consistent with worsening hepatic impairment (e.g., albumin decline and bilirubin was increasing). Atorvastatin was started per protocol and then stopped early due to the patient’s persistently low LDL levels. The patient later enrolled in the LTSE phase and began receiving OCA 25 mg treatment. Over the following four months, the patient’s serum biochemistry remained consistent with ongoing hepatic impairment. Approximately five months after starting the LTSE phase, the patient developed severe protracted diarrhea, which resulted in weight loss of 30 pounds over the ensuing one-month period. Both an infectious cause and possible inflammatory bowel disease were suspected, and the patient subsequently was started on broad spectrum antibiotics and steroid therapy. Due to the diarrhea, the principal investigator stopped treatment with OCA and discontinued the patient from the study. Concurrently, the patient reported jaundice and was found to have significantly elevated serum bilirubin and ALP, while other liver enzymes remained relatively stable. Over the ensuing two-week period, various diagnostic tests and procedures were performed (e.g., magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography to investigate possible gallstone bile duct obstruction) and the patient continued receiving a number of other medications, including the ongoing course of steroid therapy. During this time, the patient continued to deteriorate and was hospitalized with acute renal and liver failure, complicated by severe metabolic acidosis. The patient rapidly progressed to multi-organ system failure, sepsis and death. The principal investigator determined that the events leading to the patient’s death were unlikely related to OCA. Despite the numerous confounding factors in this case, given the contemporaneous administration of OCA during the patient’s ongoing deterioration, we determined that it could not be ruled out that these events were possibly related to treatment. Subsequent to our determination, the independent data safety monitoring committee separately evaluated the case and determined that the events leading to the patient’s death were unlikely related to OCA.

Additional or unforeseen side effects relating to OCA or any of our other product candidates could arise either during clinical development or, if approved, after the approved product has been marketed. With the approval of Ocaliva for PBC in the United States, Europe and certain of our other target markets, OCA is currently used in an environment that is less rigorously controlled than in clinical studies. If new side effects are found, if known side effects are shown to be more severe than previously observed or if OCA is shown to have other unexpected characteristics, we may need to abandon our development of OCA for PBC, NASH and other potential indications. Furthermore, our commercial sales of Ocaliva for PBC may be materially and adversely affected.

The range and potential severity of possible side effects from systemic therapies is significant. The results of our current or future clinical trials may show that our product candidates, including OCA, cause undesirable or unacceptable side effects, which could interrupt, delay or halt clinical trials, result in a delay of, or failure to obtain, marketing approval from the FDA and other regulatory authorities, result in marketing approval from the FDA and other regulatory authorities with restrictive label warnings or result in the withdrawal of previously granted marketing approvals.

In addition, our product candidates are being developed as potential treatments for severe, life threatening diseases and, as a result, our trials will necessarily be conducted in patient populations that are more prone than the general population to exhibit certain disease states or adverse events. For example, our Phase 3 REVERSE trial in NASH patients with compensated cirrhosis has expanded our NASH development program into a more advanced NASH patient population and accordingly imposes certain eligibility requirements for uptitration, as well as certain monitoring requirements thereafter. Ocaliva is prescribed in patients suffering from various stages of PBC, which can be life threatening, and patients may suffer from other concomitant illnesses that may increase the likelihood of certain adverse events. It may be difficult to discern whether certain events or symptoms observed during our clinical trials or by patients using our approved products are related to our product candidates or approved products or some other factor. As a result, we and our development programs may be negatively affected even if such events or symptoms are ultimately determined to be unlikely related to our product candidates or approved products. We cannot assure you that additional or more severe adverse side effects related to OCA or our other product candidates will not be observed in our clinical trials or in the commercial setting. If observed, such adverse side effects could delay or preclude regulatory approval of OCA, limit commercial use or result in the withdrawal of previously granted marketing approvals.

If we or others identify undesirable or unacceptable side effects caused by our product candidates or products:

53

Table of Contents

Breakthrough therapy designation for OCA may not lead to faster development or regulatory processes or increase the likelihood that the FDA will approve OCA for the treatment of NASH patients with fibrosis.

If a drug is intended for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development, the FDA may grant a breakthrough therapy designation. Breakthrough therapy designation is intended to facilitate the development, and expedite the review, of such drugs, but the breakthrough therapy designation does not assure marketing approval by the FDA.

In January 2015, we received breakthrough therapy designation for OCA for the treatment of NASH patients with liver fibrosis. However, there is no guarantee that the receipt of breakthrough therapy designation will result in a faster development process, review or approval of OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH or increase the likelihood that OCA will be granted marketing approval for NASH patients with liver fibrosis. Notwithstanding our receipt of breakthrough therapy designation, in June 2020 we received a CRL from the FDA with respect to our NDA for OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH. Although we are in discussions with the FDA with respect to the potential resubmission of our NDA seeking accelerated approval of OCA for the treatment of liver fibrosis due to NASH, there is no assurance that the outcome of these discussions will lead to resolution of the issues identified in the CRL or that if we resubmit our NDA that it will be approved. Similarly, any future breakthrough therapy designation relating to any other potential indication of OCA or our other product candidates will neither guarantee a faster development process, review or approval nor improve the likelihood of the grant of marketing approval by the FDA compared to conventional FDA procedures. In addition, the FDA may withdraw any breakthrough therapy designation at any time. While we may seek breakthrough therapy designation for one or more of our product candidates in the future, we can give no assurance that the FDA will grant such status.

We may not be able to obtain or, if approved, maintain orphan drug exclusivity for our approved products or product candidates, which could cause our revenues to suffer.

Regulatory authorities in some jurisdictions, including the United States and Europe, may designate drugs and biologics for relatively small patient populations as orphan drugs. Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may designate a product as an orphan drug if it is a drug or biologic intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally defined as a patient population of fewer than 200,000 individuals annually in the United States. OCA has received orphan drug designation in the United States and the European Union for the treatment of PBC and PSC.

54

Table of Contents

Generally, if a product with an orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first marketing approval for the indication for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to a period of marketing exclusivity, which precludes the FDA or the EMA from approving another marketing application for the same product during the exclusivity period. The applicable exclusivity period is seven years in the United States and ten years in Europe. 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 a sufficient quantity of the product to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition. In addition, the European exclusivity period can be reduced to six years if, at the end of the fifth year, it is established that the product no longer meets the criteria for orphan drug designation because, for example, the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify maintenance of market exclusivity.

Any failure to maintain orphan drug status may subject us to mandatory price discounts in Europe and result in the loss of other benefits, such as tax exemptions for sales. As such, the loss of orphan drug status may have a negative effect on our ability to successfully commercialize our products, earn revenues and achieve profitability.

Even if we obtain orphan drug exclusivity for a product, that exclusivity may not effectively protect the product from competition because different products can be approved for the same condition. Even after an orphan drug is approved, the FDA or EMA may subsequently approve another product for the same condition if the FDA or EMA concludes that the later product is clinically superior (i.e., it is shown to be safer, more effective or makes a major contribution to patient care). Any inability to secure or maintain orphan drug status or the exclusivity benefits of this status could have a material adverse impact on our ability to develop and commercialize our product candidates and approved products.

We rely entirely on third parties for the manufacture of our product requirements for our preclinical studies and clinical trials, as well as our commercial supply of Ocaliva and, if approved, OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH and our other product candidates, and also depend on third-party vendors and CROs for certain of our clinical trial and product development activities. Our business could be harmed if our third-party manufacturers fail to provide us with sufficient quantities of drug product, or fail to do so at acceptable quality levels or prices, or if our third-party vendors or CROs assisting us with our clinical trials and product development activities fail to comply with their contractual commitments or applicable regulatory obligations or if we lose our relationships with our third-party vendors and CROs.

We do not manufacture the pharmaceutical products that we sell or the product candidates that we are developing. We rely on third-party contract manufacturers for all of our required raw materials, active pharmaceutical ingredient and finished product for our commercial sales and for our existing and anticipated clinical trials and preclinical studies. Any inability by our contract manufacturers to continue to provide services to us for any reason, including due to COVID-19 and related government-imposed shelter-in-place mandates, restrictions on travel and in-person interactions, business closures and disruptions and other public health safety measures, could disrupt the supply chain for our pharmaceutical products and product candidates and materially and adversely affect our commercialization efforts and clinical development program, and we may be unable to identify, qualify and engage replacement suppliers on terms that are favorable to us on a timely basis, if at all. The extent to which COVID-19 impacts the operations of our third-party contract manufactures will depend on future developments, which are highly uncertain and cannot be predicted with confidence, including the geographic spread of the disease, the duration of the outbreak, public health safety measures and the effectiveness of the actions taken to contain and treat the disease.

We rely on PharmaZell GmbH and other suppliers for the manufacture and commercial supply of API for use in Ocaliva and, if approved, OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH. We are currently dependent upon a limited number of suppliers, with whom we have contractual arrangements, although we are working on developing further sources of supply. While we have procured supplies of API for the commercialization of Ocaliva for PBC and, if approved, OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH that we believe will be sufficient to meet our requirements during the initial stages of a potential NASH launch, we may not be able to procure sufficient supplies of API on an ongoing basis. If these suppliers are unable to provide adequate supply, we may not be able to meet our long-term commercial supply requirements of API for the manufacture of Ocaliva or, if approved, OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH or other indications on acceptable terms, or at all. We do not have agreements for long-term supplies of any of our product candidates other than OCA. We currently obtain supplies and services relating to our other product candidates from our third-party contract manufacturers on a purchase order basis.

55

Table of Contents

The facilities used by any contract manufacturer to manufacture OCA or any of our other product candidates are subject to inspection by the FDA and regulators in other jurisdictions. We are completely dependent on these third-party manufacturers for compliance with the requirements of U.S. and non-U.S. regulators for the manufacture of our finished products, including Ocaliva. If our manufacturers are unable to meet our requirements in accordance with our product specifications and applicable current Good Manufacturing Practices (“cGMP”) requirements, our products or product candidates will not be approved or, if already approved, may be subject to recall. In addition, if COVID-19 or related public health safety measures prevent the FDA, EMA or other relevant regulators from conducting manufacturing inspections or other regulatory activities with respect to manufacturing, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA, EMA or such other regulators to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material and adverse effect on our business and financial condition.

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

Any of these factors could disrupt the supply of our product candidates or approved products, cause us to incur higher costs, delay the approval of our product candidates or prevent or disrupt the commercialization of our approved products. Furthermore, if any of our product candidates, including OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH, are approved and our contract manufacturers fail to deliver the required commercial quantities of API or finished product on a timely basis and at commercially reasonable prices and we are unable to find one or more replacement manufacturers capable of production at a substantially equivalent cost, in substantially equivalent volumes and quality and on a timely basis, we would likely be unable to meet demand for such product candidate following its approval and could lose potential revenue. It may take several years to establish an alternative long-term source of supply and to have any such new source approved by the regulatory authorities that regulate our products in the United States, Europe and our other target markets.

We depend on third-party vendors and CROs for certain of our clinical trial and product development activities. If any of these providers fail to comply with their contractual commitments or applicable regulatory obligations, including due to COVID-19 and related government-imposed shelter-in-place mandates, restrictions on travel and in-person interactions, business closures and disruptions and other public health safety measures, our business could be materially and adversely affected. In addition, if we are unable to maintain our relationship with any one or more of these providers, we could experience a significant delay in both identifying another comparable provider and then contracting for its services, which could materially and adversely affect our clinical trial and product development efforts. We may be unable to retain an alternative provider on reasonable terms, or at all. Even if we locate an alternative provider, it is likely that such a provider will need additional time to respond to our needs and may not provide the same type or level of services as the original provider. Any third-party vendors and CROs that we retain are subject to the FDA’s regulatory requirements and similar foreign standards and we do not have control over compliance with these regulations by these providers. The FDA, EMA and other relevant regulatory authorities enforce these regulations through periodic inspections of trial sponsors, principal investigators and trial sites. If these regulations are not adhered to by these providers, or if such providers fail to timely correct any non-compliance or if COVID-19 or related public health safety measures prevent the FDA, EMA or other relevant regulatory authorities from conducting inspections or other regulatory activities, the commercialization and development of our product candidates or approved products could be delayed, which could materially and adversely harm our business and financial condition.

56

Table of Contents

Even though we have received conditional approval of Ocaliva for PBC, we and our contract manufacturers are still subject to strict, ongoing regulatory requirements.

​

Even though we have received conditional approval of Ocaliva for the treatment of PBC in combination with UDCA in adults with an inadequate response to UDCA or as monotherapy in adults unable to tolerate UDCA, we and our contract manufacturers are subject to ongoing regulatory requirements relating to, among other things, Ocaliva’s manufacturing, packaging, labeling and storage. In addition, we and our contract manufacturers and our contract manufacturers’ facilities are required to comply with extensive FDA and EMA requirements and the requirements of other similar regulatory authorities, including requirements that quality control and manufacturing procedures conform to current cGMPs. As such, we and our contract manufacturers are subject to periodic cGMP inspections and other inspections and audits required by law or industry standard and must continue to expend time, money and effort to ensure compliance with applicable manufacturing, production and quality control requirements. We are also required to report certain adverse reactions and production problems, if any, to the FDA, EMA and other similar regulatory authorities and to comply with certain requirements concerning advertising and promotion for our products. Promotional communications with respect to prescription drugs are subject to a variety of legal and regulatory restrictions and generally must be consistent with the information in the product’s approved label.

If a regulatory authority such as the FDA identifies previously unknown problems with one of our products, such as adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency or problems with the facility where the product is manufactured, or disagrees with the promotion, marketing or labeling of one of our products, it may impose restrictions on that product or us, including requiring withdrawal of the product from the market. In addition, if we or our contract manufacturers, other third-party vendors or collaborators fail to comply with applicable regulatory requirements, a regulatory agency may, among other things:

57

Table of Contents

Risks Related to the Commercialization of Our Products

​

Sales of Ocaliva may be adversely affected by safety and labeling changes required by the FDA.

