Item 1. Business.

Overview

We are a biopharmaceutical company focused on developing and commercializing precision therapies for genetically defined cancers with alterations in mTOR pathway genes. Our lead drug product, FYARRO^TM, (nab-sirolimus) is a form of sirolimus bound to albumin. Sirolimus is a potent inhibitor of the mTOR biological pathway, the activation of which pathway can promote tumor growth, and inhibits downstream signaling from mTOR.

We have an exclusive license with Abraxis BioScience, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Celgene Corporation, now Bristol Myers Squibb Company (“Celgene”), under which we obtained exclusive rights to develop, manufacture, and commercialize FYARRO, previously called ABI-009, nab-sirolimus, provided that we have granted to EOC Pharma (Hong Kong) Limited exclusive rights to develop and commercialize FYARRO for the Greater China region.

Throughout this document we refer to FYARRO, (nab-sirolimus, sirolimus protein-bound particles for injectable suspension (albumin-bound)) as FYARRO in the context of commercialization for the treatment of advanced malignant perivascular epithelioid cell tumors (“PEComa”), investigational use, our clinical trials and our license agreement with Celgene, all further discussed below and throughout this document.

In November 2019, we announced top-line results from the AMPECT study, including that the study achieved its primary endpoint of overall response rate (“ORR”), as determined by blinded independent central radiologic review using modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, (“RECIST”) v1.1. In October 2021, the results of the AMPECT study with long-term follow up were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

In May 2021, we completed the filing of a rolling new drug application (“NDA”) for FYARRO to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (the “FDA”), for approval to treat patients with advanced malignant PEComa. The NDA was based on results from our Phase 2 registration-directed study, Advanced Malignant PEComa Trial, (“AMPECT”), in advanced malignant PEComa for which there were, prior to FYARRO, no approved therapies in the United States and for which there had never been a prior prospective clinical trial. The FDA accepted the NDA in July 2021, and we were granted approval for commercial sale on November 22, 2021.

During the first quarter of 2022, we launched FYARRO in the United States for treatment of advanced malignant PEComa and are evaluating in cancers with known mTOR pathway activation, including tumor agnostic indications targeting specific genomic alterations that activate the mTOR pathway.

In advanced malignant PEComa, other than FYARRO, there are no existing FDA approved therapies or drugs that have been studied in prospective clinical trials. Following FDA approval, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (“NCCN”) Sarcoma panel included FYARRO as the only preferred regimen for treatment of malignant PEComa.

We have been actively engaged in commercial preparations to support the U.S. launch of FYARRO for the treatment of patients with advanced malignant PEComa. We have built a cross-functional commercial team consisting of marketing, market access, commercial operations, and sales. We have also built commercial infrastructure and capabilities designed to scale when necessary to support future commercial launches. The commercial team is hired and is educating the U.S. market.

In addition to advanced malignant PEComa, based on data from the completed AMPECT trial and our expanded access program, we have initiated a registration-directed tumor-agnostic Phase 2 study (“PRECISION 1”) of FYARRO in patients with Tuberous Sclerosis Complex 1 and 2 (“TSC1” & “TSC2”) alterations. We have completed a Type B meeting with the FDA in which we discussed the initial trial design and the PRECISION 1 trial is now open for enrollment in the United States.

We have built a management team with extensive experience in the discovery, development, and commercialization of cancer therapeutics, including in senior roles at leading oncology companies. We are supported by our board of directors and specialized scientific advisors, who contribute their deep understanding of drug discovery and development, as well as expertise in building public companies and business development. Furthermore, our investor base includes top life science investors. We believe that our team is well positioned to develop and commercialize FYARRO and future pipeline assets to ultimately bring significant benefit to cancer patients worldwide.

4

Our Strategy

Our objective is to develop and commercialize innovative drugs that address the serious unmet medical needs of cancer patients and patients with other diseases that are driven by alterations in the mTOR pathway. The principal components of our strategy include:

We have presented initial data for FYARRO in patients with different cancer types having alterations in the TSC1 or TSC2 genes as part of an expanded access program. Based on data in patients with TSC1 or TSC2 alterations from the completed AMPECT trial and the expanded access program, in the first quarter of 2022, we have initiated a registration-directed tumor-agnostic study called PRECISION 1 in patients with solid tumors driven by TSC1 or TSC2 alterations. We believe that this approach offers an opportunity to significantly expand the commercial potential of FYARRO over time.

