Item 1A. Risk Factors.

Our operations and financial results are subject to various risks and uncertainties, including those described below that could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and the trading price of our common stock. You should carefully consider the following risks, together with all of the other information in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including our financial statements and the related notes included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Risks Relating Our Financial Position

We are a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company with a limited operating history.

We are a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company with a limited operating history focused on developing therapeutics for degenerative diseases, including Alzheimer’s disease. We were incorporated in June 2012 and commenced material operations in June 2014. We have a very limited operating history, which may make it difficult to evaluate the success of our business to date and assess our future viability. Drug development is a highly uncertain undertaking and involves a substantial degree of risk. We have recently initiated clinical trials for our lead drug candidate, atuzaginstat, and have not initiated clinical trials for any of our other drug candidates. To date, we have not initiated or completed a pivotal clinical trial, obtained marketing approval for any drug candidate, manufactured a commercial scale drug candidate, arranged for a third party to do so on our behalf, or conducted sales and marketing activities necessary for successful drug candidate commercialization. Our short operating history as a company makes any assessment of our future success and viability subject to significant uncertainty. We will encounter risks and difficulties frequently experienced by early-stage biopharmaceutical companies in rapidly evolving fields, and we have not yet demonstrated an ability to overcome such risks and difficulties successfully. If we do not address these risks and difficulties successfully, our business will suffer.

We have no drug candidates approved for commercial sale, we have never generated any revenue from sales, and we may never be profitable.

We have no drug candidates approved for sale, have never generated any revenue from sales, have never been profitable and do not expect to be profitable in the foreseeable future. We have incurred net losses in each year since our inception. For the years ended December 31, 2020, 2019 and 2018, our net losses were $76.8 million, $37.0 million and $12.5 million, respectively. We had an accumulated deficit of $146.7 million as of December 31, 2020.

To date, we have devoted most of our financial resources to our corporate overhead and research and development of atuzaginstat, including our preclinical development activities and clinical trials of atuzaginstat. We expect that it will be several years, if ever, before we have a drug candidate ready for commercialization. We expect to continue to incur losses for the foreseeable future, and we expect these losses to increase as we continue our development of, and seek regulatory approvals for our drug candidates, prepare for and begin the commercialization of any approved drug candidates, and add infrastructure and personnel to support our drug development efforts and operations as a public company. We anticipate that any such losses could be significant for the next several years. These net losses and negative cash flows have had, and will continue to have, an adverse effect on our stockholders’ equity and working capital. Further, these net losses have fluctuated significantly in the past and are expected to continue to significantly fluctuate from quarter-to-quarter or year-to-year. To become and remain profitable, we must develop and eventually commercialize a drug with significant revenue.

We may never succeed in developing a commercial drug and, even if we succeed in commercializing one or more drug candidates, we may never generate revenues that are significant or large enough to achieve profitability. In addition, we may encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays and other known and unknown challenges. Because of these numerous risks and uncertainties, we are unable to accurately predict the timing or amount of increased expenses or when, or if, we will be able to generate revenues or achieve profitability. If we do achieve profitability, we may not be able to sustain or increase profitability on a quarterly or annual basis and we will continue to incur substantial research and development and other expenditures to develop and market additional drug candidates.

21

We will require substantial additional funding to finance our operations, complete the development and commercialization of atuzaginstat and evaluate future drug candidates. If we are unable to raise this funding when needed, we may be forced to delay, reduce or eliminate our drug development programs or other operations.

Since our inception, we have used substantial amounts of cash to fund our operations, and we expect our expenses to increase substantially in the foreseeable future in connection with our ongoing activities, particularly as we continue the research and development of, initiate clinical trials of, and seek marketing approval for, atuzaginstat. Developing atuzaginstat and conducting clinical trials for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease, early Parkinson’s disease and any other indications that we may pursue in the future will require substantial amounts of capital. In addition, if we obtain marketing approval for atuzaginstat or any future drug candidates, we expect to incur significant commercialization expenses related to sales, marketing, manufacturing and distribution. Accordingly, we will need to obtain substantial additional funding in connection with our continuing operations.

Accordingly, we will need to obtain substantial additional funding in connection with our continuing operations. As of December 31, 2020, we had $184.3 million in cash, cash equivalents and investments. We believe that our existing capital resources will be sufficient to fund our projected operations through at least 2023. However, changing circumstances may cause us to increase our spending significantly faster than we currently anticipate, and we may need to spend more money than currently expected because of circumstances beyond our control. We may need to raise additional funds sooner than we anticipate if we choose to expand more rapidly than we presently anticipate.

The amount and timing of our future funding requirements will depend on many factors, some of which are outside of our control, including but not limited to:

Additional funding may not be available to us on acceptable terms or at all. Any such funding may result in dilution to stockholders, imposition of debt covenants and repayment obligations, or other restrictions that may affect our business. If we are unable to obtain funding on a timely basis, we may be required to significantly curtail one or more of our research or development programs. We also could be required to seek funds through arrangements with collaborative partners or otherwise that may require us to relinquish rights to some of our technologies or drug candidates or otherwise agree to terms unfavorable to us. Additionally, while the potential global economic impact and the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic may be difficult to assess or predict, a widespread pandemic could result in significant long-term disruption of global financial markets, which could in the future reduce our ability to access capital and negatively affect our liquidity. In addition, the trading prices for our common stock and other biopharmaceutical companies, as well as the broader equity and debt markets, have been highly volatile as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting impact on economic activity. Furthermore, a recession or decline in market value resulting from the spread of COVID-19 could materially affect our operations, overall yields from our investment portfolio, including through impairment and loss of investment, and the value of our common stock.

22

Risks Related to Our Business and the Development of Our Drug Candidates

We are substantially dependent on the success of atuzaginstat, which will require significant additional clinical testing before we can seek regulatory approval and potentially launch commercial sales, and which may not be successful in clinical trials, receive regulatory approval or be successfully commercialized, even if approved.

To date, we have invested substantially all of our efforts and financial resources in the research and development of atuzaginstat, which is currently our only drug candidate. Before seeking marketing approval from regulatory authorities for the sale of atuzaginstat, we must conduct extensive clinical trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of the drug in humans. We are not permitted to market or promote any of our drug candidates before we receive regulatory approval from the FDA, or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, and we may never receive such regulatory approval. We cannot be certain that atuzaginstat will be successful in clinical trials. Further, atuzaginstat may not receive regulatory approval even if it is successful in clinical trials. If we do not receive regulatory approvals for atuzaginstat, we may not be able to continue our operations. Our prospects, including our ability to finance our operations and generate revenue, will depend entirely on the successful development, regulatory approval and commercialization of atuzaginstat. The clinical and commercial success of atuzaginstat will depend on a number of factors, including the following:

Many of these factors are beyond our control. Accordingly, we cannot assure you that we will ever be able to generate revenue through the sale of atuzaginstat. If we are not successful in commercializing atuzaginstat, or are significantly delayed in doing so, our business will be materially harmed.

Our approach to the potential treatment of the underlying cause of Alzheimer’s and other neurodegenerative diseases is based on a novel therapeutic approach, which exposes us to unforeseen risks.

We have discovered and are developing a proprietary library of protease inhibitors from which we have selected our lead drug candidate, atuzaginstat, which is under development to treat Alzheimer’s disease and other degenerative diseases. Our approach is based on the discovery of P. gingivalis and its secreted virulence factor proteases, gingipains, and represents a new approach to disease modification in Alzheimer’s disease. There is no current academic or general consensus on the causation of Alzheimer’s disease or method of action or current drugs that purport to treat Alzheimer’s disease. Based on the results of our preclinical and

23

clinical studies to date, we believe atuzaginstat is neuroprotective and with potential to prevent further neurodegeneration, reduce amyloid beta levels and reduce inflammation, when administered orally. However, these ideas and this approach are novel, and we currently have only limited data based on physiological mouse models of Alzheimer’s disease and our Phase 1 a/b clinical trials which enrolled 67 subjects, including nine patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer’s disease. Our physiological animal model may not result in disease modifying treatment in humans. We are not aware of any other brain-penetrating gingipain protease inhibitors being tested in humans. We may ultimately discover that atuzaginstat, or any of our other protease inhibitors, do not possess certain properties required for therapeutic effectiveness. We have no long-term evidence regarding the efficacy, safety and tolerability of atuzaginstat or other compounds in our proprietary library of protease inhibitors in humans. We may spend substantial funds attempting to develop these drug candidates and never succeed in doing so.

Clinical drug development is a lengthy, expensive and uncertain process. The results of preclinical studies and early clinical trials are not always predictive of future results. Any drug candidate that we advance into clinical trials may not achieve favorable results in later clinical trials, if any, or receive marketing approval.

The research and development of drugs is extremely risky. Only a small percentage of drug candidates that enter the development process ever receive marketing approval. Before obtaining marketing approval from regulatory authorities for the sale of any drug candidate, we must complete preclinical development and then conduct extensive clinical trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of our drug candidates in humans. Clinical testing is expensive and can take many years to complete, and its outcome is inherently uncertain.

The results of preclinical studies and completed clinical trials are not necessarily predictive of future results, and our current drug candidate may not be further developed or have favorable results in later studies or trials. Clinical trial failure may result from a multitude of factors including, but not limited to, flaws in study design, dose selection, placebo effect, patient enrollment criteria and failure to demonstrate favorable safety or efficacy traits. As such, failure in clinical trials can occur at any stage of testing. A number of companies in the pharmaceutical industry have suffered setbacks in the advancement of their drug candidates into later-stage clinical trials due to lack of efficacy or adverse safety profiles, notwithstanding results in earlier preclinical studies or clinical trials. The Phase 1a and Phase 1b clinical trials for our lead drug candidate, atuzaginstat, included only nine Alzheimer’s patients and 58 healthy volunteers. Further, the results of our earlier stage clinical trials and our preclinical animal studies may not be predictive of the results of outcomes in later-stage clinical studies. For example, data from six Alzheimer’s patients treated with atuzaginstat in our Phase 1b clinical trial showed improvements across several exploratory cognitive tests. However, these improvements should be interpreted with caution because they were not all statistically significant. When evaluated in a larger patient population, atuzaginstat may not show similar improvements toward cognitive effects or may demonstrate different chemical and pharmacological properties in patients in unforeseen or harmful ways. Based upon negative or inconclusive results, we may decide, or regulatory authorities may require us, to conduct additional clinical trials or preclinical studies. In addition, data obtained from preclinical trials and clinical trials are susceptible to varying interpretations, and regulatory authorities may not interpret our data as favorably as we do, which may further delay, limit or prevent development efforts, clinical trials or marketing approval. Furthermore, as more competing drug candidates within a particular class of drugs proceed through clinical development to regulatory review and approval, the amount and type of clinical data that may be required by regulatory authorities may increase or change.

If we are unable to complete preclinical studies or clinical trials of current or future drug candidates, due to safety concerns, or if the results of these trials are not sufficient to convince regulatory authorities of their safety or efficacy, we will not be able to obtain marketing approval for commercialization on a timely basis or at all. Even if we are able to obtain marketing approval for our current and any future drug candidates, those approvals may be for indications or dose levels that deviate from our desired approach or may contain other limitations that would adversely affect our ability to generate revenue from sales of those drug candidates. Moreover, if we are not able to differentiate our drug candidate against other approved drug candidates within the same class of drugs, or if any of the other circumstances described above occur, our business would be harmed and our ability to generate revenue from that class of drugs would be severely impaired.

Adverse side effects or properties or other safety risks associated with atuzaginstat or any future drug candidates could delay or preclude approval, cause us to suspend or discontinue clinical trials, abandon further development, limit the commercial profile of an approved label, or result in significant negative consequences following marketing approval, if any.

There may be side effects and adverse events associated with the use of atuzaginstat or any future drug candidates. atuzaginstat was well-tolerated with no concerning safety signals in our Phase 1a and Phase 1b clinical trials. While some subjects experienced minor changes in electrocardiograms, or ECGs, in particular transient increases in the QRS duration and PR interval, these changes were not clinically significant, which means they did not result in the need to consider changes to the treatment of the patient. Similar measurements were seen at higher doses in animal studies. There were no discernable trends in the QTcF interval in human or animal studies. Relative to placebo, there were no patterns in laboratory abnormalities or changes in ECGs, vital signs or the results of physical examinations observed during these trials that would be deemed practically relevant to the treatment of the patient with atuzaginstat. Results from our preclinical testing and early clinical trials do not ensure that later clinical trials will provide adequate data to demonstrate the safety of atuzaginstat.

24

Results of our Phase 2/3 GAIN trial, and future clinical trials, could reveal a high and unacceptable severity and prevalence of side effects or unexpected characteristics as the clinical trials progress to longer exposures at varying dose levels and a larger number of patients. Side effects could include treatment-related adverse events not seen in our Phase 1a and Phase 1b clinical trials of atuzaginstat including hepatic adverse events. Undesirable side effects caused by, or unexpected or unacceptable characteristics associated with, atuzaginstat or any future drug candidates could result in the delay, suspension or termination of clinical trials by us, the FDA or other regulatory authorities for a number of reasons. For example, on February 12, 2021, we received a letter from the FDA stating that a partial clinical hold has been placed on atuzaginstat impacting the OLE phase of the GAIN Trial. The partial clinical hold was initiated following the review of hepatic adverse events in the atuzaginstat trial by the FDA. Under the hold, we have stopped enrollment and dosing in the OLE phase of the GAIN Trial.