In the course of our post-marketing pharmacovigilance activities, deaths have been reported in PBC patients with moderate or severe hepatic impairment. In an analysis performed by us and in consultation with the FDA, we concluded that certain of these patients were prescribed once daily doses of Ocaliva, which is seven times higher than the recommended weekly dose in such patients. As a result, in September 2017, we issued a DHCP letter and the FDA also subsequently issued its own drug safety communication to reinforce recommended label dosing. Both communications remind healthcare providers of the importance of the recommended reduced dosing of Ocaliva in PBC patients with moderate or severe hepatic impairment, while reiterating the importance of monitoring PBC patients for progression of their disease and the occurrence of liver-related adverse reactions. In February 2018, we announced that the Ocaliva label in the United States had been updated by the FDA to include a boxed warning and a dosing table that reinforced the then-existing dosing schedule for patients with Child-Pugh Class B or C or decompensated cirrhosis. In addition, the FDA issued an updated drug safety communication to accompany the revised label. We remain focused on the safety of all of the patients using Ocaliva within and outside of our ongoing clinical studies and have engaged with relevant regulatory authorities to ensure that the Ocaliva label sufficiently reinforces the importance of appropriate dosing in patients with advanced cirrhosis.

The FDA has notified us that, in the course of its routine safety surveillance, in May 2020 the FDA began to evaluate a newly identified safety signal, or NISS, regarding liver disorder for Ocaliva which the FDA classified as a potential risk. The FDA has informed us that its review of the NISS is focused on a subset of the cirrhotic, or more advanced, PBC patients who have taken Ocaliva. As part of our routine pharmacovigilance efforts, we worked with the FDA to reconcile our internal safety database with the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System database and completed a comprehensive assessment of all available data, including data from our completed clinical trials, blinded reviews of ongoing clinical trial data, unblinded reviews of certain ongoing clinical trial data by the DMC, post-marketing data and natural history data, which we submitted to the FDA and had a meeting earlier in 2021 to discuss. We are working with the FDA to align on changes to the Ocaliva label regarding patients with the most advanced stages of PBC. Based on our communications with the FDA, this update will come in the form of a safety labeling change. These communications are ongoing and any safety concerns associated with Ocaliva, perceived or real, may adversely affect the successful development and commercialization of our product candidates and approved products, including Ocaliva, and materially and adversely affect our business including future revenue generated by Ocaliva.

We are subject to uncertainty relating to pricing and reimbursement. Failure to obtain or maintain adequate coverage, pricing and reimbursement for Ocaliva for PBC, OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH, if approved, or our other future approved products, if any, could have a material adverse impact on our ability to commercialize such products.

​

The availability and extent of coverage and reimbursement from governmental and private healthcare payors for our products, including Ocaliva for PBC and, if approved, OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH, and our ability to obtain adequate pricing for such products are key factors that will affect our future commercial prospects. Government authorities and third-party payors, such as private health insurers and health maintenance organizations, decide which drugs they will cover and establish payment levels. Sales of our products depend and will depend substantially, both domestically and internationally, on the extent to which their cost will be paid by health maintenance, managed care, pharmacy benefit and similar healthcare management organizations or reimbursed by government health administration authorities, private health coverage insurers and other third-party payors. Accordingly, the coverage and reimbursement decisions of such governmental and private healthcare payors could reduce the demand for, or the price paid for, our products. If these payors do not consider our products to be cost-effective alone, or relative to other approved therapies, they may not cover our products or, if they do, they may apply utilization management restrictions, high patient cost-sharing obligations, or restrict the level of reimbursement.

Third-party payors are increasingly challenging the prices charged for pharmaceuticals products, and many also limit reimbursement for newly-approved products and indications. Third-party payors often attempt to contain healthcare costs by demanding price discounts or rebates and limiting both the types and variety of drugs that they will cover and the amounts that they will pay for drugs. As a result, they may not provide adequate payment for our products. Similarly, the

58

Table of Contents

containment of healthcare costs has become a priority for federal and state governments and the pricing of pharmaceutical products has been a focus in this effort. The U.S. government, state legislatures and foreign governments have shown significant interest in implementing cost-containment programs, including price controls, restrictions on reimbursement, requirements for substitution of generic products and requirements to demonstrate a specific degree of improvement in terms of medical benefit compared to existing therapies. Adoption of price controls and cost-containment measures, and adoption of more restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could adversely affect our ability to successfully commercialize our products. In addition, we may be required to conduct post-marketing studies in order to demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of our products to payors’ satisfaction. Such studies might require us to commit a significant amount of management’s time and our financial and other resources and our products might not ultimately be considered cost-effective.

We do not know if Ocaliva for PBC will obtain and maintain broad acceptance from third-party payors in the jurisdictions in which it is, or may in the future be, approved. In addition, even if OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH is approved, we do not know if it will obtain and maintain broad acceptance from third-party payors. The coverage determination process is a time-consuming and costly process that requires us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of Ocaliva for PBC and, if approved, OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH to each payor separately, with no assurance that coverage will be obtained or maintained. The market for a drug depends significantly on access to third-party payors’ drug formularies, or lists of medications for which third-party payors provide coverage and reimbursement. Third-party payors may refuse to include a particular drug in their formularies or restrict patient access to a branded drug when a less costly generic equivalent or other alternative is available, even if not approved for the indication for which the branded drug is approved. Due to there being no uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement in the United States among commercial payors, coverage and reimbursement for pharmaceutical products may differ significantly from payor to payor. If we are unable to obtain and maintain adequate coverage from third-party payors, the adoption of Ocaliva for PBC and, if approved, OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH by physicians and patients may be limited. This in turn could affect our ability to successfully commercialize Ocaliva for PBC and, if approved, OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH and have a material adverse impact our profitability, results of operations, financial condition and future success.

We cannot be certain that we will be able to obtain and maintain adequate coverage, pricing and reimbursement for our products, including Ocaliva for PBC, OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH, if approved, or our other future approved products, if any. If coverage or reimbursement is not available or is available on a limited basis, or if we are unable to obtain and maintain adequate pricing, we may not be able to successfully commercialize Ocaliva for PBC, OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH, if approved, or our other future approved products, if any.

Legislative and regulatory healthcare reform may adversely affect our business.

​

In the United States, the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (the “MMA”) changed the way Medicare covers and pays for pharmaceutical products. The legislation established Medicare Part D, which expanded Medicare coverage for outpatient prescription drug purchases by the elderly but provided authority for limiting the number of drugs that will be covered in any therapeutic class. The MMA also introduced a new reimbursement methodology based on average sales prices for physician-administered drugs. Any negotiated prices for our products covered by a Part D prescription drug plan will likely be lower than the prices we might otherwise obtain. Moreover, while the MMA applies only to drug benefits for Medicare beneficiaries, private payors often follow Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own payment rates. Any reduction in payment that results from the MMA may result in a similar reduction in payments from non-governmental payors.

​

In March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act (collectively, the “ACA”), became law in the United States. Among other things, the purpose of the ACA was to reduce the cost of healthcare and substantially change the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers. The ACA requires discounts under the Medicare drug benefit program and increased the rebates paid by pharmaceutical companies on drugs covered by Medicaid. The ACA also imposes an annual fee, which increases each year, on sales by branded pharmaceutical manufacturers. Since its enactment, there have been a number of judicial, executive and legislative challenges to the ACA, including tax legislation that removed the financial penalties for people who do not carry health insurance and an Executive Order signed in October 2017 by former President Trump directing federal agencies to modify how the ACA is implemented. There is still uncertainty over whether the ACA will

59

Table of Contents

undergo additional revisions, and we cannot predict the impact of any future modifications. Further, in December 2018, a federal district court in Texas ruled that the entire ACA was unconstitutional because it could not be considered an exercise of Congressional taxing authority following the repeal of the individual mandate penalties. In December 2019, a federal court of appeals upheld the district court's decision that the ACA individual mandate was unconstitutional absent financial penalties, but remanded the case back to the district court to determine whether the remaining provisions of the ACA were nonetheless valid. However, in March 2020, before the district court could rule on the ACA’s remaining provisions, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the case and oral arguments were held in November 2020. A decision is expected sometime before June 2021. We cannot predict the outcome of this, or any other, litigation regarding the ACA or the impact it may have on our business.

Reimbursement in the European Union and many other territories must be negotiated on a country-by-country basis and in many countries a product cannot be commercially launched until reimbursement is approved. The timing to complete the negotiation process in each country is highly uncertain. Even after a price is negotiated, countries frequently request or require adjustments to the price and other concessions over time or require approvals regionally. Reimbursement agencies in Europe are often more conservative than those in the United States and the reimbursement process is often slower since reimbursement decisions are made on a country-by-country basis and may involve multiple government agencies in a given country. Prices for drugs in Europe are generally lower than in the United States and tend to decrease over time.

The United States and several other jurisdictions are considering, or have already enacted, a number of legislative and regulatory proposals to change their healthcare systems in ways that could affect our ability to sell our products profitably. Among policy makers and payors in the United States and elsewhere, there is significant interest in promoting changes in healthcare systems with the stated goals of containing healthcare costs, improving quality and/or expanding access to healthcare. In the United States, the pharmaceutical industry has been a particular focus of these efforts and has been significantly affected by major legislative initiatives. We expect to experience pricing pressures in connection with the sale of Ocaliva and our other future approved products, if any, due to the trend toward managed healthcare, the increasing influence of health maintenance organizations and additional legislative proposals. Pricing pressures recently experienced by the pharmaceutical industry may be further exacerbated by legislative and policy changes proposed or considered by the executive branch and the United States Congress. For example, in June 2020, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services released a proposed rule in a bid to update and expand key regulations governing the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program. If finalized as written, these changes will impact manufacturers’ commercial strategies, government payor program liabilities, lifecycle management plans, patient assistance regimes, and other important considerations. In November 2020, the Department of Health and Human Services finalized a rule that eliminates the safe harbor shielding Medicare Part D rebates from the Anti-Kickback Statute and a rule that will tie certain Medicare Part B drug prices to those paid by other countries. The rule is currently being challenged in litigation and we cannot predict the outcome of this, or any other, litigation or the impact it may have on our business. Further, it is not known if the rule will be withdrawn by the new President Biden administration. There have also been recent state legislative efforts to address drug costs, which have generally focused on increasing transparency around drug costs or limiting drug prices. In addition, it is possible that additional governmental action is taken to address pricing concerns arising in connection with COVID-19. We cannot predict the success or impact of any such current or future federal or state legislative efforts.

Ocaliva and our other future approved products, if any, may not achieve broad market acceptance among physicians, patients and healthcare payors, and revenues generated from their sales may be limited as a result.

The commercial success of Ocaliva for PBC, OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH, if approved, and our other future approved products, if any, will depend upon their acceptance among the medical community, including third-party payors, healthcare providers and professionals and customers, including patients and patient advocacy groups. In order for Ocaliva to be commercially successful for PBC, we need to demonstrate its utility as a cost-effective treatment for PBC patients who have an inadequate response to UDCA or who are unable to tolerate UDCA. Ocaliva also must be shown to be a safe and tolerable treatment in a commercial use setting as it is intended to be a lifetime therapy for patients eligible for treatment. We cannot be certain that Ocaliva for PBC, OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH, if approved, or our other future approved products, if any, will achieve an adequate level of acceptance among the medical community, including physicians, healthcare payors and patients.

60

Table of Contents

In addition, we are closely evaluating the impact of COVID-19 on our ability to effectively market, sell and distribute Ocaliva for PBC. Our field-based employees are generally working remotely and are interacting with healthcare professionals via digital communication technologies such as, where appropriate, video conferences, emails and phone calls. Many of the healthcare professionals that we call on are working from home and facing additional demands on their time due to COVID-19. We are experiencing increased competition for virtual appointments with healthcare professionals, which may result in the cancellation of diagnostic, elective, specialty and other procedures and appointments to avoid non-essential patient exposure to medical environments and potential infection with COVID-19 and to focus limited resources and personnel capacity toward the treatment of COVID-19. Our increased utilization of virtual interactions and the reduced quantity of such interactions during the COVID-19 pandemic, may reduce the effectiveness of our sales personnel and negatively affect physician awareness and sales of Ocaliva. In the fourth quarter of 2020, we continued to see a lower level of prescriptions for new patients than we did prior to the outbreak of COVID-19. Although new patient starts currently account for only a small percentage of total Ocaliva prescriptions, our future sales of Ocaliva could be negatively impacted if prescriptions for new patients do not return to levels seen prior to the outbreak of COVID-19. It is also possible that COVID-19 may negatively affect our product sales in the future due to patient challenges in accessing healthcare providers, significant increases in unemployment and the resulting loss of individual health insurance coverage, and an inability to access government healthcare programs due to backlogs or other factors. As public health restrictions on travel and in-person interactions are modified or relaxed, we may continue to face challenges that limit our ability to fully resume in-person interactions, including the potential for additional outbreaks, limited access to personal protective equipment, the need to navigate varying restrictions for entering healthcare facilities and employee illness and childcare obligations during school closures. We also expect that the conversion of medical conferences to a virtual format may reduce our ability to appropriately disseminate scientific information and conduct disease state education. The long-term effects of COVID-19 are unknown and it is possible that following the pandemic, healthcare institutions could alter their policies with respect to in-person visits by pharmaceutical company representatives.

The degree of market acceptance of our approved products depends on a number of factors, including:

61

Table of Contents

In addition, the potential market opportunity for Ocaliva for PBC, OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH, if approved, and our other future approved products, if any, is difficult to precisely estimate. For example, our estimates of the potential market opportunity for Ocaliva for PBC include a number of key assumptions related to prevalence rates, patients’ access to healthcare, diagnosis rates and patients’ response to or tolerance of Ocaliva, which are based on available literature and epidemiology research in PBC, our industry knowledge gained through market research and other methods, industry publications, third-party research reports and other surveys. While we believe that our internal assumptions are reasonable, no independent source has verified such assumptions. If any of these assumptions prove to be inaccurate, then the actual market for Ocaliva for PBC could be smaller than our estimates of our potential market opportunity. If the actual market opportunity for Ocaliva for PBC, OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH, if approved, or our other future approved products, if any, is smaller than we expect, our product revenue may be limited and our financial condition and results of operations may be materially and adversely affected.