We believe there is a significant opportunity to utilize FYARRO in other indications as a monotherapy as well as in combination with other targeted therapies, particularly in mTOR adjacent signaling pathways. These additional indications may be important drivers of commercial value and we believe that strategic partnerships, particularly in combination therapies, may be an effective means of developing and commercializing these opportunities. While we are primarily focused on cancer, the mTOR pathway is also relevant in other indications and we may opportunistically study these indications to broaden the application of FYARRO or satisfy unmet medical needs.

We have built capabilities in the United States to commercialize our products. We have partnered FYARRO with EOC Pharma Limited for commercialization in Greater China. Outside the United States and China, we intend to selectively evaluate strategic partnerships with partners whose development and commercial capabilities complement our own.

Importance of the mTOR Pathway in Cancer

mTOR is a serine–threonine kinase that is the key component of two multi-subunit complexes with non-overlapping downstream targets: mTOR Complex 1 (“mTORC1”) and mTOR Complex 2 (“mTORC2”). mTORC1 plays a vital role in the regulation of cell growth and division by controlling the balance between anabolic and catabolic cellular processes and facilitates the progression of cell-cycle from G1 to S phase. Due to its key role in anabolic processes needed for cell division, the majority of cancer cells have activation of mTORC1 through one mechanism or another. Thus, the effective inhibition of mTORC1 in cancer cells may inhibit their proliferation. Activation of mTORC1 may occur downstream of the PI3K/AKT or Ras/MEK/ERK pathways, or through inactivating alterations in negative regulators of the mTORC1 pathway, including TSC1 or TSC2. Downstream signaling nodes of mTORC1, specifically S6K and 4EBP1, are key drivers of mTORC1 activity. Decreased phosphorylation of S6K leads to decreased activity, while decreased phosphorylation of 4EBP1 leads to increased activity. Sirolimus (also known as rapamycin) is an allosteric inhibitor of mTOR, which binds to the 12-kDa FK506-binding protein 12 (FKBP12), and the complex directly and strongly inhibits mTORC1.

Figure 1

5

Currently approved mTOR inhibitors are limited in their applicability due to poor and variable absorption of the oral drugs (sirolimus and everolimus) or variable conversion from prodrug to active drug (temsirolimus) and premedication requirements (temsirolimus). These drugs have a narrow therapeutic index and a reduction from the labelled dose can result in a decrease in efficacy. Preclinical study comparisons with FYARRO showed significantly higher tumor uptake, greater downstream mTOR target suppression and increased suppression of tumor growth for FYARRO compared to the oral mTOR inhibitors. A literature comparison of the clinical pharmacokinetic profiles of the drugs shows that FYARRO has a longer half-life, higher peak blood concentration and greater total exposure than the other approved mTOR inhibitors. FYARRO is administered in cycles that are given weekly for two weeks followed by a week off and does not require therapeutic monitoring to ensure adequate blood levels.

Our Approach: The Nanoparticle Albumin-Bound (nab) Technology

The nanoparticle albumin-bound, or nab, technology was created and developed by Neil Desai, our founder and CEO, and former colleagues while at Abraxis Bioscience. This technology takes advantage of the protein albumin, a natural carrier of water insoluble molecules (e.g., various nutrients, vitamins and hormones) found in humans. Due to various active and passive transport processes in the body, albumin can accumulate preferentially in different tissues including tumors, areas of inflammation, or areas of tissue remodeling, i.e., at sites of disease. The nab technology takes advantage of these transport properties of albumin and its affinity of binding to certain drug molecules to increase the efficiency with which these molecules may be brought to these sites of disease. The first clinical and commercial validation of this technology is the drug Abraxane®, which is approved in the U.S. and worldwide for the treatment of breast cancer, non-small cell lung cancer and pancreatic cancer. Abraxane has generated >$1.0 billion of sales in the U.S. every year since 2018.

We are applying the nab technology to the molecule sirolimus, a potent inhibitor of the mTOR pathway that is hindered in large part by a poor pharmacologic profile (e.g., poor and variable absorption with incomplete target suppression). The relevance of albumin transport in cancer has been extensively studied and albumin is known to accumulate in tumor tissues due to the leaky capillary system within the tumor, defective lymphatic drainage of tumors, and active caveolae-mediated transport across tumor blood vessel endothelium. In addition, albumin can be taken up by proliferating tumor cells via endocytosis and macropinocytosis, then catabolized by lysosomal degradation to support de novo protein synthesis, energy, and tumor growth. Ultimately, nab technology allows FYARRO to take advantage of albumin transport pathways to accumulate at high levels in tumors and deliver sirolimus directly to cancer cells where it can effectively inhibit mTOR. The accumulation of albumin in tumors can be easily visualized by using the dye evans blue which has a high affinity for albumin. Intravenous injection of albumin-evans blue complex in animals bearing tumors resulted in rapid accumulation of the complex within the tumors which could be easily visualized in a few hours after injection. Similarly, a fluorescent labelled albumin when injected into human glioblastoma patients 24-48 hours before surgery resulted in excellent visualization of the

6

tumors during surgery under fluorescent light and allowed the complete resection of the tumor margins in the majority of the patients treated.