As we test the safety of atuzaginstat in our Phase 2/3 GAIN trial or other trials, or as the use of atuzaginstat becomes more widespread if it receives regulatory approval, we may identify additional adverse events that were not identified or not considered significant in our earlier trials. If such side effects become later known in development or upon approval, if any, such findings may harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects significantly. If we or others later identify undesirable side effects, a number of potentially significant negative consequences could result, including:

Any of these events could prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of atuzaginstat or any future drug candidates, if approved, and could significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Success in preclinical studies or earlier clinical trials may not be indicative of results in future clinical trials.

Success in preclinical testing and early clinical trials does not ensure that later clinical trials will generate the same results or otherwise provide adequate data to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of a drug candidate. Preclinical tests and Phase 1 and Phase 2 clinical trials are primarily designed to test safety, to study pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics and to understand the side effects of drug candidates at various doses and schedules. Success in preclinical or animal studies and early clinical trials does not ensure that later large-scale efficacy trials will be successful, nor does it predict final results. Our drug candidates may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy in clinical development despite positive results in preclinical studies or having successfully advanced through initial clinical trials.

Many companies in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries have suffered significant setbacks in late-stage clinical trials even after achieving promising results in preclinical testing and earlier-stage clinical trials. Data obtained from preclinical and clinical activities are subject to varying interpretations, which may delay, limit or prevent regulatory approval. In addition, we may experience regulatory delays or rejections as a result of many factors, including changes in regulatory policy during the period of our drug candidate development. Any such delays could negatively impact our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Clinical holds imposed by the FDA could prevent us from administering atuzaginstat at higher doses than currently utilized or planned.

Preclinical data for atuzaginstat showed toxicity at very high exposure levels in mice and, as a result, the FDA placed atuzaginstat on partial clinical hold to enforce an exposure cap on atuzaginstat dosages in humans at approximately 2.4 times the top dose of 80 mg BID in our Phase 2/3 GAIN trial. Although the FDA has permitted the continuation of clinical trials at the planned doses of atuzaginstat, if we determine that we need to increase the dosage of atuzaginstat in humans, the partial hold, or any future clinical holds placed by the FDA may have a negative impact on our ability to carry out our clinical studies, which could delay or prevent the commercialization of atuzaginstat and may harm our business and financial condition.  In addition, the FDA placed a partial clinical hold on atuzaginstat impacting the OLE phase of the GAIN Trial following the review of hepatic adverse events in the atuzaginstat trial by the FDA. Under the hold, we have stopped enrollment and dosing in the OLE phase of the GAIN Trial.

25

We may not be successful in our efforts to continue to create a pipeline of drug candidates or to develop commercially successful drugs. If we fail to successfully identify and develop additional drug candidates, our commercial opportunity may be limited.

One of our strategies is to identify and pursue clinical development of additional drug candidates. We currently have four programs in the early phase of development, all of which are in the research, discovery and preclinical stages of development. Identifying, developing, obtaining regulatory approval and commercializing additional drug candidates will require substantial additional funding and is prone to the risks of failure inherent in drug development. We cannot provide you any assurance that we will be able to successfully identify or acquire additional drug candidates, advance any of these additional drug candidates through the development process, successfully commercialize any such additional drug candidates, if approved, or assemble sufficient resources to identify, acquire, develop or, if approved, commercialize additional drug candidates. If we are unable to successfully identify, acquire, develop and commercialize additional drug candidates, our commercial opportunity may be limited.

We may incur additional costs or experience delays in completing, or ultimately be unable to complete, the development and commercialization of our drug candidates.

We may experience numerous unforeseen events during, or as a result of, clinical trials that could delay or prevent our ability to receive marketing approval or commercialize our drug candidates, including:

26

For example, enrollment in our clinical trials may be delayed or impeded as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic due to prioritization of healthcare resources toward the pandemic, and some patients may not be able to comply with clinical trial protocols if quarantines impede patient movement or interrupt healthcare services.  In addition, we may experience increased rates of patients withdrawing from our clinical trials following enrollment as a result of contracting COVID-19 or other health conditions or because of quarantines or travel limitations (whether voluntary or required) If the patients involved with our clinical trials contract COVID-19, we may have more adverse events and deaths in our clinical trials as a result. The Company has taken and continues to take proactive measures to maintain the integrity of its ongoing clinical trial. For example, to potentially mitigate some of the risks of the COVID-19 pandemic and based on interest and the ability to maintain milestone timelines, we enrolled approximately 70 additional subjects in the GAIN trial. However, these measures may not be successful, and the occurrence of any of these events could delay or impede our ability to release clinical results, delay or impact our clinical trials, including the integrity and completeness of subject data and clinical study endpoints, and could adversely impact our product candidate testing, development and timelines.

Clinical trials are expensive and time consuming, additional or unsuccessful clinical trials could cause our clinical development activities to be delayed or otherwise adversely affected.

If we are required to conduct additional clinical trials or other testing of our drug candidates beyond those that we currently contemplate, if we are unable to successfully complete clinical trials of our drug candidates or other testing, if the results of these trials or tests are not positive or are only modestly positive or if there are safety concerns, we may:

Drug development costs will also increase if we experience delays in testing or in obtaining marketing approvals. We do not know whether any clinical trials will begin as planned, will need to be amended or will be completed on schedule, or at all. Significant clinical trial delays also could shorten any periods during which we may have the exclusive right to commercialize our drug candidates, could allow our competitors to bring drug candidates to market before we do, and could impair our ability to successfully commercialize our drug candidates, if approved, any of which may harm our business and results of operations. In addition, many of the factors that cause, or lead to a delay in the commencement or completion of, clinical trials may also ultimately lead to termination or suspension of a clinical trial. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly. Any termination of any clinical trial of our drug candidates will harm our commercial prospects and our ability to generate revenues.

Risks Relating to Regulatory Review and Approval of Our Drug Candidates and Other Legal Compliance Matters

We cannot be certain that atuzaginstat or any of our future drug candidates will receive regulatory approval, and without regulatory approval we will not be able to market our drug candidates.

We currently have no drug candidates approved for sale and we cannot guarantee that we will ever have marketable drug candidates. We are initially developing atuzaginstat for the treatment of patients with Alzheimer’s disease and are also consulting with investigators to consider other possible indications. Our ability to generate revenue related to sales, if ever, will depend on the successful development and regulatory approval of atuzaginstat for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease and other indications.

The development of a drug candidate and issues relating to its approval and marketing are subject to extensive regulation by the FDA in the United States, the EMA in Europe and regulatory authorities in other countries, with regulations differing from country to country. We are not permitted to market our drug candidates in the United States or Europe until we receive approval of a new drug application, or NDA, from the FDA or a marketing authorization application, or MAA, from the EMA, respectively. We have not submitted any marketing applications for any of our drug candidates.

NDAs and MAAs must include extensive preclinical and clinical data and supporting information to establish the drug 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 drug. 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 never guaranteed. If we submit a NDA to the FDA, the FDA must decide whether to accept or reject the submission for filing. We cannot be certain that any submissions will be accepted for filing and review by the FDA. Regulators of other jurisdictions,

27

such as the EMA, have their own procedures for approval of drug candidates. Even if a drug is approved, the FDA or the EMA, as the case may be, may limit the indications for which the drug may be marketed, require extensive warnings on the drug labeling or require expensive and time-consuming clinical trials or reporting as conditions of approval. Regulatory authorities in countries outside of the United States and Europe also have requirements for approval of drug candidates with which we must comply prior to marketing in those countries. Obtaining regulatory approval for marketing of a drug candidate in one country does not ensure that we will be able to obtain regulatory approval in any other country. 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 regulatory requests for additional analyses, reports, data, preclinical studies and clinical trials, regulatory questions regarding different interpretations of data and results, changes in regulatory policy during the period of drug development and the emergence of new information regarding our drug candidates or other drug candidates. Also, regulatory approval for any of our drug candidates may be withdrawn.

We initiated our Phase 2/3 GAIN trial in patients with Alzheimer’s disease in April 2019. Before we submit a NDA to the FDA or a MAA to the EMA for atuzaginstat for the treatment of patients with Alzheimer’s disease, we must successfully complete at least our Phase 2/3 GAIN trial and potentially additional late-stage clinical trials. The FDA generally requires two pivotal clinical trials to support approval. In addition, we must scale up manufacturing and complete other standard preclinical and clinical studies. We cannot predict whether our future trials will be successful or whether regulators will agree with our conclusions regarding the preclinical studies and clinical trials we have conducted to date and will conduct in the future.

We have concentrated our research and development efforts on the treatment of degenerative diseases, a field that has seen very limited success in drug development. Further, our drug candidates are based on new approaches and novel technology, which makes it difficult to predict the time and cost of drug candidate development and the regulatory approval process.

We have focused our research and development efforts on addressing degenerative diseases. Collectively, efforts by pharmaceutical companies in the field of degenerative diseases have seen very limited successes in drug development. There are few effective therapeutic options available for patients with Alzheimer’s disease and other degenerative diseases. Our future success is highly dependent on the successful development of our technology and our drug candidates for treating degenerative diseases. Developing and, if approved, commercializing our drug candidates for treatment of degenerative diseases subjects us to a number of challenges, including ensuring that we have selected the optimal dose of the therapeutic to block gingipains in the brain, executing an appropriate trial to test for efficacy and obtaining regulatory approval from the FDA and other regulatory authorities.

Our approach to the treatment of degenerative diseases aims to understand the cause of disease pathogensis, select the right patient population, discover and develop potent and selective small molecules that act directly in the brain or other organs on these targets, and leverage both preclinical and human pharmacodynamic data for dose selection. This strategy may not prove to be successful. We cannot be sure that our approach will yield satisfactory therapeutic drug candidates that are safe and effective, scalable, or profitable. Moreover, public perception of drug safety issues, including adoption of new therapeutics or novel approaches to treatment, may adversely influence the willingness of subjects to participate in clinical trials, or if approved, of physicians to prescribe novel treatments.

Clinical failure can occur at any stage of clinical development and we have never conducted a Phase 3 trial or submitted an NDA or MAA before.

We have initiated our Phase 2/3 GAIN trial for Alzheimer’s disease. The conduct of our Phase 2/3 GAIN trials and the submission of a successful NDA is a complicated process. As an organization, we have never conducted a registrational clinical trial and have limited experience in preparing, submitting and prosecuting regulatory filings, and have not submitted a NDA. Failure to commence or complete, or delays in, our planned clinical trials would prevent us from or delay us in seeking approval for, and if approved, commercializing our drug candidates, and failure to successfully complete any of these activities in a timely manner for any of our drug candidates could have a material adverse impact on our business and financial performance. The commencement, enrollment and completion of clinical trials can be delayed or suspended for a variety of reasons, including:

28

In addition, the design of a clinical trial can determine whether its results will support approval of a drug and flaws in the design of a clinical trial may not become apparent until the clinical trial is well-advanced. Changes in regulatory requirements and guidance may also occur and we may need to amend clinical trial protocols to reflect these changes with appropriate regulatory authorities. Amendments may require us to resubmit clinical trial protocols to IRBs for re-examination, which may impact the costs, timing or successful completion of a clinical trial.

In addition, if we are required to conduct additional clinical trials or other preclinical studies of our drug candidates beyond those contemplated, our ability to obtain regulatory approval of these drug candidates and generate revenue from their sales would be similarly harmed.

If clinical trials of our drug candidates fail to demonstrate safety and efficacy to the satisfaction of the FDA or similar regulatory authorities outside the United States or do not otherwise produce positive results, we may incur additional costs or experience delays in completing, or ultimately be unable to complete, the development and commercialization of our drug candidates.

Before obtaining regulatory approvals for the commercial sale of any of our drug candidates, we must demonstrate through lengthy, complex and expensive preclinical studies and clinical trials that our drug candidates are both safe and effective for use in each target indication. Each drug candidate must demonstrate an adequate risk versus benefit profile in its intended patient population and for its intended use.

Clinical testing is expensive and can take many years to complete, and its outcome is inherently uncertain. Failure can occur at any time during the clinical trial process. The results of preclinical studies of our drug candidates may not be predictive of the results of early-stage or later-stage clinical trials, and results of early clinical trials of our drug candidates may not be predictive of the results of later-stage clinical trials. The results of clinical trials in one set of patients or disease indications may not be predictive of those obtained in another. In some instances, there can be significant variability in safety or efficacy results between different clinical trials of the same drug candidate due to numerous factors, including changes in trial procedures set forth in protocols, differences in the size and type of the patient populations, changes in and adherence to the dosing regimen and other clinical trial protocols and the rate of dropout among clinical trial participants. Drug candidates in later stages of clinical trials may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy profile despite having progressed through preclinical studies and initial clinical trials. A number of companies in the pharmaceutical industry have suffered significant setbacks in advanced clinical trials due to lack of efficacy or unacceptable safety issues, notwithstanding promising results in earlier trials. This is particularly true in degenerative diseases, where failure rates historically have been higher than in many other disease areas. Most drug candidates that begin clinical trials are never approved by regulatory authorities for commercialization.

In addition, even if such clinical trials are successfully completed, we cannot guarantee that the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities will interpret the results as we do, and more trials could be required before we submit our drug candidates for approval. Moreover, principal investigators for our clinical trials may serve as scientific advisors or consultants to us from time to time and receive compensation in connection with such services. Under certain circumstances, we may be required to report some of these relationships to the FDA or other regulatory authorities. The FDA or other regulatory authorities may conclude that a financial relationship between us and a principal investigator has created a conflict of interest or otherwise affected the integrity of the study. The FDA or other regulatory authorities may therefore question the integrity of the data generated at the applicable clinical trial site and the utility of the clinical trial itself may be jeopardized. This could result in a delay in approval, or rejection, of our marketing applications by the FDA or other regulatory authorities, as the case may be, and may ultimately lead to the denial of marketing approval of any of our drug candidates. To the extent that the results of the trials are not satisfactory to the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities for support of a marketing application, we may be required to expend significant resources, which may not be available to us, to conduct additional trials in support of potential approval of our drug candidates. Even if regulatory approval is secured for any of our drug candidates, the terms of such approval may limit the scope and use of our drug candidate, which may also limit its commercial potential.