If Ocaliva for PBC, OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH, if approved, or our other future approved products, if any, do not achieve an adequate level of acceptance among the medical community, including physicians, healthcare payors and patients, sufficient revenue may not be generated from these products and we may not become or remain profitable. In addition, our efforts to educate the medical community and third-party payors on the benefits of Ocaliva for PBC, OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH, if approved, and our other future approved products, if any, may require significant resources and may never be successful.

We have limited sales, marketing and distribution experience and we will need to continue to invest in significant additional resources to develop those capabilities or enter into acceptable third-party sales and marketing arrangements.

We have limited sales, marketing and distribution experience as a commercial organization. Ocaliva is our first approved product and the commercial launch of Ocaliva for PBC was our first product launch. We are commercializing Ocaliva for PBC using a combination of our internal commercial organization and third-party distributors, depending on the jurisdiction. We are developing our commercialization strategy for OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH, if approved, and have not yet decided on our commercialization strategy for OCA for other indications or for our other product candidates, in each case, if approved. To develop internal sales, distribution and marketing capabilities, we have invested, and expect to continue to invest, significant amounts of financial and management resources.

Recruiting and training a commercial organization is expensive, time-consuming and could delay any product launch. We can provide no assurance that we will correctly forecast the needs for growth of our commercial organization given our reliance on approvals from regulatory authorities for our product candidates. If the commercial launch of a product for which we recruit a sales force and establish marketing and distribution 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 could be lost if we cannot retain or reposition our sales and marketing personnel. For example, we expanded our commercial organization in anticipation of a potential U.S. commercial launch of OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH. However, in June 2020, we received a CRL from the FDA with respect to our NDA for OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH. Although we are in discussions with the FDA with respect to the potential resubmission of our NDA seeking accelerated approval of OCA for the treatment of liver fibrosis due to NASH, there is no assurance that we will be successful or that OCA will be approved for liver fibrosis due to NASH on an accelerated basis, or at all. Accordingly, our

62

Table of Contents

previously anticipated U.S. commercial launch of OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH has been postponed, we do not expect to generate revenues for this indication until it has been approved, and we may incur significantly greater costs than previously anticipated in connection with the development of OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH. In August 2020, we adopted the 2020 Workforce Plan to reduce our workforce in light of the receipt of the CRL from the FDA. The 2020 Workforce Plan sought to streamline our operations and reduce operating expenses, while maintaining the critical resources needed to continue to support the NASH and PBC clinical programs, pursue the approval of OCA for the treatment of liver fibrosis due to NASH and support our successful PBC business. The 2020 Workforce Plan resulted in a workforce reduction of approximately 25%, or approximately 170 employees, and largely affected the commercial infrastructure we had developed in anticipation of a potential U.S. commercial launch of OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH. The 2020 Workforce Plan was implemented during the third quarter of 2020, immediately after its announcement, and was substantially completed by the end of 2020.

For approved products where we decide to perform sales, marketing and distribution functions ourselves or through third parties, we could face a number of additional risks, including:

We may utilize the services of third-party collaborators in certain jurisdictions. We may have limited or no control over the sales, marketing and distribution activities of these third parties, and our future revenues may depend heavily on their success.

In addition, the effects of COVID-19 and related government-imposed shelter-in-place mandates, restrictions on travel and in-person interactions, business closures and disruptions and other public health safety measures may negatively impact our and our third-party collaborators’ productivity, limit the conduct of business operations and impair our and our third-party collaborators’ ability to execute our sales, marketing and distribution strategy.

We could incur significant liability if it is determined that we have improperly promoted or are improperly promoting Ocaliva for PBC or any of our product candidates prior to their approval.

Physicians are permitted to prescribe drug products for uses that are not described in the product’s labeling and that differ from those approved by the FDA or other applicable regulatory agencies. Off-label uses are common across medical specialties. Although the FDA and other regulatory agencies do not regulate a physician’s choice of treatments, the FDA and other regulatory agencies do restrict communications on the subject of off-label use. Companies are not permitted to promote drugs in a manner inconsistent with applicable regulatory guidance. The FDA, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and other regulatory and enforcement authorities actively enforce laws and regulations prohibiting the improper promotion of approved products, as well as the promotion of products for which marketing approval has not been obtained. A company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label uses will be subject to significant liability, including civil and administrative remedies as well as criminal sanctions. A significant number of pharmaceutical companies have received inquiries or been the subject of investigations by various governmental authorities in the United States and abroad. Both federal and state governments have levied large civil and criminal fines against companies for alleged improper off-label promotion, as well as promotion that is determined to be false or misleading, even if related to approved indications.

While we have implemented a corporate compliance program based on what we believe are current best practices, we cannot provide any assurance that governmental authorities, including the DOJ, SEC or FDA, will find that our business practices comply with all current or future administrative or judicial interpretations of potentially applicable laws and regulations. In addition, government and regulatory agencies may hold us responsible for any actions by our sales representatives and other employees or contingent workers to the extent that they do not comply with applicable laws and regulations. If we fail to comply with any of these laws and regulations, we could be subject to a range of penalties,

63

Table of Contents

including the issuance of an untitled letter, a warning letter, injunction, seizure, criminal and significant civil penalties, fines, damages, disgorgement, curtailment or restructuring of our operations, exclusion, disqualification or debarment from participation in federally- or state-funded healthcare programs or other sanctions or litigation, any of which could have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

If we market products in a manner that violates healthcare fraud and abuse laws, or if we violate government price reporting or physician payment disclosure laws, we may be subject to civil or criminal penalties.

In addition to FDA restrictions on the marketing of pharmaceutical products, several other types of state and federal healthcare laws, commonly referred to as “fraud and abuse” laws, have been applied in recent years to restrict certain marketing practices in the pharmaceutical industry. Other jurisdictions including Europe have similar laws and are enacting more stringent regulations. These laws include false claims and anti-kickback statutes. If we market our products and our products are paid for by governmental programs, it is possible that some of our business activities could be subject to challenge under one or more of these laws.

Federal false claims laws generally prohibit anyone from knowingly and willingly presenting, or causing to be presented, any claims for the payment for goods (including drugs) or services to third-party payers (including Medicare and Medicaid) that are false or fraudulent. The federal civil monetary penalties statute, likewise, imposes penalties against any person or entity that, among other things, is determined to have presented or caused to be presented a claim to a federal health program that the person knows or should know is for an item or service that was not provided as claimed or is false or fraudulent.

The federal healthcare program anti-kickback statute prohibits, among other things, knowingly and willfully offering, paying, soliciting or receiving remuneration to generate business, including the purchase or prescription of a particular product covered by Medicare, Medicaid or other federally financed healthcare programs. This statute has been interpreted to apply to arrangements between pharmaceutical manufacturers on the one hand and prescribers, purchasers or formulary managers on the other. Although there are several statutory exemptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting certain common activities from prosecution, the exemptions and safe harbors are drawn narrowly, and practices that involve remuneration intended to induce prescribing, purchasing or recommending may be subject to scrutiny if they do not qualify for an exemption or safe harbor. In addition, such exemptions and safe harbors are subject to change from time to time.

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, “HIPAA”) created additional federal criminal statutes that prohibit, among other things, knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program, or obtain, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, or promises, any of the money or property owned by, or under the custody or control of, any healthcare benefit program, regardless of the payor (e.g., public or private) and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up by any trick or device a material fact or making any materially false statement, in connection with the delivery of, or payment for, healthcare benefits, items or services. HIPAA also imposes significant requirements on the receipt and transfer of protected health information.

In addition, the federal transparency requirements under the Physician Payments Sunshine Act require certain manufacturers of drugs, including us, for which payment is available under certain federal healthcare programs annually to report information related to payments and other transfers of value to physicians and teaching hospitals, and physician ownership and investment interests. Beginning in 2021, the federal reporting requirements will also apply to payments and transfers of value to physician assistants, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, certified registered nurse anesthetists and anesthesiologist assistants, and certified nurse-midwives.

Finally, we must offer discounted pricing or rebates on Ocaliva and our future approved products, if any, under various federal and state healthcare programs, and report specific prices to government agencies under healthcare programs. The calculations necessary to determine the prices reported are complex and the failure to report prices accurately may expose us to significant penalties.

There are foreign and state law equivalents of these laws and regulations, such as anti-kickback, false claims, transparency and data privacy and security laws, to which we are currently and/or may in the future be subject. We may

64

Table of Contents

also be subject to foreign and state laws that require manufacturers to report information related to payments and other transfers of value to physicians and other healthcare providers or marketing expenditures. Many of these laws differ from each other in significant ways, thus increasing the cost and complexity of our compliance efforts.

A number of pharmaceutical and other healthcare companies have been prosecuted under these laws for a variety of promotional and marketing activities, including providing free trips, free goods, sham consulting fees and grants and other monetary benefits to prescribers; reporting inflated average wholesale prices that were then used by federal programs to set reimbursement rates; engaging in improper promotional activities; and submitting inflated best price information to the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program to reduce liability for Medicaid rebates.

If we or our operations are found to be in violation of any of the laws described above or any other governmental regulations that apply to us, we may be subject to penalties, including criminal and significant civil penalties, damages, fines, imprisonment, exclusion of products from reimbursement under United States federal or state healthcare programs, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations. Any penalties, damages, fines, curtailment or restructuring of our operations could materially and adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our financial results. Although compliance programs can mitigate the risk of investigation and prosecution for violations of these laws, the risks cannot be entirely eliminated. Any action against us for violation of these laws, even if we successfully defend against it, could cause us to incur significant legal expenses and divert our management’s attention from the operation of our business. Moreover, achieving and sustaining compliance with these laws may prove costly.

We may not be successful in establishing, implementing and maintaining development and commercialization collaborations, which could adversely affect our ability to develop certain of our product candidates and our financial condition and operating results. If any strategic collaborator fails to perform its obligations under, or terminates, its agreement with us, our business could be substantially harmed.

Developing pharmaceutical products, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approval, expanding manufacturing capabilities and marketing approved products are expensive, complex and time-consuming undertakings. As a result, we have in the past entered into, and may in the future seek to enter into, collaborations with third parties upon whom we may rely for financial resources and for development, regulatory and commercialization expertise for selected products or product candidates and in selected jurisdictions. We may establish collaborations with respect to the development and commercialization of OCA in various jurisdictions and for our other product candidates. Additionally, we may enter into sales and marketing arrangements with third parties with respect to our approved products in all or certain jurisdictions.

Our collaborators may fail to develop our product candidates or effectively commercialize our products for a variety of reasons, including a lack of sufficient resources, a decision not to devote the necessary resources due to internal constraints, such as limited cash or human resources, a change in strategic focus, a failure to obtain the necessary regulatory approvals or business disruptions from COVID-19.

If we are unable to enter into new arrangements or maintain such arrangements on acceptable terms, or at all, we may be unable to effectively market and sell our products in certain of our target markets. We expect to face competition in seeking appropriate collaborators. Moreover, collaboration and similar arrangements are complex and time consuming to negotiate, document and implement and they may require substantial resources to maintain. We may not be successful in our efforts to establish and implement collaborations or other alternative arrangements for the development of our product candidates. When we collaborate with a third party for development and commercialization of a product candidate or approved product, we expect to relinquish some or all of the control over the future success of that product candidate or approved product to the third party. Our collaboration partner may not devote sufficient resources to development or commercialization or may otherwise fail in their development or commercialization. The terms of any collaboration or other arrangement that we establish may not be favorable to us. In addition, any collaboration that we enter into may be unsuccessful. In some cases, we may be responsible for continuing preclinical and initial clinical development of a partnered product candidate or research program, and the payment we receive from our collaboration partner may be insufficient to cover the cost of this development. If we are unable to reach agreements with suitable collaborators, we may incur increased costs and we may be forced to limit the number of products or product candidates we can commercially

65

Table of Contents

develop or the territories in which we can commercialize them. If we fail to achieve successful collaborations, our operating results and financial condition could be materially and adversely affected.

If we fail to develop OCA for additional indications such as NASH, our commercial opportunity will be limited.

To date, we have focused the majority of our development efforts on the development of OCA. One of our strategies is to pursue clinical development of OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH and other progressive non-viral liver diseases, to the extent that we have sufficient funding to do so.

PBC is an orphan disease and the potential market size for Ocaliva for PBC is relatively limited. Furthermore, because a significant proportion of PBC patients do not exhibit any symptoms at the time of diagnosis, PBC may be left undiagnosed for a significant period of time. Due to these factors, our ability to grow revenues will be dependent on our ability to increase market share and successfully develop and commercialize OCA for the treatment of additional indications. In particular, we believe that our future success will depend in large part on the results of our development of OCA for the treatment of NASH. Although NASH is believed to be one of the most prevalent chronic liver diseases worldwide, NASH may be left undiagnosed in patients for a long period of time and a definitive diagnosis of NASH is often based on a histological assessment of a liver biopsy, which impacts the ability to easily identify patients. Furthermore, even if we are successful in developing and obtaining marketing approval of OCA for the treatment of NASH, we may not be commercially successful.

The completion of development, securing of approval and commercialization of OCA for additional indications such as liver fibrosis due to NASH will require substantial additional funding, is subject to numerous risks and we may not be successful. We cannot provide you any assurance that we will be able to successfully advance any of these indications through the development process. Even if we receive regulatory approval to market OCA for the treatment of liver fibrosis due to NASH or any other additional indications, we cannot assure you that any such additional indications will be successfully commercialized, widely accepted in the marketplace or more effective than other commercially available alternatives. If we are unable to successfully develop and commercialize OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH or other additional indications, our commercial opportunity will be limited and our business prospects will suffer.

Risks Related to Our Business and Strategy

We depend on third-party contractors for a substantial portion of our operations and may not be able to control their work as effectively as if we performed these functions ourselves.

We outsource and plan to continue to outsource substantial portions of our operations to third-party service providers, including CROs for certain of our clinical trial and product development activities, and contract manufacturers for the production of API and finished drug product for our commercial sales, clinical trials and preclinical studies. We will likely also use the services of third-party vendors in connection with our future commercialization activities, including product sales, marketing and distribution. Our agreements with third-party service providers are typically on a study-by-study and/or project-by-project basis. Typically, we may terminate these agreements with notice and are responsible for the supplier’s previously incurred costs. In addition, a number of third-party service providers that we retain will be subject to the FDA’s and EMA’s regulatory requirements and similar standards outside of the United States and Europe and we do not have control over compliance with these regulations by these providers. If these providers do not adhere to applicable governing practices and standards, the commercialization of Ocaliva and our other approved products, if any, and the development of OCA and our other product candidates could be delayed or stopped, which could severely harm our business and financial condition.