Figure 2 – Albumin Accumulation

FYARRO

FYARRO (nab-sirolimus, sirolimus protein-bound particles for injectable suspension (albumin-bound)), is a form of sirolimus (rapamycin) bound to albumin. Sirolimus is a potent inhibitor of the mTOR biological pathway and inhibits downstream signaling from mTOR, which can promote tumor growth. FYARRO is in the form of nanoparticles of sirolimus bound to human albumin with average size less than 100 nanometers. An artist’s impression of these nanoparticles is shown below.

Figure 3 – Nanoparticle artist impression

The orally available mTOR inhibitors have poor and variable absorption, often require therapeutic drug monitoring, and have incomplete target suppression. The combination of sirolimus with human albumin in FYARRO achieves higher AUC, Cmax and longer half-life in humans at its clinical dose when compared with published clinical data for other mTOR inhibitors, demonstrating FYARRO’s differentiated clinical pharmacologic and pharmacokinetic profile.

7

Figure 4 – FYARRO PK Profile

These differences in pharmacology can result in advantageous differences in the clinical behavior of FYARRO when compared to the other mTOR inhibitors. This is effectively illustrated in comparative experiments in animals bearing bladder cancer tumors or liver cancer tumors. Data from these tumor-bearing animal models showed many-fold higher tumor drug levels for FYARRO at equal dose to the other mTOR inhibitors which was correlated with a greater degree of mTOR target suppression as indicated by inhibition of phosphorylation of S6 and 4EBP1 (downstream signaling nodes of mTORC1 that are known to play a role in downstream activity of mTOR as well as resistance to mTOR suppression), and a correspondingly higher suppression of tumor growth.

We believe that other mTOR inhibitors on the market or active in clinical development do not have the required favorable pharmacological profile to fully exploit the benefits of mTOR inhibition. We believe that FYARRO’s differentiated pharmacologic profile, high tumor accumulation, and ability to effectively inhibit important targets in the mTOR pathway make it a well-positioned drug candidate to address resistance and suboptimal efficacy of existing mTOR inhibitors.

We are studying FYARRO in cancers with known mTOR pathway activation, including tumor agnostic indications targeting specific genomic alterations that activate the mTOR pathway. In addition, we have ongoing studies as well as studies in planning for testing the safety and efficacy of FYARRO in combination with other targeted agents. Our ongoing studies and studies in planning are summarized in the figure below.

Figure 5 – Pipeline

In November 2019, at the Connective Tissue Oncology Society (“CTOS”) Annual Meeting, we announced top-line results from the AMPECT study, including that the study achieved its primary endpoints of ORR, as determined by blinded independent central radiologic review using modified RECIST v1.1. In May 2021, we completed the filing of a rolling NDA for FYARRO to the FDA, for approval to treat patients with advanced malignant PEComa. The

8

NDA was based on results from the AMPECT study, in patients for whom there were no FDA approved therapies in the United States. The FDA accepted the NDA in July 2021, and we were granted approval for commercial sale on November 22, 2021.

PRECISION 1 is a tumor-agnostic registration-directed Phase 2 study of FYARRO in patients with TSC1 and TSC2 inactivating alterations that is based on evidence of activity seen in patients with TSC1 and TSC2 inactivating alterations from the completed AMPECT trial (presented at the CTOS Annual Meeting in 2020) and our Expanded Access Program (presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (“ASCO”) Annual Meeting in 2021). The PRECISION 1 study is now open for enrollment in the United States. We have completed a Type B meeting with the FDA in which we discussed the initial trial design with the FDA.

An Expanded Access Program (“EAP”) was opened to bridge access to FYARRO until market authorization and has been closed in the United States following the commercial availability of FYARRO.  The EAP is available for advanced malignant PEComa patients in certain countries outside the United States.

In addition, we have other ongoing trials in early stages investigating the dose-finding of FYARRO in combination with various agents including tumor types such as colorectal cancer and sarcoma.