29

We expect to rely on third parties to conduct our clinical trials and some aspects of our research and preclinical testing, and those third parties may not perform satisfactorily, including failing to meet deadlines for the completion of such trials, research, or testing.

We currently rely and expect to continue to rely on third parties, such as CROs, clinical data management organizations, medical institutions, and clinical investigators, to conduct some aspects of our research and preclinical testing and our clinical trials. Any of these third parties may terminate their engagements with us or be unable to fulfill their contractual obligations. If we need to enter into alternative arrangements, it would delay our drug development activities.

Our reliance on these third parties for research and development activities reduces our control over these activities but does not relieve us of our responsibilities. For example, we remain responsible for ensuring that each of our clinical trials is conducted in accordance with the general investigational plan and protocols for the trial. Moreover, the FDA requires us to comply with current good clinical practice regulations, or GCP, for conducting, recording, and reporting the results of clinical trials to assure that data and reported results are credible, reproducible and accurate and that the rights, integrity, and confidentiality of trial participants are protected. We also are required to register ongoing clinical trials and post the results of completed clinical trials on a government-sponsored database within certain timeframes. Failure to do so can result in fines, adverse publicity, and civil and criminal sanctions.

If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties, meet expected deadlines, or conduct our clinical trials in accordance with regulatory requirements or our stated protocols, we will not be able to obtain, or may be delayed in obtaining, marketing approvals for any drug candidates we may develop and will not be able to, or may be delayed in our efforts to, successfully commercialize our medicines.

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

We face significant competition in an environment of rapid technological and scientific change, and there is a possibility that our competitors may achieve regulatory approval before us or develop therapies that are safer, more advanced or more effective than ours.

The development and commercialization of new drugs is highly competitive. Moreover, the degenerative disease field is characterized by strong competition and a strong emphasis on intellectual property. We may face competition with respect to any drug candidates that we seek to develop or commercialize in the future from major pharmaceutical companies, specialty pharmaceutical companies, and biotechnology companies worldwide. Potential competitors also include academic institutions, government agencies, and other public and private research organizations that conduct research, seek patent protection, and establish collaborative arrangements for research, development, manufacturing, and commercialization.

There are a number of large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies that are currently pursuing the development of drug candidates for the treatment of the degenerative disease indications for which we have research programs, including Alzheimer’s disease. Companies that we are aware are developing therapeutics in the degenerative disease field include large companies with significant financial resources, such as AbbVie Inc., Biogen Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, Eisai Co., Ltd., Merck & Company, Inc., Novartis AG, and Roche Holding AG Group (including Genentech, its wholly owned subsidiary), as well as companies pursuing a dysfunctional immune system approach to Alzheimer’s disease or other types of therapies.

Many of our current or potential competitors, either alone or with their strategic partners, have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals, and marketing approved drug candidates than we do. Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel and establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs. Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize drug candidates that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, are more convenient, or are less expensive than any drug candidates that we may develop. Furthermore, currently approved drug candidates could be discovered to have application for treatment of degenerative disease indications, which could give such drug candidates significant regulatory and market timing advantages over any of our drug candidates. Our competitors also may obtain FDA, EMA or other regulatory approval for their drug candidates more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours from the FDA for indications our drug candidates are targeting, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market.

30

Additionally, drug candidates or technologies developed by our competitors may render our potential drug candidates uneconomical or obsolete, and we may not be successful in marketing any drug candidates we may develop against competitors. If our competitors market drug candidates that are more effective, safer or less expensive than our drug candidates, if approved, or that reach the market sooner than our drug candidates, if approved, we may not achieve commercial success. In addition, the pharmaceutical industry is characterized by rapid technological change. If we fail to stay at the forefront of technological change, we may be unable to compete effectively. Technological advances or drug candidates developed by our competitors may render our technologies or drug candidates obsolete, less competitive or not economical.

If we or any of our third-party manufacturers encounter difficulties in production of our current or any future drug candidate, or fail to meet rigorously enforced regulatory standards, our ability to provide supply of our drug candidates for clinical trials or for patients, if approved, could be delayed or stopped, or we may be unable to maintain a commercially viable cost structure.

The processes involved in manufacturing our drug candidates are highly regulated and subject to multiple risks. As drug candidates are developed through preclinical studies to late-stage clinical trials towards approval and commercialization, it is common that various aspects of the development program, such as manufacturing methods, are altered along the way in an effort to optimize processes and results. Such changes carry the risk that they will not achieve these intended objectives, and any of these changes could cause our drug candidates to perform differently and affect the results of planned clinical trials or other future clinical trials.

In order to conduct clinical trials of our drug candidates, or supply commercial drug candidates, if approved, we will need to manufacture them in small and large quantities. We currently rely on third parties to manufacture atuzaginstat for clinical trial purposes, and our manufacturing partners will have to modify and scale-up the manufacturing process when we transition to commercialization of our drug candidates. Our manufacturing partners may be unable to successfully modify or scale-up the manufacturing capacity for any of our drug candidates in a timely or cost-effective manner, or at all. In addition, quality issues may arise during scale-up activities. If our manufacturing partners are unable to successfully scale-up the manufacture of our drug candidates in sufficient quality and quantity, the development, testing and clinical trials of that drug candidate may be delayed or become infeasible, and regulatory approval or commercial launch of any resulting drug may be delayed or not obtained, which could significantly harm our business. The same risks would apply to our internal manufacturing facilities, should we in the future decide to build internal manufacturing capacity. In addition, building internal manufacturing capacity would carry significant risks in terms of being able to plan, design and execute on a complex project to build manufacturing facilities in a timely and cost-efficient manner.

In addition, the manufacturing process for any drug candidates that we may develop is subject to FDA, EMA and foreign regulatory requirements, and continuous oversight, and we will need to contract with manufacturers who can meet all applicable FDA, EMA and foreign regulatory authority requirements, including complying with current good manufacturing practices, or cGMPs, on an ongoing basis. If we or our third-party manufacturers are unable to reliably produce drug candidates in accordance with the requirements of the FDA, EMA or other regulatory authorities, we may not obtain or maintain the approvals we need to commercialize such drug candidates. Even if we obtain regulatory approval for any of our drug candidates, there is no assurance that either we or our third party contract manufacturers will be able to manufacture the approved drug in accordance with the requirements of the FDA, EMA or other regulatory authorities, to produce it in sufficient quantities to meet the requirements for the potential launch of the drug, or to meet potential future demand. Any of these challenges could delay completion of clinical trials, require bridging clinical trials or the repetition of one or more clinical trials, increase clinical trial costs, delay approval of our drug candidate, impair commercialization efforts, increase our cost of goods, and have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects.

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

We do not have a sales or marketing infrastructure and have no experience in the sale, marketing, or distribution of pharmaceutical drug candidates. To achieve commercial success for any approved drug candidate for which we retain sales and marketing responsibilities, we must either develop a sales and marketing organization or outsource these functions to third parties. In the future, we may choose to build a focused sales, marketing, and commercial support infrastructure to sell, or participate in sales activities with collaborators for, some of our drug candidates if and when they are approved.

31

There are risks involved with both establishing our own commercial capabilities and entering into arrangements with third parties to perform these services. For example, factors that may inhibit our efforts to commercialize any approved drug candidates on our own include:

If the commercial launch of a drug candidate for which we recruit a sales force and establish marketing and other commercialization capabilities is delayed or does not occur for any reason, we would have prematurely or unnecessarily incurred these commercialization expenses. This may be costly, and our investment would be lost if we cannot retain or reposition our commercialization personnel.

If we enter into arrangements with third parties to perform sales, marketing, commercial support, and distribution services, our sales revenue or the profitability of sales revenue may be lower than if we were to market and sell any drug candidates we may develop ourselves. In addition, we may not be successful in entering into arrangements with third parties to commercialize our drug candidates or may be unable to do so on terms that are favorable to us. We may have little control over such third parties, and any of them may fail to devote the necessary resources and attention to sell and market our drug candidates effectively. If we do not establish commercialization capabilities successfully, either on our own or in collaboration with third parties, we will not be successful in commercializing our drug candidates if approved.

If product liability lawsuits are brought against us, we may incur substantial liabilities and may be required to limit commercialization of our drug candidates.

We face an inherent risk of product liability as a result of the clinical testing of our drug candidates and will face an even greater risk when and if we commercialize any drug candidates. For example, we may be sued if our drug candidates cause or are perceived to cause injury or are found to be otherwise unsuitable during clinical testing, manufacturing, marketing or sale. Any such product liability claims may include allegations of defects in manufacturing, defects in design, a failure to warn of dangers inherent in the product, negligence, strict liability or a breach of warranties. Product liability claims may be brought against us by participants enrolled in our clinical trials, patients, health care providers or others using, administering or selling our drug candidates. Claims could also be asserted under state consumer protection acts. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against product liability claims, we may incur substantial liabilities or be required to limit testing and commercialization of our drug candidates. Even successful defense would require significant financial and management resources. Regardless of the merits or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in:

32

Our inability to obtain sufficient product liability insurance at an acceptable cost to protect against potential product liability claims could prevent or inhibit the commercialization of drug candidates we develop, alone or with potential collaborators. Our insurance policies may have various exclusions, and we may be subject to a product liability claim for which we have no coverage. We may have to pay any amounts awarded by a court or negotiated in a settlement that exceed our coverage limitations or that are not covered by our insurance, and we may not have, or be able to obtain, sufficient capital to pay such amounts. Even if our agreements with any future corporate collaborators entitle us to indemnification against losses, such indemnification may not be available or adequate should any claim arise.

We may be exposed to a variety of international risks that could materially adversely affect our business.

Our business is subject to risks associated with conducting business internationally. Some of our suppliers and clinical trial centers are located outside of the United States. In particular, we intend to conduct clinical trial operations in Australia. We may enter into agreements with third parties for the development and commercialization of drug candidates in international markets. International business relationships will subject us to additional risks that may materially adversely affect our ability to attain or sustain profitable operations, including:

33

Any of these factors could harm our ongoing international clinical operations and supply chain, as well as any future international expansion and operations and, consequently, our business, financial condition, prospects and results of operations.

Natural disasters, public health crises, political crises, and other catastrophic events or other events outside of our control may be detrimental to our capabilities or the capabilities of third parties on which we depend.

Our headquarters are located in California near major geologic faults that have experienced earthquakes in the past. An earthquake or other natural disaster or power shortages or outages could disrupt operations, impair critical systems or result in loss of clinical samples. Any of these disruptions or other events outside of our control could have a material adverse impact on our business, harming our operating results. In addition, if any of our suppliers or third-party service providers, such as our manufacturing partners or CROs, are affected by natural disasters, such as earthquakes, tsunamis, power shortages or outages, floods or monsoons, public health crises, such as pandemics and epidemics, political crises, such as terrorism, war, political instability or other conflict, cyberattacks, or other events outside of our control, our business and operating results could suffer. Disasters, public health crises and political crises occurring at third-party facilities also could negatively impact our clinical development and regulatory approval timelines, our reputation and the perception of our company. For example, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, we and our third-party service providers have limited our operations or implemented limitations, including work-from-home policies. Our and our third-party service providers increased reliance on personnel working from home may negatively impact productivity, or disrupt, delay, or otherwise adversely impact our business. The increase in working remotely could increase cybersecurity risk, create data accessibility concerns, and make us and our third-party service providers more susceptible to communication disruptions, any of which could adversely impact our or their business operations or delay necessary interactions with local and federal regulators, manufacturing sites, clinical trial sites, and other third parties. In addition, as a result of shelter-in-place orders or other mandated travel restrictions, our on-site staff conducting research and development activities may not be able to access our laboratories, and these core activities may be significantly limited or curtailed, possibly for an extended period of time. Further, due to travel restrictions and “shelter in place” orders, we may experience limitations on the ability to recruit and hire key personnel due to the inability to meet with candidates and reduced ability to engage with the medical and investor communities due to the cancelation of conferences scheduled throughout the year. We also may experience operational challenges caused by sickness of our employees or their families, the desire of employees to avoid contact with large groups of people, and an increased reliance on working from home or mass transit disruptions. Furthermore, new quarantines for COVID-19 or other viruses could impact personnel at contract manufacturing facilities in China, Europe or elsewhere to deliver key materials or the availability or cost of starting materials. Any disruption of our ability to manufacture atuzaginstat or the ability of our contract manufacturing vendors in China, Europe or elsewhere to deliver key materials on a timely basis could have a material adverse effect on the initiation of new trials, the duration of open label extension studies and overall product development. In addition, we may experience delays or disruptions in non-clinical experiments and supplies for such experiments, including animals required for such experiments. These and other factors arising from the COVID-19 pandemic could worsen in countries that are already afflicted with COVID-19, could continue to spread to additional countries, or could return to countries where the pandemic has been partially contained, each of which could further adversely impact our ability to conduct clinical trials and our business generally, and could have a material adverse impact on our operations and financial condition and results.

We will need to expand our operations and increase the size of our company, and we may experience difficulties in managing growth.