Because we have relied on third parties, our internal capacity to perform these functions is limited. Outsourcing these functions involves the risk that third parties may not perform to our standards, may not produce results in a timely manner or may fail to perform at all. In addition, the use of third-party service providers requires us to disclose our proprietary information to these parties, which could increase the risk that this information will be misappropriated. There are a limited number of third-party service providers that have the specialized expertise required to achieve our business objectives. Identifying, qualifying and managing the performance of third-party service providers can be difficult, time-consuming and cause delays in our development programs. Despite our growth, we have limited internal resources available to identify

66

Table of Contents

and monitor third-party service providers. To the extent we are unable to identify, retain and successfully manage the performance of third-party service providers, our business may be materially and adversely affected. We may further be subject to the imposition of civil or criminal penalties if our third party service providers violate applicable law.

Our third-party service providers generally are not prohibited from providing their services to other biopharmaceutical companies, including companies that currently or may in the future compete with us. For example, certain of our third-party service providers and consultants may be able to develop intellectual property to which we do not have rights under our agreements and that may eventually be used to develop products that compete with our products. Although we generally have confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements in place with our third-party service providers and consultants, such third parties may be able to provide services to other companies without violating the terms of our agreements. In addition, although we may seek to enter into non-compete arrangements with our key third-party service providers, such arrangements are difficult to negotiate and we may be unable to successfully enter into or enforce such arrangements.

The effects of COVID-19 and related government-imposed shelter-in-place mandates, restrictions on travel and in-person interactions, business closures and disruptions and other public health safety measures may negatively impact our and our third-party service providers’ productivity, limit the conduct of business operations and impair our and our third-party service providers’ ability to conduct operations.

We face rapid technological change and competition from other biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies. Our operating results will suffer if we fail to compete effectively.

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are intensely competitive and subject to rapid and significant technological change. We have competitors in the United States, Europe and other jurisdictions, including major multinational pharmaceutical companies, established biotechnology companies, specialty pharmaceutical and generic drug companies and universities and other research institutions. Many of our competitors have financial, sales and marketing, manufacturing and distribution, legal, regulatory and product development resources substantially greater than ours. Large pharmaceutical companies, in particular, have extensive experience in research, clinical testing, obtaining regulatory approvals, recruiting patients and manufacturing pharmaceutical products. These companies also have significantly greater sales and marketing capabilities and often have collaborative arrangements in our target markets. Established pharmaceutical companies may also invest heavily to accelerate discovery and development of novel compounds or to in-license novel compounds that could make our products or product candidates obsolete. As a result of all of these factors, our competitors may succeed in obtaining patent protection and/or FDA, EMA or other regulatory approval or discovering, developing and commercializing drugs for the diseases that we are targeting before we do. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large, established companies.

Some of the pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies that we may compete with include 89bio, Inc., AbbVie Inc., Acorda Therapeutics, Inc., Affimune Limited, Akcea Therapeutics, Inc., Akero Therapeutics, Inc., Albireo Pharma, Inc., Altimmune, Inc., Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc., AstraZeneca plc, Blade Therapeutics, Inc., Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Can-Fite BioPharma Ltd., Cirius Therapeutics, Inc., Corcept Therapeutics Incorporated, CymaBay Therapeutics, Inc., Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH, Durect Corporation, Eli Lilly and Company, Enanta Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Forma Therapeutics, Inc. Galectin Therapeutics Inc., Galecto Biotech AB, Galmed Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Genfit SA, Genkyotex, Gilead Sciences, Inc., GlaxoSmithKline plc, GRI Bio, Inc., Hanmi Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Hepion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., HighTide Therapeutics Inc., Immuron Limited, Inventiva, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Kowa Company, Ltd., Lipocine Inc., Madrigal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., MediciNova, Inc., Metacrine, Inc., Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation, Nash Pharmaceuticals Inc., NGM Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., NorthSea Therapeutics B.V., Novartis AG, Novo Nordisk A/S, NuSirt Biopharma, Inc., Oramed Pharmaceuticals Inc., Pfizer Inc., Poxel SA, Sagimet Biosciences Inc., Second Genome, Inc., Sinew Pharma Inc., Terns Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Theratechnologies, Inc., Viking Therapeutics, Inc., Yagrit International Ltd and Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc. Ocaliva competes with UDCA (or ursodiol), a first-line therapy approved for the treatment of PBC that is available generically at a significantly lower cost than Ocaliva. Although we have a license to develop and commercialize bezafibrate in the United States, bezafibrate has been studied in multiple clinical trials for the treatment of liver diseases including PBC and NASH outside of the United States. Genfit’s elafibranor and CymaBay’s seladelpar are in late-stage studies for treatment of PBC. Novo Nordisk’s

67

Table of Contents

semaglutide, Madrigal’s resmetirom, and Inventiva’s lanifibranor are currently in late-stage development for treatment of NASH.

In addition, many universities and private and public research institutions may become active in our target disease areas. The results from our clinical trials and the approval of Ocaliva for PBC have brought more attention to our targeted indications and bile acid chemistry. As a result, we believe that additional companies and organizations may seek to compete with us in the future. Our competitors may succeed in developing, acquiring or licensing on an exclusive basis, technologies and drug products that are more effective or less costly than OCA or any other product candidates that we are currently developing or that we may develop, which could render our products or product candidates obsolete and noncompetitive. Our ability to compete may also be affected because, in many cases, insurers or other third-party payors seek to encourage the use of generic products.

Off-label uses of other potential treatments may limit the commercial potential of our products and product candidates, especially given the pricing of Ocaliva and the anticipated pricing for our product candidates. For example, while fibrates are not approved for use in PBC, off-label use of fibrate drugs has been reported. In NASH, a number of treatments, including vitamin E (an antioxidant), insulin sensitizers (e.g., metformin, pioglitazone), antihyperlipidemic agents (e.g., gemfibrozil), pentoxifylline and UDCA, are used off-label. Although none of these treatments have been clearly shown in clinical trials to alter the course of the disease, in a previous study conducted by the NASH Clinical Research Network, improvements in certain histological measures of NASH were reported with vitamin E and pioglitazone.

We believe that our ability to successfully compete will depend on, among other things:

68

Table of Contents

If our competitors market products that are more effective or safe or less expensive than our products or that reach the market sooner than our products, we may not achieve commercial success. In addition, the biopharmaceutical industry is characterized by rapid technological change. Because our research approach integrates many technologies, it may be difficult for us to stay abreast of the rapid changes in other technologies. If we fail to stay at the forefront of technological change, we may be unable to compete effectively. Technological advances or products developed by our competitors may render our technologies, products or product candidates obsolete, less competitive or not economical.

A variety of risks associated with our international business operations and our planned international business relationships could materially and adversely affect our business.

We have formed a number of subsidiaries in jurisdictions outside of the United States in connection with or in anticipation of our commercial or other business activities in those jurisdictions. We are commercializing Ocaliva for PBC using a combination of our internal commercial organization and third-party distributors, depending on the jurisdiction. Our variety of international operations and business relationships subject us to additional risks that may materially and adversely affect our business and ability to attain or sustain profitability, including:

​

69

Table of Contents

Since the United Kingdom referendum on European Union membership in June 2016, there has been some political and economic uncertainty, including in the regulatory framework applicable to the operations of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, and this uncertainty may persist now that the impact of Brexit is being realized. There may be disruption and uncertainties in the free movement of goods, services and people between the United Kingdom and the European Union, and at a more detailed level disruption to, and uncertainty regarding the application and interpretation of, national and international laws and regulations. There may also be unforeseen consequences and uncertainties in cross border trade in goods and services, immigration and employment, data protection and digital trade, state aid and fair competition. Over the last few years our international business has undertaken significant planning and operational readiness work for Brexit involving business functions such as supply chain, quality, finance/tax, regulatory, pharmacovigilance and legal. Brexit could materially change the regulatory regime applicable to our operations, including with respect to Ocaliva for PBC and, if approved, OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH and our other product candidates. Such consequences and uncertainties could make it more difficult and expensive for us to do business, complicate our clinical, manufacturing and regulatory strategies and impair our ability to obtain and maintain regulatory approval for, and, if approved, commercialize, our products and product candidates in Europe. In addition, our ability to continue to conduct our international operations out of the United Kingdom, where the headquarters for our international operations is located, may be materially and adversely affected. While we have undertaken a number of Brexit-related contingency planning initiatives, we cannot make any assurances regarding the extent to which our business may be adversely affected thereby.

In addition, we are subject to the anti-bribery and anticorruption laws of the United States, as well as of foreign jurisdictions where we operate, including the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the UK Bribery Act. Generally, these laws prohibit paying or offering anything of value to a foreign government official for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business but they can also have a much wider, extraterritorial scope, as is the case with the UK Bribery Act (thought to be one of the strictest anti-bribery laws in the world). U.S. and foreign regulators have increased their enforcement of anti-bribery and anticorruption laws in recent years, and failure to comply with these laws could result in various adverse consequences, including:

70

Table of Contents

Any significant impairment of our ability to develop our product candidates or sell our approved products outside of the United States could adversely impact our business and financial results.

Our business and operations would suffer in the event of system failures, data breaches or violations of data protection laws.

We are increasingly dependent on information technology systems and infrastructure, including mobile technologies, to operate our business. In the ordinary course of our business, we collect, process, store and transmit large amounts of confidential information, including intellectual property, proprietary business information and personal information. It is critical that we do so in a secure manner to maintain the confidentiality and integrity of such information. The size and complexity of our information technology systems, and those of third-party vendors with whom we contract, and the volume of data we retain, make such systems potentially vulnerable to breakdown, malicious intrusion, security breaches and other cyber-attacks. Information security risks have significantly increased in recent years in part due to the proliferation of new technologies and the increased sophistication and activities of organized crime, hackers, terrorists and other external parties, including foreign state actors. Our information security systems and those of our third party vendors are subject to laws and regulations, or may become subject to new laws and regulations, requiring that we enact certain measures to protect the privacy and security of certain information we collect or use in our business. A security breach or privacy violation that leads to disclosure or modification of, or prevents access to, personal information or other protected information, whether caused by internal or external parties, could harm our reputation, compel us to comply with federal and/or state breach notification laws and foreign law equivalents, subject us to notification requirements under certain agreements with third parties, subject us to mandatory corrective action, require us to verify the correctness of database contents and otherwise subject us to liability under laws and regulations that protect personal information, resulting in increased costs or loss of revenue. Similarly, the loss or unauthorized disclosure of clinical trial data from completed, ongoing or planned clinical trials could prevent us from obtaining regulatory approval or delay our regulatory approval efforts and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data. If we are unable to prevent such security breaches or privacy violations or implement satisfactory remedial measures, our operations could be disrupted, and we may suffer loss of reputation, financial loss and be subject to regulatory fines and penalties. In addition, these breaches and other inappropriate access can be difficult to detect, and any delay in identifying them may lead to increased harm of the type described above. Moreover, the reliance on remote working technologies by our employees and third party partners due to COVID-19 and related government-imposed shelter-in-place mandates, restrictions on travel and in-person interactions and other public health safety measures and the prevalent use of mobile devices that access confidential and personal information increases the risk of data security breaches, which could lead to the loss of confidential information, personal information, trade secrets or other intellectual property. As cyber threats continue to evolve, we may be required to expend significant additional resources to continue to modify or enhance our protective measures or to investigate and remediate any information security vulnerabilities. While we have implemented security measures to protect our data security and information technology systems, such measures may not prevent such events. Significant disruptions of our information technology systems or breaches of data security could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

In the United States, numerous federal and state laws, including, without limitation, HIPAA state security breach notification laws, state health information privacy laws and federal and state consumer protection laws, govern the collection, use, disclosure and storage of personal information as well as consumer rights with regard to such information. For example, California recently passed the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, which became effective on January 1, 2020 and other states are developing similar privacy laws. Various foreign countries where we may process personal information also have, or are developing, privacy and data protection laws governing the collection, use, disclosure and storage of personal information.

In July 2016, U.S. and European Commission officials adopted a framework called the European Union-U.S. Privacy Shield (the “EU Privacy Shield”) to govern transfers of personal data from the European Economic Area (“EEA”) to the U.S. We adopted the European Union-U.S. Privacy Shield and have certified to its requirements since October 2016. We also adopted the Swiss-U.S. Privacy Shield (the “Swiss Privacy Shield”) in order to legitimize the transfer of personal data from Switzerland to the U.S. In May 2018, the General Data Protection Regulation (the “GDPR”) took effect in the EEA. The GDPR imposes more stringent data protection requirements, and provides for greater penalties for noncompliance, than previous EEA data protection legislation. In addition, although we have implemented certain measures as a result of

71

Table of Contents

Brexit to allow for the transfer of personal data between EEA member states and the United Kingdom, we may need to develop additional mechanisms to permit for the transfer of this data. Implementation of the GDPR and other changes in privacy and data protection laws or regulations could require changes to certain of our business practices, thereby increasing our costs. While we are engaging in activities to comply with the GDPR requirements and other data protection laws, we may be unsuccessful in these efforts.

​

On July 16, 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) invalidated the EU Privacy Shield as a data transfer mechanism for transferring personal data from the EEA to the U.S., effective immediately. On September 20, 2020, the Swiss Federal Data Protection and Information Commissioner invalidated the Swiss Privacy Shield. Therefore, the EU Privacy Shield and the Swiss Privacy Shield no longer qualify as appropriate safeguards for the transfer of personal data from the EEA or Switzerland to the U.S. and transfers made under those frameworks could attract regulatory scrutiny and penalties for non-compliance. There is no “grace period” to allow organizations to implement an alternative data transfer mechanism to the EU Privacy Shield and the Swiss Privacy Shield. While the European Commission approved Standard Contractual Clauses (“SCCs”) and Binding Corporate Rules remain a valid mechanism to transfer personal data to third countries outside the EEA and Switzerland, the CJEU's ruling has also imposed enhanced due diligence obligations on organizations acting as data exporters and relying on SCCs to ensure that the laws of the country to which personal data is transferred offers a level of data protection that is essentially equivalent to the EEA. In addition, the European Commission is in the process of updating the SCCs to align them with the GDPR. As a result of the CJEU's ruling, the status of the transfers of personal data from the EEA or Switzerland to the U.S. is currently subject to significant regulatory uncertainty and we are actively monitoring developments in this area. To the extent we are not able to employ suitable data transfer mechanisms to facilitate international transfers of data, our ability to conduct our business may be materially adversely impacted.