FYARRO for Advanced Malignant PEComa

PEComas are mesenchymal neoplasms, composed of histologically and immunohistochemically distinctive cells, perivascular epithelioid cells (“PEC”s). Most PEComas are clinically benign and do not metastasize, but malignant PEComas can demonstrate local invasion and aggressive metastatic spread. PEComas show a wide anatomical distribution, but most often arise in the retroperitoneum, abdominopelvic region, uterus and gastrointestinal tract, and have a 4:1 female predominance. Malignant PEComas are classified as one of the ultra-rare soft-tissue sarcomas with an estimated annual incidence of roughly 100-300 patients per year in the United States, although formal epidemiology studies have yet to be conducted.

FYARRO is the first FDA approved treatment specifically for malignant PEComa. The disease is often treated with the cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens used in soft tissue sarcomas, which have shown only modest benefit for malignant PEComa. PEComas commonly show evidence of mTORC1 activation at least in part due to loss-of-function mutations in or deletions of the TSC1 or TSC2 genes. In a retrospective analysis, patients with malignant PEComa treated with available mTOR inhibitors (mTORi, sirolimus, everolimus, and temsirolimus) benefited from treatment suggesting that mTORC1 inhibition may be a promising therapeutic approach for malignant PEComa. As a result, available mTOR inhibitors may also be used to treat malignant PEComa.

AMPECT, a pivotal phase 2 open-label clinical trial of FYARRO in advanced malignant PEComa

The AMPECT trial was the first prospective clinical trial in advanced malignant PEComa. Patients with metastatic or inoperable locally advanced disease were treated with FYARRO at 100 mg/m2 administered as an intravenous (“IV”) infusion over 30 minutes on Days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle. The primary endpoint for the study was ORR evaluated by independent radiology review. Secondary efficacy endpoints included duration of response (“DOR”), progression free survival (“PFS”) and overall survival (“OS”). The sample size estimation assumed an observed ORR of 30% for a sample size of 30 patients, which would exclude values less than 14.7% for the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval.

This registrational trial met its primary endpoint demonstrating the efficacy of nab-sirolimus in this rare disease for which there was no FDA approved treatment, with an independently assessed ORR of 39% (95% CI: 22%, 58%). Disease control (defined as complete or partial response (“CR” or “PR”) + stable disease ≥12 weeks) was achieved in 71% of patients. FYARRO (nab-sirolimus) was subsequently approved by the FDA for the treatment of advanced malignant PEComa on November 22, 2021.

Sixty-seven percent (8 of 12) of responses were seen at the first scan after baseline at week six (median time to response 1.4 months, 95% CI: 1.3 to 2.8 months). At the time of the primary analysis (predefined as when all patients had an opportunity to be treated for 6 months), the median for the key secondary endpoint of DOR was not yet reached, with 9 of 12 responders still on treatment (DOR range 4.2+, 27.7+ months). At 1.5-years of follow-up after the primary analysis date (i.e., 2-years after the last patient-initiated treatment), 7 of 12 responders were still receiving treatment and the median DOR was still not reached, with 50% of patients exceeding 2.5 years (DOR range 5.6, 47.2+ months).

9

Figure 6 shows the target tumor responses (waterfall plot). One patient with a primary renal PEComa metastatic to the lungs and lymph nodes had a PR for 10 months that converted to a CR. Responses were independent of the primary site and were observed in tumors originating in the uterus (3), kidney (3), retroperitoneum (2), pelvis (2), liver (1), and small bowel (1). Notably, 43% (3/7) of patients with uterine PEComa had a partial response. Responses were also observed in 3/4 patients who had previously received chemotherapy

Figure 6 – Waterfall plot of Maximum Reduction in Target Lesions, Two-year Follow-up (Wagner et al., JCO 2021)

*A patient with unconfirmed PR is considered having SD as best response (trial required confirmation of responses per RECIST v1.1). Additionally, a patient with a complete response of target tumor reduction had a PR as best response because of unresolved nontarget lesions at the 2-year data cutoff (Wagner et al, JCO 2021); however, this patient later achieved a confirmed complete response (FYARRO Prescribing Information).

Treatment-related adverse events (“TRAE”) were consistent with those reported for other mTOR inhibitors. The most common hematologic events were anemia and thrombocytopenia, and the most common nonhematologic events were mucositis, rash and fatigue. The details are provided in Table 1 below. There were no grade 4 or 5 TRAEs. Noninfectious pneumonitis occurred in 6/34 (18%) patients and all were low grade (G1/G2). Patient discontinuation due to adverse events occurred on 2/34 (6%) patients (one grade 2 anemia and one grade 1 cystitis). Dose reductions occurred in 13/34 (38%) patients; 11 patients had a one dose reduction from 100 mg/m2 to 75 mg/m2 and 2 patients had two dose reductions to 56 mg/m2.