As we increase the number of ongoing drug development programs and advance our drug candidates through preclinical studies and clinical trials, we will need to increase our drug development, scientific and administrative headcount to manage these programs. In addition, to meet our obligations as a public company, we will need to increase our general and administrative capabilities. Our management, personnel and systems currently in place may not be adequate to support this future growth. Our need to effectively manage our operations, growth and various projects requires that we:

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

34

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 management, finance, scientific and clinical personnel and consultants due to the intense competition for qualified personnel and consultants 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 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 Casey C. Lynch, our co-founder, and President and Chief Executive Officer. If we lose our Chief Executive Officer, our ability to implement our business strategy successfully could be seriously harmed. Any of our executive officers or key employees or consultants may terminate their employment at any time.

Replacing executive officers, key employees and consultants may be difficult and may take an extended period because of the limited number of individuals in our industry with the breadth of skills and experience required to develop, gain regulatory approval of and commercialize drug candidates successfully. 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 these additional key personnel and consultants. Our failure to retain key personnel or consultants could materially harm our business.

We have scientific and clinical advisors and consultants who assist us in formulating our research, development and clinical strategies. 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. Non-compete agreements are not permissible or are limited by law in certain jurisdictions and, even where they are permitted, these 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 have arrangements with other companies to assist those companies in developing drug candidates or technologies that may compete with ours.

Failure to build our finance infrastructure and improve our 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 an increasingly demanding regulatory environment, which requires us to comply with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, or the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the regulations of Nasdaq Global Select Market, the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission, expanded disclosure requirements, accelerated reporting requirements and more complex accounting rules. Company responsibilities required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act include establishing 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. Commencing in 2020, we must perform system and process evaluation and testing of our internal controls over financial reporting to allow management to report on the effectiveness of our internal controls over financial reporting in our Form filing for 2020, as required by Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Prior to our initial public offering in May 2019, we had never been required to test our internal controls within a specified period and, as a result, we may experience difficulty in meeting these reporting requirements in a timely manner.

We anticipate that the process of continuing to build our accounting and financial functions and infrastructure will require additional professional fees, internal costs and management efforts. We expect that we will need to implement new internal systems to streamline the management of our financial, accounting, human resources and other functions. However, such systems would likely require us to complete many processes and procedures for the effective use of the systems or to run our business using the systems, which may result in additional costs. Any disruptions or difficulties in implementing or using such systems could adversely affect our controls and harm our business. Moreover, such disruption or difficulties could result in unanticipated costs and diversion of management attention. In addition, we may discover weaknesses in our systems of internal financial and accounting controls and procedures that could result in a material misstatement of our financial statements. For example, we previously reported a material weakness in internal control over financial reporting related to the fact that we had not deployed adequate qualified resources in our corporate accounting department which resulted in material audit adjustments that were needed to modify the financial statements to comply with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States. Certain transactions were not adequately analyzed for accounting ramifications and accounting records contained errors and inaccuracies. During 2019, we completed the remediation measures related to the material weakness. Completion of remediation does not provide assurance that our remediation or other controls will continue to operate properly.

Our internal control over financial reporting will not prevent or detect all errors and all fraud. A control system, no matter how well designed and operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the control system’s objectives will be met.

Because of the inherent limitations in all control systems, no evaluation of controls can provide absolute assurance that misstatements due to error or fraud will not occur or that all control issues and instances of fraud will be detected.

35

If we are not able to comply with the requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in a timely manner, or if we are unable to maintain proper and effective internal controls, we may not be able to produce timely and accurate financial statements. If we cannot provide reliable financial reports or prevent fraud, our business and results of operations could be harmed, investors could lose confidence in our reported financial information and we could be subject to sanctions or investigations by Nasdaq, the SEC or other regulatory authorities.

Our employees, independent contractors, consultants, commercial partners and vendors 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 fraud or other misconduct by our employees, independent contractors, consultants, commercial partners and vendors. Misconduct by these parties could include intentional failures to comply with the regulations of the FDA and non-U.S. regulators, provide accurate information to the FDA and non-U.S. regulators, comply with health care 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 health care industry are subject to extensive laws and regulations intended to prevent fraud, misconduct, kickbacks, self-dealing and other abusive practices. These laws and regulations may restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, sales commission, customer incentive programs and other business arrangements. 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. It is not always possible to identify and deter employee misconduct, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to comply with these laws or regulations. If any such actions are instituted against us, those actions could have a significant impact on our business, including the imposition of significant fines or other sanctions.

Our insurance policies are expensive and only protect us from some business risks, which will 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, products liability and directors’ and officers’ insurance. We do not know, however, if we will be able to maintain insurance with adequate levels of coverage. Any significant uninsured liability may require us to pay substantial amounts, which would adversely affect our financial position and results of operations.

Failure to comply with health and data protection laws and regulations could lead to government enforcement actions, which could include civil or criminal penalties, private litigation, and/or adverse publicity and could negatively affect our operating results and business.

We and any of our potential collaborators may be subject to federal, state, and foreign data protection laws and regulations (i.e., laws and regulations that address privacy and data security). In the United States, numerous federal and state laws and regulations, including federal health information privacy laws, state data breach notification laws, state health information privacy laws, and federal and state consumer protection laws, that govern the collection, use, disclosure, and protection of health-related and other personal information could apply to our operations or the operations of collaborators. In addition, we may obtain health information from third parties (including research institutions from which we obtain clinical trial data) that are subject to privacy and security requirements under the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009, or HITECH. Depending on the facts and circumstances, we could be subject to civil, criminal, and administrative penalties if we knowingly obtain, use, or disclose individually identifiable health information maintained by a HIPAA-covered entity in a manner that is not authorized or permitted by HIPAA.

Several foreign jurisdictions, including the European Union, or the EU, its member states, the United Kingdom and Australia, among others, have adopted legislation and regulations that increase or change the requirements governing the collection, use, disclosure and transfer of the personal information of individuals in these jurisdictions. These laws and regulations are complex and change frequently, at times due to changes in political climate, and existing laws and regulations are subject to different and conflicting interpretations, which adds to the complexity of processing personal data from these jurisdictions. These laws have the potential to increase costs of compliance, risks of noncompliance and penalties for noncompliance.

The General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR, replaced the EU Data Protection Directive on May 25, 2018. The GDPR introduced new data protection requirements in the EU, as well as potential fines for noncompliant companies of up to the greater of €20 million or 4% of annual global revenue. The regulation imposes numerous new requirements for the collection, use and disclosure of personal information, including more stringent requirements relating to consent and the information that must be shared with data subjects about how their personal information is used, the obligation to notify regulatory authorities and affected individuals of personal data breaches, extensive new internal privacy governance obligations, and obligations to honor expanded rights of individuals in relation to their personal information (for example, the right to access, correct and delete their data). In addition, the GDPR generally maintains the EU Data Protection Directive’s restrictions on cross-border data transfer. The GDPR will increase our responsibility and liability in relation to personal data that we process, and we may be required to put in place additional potential mechanisms to ensure compliance with the new EU data protection rules.

36

Further, the United Kingdom’s vote in favor of exiting the EU (often referred to as “Brexit”) has created uncertainty with regard to data protection regulation in the United Kingdom. In particular, it is unclear whether the United Kingdom will enact data protection legislation equivalent to the GDPR and how data transfers to and from the United Kingdom will be regulated.

Compliance with U.S. and international data protection laws and regulations could require us to take on more onerous obligations in our contracts, restrict our ability to collect, use and disclose data, or in some cases, impact our ability to operate in certain jurisdictions. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations could result in government enforcement actions (which could include civil, criminal and administrative penalties), private litigation, and/or adverse publicity and could negatively affect our operating results and business. Moreover, clinical trial subjects, employees and other individuals about whom we or our potential collaborators obtain personal information, as well as the providers who share this information with us, may limit our ability to collect, use and disclose the information. Claims that we have violated individuals’ privacy rights, failed to comply with data protection laws, or breached our contractual obligations, even if we are not found liable, could be expensive and time-consuming to defend and could result in adverse publicity that could harm our business.

Changes in healthcare law and implementing regulations, as well as changes in healthcare policy, may impact our business in ways that we cannot currently predict, and may have a significant adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

In the United States and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been, and continue to be, several legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system that could prevent or delay marketing approval of drug candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities, and affect our ability to profitably sell any drug candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. Among policy makers and payors in the United States and elsewhere, including in the European Union, or EU, there is significant interest in promoting changes in healthcare systems with the stated goals of containing healthcare costs, improving quality and/or expanding access. In the United States, the pharmaceutical industry has been a particular focus of these efforts and has been significantly affected by major legislative initiatives.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, or collectively the Affordable Care Act, substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both the government and private insurers, and significantly impacts the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. The Affordable Care Act, among other things: (i) increased the minimum Medicaid rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program and expanded rebate liability from fee-for-service Medicaid utilization to include the utilization of Medicaid managed care organizations as well; (ii) established a branded prescription drug fee that pharmaceutical manufacturers of branded prescription drugs must pay to the federal government; (iii) expanded the list of covered entities eligible to participate in the 340B drug pricing program by adding new entities to the program; (iv) established a new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program, in which manufacturers must agree to offer point-of-sale discounts off negotiated prices of applicable brand drugs to eligible beneficiaries during their coverage gap period, as a condition for the manufacturer’s outpatient drugs to be covered under Medicare Part D; (v) extended manufacturers’ Medicaid rebate liability to covered drugs dispensed to individuals who are enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations; (vi) expanded eligibility criteria for Medicaid programs by, among other things, allowing states to offer Medicaid coverage to additional individuals and by adding new mandatory eligibility categories for individuals with income at or below 133% of the federal poverty level, thereby potentially increasing manufacturers’ Medicaid rebate liability; (vii) established a new Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to oversee, identify priorities in, and conduct comparative clinical effectiveness research, along with funding for such research; and (viii) established a Center for Medicare Innovation at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, to test innovative payment and service delivery models to lower Medicare and Medicaid spending, potentially including prescription drug spending.

Since its enactment, there have been judicial and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act, as well as recent efforts by the Trump administration to repeal or replace certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act. Since January 2017, President Trump has signed two Executive Orders and other directives designed to delay the implementation of certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act or otherwise circumvent some of the requirements for health insurance mandated by the Affordable Care Act. Additionally, CMS promulgated regulations in 2018 that would give states greater flexibility in setting benchmarks for insurers in the individual and small group marketplaces, which may have the effect of relaxing the essential health benefits required under the Affordable Care Act for plans sold through such marketplaces. Concurrently, Congress has considered legislation that would repeal, or repeal and replace, all or part of the Affordable Care Act. While Congress has not passed comprehensive repeal legislation, two bills affecting the implementation of certain taxes under the Affordable Care Act have been signed into law. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, or the Tax Act, includes a provision repealing, effective January 1, 2019, the tax-based shared responsibility payment imposed by the Affordable Care Act on certain individuals who fail to maintain qualifying health coverage for all or part of a year that is commonly referred to as the “individual mandate.” On December 14, 2018, a U.S. District Court Judge in the Northern District of Texas, ruled that the individual mandate is a critical and inseverable feature of the Affordable Care Act, and therefore, because it was repealed as part of the Tax Act, the remaining provisions of the Affordable Care Act are invalid as well. While the Trump Administration and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, have both stated that the ruling will have no immediate effect, it is unclear how this decision, subsequent appeals, if any, and other efforts to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act will

37

impact the Affordable Care Act and our business. Moreover, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, or the BBA, among other things, amends the Affordable Care Act, effective January 1, 2019, to close the coverage gap in most Medicare drug plans, commonly referred to as the “donut hole.” Congress may consider additional legislation to repeal, or repeal and replace, other elements of the Affordable Care Act. We continue to evaluate the Affordable Care Act and its possible repeal and replacement, as it remains uncertain the extent to which any such changes may impact our business or financial condition.

Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the Affordable Care Act was enacted. These changes include aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of up to 2% per fiscal year pursuant to the Budget Control Act of 2011 and subsequent laws, which began in 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, including the BBA, will remain in effect through 2027 unless additional Congressional action is taken. New laws may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding, which may adversely affect customer demand and affordability for our drug candidates and, accordingly, the results of our financial operations. Additional changes that may affect our business include the expansion of new programs such as Medicare payment for performance initiatives for physicians under the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015, or MACRA, which will first affect physician payment in 2019. At this time, it is unclear how the introduction of the Medicare quality payment program will impact overall physician reimbursement.

Also, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny recently over the manner in which drug manufacturers set prices for their marketed drug candidates, which has resulted in several Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs. At the state level, legislatures are increasingly passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological drug pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain drug access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. For example, since 2016, Vermont requires certain manufacturers identified by the state to justify their price increases. Similar prescription drug price transparency laws have been enacted in Oregon and California, and more are pending in several other states.

We expect that these and other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future may result in more rigorous coverage criteria and lower reimbursement, and in additional downward pressure on the price that we receive for any approved drug candidate. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government-funded programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability or commercialize our drug candidates, once marketing approval is obtained.

Our ability to successfully commercialize any drugs that we develop depends in part on the extent to which coverage and adequate reimbursement are available from government health administration authorities, private health insurers, and other organizations. Government authorities and third-party payors, such as private health insurers and health maintenance organizations, each individually decide which medications they will pay for and establish reimbursement levels. A primary trend in the U.S. healthcare industry and elsewhere is cost containment. Government authorities and third-party payors have attempted to control costs by limiting coverage and the amount of reimbursement for particular medications. Government authorities currently impose mandatory discounts for certain patient groups, such as Medicare, Medicaid and Veterans Affairs, or VA, hospitals, and may seek to increase such discounts at any time. Future regulation may negatively impact the price of our product candidates, if approved. Increasingly, third-party payors are requiring that drug companies provide them with predetermined discounts from list prices and are challenging the prices charged for medical products. We cannot be sure that coverage or reimbursement will be available for any drug candidate that we commercialize and, if coverage or reimbursement is available, the level of reimbursement. Reimbursement may impact the demand for, or the price of, any drug candidate for which we obtain marketing approval. In order to get coverage and reimbursement, physicians may need to show that patients have superior treatment outcomes with our products compared to standard of care drugs, including lower-priced generic versions of standard of care drugs. If reimbursement is not available or is available only to limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize any drug candidate for which we obtain marketing approval. In the United States, no uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for products exists among third-party payors, and coverage decisions and reimbursement levels for products can differ significantly from payor to payor. As a result, the coverage determination process is often a time consuming and costly process that may require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of our products to each payor separately, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be applied consistently or obtained.