​

The legislative and regulatory landscape for privacy and data protection continues to evolve, and there has been an increasing amount of focus on privacy and data protection issues that may affect our business. There is a degree of uncertainty associated with the legal and regulatory environment around privacy and data protection laws, which continue to develop in ways we cannot predict, including with respect to evolving technologies, such as cloud computing. Privacy and data protection laws may be interpreted and applied inconsistently from country to country and impose inconsistent or conflicting requirements. As a result, our practices may not comply in the future with all such privacy and data protection laws. Varying jurisdictional requirements could increase the costs and complexity of compliance or require us to change our business practices in a manner adverse to our business. A determination that we have violated any privacy or data protection laws could result in significant damage awards, fines and other penalties that could, individually or in the aggregate, materially harm our business and reputation. For example, administrative fines of up to the greater of €20 million or 4% of our global turnover may be imposed for breaches of the GDPR. We may also be liable should any individual who has suffered financial or non-financial damage arising from our infringement of the GDPR or other applicable data protection laws exercise his or her right to receive compensation against us.

In addition, our marketing activities and the marketing activities of any third parties on which we rely are subject to various regulations, including privacy and data protection laws, consumer protection laws and competition laws. Such laws may impair our ability, or the ability of third parties on which we rely, to collect information. Such regulations may have a negative effect on businesses and may increase the potential civil liability and cost of operating our business.

​

We have significantly expanded our operations and plan to continue our expansion to support our future development strategy for OCA for indications other than PBC, including liver fibrosis due to NASH. We may experience difficulties in managing our significant growth.

We have significantly expanded our operations, including the size of our employee base, as we pursue our future development and commercialization strategy. As we advance our preclinical and clinical development programs for OCA and our other product candidates, seek regulatory approval in the United States and elsewhere and pursue our commercialization strategy, we may need to increase our product development, scientific, commercial and administrative headcount. Such an evolution may impact our strategic focus and our deployment and allocation of resources. Our management, personnel and systems may experience difficulty in adjusting to our growth and strategic focus.

72

Table of Contents

We may also anticipate needs for growth that do not materialize. For example, we expanded our commercial organization in anticipation of a potential U.S. commercial launch of OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH. However, in June 2020, we received a CRL from the FDA with respect to our NDA for OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH. Although we are in discussions with the FDA with respect to the potential resubmission of our NDA seeking accelerated approval of OCA for the treatment of liver fibrosis due to NASH, there is no assurance that we will be successful or that OCA will be approved for liver fibrosis due to NASH on an accelerated basis, or at all. In August 2020, we adopted the 2020 Workforce Plan to reduce our workforce in light of the receipt of the CRL from the FDA. The 2020 Workforce Plan sought to streamline our operations and reduce operating expenses, while maintaining the critical resources needed to continue to support the NASH and PBC clinical programs, pursue the approval of OCA for the treatment of liver fibrosis due to NASH and support our successful PBC business. The 2020 Workforce Plan resulted in a workforce reduction of approximately 25%, or approximately 170 employees. The 2020 Workforce Plan was implemented during the third quarter of 2020, immediately after its announcement, and was substantially completed by the end of 2020. We can provide no assurance that we will correctly forecast the needs for growth given our reliance on approvals from regulatory authorities for our product candidates.

In addition, in order to continue to meet our obligations as a public company and to support our anticipated longer-term growth, we may need to increase our general and administrative capabilities. We have also expanded our operations geographically and formed a number of subsidiaries outside of the United States. In addition to our U.S. offices, we have an office in London, which serves as the headquarters for our international operations, and regional offices in a number of other countries, and we may further expand our geographical footprint. Our management, personnel and systems may not be adequate to support this future growth. Furthermore, we may face a number of complexities, such as being subject to national collective bargaining agreements for employees, in some of the countries in which we operate.

Our need to effectively manage our operations, growth and various projects requires that we:

If we are unable to successfully manage our growth and the increased complexity of our operations, our business may be materially and adversely affected.

We may not be able to manage our business effectively if we are unable to attract and retain key personnel and consultants.

We may not be able to attract or retain qualified personnel and consultants due to the intense competition for such individuals among biotechnology, pharmaceutical and other businesses. If we are not able to attract and retain necessary personnel and consultants to accomplish our business objectives, we may experience constraints that will significantly impede the achievement of our development and commercial objectives, our ability to raise additional capital and our ability to implement our business strategy.

Our industry has experienced a high rate of turnover of management personnel in recent years. We are highly dependent on the development, regulatory, commercialization and business development expertise of the members of our executive team, as well as other key employees and consultants. If we lose one or more of our executive officers or other key employees or consultants, our ability to implement our business strategy successfully could be seriously harmed. Any of our executive officers or other key employees or consultants may terminate their employment at any time and replacing such individuals may be difficult and time-consuming because of the limited number of individuals in our industry with

73

Table of Contents

the necessary breadth of skills and experience. Competition to hire and retain employees and consultants from this limited pool is intense, and we may be unable to hire, train, retain or motivate such individuals.

We also have key advisors and consultants who assist us in operating our business. These advisors are not our employees and may have commitments to, or consulting or advisory contracts with, other entities that may limit their availability to us and such individuals typically will not enter into non-compete agreements with us. If a conflict of interest arises between their work for us and their work for another entity, we may lose their services. In addition, our advisors may assist other companies that compete with us.

Our employees may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including noncompliance with regulatory standards and requirements and insider trading, which could significantly harm our business.

We are exposed to the risk of employee fraud or other misconduct. Misconduct by employees could include intentional failures to comply with the regulations of the FDA, the SEC or other domestic or foreign regulators, provide accurate information to the FDA, the SEC or other domestic or foreign regulators, comply with healthcare fraud and abuse laws and regulations in the United States and abroad, report financial information or data accurately or disclose unauthorized activities to us. In particular, sales, marketing and business arrangements in the healthcare industry are subject to extensive regulation in the United States and abroad intended to prevent fraud, misconduct, kickbacks, self-dealing and other abusive practices. Such laws and regulations may restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, sales commission, customer incentive and other business arrangements. Employee misconduct could also involve the improper use of information obtained in the course of clinical trials, which could result in regulatory sanctions and serious harm to our reputation. Misconduct and misappropriation of confidential information by our employees or third parties may also include improper trading in our securities, which may harm our reputation and result in enforcement actions against us. We have adopted a global code of business conduct and implemented a corporate compliance program, but it is not always possible to identify and deter employee misconduct, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental inquires, investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to comply with applicable laws or regulations. The outcome of any such inquiry, investigation, action or lawsuit could have a significant negative impact on our business, including as a result of the imposition of significant fines or other sanctions. In addition, the institution of any such inquiry, investigation, action or lawsuit could negatively impact the market price of our securities.

​

We face potential product liability exposure, and if successful claims are brought against us, we may incur substantial liability for our products or product candidates and may have to limit or suspend their use.

​

The use of our product candidates in clinical trials and the sale of any products for which we have obtained or may obtain marketing approval, such as Ocaliva for PBC, expose us to the risk of product liability claims. Product liability claims may be brought against us or our collaborators by participants enrolled in our clinical trials, patients, healthcare providers or others. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against any such claims, we may incur substantial liabilities. Regardless of their merit or eventual outcome, product liability claims may result in:

74

Table of Contents

We have obtained limited product liability insurance coverage. Our insurance coverage may not reimburse us or 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 maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost or in sufficient amounts to protect us against losses due to product liability. Large judgments have been awarded in class action lawsuits based on the unanticipated side effects of drug products. A successful product liability claim or series of claims brought against us, particularly if judgments exceed our insurance coverage, could decrease our cash resources and adversely affect our business.

Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property

It is difficult and costly to protect our proprietary rights, and we may not be able to ensure their protection. If our patent position does not adequately protect our products such as Ocaliva and product candidates such as OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH, others may compete against us more directly, which could harm our business, possibly materially.

​

Our commercial success will depend in part on our ability to obtain and maintain patent, trademark and trade secret protection covering Ocaliva, OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH, if approved, and our other product candidates, as well as our ability to successfully defend our intellectual property against third-party challenges. Our ability to stop third parties from making, using, selling, offering to sell or importing our products is dependent upon the extent to which we have regulatory exclusivity or intellectual property-based exclusivity rights under valid and enforceable patents or other intellectual property that cover our products. If we fail to obtain and maintain adequate intellectual property protection, we may not be able to prevent third parties from launching generic versions of our products, from using our proprietary technologies or from marketing products that are very similar or identical to ours. For example, we have received paragraph IV certification notice letters from several generic drug manufacturers indicating that each such company has submitted to the FDA an ANDA seeking approval to manufacture and sell a generic version of our 5 mg and 10 mg dosage strengths of Ocaliva (obeticholic acid) for PBC prior to the expiration of certain patents protecting Ocaliva. We have initiated patent infringement suits against each of these generic drug manufacturers in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. While we intend to vigorously defend and enforce our intellectual property rights protecting Ocaliva, we can offer no assurance as to when the lawsuits will be decided, or whether the lawsuits will be successful. If a generic equivalent of Ocaliva is approved and enters the market before the expiration of our patents protecting Ocaliva, our business may be materially and adversely affected. See Note 19 to our audited consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for more information.

The patent positions of pharmaceutical companies can be highly uncertain and involve complex legal and factual questions for which important legal principles remain unresolved. No consistent policy regarding the breadth of claims allowed in pharmaceutical patents has emerged to date in the United States or in foreign jurisdictions, and the legal standards relating to the patentability, validity and enforceability of pharmaceutical patents are evolving. Changes in either the patent laws or in interpretations of patent laws in U.S. and foreign jurisdictions may diminish the value of our intellectual property. Accordingly, we cannot predict the breadth of claims that may be enforced in the patents that we currently own or that may issue from the applications we have filed or may file in the future or those that we may license from third parties. Additionally, our currently pending or future patent applications may not result in issued patents, and any term extensions or reissues that we seek may not be granted. Further, if any patents we obtain or license are deemed invalid or unenforceable, it could impact our ability to commercialize or license our technology or we may not be able to prevent third parties from launching generic versions of our products, or from developing or marketing products that are similar or identical to ours.

There have been numerous changes to the patent laws that may have a significant impact on our ability to protect our technology and enforce our intellectual property rights. In September 2011, the America Invents Act was signed into law. The final substantive provisions of the America Invents Act became effective in March 2013. The America Invents Act included a number of significant changes to U.S. patent law that affect the way patent applications are filed, prosecuted and litigated, including, among other things, changing from a “first to invent” to a “first inventor to file” system and creating processes, such as Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) and other post-grant review processes, that permit third parties to

75

Table of Contents

challenge the validity of granted patents before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the “USPTO”). The IPR process, for example, permits any person to challenge the validity of a patent on the grounds that it was anticipated or made obvious by prior art. The America Invents Act and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects.

Others have filed, and in the future, are likely to file, patent applications covering products and technologies that are similar or competitive to ours, or may be important to our business. We cannot be certain that any patent application owned by a third party will not have priority over patent applications filed or in-licensed by us, or that we or our licensors will not be involved in infringement, interference, derivation, opposition, nullity, invalidity or other similar proceedings before U.S. or non-U.S. patent offices or courts.

The degree to which our patents protect our products may be limited due to a number of factors. For example:

We are the owner of record of numerous issued U.S. and non-U.S. patents and patent applications with claims directed to pharmaceutical compounds, pharmaceutical compositions, formulations, methods of making these compounds and methods of using these compounds in various indications.

Our issued patents for OCA are expected to expire between 2022 and 2036 if the appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity, or other government fees are paid. Without patent protection, including patent protection covering the composition of matter, methods of using and formulations of our products and product candidates, our ability to stop others from making, using, selling, offering to sell or importing our products and product candidates may be limited.

Due to the patent laws of a specific country in which we are seeking patent protection, the decisions of a patent examiner in a specific country in which we are seeking patent protection or our own filing strategies, we ultimately may not obtain patent coverage for all of our products and product candidates for which we have filed a patent application. While we regularly pursue patent protection in the United States and other countries to obtain claim coverage for our inventions, we cannot be certain that such patent rights will be granted or that the scope of any patent granted will prevent third parties from making, using, selling, offering for sale or importing the same or similar products.

If we do not obtain protection under the Hatch-Waxman Act in the United States (and similar legislation outside of the United States) extending the terms of our patents and/or providing data or other exclusivity for our products and product candidates, our business may be materially harmed.

Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of FDA marketing approval of our products, U.S. patents may be eligible for a limited extension of patent term under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (the “Hatch-Waxman Act”). The Hatch-Waxman Act permits an extension of patent term for one patent of up to five years as compensation for patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review process, so long as the total period of patent term extension does not exceed 14 years from the date of approval. However, an extension may not

76

Table of Contents

be granted because of, for example, failure to apply within applicable deadlines, failure to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents or failure to satisfy applicable requirements. Moreover, the applicable time period or scope of patent protection afforded could be less than what is requested. If we are unable to obtain patent term extension or the term of any such extension is less than what we request, the period during which we will have the right to exclusively market our products may be shorter than anticipated, our competitors may obtain approval of competing products following our patent expiration and our revenue could be reduced, possibly materially.