Table 1

10

In December 2017, we received Orphan Drug Designation (“ODD”) for FYARRO for the treatment of patients with advanced malignant PEComa. In October 2018, the FDA granted Fast Track designation for FYARRO for the treatment of patients with advanced malignant PEComa. In December 2018, the FDA granted Breakthrough Therapy Designation (“BTD”) for FYARRO for the treatment of patients with advanced malignant PEComa. The FDA accepted the NDA in July 2021, and we were granted full approval on November 22, 2021.

FYARRO for TSC1 or TSC2 Alterations in Solid Tumors

The TSC1 and TSC2 genes encode for proteins that form a tumor suppressor complex that down regulates mTORC1 activity. Inactivating alterations in the TSC1 or TSC2 genes can result in activation of mTORC1. TSC1 or TSC2 alterations have been reported across a broad range of cancer types. Based on the SEER cancer statistics database and an analysis of mutation frequency by cancer type using the TCGA and cBioPortal databases, we believe there is a significant number of new patients with TSC1 or TSC2 inactivating alterations per year in the U.S (see chart titled “Projected Annual Incidence of Cancers with TSC1 and TSC2 Alterations” below). While there are no therapies approved specifically for TSC1 or TSC2 alterations, numerous case reports show durable responses to mTOR inhibition in patients with these alterations.

Figure 7

TSC1 and TSC2 Alterations in the AMPECT Study

An exploratory mutational analysis was conducted on patients treated with FYARRO in the AMPECT study in advanced malignant PEComa. In 25 patients with available mutational analysis, TSC1 or TSC2 alterations were found in 14 patients (56%). In this subset of patients with TSC1 or TSC2 alterations, the response rate was 64% (9/14) (Figure 8). In particular, TSC2 mutations were significantly associated with response (89% of patients) to FYARRO.

11

Figure 8 – Spider plot demonstrating change in the sum of target tumor measurements over time, based on mutation status.

TSC1 and TSC2 Alterations in the Expanded Access Program

An Expanded Access Program was opened to bridge access to FYARRO until market authorization for patients with advanced malignant PEComa; this program also included patients with various other malignancies having relevant genetic mutations in the mTOR pathway. Preliminary data was presented at ASCO Annual Meeting in 2021 showing the early results in tumors bearing TSC1 or TSC2 inactivating alterations in patients with histologies other than advanced malignant PEComa. Of the 8 patients treated with FYARRO, 7 patients were evaluable for response analysis and 1 patient progressed before the first scan. Five of 8 patients (63%, 95% CI: 25%-92%) achieved a confirmed PR. Amongst the patients who were mTOR inhibitor-naïve, 5 of 6 (83%, 95% CI: 36%-99+%) achieved a confirmed PR. Duration of response at data cutoff ranged from 3.1 to 9.7+ months and 3 of 5 responders continue on treatment. A waterfall plot of tumor response is provided below Figure 9. Figure 10 shows the prior therapy and duration of treatment for each patient. Patients with inactivating alterations in either TSC1 or TSC2 achieved tumor shrinkage and clinical benefit.

Figure 9

12

Figure 10

Treatment-emergent adverse events (“TEAE”) (30%) included edema, infections, mucositis, and pain (71% each), nail changes and vomiting (57% each), and hypertension and nausea (43% each). The majority of the events were G1/G2. Treatment-related serious adverse events (“TESAE”) were reported in 2 patients and included hyperglycemia and infection (patients #4 and #5) and acute kidney injury (patient #7) possibly also related to administration of contrast. Dose reductions occurred in 3/8 patients (38%) from 100 mg/m2 to 75 mg/m2.

A recent published case report summarized the results of a patient with malignant PEComa patient with a TSC1 alteration who enrolled in the Expanded Access Program after having progressed through treatment with the mTOR inhibitor everolimus. The patient demonstrated a rapid and durable response to FYARRO.

FYARRO in patients with prior mTOR inhibitors

A post hoc electronic medical record review provided evidence of clinical benefit of nab-sirolimus in patients with malignant PEComa who had prior mTOR inhibitor exposure: 25% achieved a response (duration of response range: 1.3+–25.2+ months, 3 ongoing), and 50% had stable disease as best response as best response. Of patients with TSC1 or TSC2 inactivating alterations, 44% had a response. 