There may be significant delays in obtaining coverage and reimbursement for newly approved drugs, and coverage may be more limited than the purposes for which the medicine is approved by the FDA, EMA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities. Moreover, eligibility for reimbursement does not imply that any drug will be paid for in all cases or at a rate that covers our costs, including research, development, manufacture, sale, and distribution. Interim reimbursement levels for new drugs, if applicable, may also not be sufficient to cover our costs and may not be made permanent. Reimbursement rates may vary according to the use of the drug and the clinical setting in which it is used, may be based on reimbursement levels already set for lower cost drugs and may be incorporated into existing payments for other services. Net prices for drugs may be reduced by mandatory discounts or

38

rebates required by government healthcare programs or private payors and by any future relaxation of laws that presently restrict imports of drugs from countries where they may be sold at lower prices than in the United States. Third-party payors often rely upon Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own reimbursement policies, but make their determinations independently and may impose additional restrictions. Our inability to promptly obtain coverage and profitable payment rates from both government-funded and private payors for any approved products we may develop could have a material adverse effect on our operating results, our ability to raise capital needed to commercialize drug candidates, and our overall financial condition.

In the EU, coverage and reimbursement status of any drug candidates for which we obtain regulatory approval are provided for by the national laws of EU Member States. The requirements may differ across the EU Member States. Also, at national level, actions have been taken to enact transparency laws regarding payments between pharmaceutical companies and health care professionals.

If we engage in acquisitions, we will incur a variety of costs and we may never realize the anticipated benefits of such acquisitions.

Although we currently have no plans to do so, we may attempt to acquire businesses, technologies or drug candidates that we believe are a strategic fit with our business. If we do undertake any acquisitions, the process of integrating an acquired business, technology or drug candidates into our business may result in unforeseen operating difficulties and expenditures, including diversion of resources and management’s attention from our core business. In addition, we may fail to retain key executives and employees of the companies we acquire, which may reduce the value of the acquisition or give rise to additional integration costs. Future acquisitions could result in additional issuances of equity securities that would dilute the ownership of existing stockholders. Future acquisitions could also result in the incurrence of debt, contingent liabilities or the amortization of expenses related to other intangible assets, any of which could adversely affect our operating results. In addition, we may fail to realize the anticipated benefits of any acquisition.

We are currently conducting and in the future may conduct clinical trials for our drug candidates outside the United States, and the FDA, EMA and applicable foreign regulatory authorities may not accept data from such trials.

We currently are conducting parts of the GAIN trial outside the United States and in the future choose to conduct one or more of our clinical trials outside the United States, including in Europe. The acceptance of study data from clinical trials conducted outside the United States or another jurisdiction by the FDA, EMA or applicable foreign regulatory authorities may be subject to certain conditions. In cases where data from foreign clinical trials are intended to serve as the basis for marketing approval in the United States, the FDA will generally not approve the application on the basis of foreign data alone unless (i) the data are applicable to the United States population and United States medical practice; and (ii) the trials were performed by clinical investigators of recognized competence and pursuant to cGCP regulations. Additionally, the FDA’s clinical trial requirements, including sufficient size of patient populations and statistical powering, must be met. Many foreign regulatory bodies have similar approval requirements. In addition, such foreign trials would be subject to the applicable local laws of the foreign jurisdictions where the trials are conducted. There can be no assurance that the FDA, EMA or any applicable foreign regulatory authority will accept data from trials conducted outside of the United States or the applicable jurisdiction. If the FDA, EMA or any applicable foreign regulatory authority does not accept such data, it would result in the need for additional trials, which would be costly and time-consuming and delay aspects of our business plan, and which may result in our drug candidates not receiving approval or clearance for commercialization in the applicable jurisdiction.

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

From time to time, we may publicly disclose preliminary or top-line data from our clinical studies, which are based on a preliminary analysis of then-available data, and the results and related findings and conclusions are subject to change following a more comprehensive review of the data related to the particular study or trial. We also make assumptions, estimations, calculations and conclusions as part of our analyses of data, and we may not have received or had the opportunity to fully and carefully evaluate all data. As a result, the top-line results that we report may differ from future results of the same studies, or different conclusions or considerations may qualify such results, once additional data have been received and fully evaluated. Top-line data also remain subject to audit and verification procedures that may result in the final data being materially different from the preliminary data we previously published. As a result, top-line data should be viewed with caution until the final data are available. From time to time, we may also disclose interim data from our clinical studies.

In addition, we may report interim analyses of only certain endpoints rather than all endpoints. Interim data from clinical trials that we may complete are subject to the risk that one or more of the clinical outcomes may materially change as patient enrollment continues and more patient data become available. Adverse differences between preliminary or interim data and final data could significantly harm our business prospects. Further, disclosure of interim data by us or by our competitors could result in volatility in the price of our common stock. Further, others, including regulatory agencies, may not accept or agree with our assumptions, estimates, calculations, conclusions or analyses or may interpret or weigh the importance of data differently, which could impact the value of the particular program, the approvability or commercialization of the particular drug candidate or product and our

39

company in general. In addition, the information we choose to publicly disclose regarding a particular study or clinical trial is based on what is typically extensive information, and you or others may not agree with what we determine is the material or otherwise appropriate information to include in our disclosure, and any information we determine not to disclose may ultimately be deemed significant with respect to future decisions, conclusions, views, activities or otherwise regarding a particular drug, drug candidate or our business. If the top-line data that we report differ from actual results, or if others, including regulatory authorities, disagree with the conclusions reached, our ability to obtain approval for, and commercialize, our drug candidates may be harmed, which could harm our business, operating results, prospects or financial condition.

Changes in funding for the FDA and other government agencies or other disruptions at these agencies could prevent new products and services from being developed or commercialized in a timely manner, which could negatively impact our business.

The ability of the FDA to review and approve new drugs can be affected by a variety of factors, including government budget and funding levels, ability to hire and retain key personnel and accept the payment of user fees, and statutory, regulatory, and policy changes. Average review times at the agency have fluctuated in recent years as a result. In addition, government funding of other government agencies that fund research and development activities is subject to the political process, which is inherently fluid and unpredictable.

Disruptions at the FDA and other agencies may prolong the time necessary for new drugs to be reviewed and/or approved by necessary government agencies, which would adversely affect our business. For example, over the last several years, including for 35 days beginning on December 22, 2018, the U.S. government has shut down several times and certain regulatory agencies, such as the FDA, have had to furlough critical FDA employees and stop critical activities. If a prolonged government shutdown occurs, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, health regulatory agencies globally have experienced and may continue to experience disruptions in their operations.  The FDA, EMA and comparable foreign regulatory agencies may have slower response times or be under-resourced to continue discussions with us regarding the scope or design of our clinical trials and, as a result, review, inspection, and other timelines may be materially delayed. It is unknown how long these disruptions could continue, were they to occur. Any elongation or de-prioritization of our clinical trials or delay in regulatory review resulting from such disruptions could affect the development and study of atuzaginstat.

Even if we obtain regulatory approval for a drug candidate, it will remain subject to extensive ongoing regulatory review and requirements.

If any of our drug candidates are approved, they will be subject to ongoing regulatory requirements for manufacturing, labeling, packaging, storage, advertising, promotion, sampling, record-keeping, conduct of post-marketing studies, and submission of safety, efficacy, and other post-market information, including both federal and state requirements in the United States and requirements of comparable foreign regulatory authorities.

Manufacturers and manufacturers’ facilities are required to comply with extensive requirements imposed by the FDA, EMA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities, including ensuring that quality control and manufacturing procedures conform to cGMPs regulations. As such, we and our contract manufacturers will be subject to continual review and inspections to assess compliance with cGMP and adherence to commitments made in any NDA or MAA. Accordingly, we and others with whom we work must continue to expend time, money, and effort in all areas of regulatory compliance, including manufacturing, production and quality control.

Any regulatory approvals that we receive for our drug candidates will be subject to limitations on the approved indicated uses for which the drug candidate may be marketed and promoted or to the conditions of approval (including the potential for a requirement to implement a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy), or contain requirements for potentially costly post-marketing testing. We will be required to report certain adverse reactions and production problems, if any, to the FDA, EMA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities. Any new legislation addressing drug safety issues could result in delays in drug development or commercialization, or increased costs to assure compliance. The FDA and other agencies, including the Department of Justice, closely regulate and monitor the post-approval marketing and promotion of drug candidates to ensure that they are manufactured, marketed and distributed only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved labeling. We will have to comply with requirements concerning advertising and promotion for our drug candidates. Promotional communications with respect to prescription drugs are subject to a variety of legal and regulatory restrictions and must be consistent with the information in the drug candidate’s approved label. As such, we may not promote our drug candidates for indications or uses for which they do not have approval. The holder of an approved NDA or MAA must submit new or supplemental applications and obtain approval for certain changes to the approved drug candidate labeling, or manufacturing process. We could also be asked to conduct post-marketing clinical trials to verify the safety and efficacy of our drug candidates in general or in specific patient subsets. If original marketing approval was obtained via the accelerated approval pathway, we could be required to conduct a successful post-marketing clinical trial to confirm clinical benefit for our drug candidates. An unsuccessful post-marketing study or failure to complete such a study could result in the withdrawal of marketing approval.

40

If a regulatory agency discovers previously unknown problems with a drug, such as adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or problems with the facility where the drug candidate is manufactured, or disagrees with the promotion, marketing or labeling of a drug candidate, such regulatory agency may impose restrictions on that drug candidate or us, including requiring withdrawal of the drug candidate from the market. If we fail to comply with applicable regulatory requirements, a regulatory agency or enforcement authority may, among other things:

Any government investigation of alleged violations of law could require us to expend significant time and resources in response and could generate negative publicity. Any failure to comply with ongoing regulatory requirements may significantly and adversely affect our ability to commercialize and generate revenue from our drug candidates. If regulatory sanctions are applied or if regulatory approval is withdrawn, the value of our company and our operating results will be adversely affected.

The policies of the FDA and of other regulatory authorities may change and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of our drug candidates. We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action, either in the United States or abroad. For example, certain policies of the Trump administration may impact our business and industry. Namely, the Trump administration has taken several executive actions, including the issuance of a number of Executive Orders, that could impose significant burdens on, or otherwise materially delay, the FDA’s ability to engage in routine oversight activities such as implementing statutes through rulemaking, issuance of guidance, and review and approval of marketing applications. It is difficult to predict how these executive actions will be implemented, and the extent to which they will impact the FDA’s ability to exercise its regulatory authority. If these executive actions impose restrictions on the FDA’s ability to engage in oversight and implementation activities in the normal course, our business may be negatively impacted. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may lose any marketing approval that we may have obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability, which would adversely affect our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

Non-compliance by us or any future collaborator with regulatory requirements, including safety monitoring or pharmacovigilance, and with requirements related to the development of products for the pediatric population can also result in significant financial penalties.

If we fail to comply with healthcare laws, we could face substantial penalties and our business, operations and financial condition could be adversely affected.

Our operations are subject to various federal and state fraud and abuse laws. The laws that may impact our operations include:

41

Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of the statutory exceptions and safe harbors available, it is possible that some of our business activities, including compensating physicians with stock or stock options, could, despite our efforts to comply, be subject to challenge under one or more of such laws. Efforts to ensure that our business arrangements will comply with applicable healthcare laws may involve substantial costs. It is possible that governmental and enforcement authorities will conclude that our business practices may not comply with current or future statutes, regulations or case law interpreting applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If any such actions are instituted against us, those actions could have a significant impact on our business, including the imposition of civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, disgorgement, monetary fines, possible exclusion from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other federal healthcare programs, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, and curtailment of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations. In addition, the approval and commercialization of any of our drug candidates outside the United States will also likely subject us to foreign equivalents of the healthcare laws mentioned above, among other foreign laws.

42

If we or any contract manufacturers and suppliers we engage fail to comply with environmental, health, and safety laws and regulations, we could become subject to fines or penalties or incur costs that could have a material adverse effect on the success of our business.

We and any contract manufacturers and suppliers we engage are subject to numerous federal, state, and local environmental, health, and safety laws, regulations, and permitting requirements, including those governing laboratory procedures; the generation, handling, use, storage, treatment, and disposal of hazardous and regulated materials and wastes; the emission and discharge of hazardous materials into the ground, air, and water; and employee health and safety. Our operations involve the use of hazardous and flammable materials, including chemicals and radioactive materials. Our operations also produce hazardous waste. We generally contract with third parties for the disposal of these materials and wastes. We cannot eliminate the risk of contamination or injury from these materials. In the event of contamination or injury resulting from our use of hazardous materials, we could be held liable for any resulting damages, and any liability could exceed our resources. Under certain environmental laws, we could be held responsible for costs relating to any contamination at our current or past facilities and at third-party facilities. We also could incur significant costs associated with civil or criminal fines and penalties.

Compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations may be expensive, and current or future environmental laws and regulations may impair our research, drug development and manufacturing efforts. In addition, we cannot entirely eliminate the risk of accidental injury or contamination from these materials or wastes. Although we maintain workers’ compensation insurance to cover us for costs and expenses we may incur due to injuries to our employees resulting from the use of hazardous materials, this insurance may not provide adequate coverage against potential liabilities. We do not carry specific hazardous waste insurance coverage, and our property, casualty, and general liability insurance policies specifically exclude coverage for damages and fines arising from hazardous waste exposure or contamination. Accordingly, in the event of contamination or injury, we could be held liable for damages or be penalized with fines in an amount exceeding our resources, and our clinical trials or regulatory approvals could be suspended, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

Our business activities may be subject to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, or FCPA, and similar anti-bribery and anti-corruption laws.

Our business activities may be subject to the FCPA and similar anti-bribery or anti-corruption laws, regulations or rules of other countries in which we may operate, including the U.K. Bribery Act. The FCPA generally prohibits offering, promising, giving, or authorizing others to give anything of value, either directly or indirectly, to a non-U.S. government official in order to influence official action, or otherwise obtain or retain business. The FCPA also requires public companies to make and keep books and records that accurately and fairly reflect the transactions of the corporation and to devise and maintain an adequate system of internal accounting controls. Our business is heavily regulated and therefore involves significant interaction with public officials, including officials of non-U.S. governments. Additionally, in many other countries, the health care providers who prescribe pharmaceuticals are employed by their government, and the purchasers of pharmaceuticals are government entities; therefore, our dealings with these prescribers and purchasers are subject to regulation under the FCPA. Recently the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC, and Department of Justice have increased their FCPA enforcement activities with respect to biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies. There is no certainty that all of our employees, agents, contractors, or those of our affiliates, will comply with all applicable laws and regulations, particularly given the high level of complexity of these laws. Violations of these laws and regulations could result in fines, criminal sanctions against us, our officers, or our employees, the closing down of our facilities, requirements to obtain export licenses, cessation of business activities in sanctioned countries, implementation of compliance programs, and prohibitions on the conduct of our business. Any such violations could include prohibitions on our ability to offer our drug candidates in one or more countries and could materially damage our reputation, our brand, our international expansion efforts, our ability to attract and retain employees, and our business, prospects, operating results, and financial condition.

Any collaboration arrangements that we may enter into in the future may not be successful, which could adversely affect our ability to develop and commercialize potential future drug candidates.

While we currently have no intention to enter into a collaboration agreement for atuzaginstat, in the future we may consider collaboration arrangements with pharmaceutical or biotechnology companies for the development or commercialization of drug candidates depending on the merits of retaining or divesting some or all commercialization rights. We will face, to the extent that we decide to enter into collaboration agreements, significant competition in seeking appropriate collaborators. Moreover, collaboration arrangements are complex and time-consuming to negotiate, document, implement and maintain. We may not be successful in our efforts to establish and implement collaborations or other alternative arrangements should we so chose to enter into such arrangements. The terms of any collaborations or other arrangements that we may establish may not be favorable to us.

43

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

Risks Relating to Our Intellectual Property

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

Our commercial success will depend in part on obtaining and maintaining patent protection and trade secret protection of our current and future drug candidates and the methods used to manufacture them, as well as successfully defending these patents against third-party challenges. Our ability to stop third parties from making, using, selling, offering to sell or importing our drug candidates is dependent upon the extent to which we have rights under valid and enforceable patents or trade secrets that cover these activities.

The patent positions of biotechnology and 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 many jurisdictions outside of the United States. Changes in either the patent laws or interpretations of patent laws in the United States and other countries may diminish the value of our intellectual property. Accordingly, we cannot predict the breadth of claims that may be enforced in the patents that may be issued from the applications we currently or may in the future own or license from third parties. Further, if any patents we obtain or license are deemed invalid and unenforceable, our ability to commercialize or license our technology could be adversely affected.

44

Others may have filed, and in the future are likely to file, patent applications covering drug candidates that are similar, identical or competitive to ours or 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 interference, opposition or invalidity proceedings before U.S. or non-U.S. patent offices.

The degree of future protection for our proprietary rights is uncertain because legal means afford only limited protection and may not adequately protect our rights or permit us to gain or keep our competitive advantage. Only limited protection may be available and may not adequately protect our rights or permit us to gain or keep any competitive advantage. If we do not adequately protect our intellectual property and proprietary technology, competitors may be able to use our drug candidates and proprietary technologies and erode or negate any competitive advantage we may have, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. For example:

We have applied, and we intend to continue applying, for patents covering aspects of our drug candidates, proprietary technologies and their uses that we deem appropriate. However, we may not be able to apply for patents on certain aspects of our current or future drug candidates, proprietary technologies and their uses in a timely fashion, at a reasonable cost, in all jurisdictions, or at all, and any potential patent coverage we obtain may not be sufficient to prevent substantial competition. As of December 31, 2020, we were the owner of record of six issued U.S. patents, 31 non-U.S. patents, and 54 pending U.S. and non-U.S. patent applications (collectively, “the Cortexyme patent portfolio”).

Four issued U.S. patents and 31 issued non-US patents in the Cortexyme patent portfolio relate to atuzaginstat, with claims directed to atuzaginstat and related pharmaceutical compounds, pharmaceutical compositions containing these compounds, and use of these compounds in the treatment of various indications. Pending U.S. and non-U.S. patent applications in the Cortexyme patent portfolio relate to atuzaginstat and related pharmaceutical compounds, pharmaceutical compositions containing these compounds, methods of using these compounds in the treatment of various indications, and methods of making these compounds.

In addition, two issued U.S. patents in the Cortexyme patent portfolio relate to pharmaceutical compounds that do not encompass atuzaginstat, with claims directed to pharmaceutical compounds, pharmaceutical compositions containing these compounds, and use of these compounds in the treatment of various indications. Pending U.S. and non-U.S. patent applications relate to additional compounds in these areas; as well as to diagnostic methods and assay methods.

Without patent protection on the composition of matter of our drug candidates, our ability to assert our patents to stop others from using or selling our drug candidates in a non-pharmaceutically acceptable formulation may be limited. Due to the patent laws of a country, or the decisions of a patent examiner in a country, or our own filing strategies, we may not obtain patent coverage for all of our drug candidates or methods involving the use of these candidates in a particular patent application. We plan to pursue divisional patent applications or continuation patent applications in the United States and other countries, where applicable, to obtain claim coverage for inventions which were disclosed but not claimed in a particular parent patent application.

The patent application process is subject to numerous risks and uncertainties, and there can be no assurance that we or any of our actual or potential future collaborators will be successful in protecting our drug candidates, proprietary technologies and their uses by obtaining and/or defending patents. These risks and uncertainties include the following:

45

The patent prosecution process is also expensive and time-consuming, and we may not be able to file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner. It is also possible that we will fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development output before it is too late to obtain patent protection. Although we enter into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with parties who have access to patentable aspects of our research and development output, such as our employees, outside scientific collaborators, CROs, contract manufacturers, consultants, advisors and other third parties, any of these parties may breach such agreements and disclose such output before a patent application is filed, thereby jeopardizing our ability to seek patent protection. We may also rely on trade secrets to protect our technology, especially where we do not believe patent protection is appropriate or feasible. However, trade secrets are difficult to protect. Although we use reasonable efforts to protect our trade secrets, our employees, consultants, contractors, outside scientific collaborators and other advisors may unintentionally or willfully disclose our information to competitors. Enforcing a claim that a third party illegally obtained and is using any of our trade secrets is expensive and time consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, courts outside the United States are sometimes less willing to protect trade secrets. Moreover, our competitors may independently develop equivalent knowledge, methods and know-how.

We may be involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce our patents or the patents of our licensors, which could be expensive, time consuming, and unsuccessful. Further, our issued patents could be found invalid or unenforceable if challenged in court, and we may incur substantial costs as a result of litigation or other proceedings relating to patent and other intellectual property rights.

Competitors may infringe our intellectual property rights. To prevent infringement or unauthorized use, we may be required to file infringement claims, which can be expensive and time-consuming. If we choose to go to court to stop another party from using the inventions claimed in any patents we obtain, that individual or company has the right to ask the court to rule that such patents are invalid or should not be enforced against that third party. In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity and/or unenforceability are commonplace. Grounds for a validity challenge include an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, including lack of novelty, obviousness or non-enablement. Grounds for an unenforceability assertion could include an allegation that someone connected with prosecution of the patent withheld relevant information from the USPTO or made a misleading statement during prosecution. Third parties may also raise similar claims before the USPTO, even outside the context of litigation. Similar mechanisms for challenging the validity and enforceability of a patent exist in non-U.S. patent offices and may result in the revocation, cancellation, or amendment of any non-U.S. patents we hold in the future. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable, and prior art could render our patents invalid. If a defendant were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity and/or unenforceability, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection on one or more drug candidates. Such a loss of patent protection would have a material adverse impact on our business.

These lawsuits are expensive and would consume time and resources and divert the attention of managerial and scientific personnel even if we were successful in stopping the infringement of such patents. In addition, there is a risk that the court will decide that such patents are not valid and that we do not have the right to stop the other party from using the claimed inventions. There is also the risk that, even if the validity of such patents is upheld, the court will refuse to stop the other party on the ground that such other party’s activities do not infringe our rights to such patents. In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court has recently modified some tests used by the USPTO in granting patents over the past 20 years, which may decrease the likelihood that we will be able to obtain patents and increase the likelihood of challenge of any patents we obtain or license.

46

Interference or derivation proceedings provoked by third parties or brought by us or declared by the USPTO may be necessary to determine the priority of inventions with respect to our patents or patent applications. An unfavorable outcome could require us to cease using the related technology or to attempt to license rights to it from the prevailing party. Our business could be harmed if the prevailing party does not offer us a license on commercially reasonable terms or at all, or if a non-exclusive license is offered and our competitors gain access to the same technology. Our defense of litigation or interference proceedings may fail and, even if successful, may result in substantial costs and distract our management and other employees. In addition, the uncertainties associated with litigation could have a material adverse effect on our ability to raise the funds necessary to continue our clinical trials, continue our research programs, license necessary technology from third parties or enter into development or manufacturing partnerships that would help us bring our drug candidates to market.

Even if resolved in our favor, litigation or other legal proceedings relating to our intellectual property rights may cause us to incur significant expenses, and could distract our technical and management personnel from their normal responsibilities. Such litigation or proceedings could substantially increase our operating losses and reduce the resources available for development activities or any future sales, marketing or distribution activities. We may not have sufficient financial or other resources to conduct such litigation or proceedings adequately. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of such litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their greater financial resources. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings could compromise our ability to compete in the marketplace.

Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation. There could also be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments. If securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a material adverse effect on the price of our common stock.

Our ability to enforce our patent rights depends on our ability to detect infringement. It may be difficult to detect infringers who do not advertise the components or methods that are used in connection with their drug candidates. Moreover, it may be difficult or impossible to obtain evidence of infringement in a competitor’s or potential competitor’s drug candidate. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate, and the damages or other remedies awarded if we were to prevail may not be commercially meaningful.

In addition, proceedings to enforce or defend our patents could put our patents at risk of being invalidated, held unenforceable or interpreted narrowly. Such proceedings could also provoke third parties to assert claims against us, including that some or all of the claims in one or more of our patents are invalid or otherwise unenforceable. If any of our patents covering our drug candidates are invalidated or found unenforceable, or if a court found that valid, enforceable patents held by third parties covered one or more of our drug candidates, our competitive position could be harmed or we could be required to incur significant expenses to enforce or defend our rights. If we initiate lawsuits to protect or enforce our patents, or litigate against third party claims, such proceedings would be expensive and would divert the attention of our management and technical personnel.

We may infringe the intellectual property rights of others, which may prevent or delay our drug development efforts and stop us from commercializing or increase the costs of commercializing our drug candidates.

Our success will depend in part on our ability to operate without infringing the intellectual property rights of third parties. We cannot guarantee that our drug candidates, or manufacture or use of our drug candidates, will not infringe third-party patents.

Furthermore, a third party may claim that we or our manufacturing or commercialization collaborators 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 drug candidates. These lawsuits are costly and could affect our results of operations and divert the attention of managerial and scientific personnel. There is a risk that a court would decide that we or our commercialization collaborators are infringing the third party’s patents and would order us or our collaborators to stop the activities covered by the patents. In that event, we or our commercialization collaborators may not have a viable way around the patent and may need to halt commercialization of the relevant drug candidate. In addition, there is a risk that a court will order us or our collaborators to pay the other party damages for having violated the other party’s patents. If we collaborate with third parties in the development of technology in the future, our collaborators may not properly maintain or defend our intellectual property rights or may use our proprietary information in such a way as to invite litigation that could jeopardize or invalidate our intellectual property or proprietary information or expose us to litigation or potential liability. Further, our collaborators may infringe the intellectual property rights of third parties, which may expose us to litigation and potential liability. In the future, we may agree to indemnify our collaborators against certain intellectual property infringement claims brought by third parties. The pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries have produced a proliferation of patents, and it is not always clear to industry participants, including us, which patents cover various types of drug candidates or methods of use. The coverage of patents is subject to interpretation by the courts, and the interpretation is not always uniform.

47

Any claims of patent infringement asserted by third parties would be time consuming and could:

If we are sued for patent infringement, we would need to demonstrate that our drug candidates or methods either do not infringe the patent claims of the relevant patent or that the patent claims are invalid, and we may not be able to do this. Proving invalidity is difficult.