In October 2020, the USPTO granted to the Company a reissue patent, U.S. Patent No. RE 48,286 (the “‘286 Patent”). By operation of law, our primary composition of matter patent protecting Ocaliva, U.S. Patent No. 7,138,390 (the “‘390 Patent”), was withdrawn and replaced by the ‘286 Patent, which contains composition of matter claims to OCA. The ‘286 Patent has been substituted in any litigation where the ‘390 Patent was asserted. The ‘286 Patent, like its predecessor the ‘390 Patent, was scheduled to expire in 2022. In light of the U.S. marketing approval of Ocaliva for PBC in May 2016, and pursuant to the Hatch-Waxman Act, we previously applied for an extension of the patent term for the ‘390 Patent in the U.S. seeking to extend the term of the ‘390 Patent into 2027. After the ‘286 Patent issued, the application for extension of patent term was transferred to the ‘286 Patent. In November 2020, the Company was informed by the USPTO that its petition for a five-year patent term extension had been granted. Accordingly, the patent term extension originally intended to extend the term of the ‘390 Patent into 2027 will extend the term of the ‘286 Patent into 2027. Similarly, in connection with the conditional approval of Ocaliva for PBC in the European Union, we applied for supplementary patent certification (“SPC”) to extend the patent term for the European analogue of the ‘390 Patent (now the ‘286 Patent) in most of the European Union into 2027. To date, we have received grants of SPC in Austria, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Norway, Portugal, Spain and Sweden. We have also taken similar actions in other jurisdictions and countries where regulations providing for patent term extension exist. The issued patents for OCA are expected to expire between 2022 and 2036 if the appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity, or other government fees are paid. The substitution in the U.S. of the ‘286 Patent for the ‘390 Patent has no effect on foreign patent rights.

We may incur substantial costs as a result of litigation or other proceedings relating to patent and other intellectual property rights, and such litigation may divert the attention of our management and scientific personnel and adversely affect our development and commercialization efforts.

If we choose to file patent infringement lawsuits or engage in other adversarial proceedings to stop another party from making, using, selling, offering for sale or importing the inventions claimed in any of our patents, that individual or company alleged to be infringing has the right to ask the court or adjudicating body to rule that such patents are invalid, not infringed or should not be enforced against that third party. These lawsuits and proceedings are expensive, consume time and resources and divert the attention of management and scientific personnel even if we are successful in defending our rights. In addition, there is a risk that such court or adjudicating body will decide that such patents are invalid, unenforceable or not infringed, and that we do not have the right to stop the other party from making, using, selling, offering for sale or importing the inventions. For example, we have received paragraph IV certification notice letters from several generic drug manufacturers indicating that each such company has submitted to the FDA an ANDA seeking approval to manufacture and sell a generic version of our 5 mg and 10 mg dosage strengths of Ocaliva (obeticholic acid) for PBC prior to the expiration of certain patents protecting Ocaliva. We have initiated patent infringement suits against each of these generic drug manufacturers in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Such lawsuits may be expensive and divert our management’s time and attention. In addition, to the extent such lawsuits are not successful, and a generic equivalent of Ocaliva is approved and enters the market before the expiration of our patents protecting Ocaliva, our business may be materially and adversely affected. See Note 19 to our audited consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for more information.

Over the past 20 years, the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Congress have modified certain examination procedures utilized by the USPTO in granting patents, which has raised the standard of patentability for some types of inventions. Such modifications may reduce the likelihood that we will be able to obtain patent protection and increase the likelihood of challenges to our patents or the patents we license.

77

Table of Contents

We may infringe the intellectual property rights of others, which may prevent or delay our product development efforts and/or delay, halt or increase the costs of our commercialization efforts.

Our success will depend in part on our ability to operate without infringing the proprietary rights of third parties. We cannot guarantee that the use, manufacture, sale, offer for sale or importation of our products will not infringe third-party patents. Furthermore, a third party may claim that we or our manufacturing or commercialization partners are using inventions covered by the third party’s patent rights and may go to court to stop us from engaging in our normal operations and activities, including making or selling our products and product candidates. The defense of these lawsuits is often costly and could affect our results of operations and divert the attention of our management and scientific personnel. There is also a risk that a court could decide that we or our manufacturing or commercialization partners are infringing the third party’s patents and order us or our partners to stop the activities covered by the patents. In that event, we or our partners may be required to halt or delay commercialization or development of the relevant product or product candidate. In addition, there is a risk that a court could order us or our partners to pay the other party damages for having violated the other party’s patents, and we may be subject to indemnification obligations with respect to any such payments made by our partners. There is a vast array of patents and patent applications that claim various pharmaceutical inventions and because the scope of a patent’s claims is subject to interpretation by the courts, it is not always clear to industry participants which patents cover various types of products, product candidates or methods of use. In addition, interpretation of a patent’s claims can vary from court to court.

If we are sued for patent infringement, we would need to demonstrate that the relevant patent is not enforceable or that our products, product candidates or methods either do not infringe the patent claims of the relevant patent or that the patent claims are invalid. Proving invalidity, non-infringement and/or unenforceability is difficult, and we may not be successful. For example, in the United States, proving invalidity requires a showing of clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption of validity enjoyed by issued patents. Even if we are successful in such proceedings, we may incur substantial costs and divert our management’s time and attention, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. If we are unable to avoid infringing the patent rights of others, we may be required to seek a license, which may not be available, defend an infringement action or challenge the validity of the patents in court. Patent litigation is costly and time consuming. We may not have sufficient resources to bring these actions to a successful conclusion. In addition, if we fail to obtain a license, develop or obtain non-infringing technology or defend an infringement action successfully, we may incur substantial monetary damages, encounter significant delays in the commercialization of our products and product candidates and be precluded from manufacturing or selling our products and product candidates.

We cannot be certain that others have not filed patent applications for technology covered by our pending applications, or that we were the first to invent or file with respect to a technology, because:

Our competitors may have filed, and may in the future file, patent applications covering technology similar to ours. Any such patent application may have priority over our patent applications, which could further require us to obtain rights to issued patents covering such technologies. If another party has filed a U.S. patent application on inventions similar to ours, we may have to participate in an interference, derivation or other similar proceeding declared by the USPTO to determine priority of invention in the United States. The costs of these proceedings could be substantial, and it is possible that such efforts would be unsuccessful, resulting in a loss of our U.S. patent position with respect to such inventions. Other countries have similar laws that permit secrecy of patent applications, and such patent applications may be entitled to priority over our applications in such jurisdictions.

Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of complex patent litigation more effectively than we can because they have substantially greater financial and other resources. In addition, uncertainties resulting from the initiation

78

Table of Contents

and continuation of any such litigation could have a material adverse effect on the market price of our securities and our ability to raise the funds necessary to continue our operations.

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, renewal fees, annuity fees and various other governmental fees on our patents and patent applications are required to be paid to the USPTO and foreign patent offices in several stages over the lifetime of such patents and patent applications. In addition, the USPTO and foreign patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar provisions during the patent application process. We have implemented systems and engaged reputable third-party service providers to help ensure that we comply with such requirements on a timely basis, but inadvertent lapses may occur and there are situations in which noncompliance can result in abandonment or lapse of the relevant patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. Any such event may impair our competitive position in the relevant jurisdiction and have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations.

We may be subject to claims that our employees have wrongfully used or disclosed alleged trade secrets or other proprietary information of their former employers. In addition, if we are not able to adequately prevent disclosure of our trade secrets and other proprietary information, the value of our technology, products and product candidates could be significantly diminished.

As is common in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, we employ individuals who were previously employed at other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. We may be subject to claims that these employees, or we, have inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed trade secrets or other proprietary information of their former employers. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims, which could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to our management even if we are successful.

We may rely on trade secrets to protect our proprietary technologies, especially where we do not believe patent protection is appropriate or obtainable. However, trade secrets are difficult to protect, and may not prevent others from independently and lawfully developing similar or identical products that circumvent our intellectual property. We rely in part on confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants, outside scientific collaborators, sponsored researchers and other advisors to protect our trade secrets and other proprietary information. These agreements may not effectively prevent disclosure of proprietary information and may not provide an adequate remedy in the event of unauthorized disclosure of confidential information.

Third parties, including competitors of ours, may also independently discover our trade secrets or other proprietary information. In addition, we may be required under U.S. or foreign transparency initiatives or other regulations to publicly disclose or otherwise make available certain information that we consider to be proprietary, including pre-clinical and clinical research data. Enforcing a claim that a third party illegally obtained and is using any of our trade secrets or other proprietary information is expensive and time consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, courts outside of the United States are sometimes reluctant to protect trade secrets. Costly and time-consuming litigation could be necessary to enforce and determine the scope of our proprietary rights, and failure to obtain or maintain protection of our trade secrets and other proprietary information could adversely affect our competitive business position.

We have not yet registered all of our trademarks and failure to secure such registrations could adversely affect our business.

​

We have numerous trademark and service mark registrations and pending trademark and service mark applications in the United States and abroad.

Our trademark applications may not be allowed for registration and our registered trademarks may not be maintained or enforced. During prosecution of applications for trademark registration, we may receive rejections or refusals. Although we are given an opportunity to respond, we may be unable to overcome such rejections. In addition, the USPTO and

79

Table of Contents

comparable agencies in many other jurisdictions provide third parties with an opportunity to oppose pending trademark applications and to seek to cancel registered trademarks. Opposition or cancellation proceedings have been filed and may in the future be filed against certain of our trademarks, and our trademarks may not survive such proceedings. If we do not secure registrations for our trademarks, we may encounter more difficulty in enforcing them against third parties than we otherwise would.

Trademark protection varies in accordance with local laws. Trademarks remain in force in some countries as long as the trademark is used and in other countries as long as the trademark is registered. Trademark registrations generally are for fixed but renewable terms. We cannot provide any assurances that any trademarks or service marks will be sufficient to prevent competitors from adopting similar names. The adoption of similar names by competitors could impede our ability to build brand identity and may lead to customer confusion, which could adversely affect our sales or profitability.

Risks Related to Our Indebtedness

Servicing our debt will require significant amounts of cash, and we may not have sufficient cash flow from our business to effectively service our debt.

Our ability to make scheduled payments of the principal of, to pay interest on or to refinance the $460.0 million aggregate principal amount of 2023 Convertible Notes that we issued in July 2016 and/or the $230.0 million aggregate principal amount of 2026 Convertible Notes that we issued in May 2019 or any other indebtedness we or our subsidiaries may incur in the future depends on our future performance, which is subject to economic, financial, competitive and other factors beyond our control. Our business may not generate cash flow from operations in the future sufficient to service our debt, including the Convertible Notes. If we are unable to generate cash flow, we may be required to adopt one or more alternatives, such as selling assets, restructuring debt or obtaining additional equity capital on terms that may be unfavorable to us or highly dilutive. Our ability to refinance our indebtedness will depend on the capital markets and our financial condition at the time we seek to refinance such indebtedness. We may not be able to engage in any of these activities or engage in these activities on desirable terms, which could result in a default on our debt obligations.

We may incur substantially more debt or take other actions that would affect our ability to pay the principal of and interest on our debt.

We and our subsidiaries may be able to incur substantial additional debt in the future, some of which may be secured debt. We and our subsidiaries are not restricted under the terms of the indentures governing the Convertible Notes or otherwise from incurring additional debt, securing existing or future debt, recapitalizing our debt or taking other actions that could have the effect of diminishing our ability to service our debt when due.

The accounting method for convertible debt securities that may be settled in cash, such as the Convertible Notes, could have a material effect on our reported financial results.

​

Under Accounting Standards Codification Subtopic 470-20, “Debt with Conversion and Other Options” (“ASC 470-20”), an entity must separately account for the liability and equity components of convertible debt instruments (such as the Convertible Notes) that may be settled entirely or partially in cash upon conversion in a manner that reflects the issuer’s economic interest cost. The effect of ASC 470-20 on the accounting for the Convertible Notes is that the equity component is required to be included in the additional paid-in capital section of stockholders’ equity on our consolidated balance sheets, and the value of the equity component is treated as original issue discount for purposes of accounting for the debt component of the Convertible Notes. As a result, we are required to record a greater amount of non-cash interest expense in current periods presented as a result of the amortization of the discounted carrying value of the Convertible Notes to their face amount over the term of the Convertible Notes. Because ASC 470-20 requires interest to include both the current period’s amortization of the debt discount and the instrument’s coupon interest, we report lower net income in our financial results, which could adversely affect the market price of our common stock and the market price of the Convertible Notes.

In addition, under certain circumstances, convertible debt instruments (such as the Convertible Notes) that may be settled entirely or partly in cash are currently accounted for utilizing the treasury stock method, the effect of which is that the shares issuable upon conversion of the Convertible Notes will not be included in the calculation of diluted earnings per

80

Table of Contents

share except to the extent that the conversion value of the notes exceeds their principal amount. Under the treasury stock method, for diluted earnings per share purposes, the transaction is accounted for as if the number of shares of common stock that would be necessary to settle such excess, if we elected to settle such excess in shares, are issued. We cannot be sure that the accounting standards in the future will continue to permit the use of the treasury stock method. If we are unable to use the treasury stock method in accounting for the shares issuable upon conversion of the Convertible Notes, then our diluted earnings per share would be adversely affected.

Risks Related to Ownership of Our Common Stock

Ownership in our common stock is highly concentrated and your ability to influence corporate matters may be limited as a result.

Our executive officers, directors and stockholders who own more than 5% of our outstanding common stock together beneficially own a significant percentage of our common stock based on reports filed with the SEC. If these stockholders were to choose to act together, they would be able to significantly influence matters submitted to our stockholders for approval, including the election of directors and approval of any merger, consolidation, sale of all or substantially all of our assets or other business combination or reorganization, as well as our management and affairs. This concentration of voting power could delay or prevent an acquisition of us on terms that other securityholders may desire. The interests of this group of stockholders may not always coincide with your interests or the interests of other securityholders and they may act in a manner that advances their best interests and not necessarily those of other securityholders, including seeking a premium value for their common stock, and might affect the market price of our common stock and the Convertible Notes.

We have a significant stockholder, which will limit your ability to influence corporate matters, may give rise to conflicts of interest and could result in future substantial sales of shares of our common stock into the market.

Genextra S.p.A. (“Genextra”) is one of our largest stockholders and owns a significant minority percentage of our outstanding common stock. Accordingly, Genextra exerts and will continue to exert significant influence over us and any action requiring the approval of the holders of our common stock, including the election of directors and amendments to our organizational documents, such as increases in our authorized shares of common stock and approval of significant corporate transactions. This concentration of voting power makes it less likely that other holders of common stock will be able to affect the way we are managed and could delay or prevent an acquisition of us on terms that other securityholders may desire.