FYARRO for other indications

FYARRO is currently being tested in early-stage, dose-finding studies to determine the appropriate dose of FYARRO in combination with various agents in tumor types including colorectal cancer, sarcoma and other indications. We expect to report data from one or more of these combination studies in the second half of 2022. We believe there is a significant opportunity to utilize FYARRO in other indications as a monotherapy, e.g., in other mTOR pathway mutations, as well as in combination with other targeted therapies, particularly in mTOR adjacent signaling pathways. These additional indications may be important drivers of commercial value and will be evaluated in the future.

Preclinical profile FYARRO

We demonstrated the antitumor activity of FYARRO in a series of nonclinical pharmacology studies. FYARRO exhibited antitumor activity as a single agent and in combination with other therapeutic agents in a wide range of tumor types. As a single agent, FYARRO significantly inhibited tumor growth of multiple human and mouse tumor models with known mTOR pathway activation including colon, breast, ovarian, bladder, and liver human tumor xenograft models, and in a melanoma mouse tumor model. In addition, the antitumor activity of FYARRO was significantly increased in combination with an EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor, an AKT inhibitor, doxorubicin, a Hsp90 inhibitor, gemcitabine, and anti-PD1 (programmed cell death protein 1) antibody. In nonclinical PK studies, we have shown that FYARRO intravenous (“IV”) administration resulted in significant, rapid, and prolonged

13

sirolimus distribution to different organs and in tumors. As a single agent monotherapy and in combination with other therapies, FYARRO was well tolerated with limited body weight loss.

In March 2019, at the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting, we presented preclinical data that describes the tumor accumulation, mTOR target inhibition, and antitumor activity of FYARRO IV in comparison to oral sirolimus and oral everolimus in athymic mice bearing UMUC3 human bladder tumor xenografts. At a clinically relevant dose of 15 mg/kg/week for all agents, FYARRO resulted in higher drug accumulation in tumors and stronger suppression of mTOR target pS6, which correlated with significantly greater tumor growth inhibition and prolonged survival compared with equal weekly dose of oral sirolimus and everolimus.

Figure 11

We also determined the antitumor activity of FYARRO in comparison to oral Rapamune against TSC2-null SNU-398 human liver tumor xenografts. At equal weekly dose of 15 mg/kg/week, FYARRO IV resulted in significantly greater tumor growth inhibition and longer animal survival, which correlated with stronger suppression of mTOR downstream targets pS6K, pS6, and p4EBP1 as measured by western blot.

Figure 12

Taken together, the nonclinical studies support the clinical development of FYARRO as an anticancer therapy.

Intellectual Property

We strive to protect the proprietary technologies that we believe are important to our business, including pursuing and maintaining patent protection intended to cover formulations of FYARRO, its methods of use, related technologies, and other inventions that are important to our business. In addition to patent protection, we also rely on trade secrets to protect aspects of our business that are not amenable to, or that we do not consider appropriate for, patent protection, including our proprietary method of manufacturing FYARRO.

Our commercial success depends in part upon our ability to obtain and maintain patent and other proprietary protection for FYARRO and other commercially important technologies, inventions, and know-how related to our

14

business, defend and enforce our intellectual property rights, in particular, our patent rights, preserve the confidentiality of our trade secrets, and operate without infringing valid and enforceable intellectual property rights of others.

The patent positions for biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies like us are generally uncertain and can involve complex legal, scientific, and factual issues. We cannot predict whether the patent applications we are currently pursuing will issue as patents in any particular jurisdiction or whether the claims of any issued patents will provide sufficient proprietary protection from competitors. In addition, the coverage claimed in a patent application can be significantly reduced before a patent is issued, and its scope can be reinterpreted and even challenged after issuance. As a result, we cannot guarantee that FYARRO will be protected or remain protectable by enforceable patents. Moreover, any patents that we hold may be challenged, circumvented, or invalidated by third parties. For more information regarding the risks related to our intellectual property please see “Risk Factors— Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property”.

We exclusively license 10 patents from Celgene, by which Celgene granted us an exclusive, sublicensable license under Celgene’s rights to certain patents and patent applications relating to FYARRO. With regard to FYARRO, as of December 31, 2021, we licensed 4 issued U.S. patents with composition of matter and method of use claims covering this product. The first issued U.S. patent is expected to expire in 2029, and the other three are expected to expire in 2030, 2036, and 2036 respectively. In addition, we licensed related patents in Europe, Australia, North America, South America, and Asia that are expected to expire between 2022 and 2037. We also licensed 174 pending U.S. applications and related pending applications in Europe, Australia, North America, South America, Africa, and Asia. In addition, we also licensed two pending Patent Cooperation Treaty (“PCT”) patent applications directed to composition of matter and new uses related to this product, which if granted, are expected to expire in 2040.