For example, in the United States, proving invalidity requires a showing of clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption of validity enjoyed by issued patents. Even if we are successful in these proceedings, we may incur substantial costs and divert management’s time and attention in pursuing these proceedings, which could have a material adverse effect on us. 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 do not obtain a license, develop or obtain non-infringing technology, fail to defend an infringement action successfully or have infringed patents declared invalid, we may incur substantial monetary damages, encounter significant delays in bringing our drug candidates to market and be precluded from manufacturing or selling our drug candidates.

We do not routinely conduct independent reviews of pending patent applications of and patents issued to third parties. 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 the technology, because:

Furthermore, the scope of a patent claim is determined by an interpretation of the law, the written disclosure in a patent and the patent’s prosecution history and can involve other factors such as expert opinion. Our interpretation of the relevance or the scope of claims in a patent or a pending application may be incorrect, which may negatively impact our ability to market our drug candidates. Further, we may incorrectly determine that our technologies, or drug candidates are not covered by a third-party patent or may incorrectly predict whether a third party’s pending patent application will issue with claims of relevant scope. Our determination of the expiration date of any patent in the United States or abroad that we consider relevant may be incorrect, which may negatively impact our ability to develop and market our drug candidates.

48

Our competitors may have filed, and may in the future file, patent applications covering technology similar to ours, and others may have or obtain patents or proprietary rights that could limit our ability to make, use, sell, offer for sale or import our drug candidates and future approved products or impair our competitive position. Numerous third-party U.S. and foreign issued patents and pending patent applications exist in the fields in which we are developing drug candidates. There may be third-party patents or patent applications with claims to compositions, formulations, methods of manufacture or methods for treatment related to the use or manufacture of our drug candidates. 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 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 if, unbeknownst to us, the other party had independently arrived at the same or similar inventions prior to our own inventions, 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 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 resources. In addition, any uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of any litigation could have a material adverse effect on 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 for non-compliance with these requirements.

Periodic maintenance fees, renewal fees, annuity fees and various other governmental fees on patents and/or applications will be due to be paid to the USPTO and various governmental patent agencies outside of the United States in several stages over the lifetime of the patents and/or applications. We have systems in place to remind us to pay these fees, and we employ an outside firm to pay these fees due to the USPTO and non-U.S. patent agencies. The USPTO and various non-U.S. governmental patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar provisions during the patent application process. We employ reputable law firms and other professionals to help us comply, and in many cases, an inadvertent lapse can be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules. If we license intellectual property we may have to rely upon our licensors to comply with these requirements and effect payment of these fees with respect to any patents and patent applications that we license. However, there are situations in which noncompliance can result in abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. In such an event, our competitors might be able to enter the market and this circumstance would have a material adverse effect on our business.

We may be subject to claims that we have wrongfully hired an employee from a competitor or that we or our employees have wrongfully used or disclosed alleged confidential information or trade secrets of their former employers.

We may be subject to claims that our employees have wrongfully used or disclosed alleged trade secrets of their former employers. If we are not able to adequately prevent disclosure of trade secrets and other proprietary information, the value of our technology and drug candidate 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. We may also be subject to claims that former employees, or other third parties have an ownership interest in our patents or other intellectual property. In addition, we may face claims by third parties that our agreements with employees, contractors or consultants obligating them to assign intellectual property to us are ineffective or in conflict with prior or competing contractual obligations of assignment, which could result in ownership disputes regarding intellectual property we have developed or will develop and interfere with our ability to capture the commercial value of such intellectual property. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights, which could adversely affect our business. Even if we are successful in defending against these claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management.

If we are unable to protect the confidentiality of our trade secrets, our business and competitive position would be harmed. Our reliance on third parties requires us to share our trade secrets, which increases the possibility that a competitor will discover them or that our trade secrets will be misappropriated or disclosed.

We 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, and invention assignment agreements with employees, consultants and advisors, to protect our trade secrets and other proprietary information. In addition to contractual measures, we try to protect the confidential nature of our proprietary information using commonly accepted physical and

49

technological security measures. Despite these efforts, we cannot provide any assurances that all such agreements have been duly executed, and these agreements may not effectively prevent disclosure of confidential information and may not provide an adequate remedy in the event of unauthorized disclosure of confidential information. In addition, others may independently discover our trade secrets and proprietary information. For example, the FDA, as part of its Transparency Initiative, is currently considering whether to make additional information publicly available on a routine basis, including information that we may consider to be trade secrets or other proprietary information, and it is not clear at the present time how the FDA’s disclosure policies may change in the future, if at all. Costly and time-consuming litigation could be necessary to enforce and determine the scope of our proprietary rights, and failure to obtain or maintain trade secret protection could adversely affect our competitive business position.

In addition, such security measures may not provide adequate protection for our proprietary information, for example, in the case of misappropriation of a trade secret by an employee, consultant, customer or third party with authorized access. Our security measures may not prevent an employee, consultant or customer from misappropriating our trade secrets and providing them to a competitor, and any recourse we take against such misconduct may not provide an adequate remedy to protect our interests fully. Monitoring unauthorized uses and disclosures is difficult, and we do not know whether the steps we have taken to protect our proprietary technologies will be effective. Unauthorized parties may also attempt to copy or reverse engineer certain aspects of our drug candidates that we consider proprietary. Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret can be difficult, expensive and time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. Even though we use commonly accepted security measures, the criteria for protection of trade secrets can vary among different jurisdictions.

Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret is difficult, expensive and time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, some courts inside and outside the United States are less willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets. Moreover, third parties may still obtain this information or may come upon this or similar information independently, and we would have no right to prevent them from using that technology or information to compete with us. Trade secrets could over time be disseminated within the industry through independent development, the publication of journal articles and the movement of personnel skilled in the art from company to company or academic to industry scientific positions.

Though our agreements with third parties typically restrict the ability of our advisors, employees, licensors, suppliers, third-party contractors and consultants to publish data potentially relating to our trade secrets, our agreements may contain certain limited publication rights. If any of our trade secrets were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor, we would have no right to prevent such competitor from using that technology or information to compete with us, which could harm our competitive position. Because from time to time we expect to rely on third parties in the development, manufacture, and distribution of our drug candidates and provision of our services, we must, at times, share trade secrets with them. Despite employing the contractual and other security precautions described above, the need to share trade secrets increases the risk that such trade secrets become known by our competitors, are inadvertently incorporated into the technology of others, or are disclosed or used in violation of these agreements. If any of these events occurs or if we otherwise lose protection for our trade secrets, the value of this information may be greatly reduced and our competitive position would be harmed.

In the future, we may need to obtain licenses of third-party technology that may not be available to us or are available only on commercially unreasonable terms, and which may cause us to operate our business in a more costly or otherwise adverse manner that was not anticipated.

From time to time we may be required to license technology from third parties to further develop or commercialize our drug candidates. Should we be required to obtain licenses to any third-party technology, including any such patents required to manufacture, use or sell our drug candidates, such licenses may not be available to us on commercially reasonable terms, or at all. The inability to obtain any third-party license required to develop or commercialize any of our drug candidates could cause us to abandon any related efforts, which could seriously harm our business and operations.

Where we obtain licenses from or collaborate with third parties, in some circumstances, we may not have the right to control the preparation, filing and prosecution of patent applications, or to maintain the patents, covering technology that we license from third parties, or such activities, if controlled by us, may require the input of such third parties. We may also require the cooperation of our licensors and collaborators to enforce any licensed patent rights, and such cooperation may not be provided. Therefore, these patents and applications may not be prosecuted and enforced in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business, in compliance with applicable laws and regulations, which may affect the validity and enforceability of such patents or any patents that may issue from such applications. Moreover, if we do obtain necessary licenses, we will likely have obligations under those licenses, including making royalty and milestone payments, and any failure to satisfy those obligations could give our licensor the right to terminate the license.

50

Termination of a necessary license, or expiration of licensed patents or patent applications, could have a material adverse impact on our business. Our business would suffer if any such licenses terminate, if the licensors fail to abide by the terms of the license, if the licensors fail to enforce licensed patents against infringing third parties, if the licensed patents or other rights are found to be invalid or unenforceable, or if we are unable to enter into necessary licenses on acceptable terms. Furthermore, if any exclusive licenses terminate, or if the underlying patents fail to provide the intended exclusivity, competitors or other third parties may gain the freedom to seek regulatory approval of, and to market, drug candidates identical to ours. Moreover, our licensors may own or control intellectual property that has not been licensed to us and, as a result, we may be subject to claims, regardless of their merit, that we are infringing or otherwise violating the licensor’s rights. In addition, while we cannot currently determine the amount of the royalty obligations, we would be required to pay on sales of future drug candidates, if any, the amounts may be significant. The amount of our future royalty obligations will likely depend on the technology and intellectual property we use in drug candidates that we successfully develop and commercialize, if any. Therefore, even if we successfully develop and commercialize drug candidates, we may be unable to achieve or maintain profitability.

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

The degree of future protection afforded by our intellectual property rights is uncertain because intellectual property rights have limitations and may not adequately protect our business or permit us to maintain our competitive advantage. For example:

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

Because of the expense and uncertainty of litigation, we may not be in a position to enforce our intellectual property rights against third parties.

Because of the expense and uncertainty of litigation, we may conclude that even if a third party is infringing our issued patent, any patents that may be issued as a result of our pending or future patent applications or other intellectual property rights, the risk-adjusted cost of bringing and enforcing such a claim or action may be too high or not in the best interest of our company or our stockholders. In such cases, we may decide that the more prudent course of action is to simply monitor the situation or initiate or seek some other non-litigious action or solution.

51

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

Patents are of national or regional effect, and filing, prosecuting and defending patents on all of our drug candidates throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and our intellectual property rights in some countries outside the United States can be less extensive than those in the United States. As such, we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in all countries outside the United States, or from selling or importing drug candidates made using our inventions in and into the United States or other jurisdictions. Further, the legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents and other intellectual property protection, particularly those relating to pharmaceuticals, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patents or marketing of competing drug candidates in violation of our proprietary rights generally. In addition, certain developing countries, including China and India, have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner may be compelled to grant licenses to third parties. In addition, some countries limit the enforceability of patents against third parties, including government agencies or government contractors. In these countries, patents may provide limited or no benefit, and in those countries, we and our licensors and licensees may have limited remedies if patents are infringed or if we or our licensors or licensees are compelled to grant a license to a third party, which could diminish the value of those patents. This could limit our potential revenue opportunities. Further, competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to develop their own drug candidates and, further, may export otherwise infringing drug candidates to territories where we have patent protection but where enforcement is not as strong as that in the United States. These drug candidates may compete with our drug candidates, and our patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing. Proceedings to enforce our patent rights in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, could put our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and our patent applications at risk of not issuing and could provoke third parties to assert claims against us. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate, and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce our intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop or license.

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

As is the case with other biopharmaceutical companies, our success is heavily dependent on intellectual property, particularly patents. Our patent rights may be affected by developments or uncertainty in U.S. or non-U.S. patent statutes, patent case laws in USPTO rules and regulations or in the rules and regulations of non-U.S. patent offices.

Obtaining and enforcing patents in the pharmaceutical industry involves both technological and legal complexity and is therefore costly, time consuming and inherently uncertain. Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of the patent laws in the United States could increase the uncertainties and costs. Recent patent reform legislation in the United States and other countries, including the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (the Leahy-Smith Act), signed into law on September 16, 2011, could increase those uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents.

The Leahy-Smith Act includes a number of significant changes to U.S. patent law. These include provisions that affect the way patent applications are prosecuted, redefine prior art and provide more efficient and cost-effective avenues for competitors to challenge the validity of patents. These include allowing third-party submission of prior art to the USPTO during patent prosecution and additional procedures to attack the validity of a patent by USPTO administered post-grant proceedings, including post-grant review, inter partes review, and derivation proceedings. After March 2013, under the Leahy-Smith Act, the United States transitioned to a first inventor to file system in which, assuming that the other statutory requirements are met, the first inventor to file a patent application will be entitled to the patent on an invention regardless of whether a third party was the first to invent the claimed invention. However, the Leahy-Smith 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 prospects. In addition, Congress may pass patent reform legislation that is unfavorable to us.

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

52

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

We may be subject to claims that former employees or other third parties have an interest in our patents or other intellectual property as an inventor or co-inventor. The failure to name the proper inventors on a patent application can result in the patents issuing thereon being unenforceable. Inventorship disputes may arise from conflicting views regarding the contributions of different individuals named as inventors, the effects of foreign laws where foreign nationals are involved in the development of the subject matter of the patent, conflicting obligations of third parties involved in developing our drug candidates or as a result of questions regarding co-ownership of potential joint inventions. Litigation may be necessary to resolve these and other claims challenging inventorship and/or ownership. Alternatively, or additionally, we may enter into agreements to clarify the scope of our rights in such intellectual property. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights, such as exclusive ownership of valuable intellectual property. Such an outcome could have a material adverse effect on our business. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management and other employees.

Patent terms may be inadequate to protect our competitive position on our drug candidates for an adequate amount of time, and if we do not obtain patent term extension for our drug candidates, our business may be materially harmed.