Furthermore, the interests of Genextra may not always coincide with the interests of other securityholders, and Genextra may act in a manner that advances its best interests and not necessarily those of other securityholders, including seeking a premium value for its common stock, and might affect the market price of our common stock and the Convertible Notes. Our board of directors, which consists of eleven directors, including one associated with Genextra, has the power to set the number of directors on our board from time to time.

Genextra also may sell shares of our common stock into the market from time to time, and we cannot predict the effect, if any, that future sales by Genextra may have on the market price of our common stock or the Convertible Notes.

An active trading market in our common stock may not be maintained.

The trading market in our common stock has been extremely volatile. The quotation of our common stock on the Nasdaq Global Select Market does not assure that a meaningful, consistent and liquid trading market will exist. We cannot predict whether an active market for our common stock will be maintained in the future. An absence of an active trading market could adversely affect your ability to sell our common stock at current market prices in short time periods, or possibly at all. Additionally, market visibility for our common stock may be limited and such lack of visibility may have a depressive effect on the market price for our common stock.

81

Table of Contents

We have previously been, and are currently, subject to securities class action litigation and may be subject to similar or other litigation in the future. Such matters can be expensive, time-consuming and have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We have previously been subject to securities class action lawsuits. In February 2014, two purported securities class actions were filed against us and certain of our officers, which were eventually consolidated. In May 2016, the defendants reached an agreement with the lead plaintiff to seek court approval of a proposed resolution and the settlement was ultimately granted final approval by the court in September 2016. While the final judgment and order of the court included a dismissal of the action with prejudice against all defendants and the defendants did not admit any liability as part of the settlement, the total payment aggregated to $55.0 million, of which $10.0 million was paid by our insurers.

In September 2017, a lawsuit and, in January 2018, a follow-on lawsuit, were filed alleging that we and certain of our officers made material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact regarding Ocaliva dosing, use and pharmacovigilance-related matters, as well as our operations, financial performance and prospects. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class, an award of costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees, and rescissory damages.

While we believe that we have a number of valid defenses to the claims described above and intend to vigorously defend ourselves, the matters are in the early stages of litigation and no assessment can be made as to the likely outcome of the matters or whether they will be material to us.

Additionally, in November 2020, a lawsuit and, in December 2020 and February 2021, follow-on lawsuits, were filed alleging that we and certain of our officers made material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact during the period from September 28, 2019 to October 7, 2020 relating to our NDA for OCA for the treatment of liver fibrosis due to NASH and the use of Ocaliva in patients with PBC, as well as our operations, financial performance and prospects. The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class, and an award of costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees.

We may be subject to additional suits or proceedings brought in the future and, as has been the case with many companies in our industry, we may from time to time receive inquiries and subpoenas and other types of information requests from government authorities and others. While the ultimate outcome of any such investigations, inquiries, information requests and legal proceedings is difficult to predict, adverse resolutions or settlements of those matters may result in, among other things, modification of our business practices, product recalls, significant costs, payments, damages or fines or other administrative, civil or criminal remedies, liabilities or penalties, which may have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. In addition, monitoring and defending against legal actions, whether or not meritorious, and responding to investigations, inquiries and information requests is expensive, time-consuming for our management and detracts from our ability to fully focus our internal resources on our business activities, and we cannot predict how long it may take to resolve such matters. Although we may receive insurance coverage for certain adversarial proceedings, coverage could be denied or prove to be insufficient. It is possible that we could, in the future, incur a judgment or enter into settlement of claims for monetary damages. A decision adverse to our interests could result in the payment of substantial damages and could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Our stock price has been and may in the future be volatile, which could cause holders of our common stock to incur substantial losses.

The market price of our common stock has been, and is likely to continue to be, highly volatile and could be subject to wide fluctuations in response to various factors, some of which are beyond our control. Since our initial public offering in October 2012, the price of our common stock on the Nasdaq Global Select Market has ranged from $17.96 per share to $497.00 per share. In addition to the other factors discussed in this “Risk Factors” section and elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, the factors that may result in wide fluctuations in the price of our common stock include any:

82

Table of Contents

83

Table of Contents

Any of these factors could also affect the trading price of the Convertible Notes.

Furthermore, stock markets in general and the market for biotechnology companies in particular have experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have affected and continue to affect the market prices of securities of many companies. These fluctuations often have been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of those companies. A number of factors, including global health emergencies (e.g., COVID-19), general economic, political and market conditions, recessions, interest rate changes or international currency fluctuations may negatively impact the market price of our securities, regardless of our actual operating performance. In the past, companies that have experienced volatility in the market price of their stock have been subject to securities class action litigation. We have been in the past, and are currently subject to this type of litigation, which could result in substantial costs and divert our management’s attention from other business concerns, which could seriously harm our business. As a result of this volatility, you could incur substantial losses.

If our stockholders sell substantial amounts of our common stock, the market price of our common stock or the Convertible Notes may decline even if our business is doing well.

A significant number of shares of our common stock are held by a small number of stockholders, including Genextra. Sales of a significant number of shares of our common stock, or the expectation that such sales may occur, could significantly reduce the market price of our common stock or the Convertible Notes. These sales, or the possibility that these sales may occur, also might make it more difficult for us to sell equity securities in the future at a time and price that we deem appropriate. We have also registered the offer and sale of the shares of common stock that we may issue under our equity compensation plans, including upon the exercise of stock options. These shares may be freely sold in the public market upon issuance.

Additionally, sales of our common stock by our executive officers or directors, even when done during an open trading window under our policies with respect to insider sales or done under a trading plan adopted in accordance with the guidelines set forth by Rule 10b5-1, may adversely impact the market price of our common stock or the Convertible Notes. Although we do not expect that the relatively small volume of such sales would itself significantly impact the market price of our common stock or the Convertible Notes, the market could react negatively to the announcement of such sales, which could in turn affect the market price of our common stock and the Convertible Notes.

You may experience future dilution as a result of future equity offerings or strategic transactions.

We may in the future raise funds through the issuance and sale of additional shares of our common stock or other securities convertible into or exchangeable for our common stock. For example, in May 2019, we issued and sold an aggregate of 2,879,760 shares of common stock and $230.0 million aggregate principal amount of the 2026 Convertible Notes, in April 2018, we issued and sold an aggregate of 4,257,813 shares of common stock and in July 2016, we issued

84

Table of Contents

and sold $460.0 million aggregate principal amount of the 2023 Convertible Notes. Conversions of the Convertible Notes will dilute the ownership interests of existing shareholders to the extent that we elect to deliver shares of our common stock (or a combination of cash and shares of our common stock) in connection therewith. In addition, the existence of the Convertible Notes may encourage short selling by market participants because the conversion of the Convertible Notes could depress the price of our common stock. We may also issue shares of common stock, stock options, restricted stock, restricted stock units or other stock-based awards under our existing or future equity incentive plans or other employee or director compensation plans. The issuance of additional shares of common stock (including pursuant to conversions of the Convertible Notes) or other securities convertible into or exchangeable for our common stock, or the perception that such issuances may occur, may materially and adversely affect the price of our common stock and the Convertible Notes.

Anti-takeover provisions in our restated certificate of incorporation and our restated bylaws, as well as provisions of Delaware law and certain provisions of the Convertible Notes, might discourage, delay or prevent a change in control of our company or changes in our management and, therefore, depress the market price of our common stock or the Convertible Notes.

Provisions in our restated certificate of incorporation and restated bylaws, as well as provisions of Delaware law, may discourage, delay or prevent a merger, acquisition or other change in control that our securityholders consider favorable, including transactions in which securityholders might otherwise receive a premium for their securities. These provisions may also prevent or frustrate attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove our management. Our corporate governance documents include provisions:

In addition, as a Delaware corporation, we are subject to provisions of Delaware law, including Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law (the “DGCL”), which prevents some stockholders holding more than 15% of our outstanding common stock from engaging in certain business combinations without approval of the holders of substantially all of our outstanding common stock. Any provision of our restated certificate of incorporation or restated bylaws or Delaware law that has the effect of delaying or deterring a change in control could limit the opportunity for our securityholders to receive a premium for their securities, and could also affect the price that some investors are willing to pay for our common stock or the Convertible Notes.

Certain provisions of the Convertible Notes could also make it more difficult or more expensive for a third party to acquire us. For example, if an acquisition event constitutes a “fundamental change” under the terms of the Convertible Notes, holders of the Convertible Notes will have the right to require us to purchase their Convertible Notes for cash. Similarly, if an acquisition event constitutes a “make-whole fundamental change” under the terms of the Convertible Notes, we may be required to increase the conversion rate for holders who convert their Convertible Notes in connection with such make-whole fundamental change.

The existence of the foregoing provisions and anti-takeover measures may also frustrate or prevent any attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove our current management or members of our board of directors and could limit the price that investors might be willing to pay in the future for shares of our common stock or the Convertible Notes. They

85

Table of Contents

could also deter potential acquirers of our company, thereby reducing the likelihood that our securityholders could receive a premium for their securities in an acquisition.

Claims for indemnification by our directors and officers may reduce our available funds to satisfy successful stockholder claims against us and may reduce the amount of money available to us.

As permitted by Section 102(b)(7) of the DGCL, our restated certificate of incorporation limits the liability of our directors to the fullest extent permitted by law. In addition, as permitted by Section 145 of the DGCL, our restated certificate of incorporation and restated bylaws provide that we shall indemnify, to the fullest extent authorized by the DGCL, each person who is involved in any litigation or other proceeding because such person is or was a director or officer of our company, or is or was serving as an officer or director of another entity at our request, against all expense, loss or liability reasonably incurred or suffered in connection therewith. Our restated certificate of incorporation provides that the right to indemnification includes the right to be paid expenses incurred in defending any proceeding in advance of its final disposition, subject to certain conditions. The rights conferred in the restated certificate of incorporation and the restated bylaws are not exclusive, and we are authorized to enter into indemnification agreements with our directors, officers, employees and agents and to obtain insurance to indemnify such persons.

The above limitations on liability and our indemnification obligations limit the personal liability of our directors and officers for monetary damages for breach of their fiduciary duty by shifting the burden of such losses and expenses to us. Although we carry directors’ and officers’ liability insurance, certain liabilities or expenses covered by our indemnification obligations may not be covered by such insurance or the coverage limitation amounts may be exceeded. As a result, we may need to use a significant amount of our funds to satisfy our indemnification obligations, which could severely harm our business and financial condition and limit the funds available to securityholders who may choose to bring a claim against our company.

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

We do not anticipate paying cash dividends in the future. As a result, only appreciation of the price of shares of our common stock will provide a return to stockholders, which may not occur. Investors seeking cash dividends should not invest in our common stock. You may not realize any return on your investment in our common stock and may lose some or all of your investment.

Our ability to use our net operating loss carryforwards and certain other tax attributes may be limited.

We have significant net operating loss carryforwards (“NOLs”) for U.S. Federal, state and foreign income tax purposes. The enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act enacted in 2017 (the “TCJA”) modified the ability of companies to utilize U.S. Federal NOLs arising in tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2018, by providing that such NOLs may be carried-forward indefinitely and used to offset up to 80 percent of taxable income in any given future year. Existing NOLs that arose in tax years beginning prior to January 1, 2018, were not affected by the TCJA and are generally eligible to be carried-forward for up to 20 years and used to fully offset taxable income in future years. If not utilized, our pre-2018 NOLs will expire for U.S. Federal income tax purposes between 2024 and 2037. We also have certain state and foreign NOLs in varying amounts depending on the different state and foreign tax laws.

In addition, our ability to utilize our NOLs may be limited under Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state and foreign tax law. The Section 382 limitations apply if an “ownership change” occurs. Generally, an ownership change occurs when certain shareholders increase their aggregate ownership by more than 50 percentage points over their lowest ownership percentage in a testing period (typically three years). We have evaluated whether one or more ownership changes under Section 382 have occurred since our inception and have determined that there have been at least two such changes. Although we believe that these ownership changes have not resulted in material limitations on our ability to use these NOLs, our ability to utilize these NOLs may be limited due to future ownership changes or for other reasons. As a result, we may not be able to take full advantage of our NOL carryforwards for U.S. Federal, state, and foreign income tax purposes.

​

86

Table of Contents

General Risk Factors

We may use our limited financial and human resources to pursue a particular research program or product candidate that is ultimately unsuccessful or less successful than other programs or product candidates that we may have forgone or delayed.

Because we have limited resources, we may forego or delay the development of certain programs or product candidates that later prove to have greater commercial potential than the programs or product candidates that we do pursue. Our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial products or profitable market opportunities. Our spending on current and future research and development programs for product candidates may not yield any commercially viable products. If we fail to accurately evaluate the commercial potential or target market for a particular product candidate, we may relinquish valuable rights to that product candidate through strategic collaboration, licensing or other arrangements or we may allocate our limited internal resources to that product candidate when it would have been more advantageous to enter into such an arrangement. Any such failure could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

If we engage in a licensing transaction, acquisition, reorganization or business combination, we will face a variety of risks that could adversely affect our business operations and our securityholders.

From time to time, we have considered, and we will continue to consider in the future, strategic business initiatives intended to further the expansion and development of our business. These initiatives may include in-licensing or acquiring products, technologies or businesses, entering into a business combination with another company or otherwise partnering with another company. If we pursue such a strategy, we could, among other things:

Our insurance policies are expensive and only protect us from some business risks, which leave us exposed to significant uninsured liabilities.

We do not carry insurance for all categories of risk that our business may encounter. Some of the policies we currently maintain include general liability, employment practices liability, property, auto, workers’ compensation, cyber liability, products liability and directors’ and officers’ insurance. We do not know, however, if our current levels of coverage are adequate or if we will be able to obtain insurance with adequate levels of coverage in the future, if at all. Any significant uninsured liability, including significant uninsured liabilities resulting from COVID-19 or related government-imposed shelter-in-place mandates, restrictions on travel and in-person interactions, business closures and disruptions, and other public health safety measures, may require us to pay substantial amounts, which could materially and adversely affect our

87

Table of Contents

financial position and results of operations. Furthermore, any increase in the volatility of our stock price, among other factors, may result in us being required to pay substantially higher premiums for our directors’ and officers’ insurance, and may make it difficult for us to obtain adequate coverage on reasonable terms, if at all.