The term of individual patents depends upon the legal term of the patents in the countries in which they are obtained. In most countries in which we file, the patent term is 20 years from the earliest date of filing a non-provisional patent application.

In the U.S., the term of a patent covering an FDA approved drug may, in certain cases, be eligible for a patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, commonly referred to as the Hatch-Waxman Act, as compensation for the loss of patent term during FDA regulatory review process. The period of extension may be up to five years but cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval. Only one patent among those eligible for an extension and only those claims covering the approved drug, a method for using it, or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. Similar provisions are available in Europe and in certain other jurisdictions to extend the term of a patent that covers an approved drug. In January 2022, we filed an application for patent term extension based on the approval of FYARRO. We also intend to seek patent term extensions in any jurisdictions where they are available, however, there is no guarantee that the applicable authorities, including the FDA, will agree with our assessment of whether such extensions should be granted, and even if granted, the length of such extensions.

In addition to patent protection, we also rely on trade secret protection for our proprietary information that is not amenable to, or that we do not consider appropriate for, patent protection, including, for example, certain aspects of our manufacturing processes for the nanoparticle compositions. However, trade secrets can be difficult to protect. Although we take steps to protect our proprietary information, including restricting access to our premises and our confidential information, as well as entering into agreements with our employees, consultants, advisors, and potential collaborators, such individuals may breach such agreements and disclose our proprietary information including our trade secrets, and we may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for such breaches. In addition, third parties may independently develop the same or similar proprietary information or may otherwise gain access to our proprietary information. As a result, we may be unable to meaningfully protect our trade secrets and proprietary information. For more information regarding the risks related to our intellectual property please see “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property.”

Commercial Operations

We have built a cross-functional commercial organization and infrastructure to support the launch of FYARRO for advanced malignant PEComa in the United States and will continue to evaluate potential partners in markets outside the United States. In December 2020, we entered into a License Agreement with EOC Pharma Limited pursuant to which we granted EOC Pharma Limited exclusive rights to develop and commercialize FYARRO in

15

Greater China. We have hired an experienced oncology commercial team including marketing, market access, commercial operations and sales personnel to educate physicians who are prescribers of treatments for advanced malignant PEComa. Our sales team will be supported by marketing, commercial operations, and market access functions. We have assembled a network of specialty distributors and specialty pharmacies to distribute FYARRO across multiple sites of care in the United States. Additionally, the sales and marketing teams will manage relationships with key accounts such as managed care organizations, group purchasing organizations, hospital systems, physician group networks, and government accounts. To continue the development of commercial capabilities and infrastructure, we are investing significant amounts of financial and management resources.

For future approvals of FYARRO in other oncology indications, we intend to retain commercialization rights in the United States and leverage our commercial and marketing organization for FYARRO, with appropriate additions or modifications as necessitated by the specific indications pursued, assuming we obtain regulatory approval in the United States, and consider whether to build our own commercial and marketing organization in select markets outside the United States, or selectively establish partnerships. Accordingly, we will consider entering into relationships with strategic partners that enable the expansion of the ongoing clinical development and/or licenses for development and commercialization or distribution, while retaining significant value for our shareholders. These partnerships could focus on specific patient populations and their caregivers, on regional development, or on distribution and sales.

Competition

The pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries are characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition and a strong emphasis on proprietary drugs. While we believe that our technology, development experience, and scientific knowledge provide us with competitive advantages, we face potential competition from many different sources, including major pharmaceutical, specialty pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, academic institutions and governmental agencies, and public and private research institutions. Any drug candidates that we successfully develop and commercialize will compete with existing drugs and new drugs that may become available in the future. We compete in the segments of the pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and other related markets that address inhibition of kinases in cancer and other rare genetic diseases. There are other companies working to develop therapies in the field of kinase inhibition for cancer and other diseases. These companies include divisions of large pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology companies of various sizes.

Many of the companies against which we are competing against or which we may compete in the future have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals, and marketing approved drugs than we do. Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and diagnostic 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.

We could see a reduction or elimination in our commercial opportunity if our competitors develop and commercialize drugs that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, are more convenient, or are less expensive than any drugs that we or our collaborators may develop. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their drugs more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we or our collaborators are able to enter the market. The key competitive factors affecting the success of FYARRO are likely to be its efficacy, safety, convenience, price, the effectiveness of companion diagnostics, the level of generic competition, and the availability of reimbursement from government and other third-party payors.