Patent rights are of limited duration. In the United States, the natural expiration of a patent is generally 20 years after its first effective non-provisional filing date. In addition, although upon issuance a U.S. patent’s life can be increased based on certain delays caused by the USPTO, this increase can be reduced or eliminated based on certain delays caused by the patent applicant during patent prosecution. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new drug candidates, patents protecting such candidates might expire before or shortly after such drug candidates are commercialized. Even if patents covering our drug candidates are obtained, once the patent life has expired for a drug candidate, we may be open to competition from generic products. A patent term extension of up to five years based on regulatory delay may be available in the United States under the Hatch-Waxman Act. However, only a single patent can be extended for each marketing approval, and any patent can be extended only once, for a single drug candidate. Moreover, the scope of protection during the period of the patent term extension does not extend to the full scope of the claim, but instead only to the scope of the drug candidate as approved. Further, a patent term extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of drug candidate approval and only those claims covering such approved drug candidate, a method for using it or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. Laws governing analogous patent term extensions in foreign jurisdictions vary widely, as do laws governing the ability to obtain multiple patents from a single patent family. Additionally, we may not receive an extension if we fail to apply within applicable deadlines, fail to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents or otherwise fail to satisfy applicable requirements. Moreover, the applicable time period or the scope of patent protection afforded could be less than we request. If we are unable to obtain patent term extension or restoration, or the term of any such extension is less than we request, the period during which we will have the right to exclusively market our drug candidate will be shortened and our competitors may obtain approval of competing drug candidates following our patent expiration, and our revenue could be reduced.

If our trademarks and trade names are not adequately protected, then we may not be able to build name recognition in our markets of interest and our business may be adversely affected.

Our current or future trademarks or trade names may be challenged, infringed, circumvented or declared generic or determined to be infringing on other marks. We may not be able to protect our rights to these trademarks and trade names, which we need to build name recognition among potential partners or customers in our markets of interest. At times, competitors may adopt trade names or trademarks similar to ours, thereby impeding our ability to build brand identity and possibly leading to market confusion. In addition, there could be potential trade name or trademark infringement claims brought by owners of other trademarks or trademarks that incorporate variations of our registered or unregistered trademarks or trade names. Over the long term, if we are unable to establish name recognition based on our trademarks and trade names, then we may not be able to compete effectively and our business may be adversely affected. We may license our trademarks and trade names to third parties, such as distributors. Though these license agreements may provide guidelines for how our trademarks and trade names may be used, a breach of these agreements or misuse of our trademarks and tradenames by our licensees may jeopardize our rights in or diminish the goodwill associated with our trademarks and trade names. Our efforts to enforce or protect our proprietary rights related to trademarks, trade names, trade secrets, domain names, copyrights or other intellectual property may be ineffective and could result in substantial costs and diversion of resources and could adversely affect our financial condition or results of operations.

53

Moreover, any name we have proposed to use with our drug candidate in the United States must be approved by the FDA, regardless of whether we have registered it, or applied to register it, as a trademark. Similar requirements exist in Europe. The FDA typically conducts a review of proposed drug candidate names, including an evaluation of potential for confusion with other drug candidate names. If the FDA (or an equivalent administrative body in a foreign jurisdiction) objects to any of our proposed proprietary drug candidate names, we may be required to expend significant additional resources in an effort to identify a suitable substitute name that would qualify under applicable trademark laws, not infringe the existing rights of third parties and be acceptable to the FDA. Furthermore, in many countries, owning and maintaining a trademark registration may not provide an adequate defense against a subsequent infringement claim asserted by the owner of a senior trademark. At times, competitors or other third parties may adopt trade names or trademarks similar to ours, thereby impeding our ability to build brand identity and possibly leading to market confusion. In addition, there could be potential trade name or trademark infringement claims brought by owners of other registered trademarks or trademarks that incorporate variations of our registered or unregistered trademarks or trade names. If we assert trademark infringement claims, a court may determine that the marks we have asserted are invalid or unenforceable, or that the party against whom we have asserted trademark infringement has superior rights to the marks in question. In this case, we could ultimately be forced to cease use of such trademarks.

If atuzaginstat, our lead drug candidate, obtains regulatory approval, additional competitors could enter the market with generic versions, which may result in a material decline in sales of affected drugs.

Under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, or the Hatch-Waxman Act, a pharmaceutical manufacturer may file an abbreviated new drug application, or ANDA, seeking approval of a generic copy of an approved, small molecule innovator drug. Under the Hatch-Waxman Act, a manufacturer may also submit a new drug application, or NDA, under section 505(b)(2) that references the FDA’s prior approval of the small molecule innovator drug. A 505(b)(2) NDA drug may be for a new or improved version of the original innovator drug. The Hatch-Waxman Act also provides for certain periods of regulatory exclusivity, which preclude FDA approval (or in some circumstances, FDA filing and reviewing) of an ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA. In addition to the benefits of regulatory exclusivity, an innovator NDA holder may have patents claiming the active ingredient, drug formulation or an approved use of the drug, which would be listed with the drug in the FDA publication, “Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations,” known as the “Orange Book.” If there are patents listed in the Orange Book, a generic or 505(b)(2) applicant that seeks to market its drug before expiration of the patents must include in the ANDA a “Paragraph IV certification,” challenging the validity or enforceability of, or claiming non-infringement of, the listed patent or patents. Notice of the certification must be given to the innovator, too, and if within 45 days of receiving notice the innovator sues to protect its patents, approval of the ANDA is stayed for 30 months, or as lengthened or shortened by the court.

Accordingly, if any of our small molecule drug candidates receive FDA approval, competitors could file ANDAs for generic versions of our drugs or 505(b)(2) NDAs that reference our drugs, respectively. If there are patents listed for atuzaginstat in the Orange Book, those ANDAs and 505(b)(2) NDAs would be required to include a certification as to each listed patent indicating whether the ANDA applicant does or does not intend to challenge the patent. We cannot predict how any generic competitor would address patents we may list in the Orange Book, if any, whether we would sue on any such patents, or the outcome of any such suit.

We may not be successful in securing or maintaining proprietary patent protection for drug candidates and technologies we develop or license. Moreover, if any of our owned or in-licensed patents that are listed in the Orange Book are successfully challenged by way of a Paragraph IV certification and subsequent litigation, the affected drug could immediately face generic competition and its sales would likely decline rapidly and materially. Should sales decline, we may have to write off a portion or all of the intangible assets associated with the affected drug and our results of operations and cash flows could be materially and adversely affected.

Risks Relating to Owning Our Common Stock

The market price of our common stock is likely to be volatile and could fluctuate or decline, resulting in a substantial loss of your investment.

The market price of our common stock has been and may continue to be volatile and could be subject to wide fluctuations in response to many risk factors listed in this section, and others beyond our control, including:

54

Furthermore, the stock markets have experienced price and volume fluctuations that have affected and continue to affect the market prices of equity securities of many companies. These fluctuations often have been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of those companies. These broad market and industry fluctuations, as well as general economic, political and market conditions such as recessions, interest rate changes or international currency fluctuations, may negatively impact the market price of our common stock.  In the past, stockholders have instituted securities class action litigation following periods of market volatility. If we were to become involved in securities litigation, it could subject us to substantial costs and divert our management’s attention from other business concerns, which could seriously harm our business.

Future sales of our common stock in the public market could cause our share price to fall.

Sales of a substantial number of shares of our common stock in the public market, or the perception that these sales might occur, could depress the market price of our common stock and could impair our ability to raise capital through the sale of additional equity securities.

Certain holders of our common stock have rights, subject to conditions, to require us to file registration statements covering their shares or to include their shares in Securities Act registration statements that we may file for ourselves or other stockholders. Once we register these shares, they can be freely sold in the public market. Moreover, we have also registered under the Securities Act shares of common stock that we may issue under our equity compensation plans.

In addition, in the future, we may issue additional shares of common stock or other equity or debt securities convertible into common stock in connection with a financing, acquisition, litigation settlement, employee arrangements or otherwise. Any such issuance could result in substantial dilution to our existing stockholders and could cause our stock price to decline.

We have never paid dividends on our common stock and we do not intend to pay dividends for the foreseeable future. Consequently, any gains from an investment in our common stock will likely depend on whether the price of our common stock increases.

We have never declared or paid any dividends on our common stock and do not intend to pay any dividends in the foreseeable future. We anticipate that we will retain all of our future earnings for use in the operation of our business and for general corporate purposes. Any determination to pay dividends in the future will be at the discretion of our board of directors. Accordingly, investors must rely on sales of their common stock after price appreciation, which may never occur, as the only way to realize any future gains on their investments.

55

General Risk Factors

General Risk Factors

Insiders have substantial control over us and will be able to influence corporate matters.

Our directors and executive officers and our affiliates beneficially own, in the aggregate, approximately 26.9% of our outstanding capital stock. As a result, these stockholders will be able to exercise significant influence over all matters requiring stockholder approval, including the election of directors and approval of significant corporate transactions, such as a merger or other sale of our company or its assets. This concentration of ownership could limit stockholders’ ability to influence corporate matters and may have the effect of delaying or preventing a third party from acquiring control over us.

Our charter documents and Delaware law could prevent a takeover that stockholders consider favorable and could also reduce the market price of our stock.

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and our amended and restated bylaws contain provisions that could delay or prevent a change in control of our company. These provisions could also make it more difficult for stockholders to elect directors and take other corporate actions. These provisions include:

These provisions may frustrate or prevent any attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove our current management by making it more difficult for stockholders to replace members of our board of directors, which is responsible for appointing the members of our management. In addition, the provisions of Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporate Law, or the DGCL, govern us. These provisions may prohibit large stockholders, in particular those owning 15% or more of our outstanding voting stock, from merging or combining with us for a certain period of time without the consent of our board of directors.

These and other provisions in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and our amended and restated bylaws and under Delaware law could discourage potential takeover attempts, reduce the price investors might be willing to pay in the future for shares of our common stock and result in the market price of our common stock being lower than it would be without these provisions.

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation provides that the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware is the sole and exclusive forum for substantially all disputes between us and our stockholders, which could limit our stockholders’ abilities to obtain a favorable judicial forum for disputes with us or our directors, officers or employees.

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation provide that, unless we consent to the selection of an alternative forum, to the fullest extent permitted by law, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware shall be the sole and exclusive forum for:

56

provided that, the exclusive forum provision will not apply to suits brought to enforce any liability or duty created by the Exchange Act or any other claim for which the federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction; and provided further that, if and only if the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware dismisses any such action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, such action may be brought in another state or federal court sitting in the State of Delaware. Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation also provide that the federal district courts of the United States of America will be the exclusive forum for the resolution of any complaint asserting a cause of action against us or any of our directors, officers, employees or agents and arising under the Securities Act.

We believe these provisions may benefit us by providing increased consistency in the application of Delaware law and federal securities laws by chancellors and judges, as applicable, particularly experienced in resolving corporate disputes, efficient administration of cases on a more expedited schedule relative to other forums and protection against the burdens of multi-forum litigation. However, these provisions may limit a stockholder’s ability to bring a claim in a judicial forum that it finds favorable for disputes with us or our directors, officers, or other employees. While the Delaware Supreme Court recently determined that such choice of forum provisions are facially valid, a stockholder may nevertheless seek to bring such a claim arising under the Securities Act against us, our directors, officers, or other employees in a venue other than in the federal district courts of the United States of America. In such instance, we would expect to vigorously assert the validity and enforceability of the exclusive forum provisions of our amended and restated certificate of incorporation, and this may require significant additional costs associated with resolving such action in other jurisdictions.

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

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws provide that we will indemnify our directors and officers, in each case to the fullest extent permitted by Delaware law.

In addition, as permitted by Section 145 of the DGCL, our amended and restated bylaws and our indemnification agreements that we have entered into with our directors and officers provide that:

Our internal computer systems, or those used by our third-party research institution collaborators, CROs or other contractors or consultants, may fail or suffer security breaches.

Despite the implementation of security measures, our internal computer systems and those of our future CROs and other contractors and consultants may be vulnerable to damage from computer viruses and unauthorized access. Although to our knowledge we have not experienced any such material system failure or security breach to date, if such an event were to occur and cause interruptions in our operations, it could result in a material disruption of our development programs and our business operations. For example, the loss of clinical trial data from completed, ongoing or future clinical trials could result in delays in our regulatory approval efforts and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data. Likewise, we rely on our third-party research institution collaborators for research and development of our drug candidates and other third parties for the manufacture of our drug candidates and to conduct clinical trials, and similar events relating to their computer systems could also have a material adverse effect on our business. To the extent that any disruption or security breach were to result in a loss of, or damage to, our data or systems, or inappropriate disclosure of confidential or proprietary information, we could incur liability and the further development and commercialization of our drug candidates could be delayed.

57

Our ability to utilize our federal net operating loss and tax credit carryforwards may be limited.

Our net operating loss, or NOL, carryforwards could expire unused and be unavailable to offset future income tax liabilities because of their limited duration or because of restrictions under U.S. tax law. NOLs generated in tax years ending on or prior to December 31, 2017 are only permitted to be carried forward for 20 taxable years under applicable U.S. federal tax law. Moreover, under the Tax Act as modified by the CARES Act, federal NOLs generated in tax years beginning after December 31, 2017 may be carried forward indefinitely, but the deductibility of such federal NOLs may be limited to 80% of current year taxable income for tax years beginning after January 1, 2021.

Under Sections 382 and 383 of the Internal Revenue Code, of 1986, as amended (“Code”), limitations on a corporation’s ability to use its NOLs and tax credit carryforwards apply if a corporation undergoes an “ownership change,” which is generally defined as a greater than 50 percentage point change (by value) in its equity ownership by certain stockholders over a three-year period. If we have experienced an ownership change at any time since our incorporation, we may already be subject to limitations on our ability to utilize our existing NOL carryforwards and other tax attributes to offset taxable income or tax liability. In addition, future changes in our stock ownership, which may be outside of our control, may trigger an ownership change. Similar provisions of state tax law may also apply to limit our use of accumulated state tax attributes. As a result, even if we earn net taxable income in the future, our ability to use our pre-change NOL carryforwards and other tax attributes to offset such taxable income or tax liability may be subject to limitations, which could potentially result in increased future income tax liability to us.