We must comply with environmental, health and safety laws and regulations.

​

Our activities involve the controlled storage, use and disposal of hazardous materials. We are subject to federal, state, city and local laws and regulations, in and outside the United States, governing the use, manufacture, storage, handling and disposal of these hazardous materials. Although we believe that the safety procedures we use for handling and disposing of these materials comply with the standards prescribed by applicable laws and regulations, we cannot eliminate the risk of accidental contamination or injury from these materials. In the event of an accident, regulatory authorities may curtail the use of these materials and interrupt our business operations. We do not currently maintain hazardous materials insurance coverage.

Failure to establish and maintain adequate financial infrastructure and accounting systems and controls could impair our ability to comply with the financial reporting and internal controls requirements for publicly traded companies.

As a public company, we operate in a demanding regulatory environment, which requires us to comply with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and related rules and regulations, expanded disclosure requirements, accelerated reporting requirements and complex accounting rules. Responsibilities imposed by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act include establishing and maintaining corporate oversight and adequate internal control over financial reporting and disclosure controls and procedures. Effective internal controls are necessary for us to produce reliable financial reports and are important to help prevent financial fraud.

In particular, our compliance with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act has required and will continue to require that we incur substantial accounting-related expenses and expend significant management efforts. Our testing, or the testing by our independent registered public accounting firm, may reveal deficiencies in our internal controls that we would be required to remediate in a timely manner. If we are not able to comply with the requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, we could be subject to sanctions or investigations by the SEC, the Nasdaq Global Select Market or other regulatory authorities, which would require additional financial and management resources and could adversely affect the market price of our securities. Furthermore, if we cannot provide reliable financial reports or prevent fraud, including as a result of remote working by our employees in connection with COVID-19 and related government-imposed shelter-in-place mandates and other public health safety measures, our business and results of operations would likely be materially and adversely affected.

Our disclosure controls and procedures may not prevent or detect all errors or acts of fraud.

We are subject to the periodic reporting requirements of the Exchange Act. Our disclosure controls and procedures are designed to reasonably assure that information required to be disclosed by us in reports we file or submit under the Exchange Act is accumulated and communicated to management, recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the rules and forms of the SEC. We believe that any disclosure controls and procedures or internal controls and procedures, no matter how well conceived and operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the objectives of the control system are met.

These inherent limitations include the realities that judgments in decision-making can be faulty and that breakdowns can occur because of simple error or mistake. Additionally, controls can be circumvented by the individual acts of some persons, by collusion of two or more people or by an unauthorized override of the controls. Accordingly, because of the inherent limitations in our control system, misstatements or insufficient disclosure due to error or fraud may occur and not be detected.

Changes in our effective income tax rate could adversely affect our results of operations.

We are subject to income taxes in the United States and various foreign jurisdictions. Various factors may have favorable or unfavorable effects on our effective income tax rate. These factors include, but are not limited to,

88

Table of Contents

interpretations of existing tax laws, changes in tax laws and rates, such as the TCJA, the accounting for stock options and other stock-based compensation, changes in accounting standards, future levels of research and development spending, changes in the mix and level of pre-tax earnings in different jurisdictions, the outcome of audits or other examinations by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service and tax regulators in other jurisdictions, the accuracy of our estimates for unrecognized tax benefits, the realization of deferred tax assets and changes to our ownership or capital structure.

The impact on our effective income tax rate resulting from these factors may be significant and could adversely affect our results of operations.

If securities or industry analysts cease publishing research or reports about us, our business or our market, or if they publish inaccurate or unfavorable reports about us or our securities, the price of our securities and trading volume in our securities could decline.

The market for our common stock and the Convertible Notes depends in part on the research and reports that securities or industry analysts publish about our company. We do not have any control over these analysts, and there can be no assurance that analysts will continue to cover us or provide favorable coverage. If one or more of the analysts who cover us downgrade our common stock or publish inaccurate or unfavorable research about our business, our stock price and the price of the Convertible Notes may decline. If one or more of the analysts covering us fail to regularly publish reports on us, demand for our common stock and the Convertible Notes may decline, which could cause our stock price and the price of the Convertible Notes and trading volume to decline.

​

89

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

​

Dividend Policy

We have never declared or paid any cash dividends on our common stock, and we do not anticipate paying any cash dividends in the foreseeable future.

Recent Sales of Unregistered Securities

Not applicable.

Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

The following table provides certain information with respect to purchases of our common stock during the three months ended December 31, 2020.

​

​

91

Table of Contents

consolidated balance sheet data as of December 31, 2018, 2017 and 2016 have been derived from our audited consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes that are not included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

​

​

92

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

ongoing REGENERATE trial in support of potential accelerated approval and that the long-term outcomes phase of the trial should continue. We are in discussions with the FDA with respect to the potential resubmission of our NDA seeking accelerated approval of OCA for the treatment of liver fibrosis due to NASH. We had our end of review meeting with the FDA in October 2020 to discuss the FDA’s risk-benefit assessment in the CRL based on its review of the available data, as well as our proposed resubmission of our NDA for the treatment of liver fibrosis due to NASH. The meeting was constructive and the FDA has provided us with helpful guidance regarding supplemental data we can provide to further characterize OCA’s efficacy and safety profile that could support resubmission based on our Phase 3 REGENERATE 18-month biopsy data, together with a safety update from our ongoing studies. We are advancing accordingly and plan to hold additional meetings with the FDA with the goal of achieving sufficient alignment to proceed on this basis and potentially resubmit our NDA for the treatment of liver fibrosis due to NASH by the end of 2021. In addition, we continue to work collaboratively with the EMA on its review of our MAA.

As part of our product development activities, we expect to continue to invest in evaluating the potential of OCA in progressive non-viral liver diseases. We are currently conducting a Phase 3 clinical trial in NASH patients with compensated cirrhosis, known as the REVERSE trial. In January 2020, we announced that we completed enrollment of the REVERSE trial with over 900 patients randomized. We are also studying OCA in combination with bezafibrate, a pan-peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor agonist, in patients with PBC and potentially may study such combination in other liver diseases. In addition, we have other compounds in early stages of research and development in our pipeline.

Capital Markets Activities During the Periods Under Review

In May 2019, we issued and sold (i) 2,760,000 shares of common stock in a registered public offering (including 360,000 shares issued and sold upon the exercise in full of the underwriters’ option to purchase additional shares), at a price to the public of $83.50 per share (the “2019 Public Offering”) and (ii) 119,760 shares of common stock (the “2019 Private Placement Shares”) in a concurrent private placement of common stock (the “2019 Concurrent Private Placement”) exempt from the registration requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), at a purchase price per share equivalent to the price to the public set in the 2019 Public Offering and pursuant to a securities purchase agreement (the “2019 Securities Purchase Agreement”) that the Company entered into with Samsara BioCapital, L.P. (“Samsara”), one of our existing stockholders. Pursuant to the 2019 Securities Purchase Agreement, we granted to Samsara certain registration rights requiring us, upon request of Samsara on or after July 9, 2019 and subject to certain terms and conditions, to register the resale by Samsara of its 2019 Private Placement Shares. Such registration rights expire upon the earlier of (i) May 8, 2020 and (ii) the date that all of the 2019 Private Placement Shares have been sold or can be sold publicly under Rule 144 of the Securities Act on a single day. We received net proceeds from the 2019 Public Offering and the 2019 Concurrent Private Placement of approximately $227.3 million, after deducting underwriting discounts, commissions and estimated offering expenses of approximately $13.9 million.

In May 2019, we also issued and sold $230.0 million aggregate principal amount of 2.00% Convertible Senior Notes due 2026 (the “2026 Convertible Notes”). We received net proceeds from the sale of the 2026 Convertible Notes of $223.4 million, after deducting underwriting discounts, commissions and estimated offering expenses of approximately $6.6 million.

Financial Overview

Revenue

We commenced our commercial launch of Ocaliva for the treatment of PBC in the United States in June 2016. In December 2016, the European Commission granted conditional approval for Ocaliva for the treatment of PBC and we commenced our European commercial launch in January 2017. Since January 2017, Ocaliva has also received regulatory approval in several of our target markets outside the United States and Europe, including Canada, Israel and Australia. We sell Ocaliva to a limited number of specialty pharmacies which dispense the product directly to patients. The specialty pharmacies are referred to as our customers.

94

Table of Contents

Product Revenue, Net

We recognize revenue upon shipment of Ocaliva to our customers. We provide the right of return to our customers for unopened product for a limited time before and after its expiration date.

Under Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) Topic 606, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (“ASC 606”), we have written contracts with each of our customers that have a single performance obligation — to deliver products upon receipt of a customer order — and these obligations are satisfied when delivery occurs and the customer receives Ocaliva. We evaluate the creditworthiness of each of our customers to determine whether collection is reasonably assured. We estimate variable revenue by calculating gross product revenues based on the wholesale acquisition cost that we charge our customers for Ocaliva, and then estimating our net product revenues by deducting (i) estimated government rebates and discounts related to Medicare, Medicaid and other government programs, (ii) estimated costs of incentives offered to certain indirect customers including patients and (iii) trade allowances, such as invoice discounts for prompt payment and customer fees.

​

We recognized net sales of Ocaliva of $312.7 million, $249.6 and $177.8 million for the years ended December 31, 2020, 2019 and 2018, respectively.

We have received paragraph IV certification notice letters from several generic drug manufacturers indicating that each such company has submitted to the FDA an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) seeking approval to manufacture and sell a generic version of our 5 mg and 10 mg dosage strengths of Ocaliva^® (obeticholic acid) for PBC prior to the expiration of certain patents protecting Ocaliva. We have initiated patent infringement suits against each of these generic drug manufacturers in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. While we intend to vigorously defend and enforce our intellectual property rights protecting Ocaliva, we can offer no assurance as to when the lawsuits will be decided, whether the lawsuits will be successful, or that a generic equivalent of Ocaliva will not be approved and enter the market before the expiration of such patents. See Note 19 to our audited consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for more information.

​

Licensing Revenue

In March 2011, we entered into an exclusive license agreement (the “Sumitomo Agreement”) with Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma Co., Ltd. (“Sumitomo Dainippon”), pursuant to which we granted to Sumitomo Dainippon an exclusive license to research, develop and commercialize OCA for the treatment of PBC and NASH in Japan and China (excluding Taiwan) and an option to research, develop and commercialize OCA in certain countries outside of such territories (the “Country Option”). We received an upfront payment from Sumitomo Dainippon of $15.0 million under the terms of the Sumitomo Agreement. In October 2019, we and Sumitomo Dainippon mutually agreed to terminate with immediate effect the Sumitomo Agreement. In connection with the termination of the Sumitomo Agreement, Sumitomo Dainippon agreed to return to us the rights to develop and commercialize OCA in China and we agreed to forego any further milestone or royalty payments relating to the development and commercialization of OCA in China. No payment was due from us to Sumitomo Dainippon as a result of the termination of the Sumitomo Agreement.

We recognized licensing revenue of $0, $2.4 million and $2.0 million for the years ended December 31, 2020, 2019 and 2018, respectively.

Selling, General and Administrative Expenses

We have incurred and expect to continue to incur significant selling, general and administrative expenses as a result of, among other initiatives, the launch and commercialization of Ocaliva for PBC in the United States, Europe and our other target markets. In addition, we have incurred significant selling, general and administrative expenses and may in the future incur similar expenses in connection with the preparation for the potential commercialization of OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH, if approved, and our other future approved products, if any, and any build-out of our general and administrative infrastructure in the United States and abroad.

95

Table of Contents

Research and Development Expenses

Since our inception, we have focused significant resources on our research and development activities, including conducting preclinical studies and clinical trials, pursuing regulatory approvals and engaging in other product development activities. We recognize research and development expenses as they are incurred.

We have incurred and expect to continue to incur significant research and development expenses as a result of, among other initiatives, our clinical development programs for OCA for PBC and NASH, our other earlier stage research programs and our regulatory approval efforts.

96

Table of Contents

Selling, general and administrative expenses

Selling, general and administrative expenses were $332.5 million and $317.4 million for the years ended December 31, 2020 and 2019, respectively. The $15.1 million net increase between periods was primarily driven by increases in expenses during the first half of 2020 relating to our launch preparation activities associated with the potential approval and commercialization of OCA for liver fibrosis due to NASH.

Research and development expenses

Research and development expenses were $191.5 million and $242.8 million for the years ended December 31, 2020 and 2019, respectively. The $51.3 million net decrease between periods was primarily driven by UK R&D tax credits of $22.0 million recognized as a reduction of research and development expenses and lower NASH development costs, including the conclusion of enrollment activities for the REGENERATE and REVERSE studies.

Restructuring expenses

Restructuring expenses were $14.6 million and $0 for the years ended December 31, 2020 and 2019, respectively. The increase between periods was primarily driven by severance costs and other related termination benefits incurred in conjunction with the 2020 Workforce Plan.

Interest expense

Interest expense was $48.1 million and $41.1 million for the years ended December 31, 2020 and 2019, respectively. For the years ended December 31, 2020 and 2019, interest expense related to the $230.0 million aggregate principal amount of 2.00% Convertible Senior Notes due 2026 (the “2026 Convertible Notes”) that we issued in May 2019 and the $460.0 million aggregate principal amount of 3.25% Convertible Senior Notes due 2023 (the “2023 Convertible Notes” and together with the 2026 Convertible Notes, the “Convertible Notes”) that we issued in July 2016.

Other income, net

Other income, net was $4.4 million and $8.9 million for the years ended December 31, 2020 and 2019, respectively. Such income is primarily attributable to interest income earned on cash, cash equivalents and investment debt securities.

Income taxes

For the years ended December 31, 2020 and 2019, no income tax expense or benefit was recognized. Our deferred tax assets are comprised primarily of net operating loss carryforwards. We maintain a full valuation allowance on our deferred tax assets since we have not yet achieved sustained profitable operations. As a result, we have not recorded any income tax benefit since our inception.

97

Table of Contents