Competition for FYARRO in Advanced Malignant PEComa

In advanced malignant PEComa, other than FYARRO, there are no existing FDA approved therapies or drugs that have been studied in prospective clinical trials. Following FDA approval, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (“NCCN”) Sarcoma panel included FYARRO as the only preferred regimen for treatment of malignant PEComa. As of today, we are not aware of any other companies pursuing FDA approval for drugs to treat advanced malignant PEComa.

16

Competition for FYARRO in Tumor Agnostic TSC1 and TSC2 Inactivating Alterations

For tumor agnostic TSC1 or TSC2 inactivating alterations, there are no existing FDA approved drugs. If FYARRO receives marketing approval, it may face competition from available mTOR inhibitors including sirolimus, everolimus, and temsirolimus or other drug candidates in clinical trials that target the mTOR pathway, such as dual mTORC1/2 inhibitors or other next-generation mTOR inhibitors.

Manufacturing

We do not own or operate, and have no plans to establish, any manufacturing facilities. We currently rely on third parties to manufacture FYARRO for preclinical and clinical testing, as well as for our commercial supply of FYARRO.

The Amended and Restated License Agreement for FYARRO with Celgene dated November 2019, transferred the responsibility for manufacturing of FYARRO to us. FYARRO was previously manufactured for us by Celgene through their third-party manufacturer, Fresenius-Kabi, USA. As a result of the amendment to the License Agreement, we now obtain FYARRO directly from Fresenius-Kabi, USA.

To date, we have obtained drug substance and drug product from third-party manufacturers to support pre-clinical and clinical testing of FYARRO. On January 13, 2022, we entered into a Negotiated Purchase Order Terms and Conditions for Clinical and Commercial Product (the “Fresenius Agreement”) with Fresenius Kabi, LLC (“Fresenius Kabi”) pursuant to which Fresenius Kabi will manufacture FYARRO for us, and we will purchase FYARRO as a finished drug product from Fresenius Kabi, on a purchase-order basis. Under the Fresenius Agreement, which is effective through December 22, 2022 (or such later date as may be agreed between the parties in writing and currently being discussed), we may purchase FYARRO for either clinical or commercial purposes for use in the United States and Canada. In addition to manufacturing, Fresenius Kabi will perform specified labeling, packaging and serialization activities in respect of FYARRO for our benefit. The price of FYARRO will be fixed, subject to the ability of Fresenius Kabi to increase pricing under specified circumstances. We have an obligation to purchase certain minimum quantities of FYARRO. Failure to purchase those minimum quantities will result in an additional payment from us to Fresenius Kabi.

Future purchases of FYARRO for all purposes will utilize the Fresenius-Kabi Grand Island, New York clinical and commercial supply agreement effective through December 2022. We have a fully validated commercial manufacturing process in place for FYARRO at the Fresenius-Kabi Grand Island Manufacturing facility. We are evaluating options with Fresenius Kabi to create redundant supply of FYARRO beyond 2022. We have supply agreements in place for key raw materials used in the manufacture of FYARRO such as the drug substance sirolimus and for human albumin, which are key ingredients in the drug product. We do not currently have arrangements in place for redundant supply of the key raw materials used in the manufacture of FYARRO. We expect to continue to evaluate options to cost-effectively produce FYARRO at contract manufacturing facilities.

We generally expect to rely on third parties for the manufacture or development of any companion diagnostics if we are required to do so in the future for FYARRO.

Government Regulation

Government authorities in the United States, including federal, state, and local authorities, and in other countries, extensively regulate, among other things, the manufacturing, research and clinical development, marketing, labeling and packaging, storage, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting, advertising and promotion, and export and import of pharmaceutical and biological products, such as those we are developing. In addition, some government authorities regulate the pricing of such products. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources.

U.S. Government Regulation

Government authorities in the United States, at the federal, state, and local level, and other countries extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, nonclinical and clinical testing, manufacture, quality control, approval, labeling, packaging, storage, record-keeping, promotion, advertising, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting, marketing, and export and import of products such as those we are developing.

17

Generally, before a new drug can be marketed, considerable data must be generated, which demonstrate the drug’s quality, safety, and efficacy. Such data must then be organized into a format specific for each regulatory authority, submitted for review and approved by the regulatory authority.

Drugs are also subject to other federal, state, and local statutes and regulations. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local, and foreign statutes and regulations require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. Failure to comply with the applicable regulatory requirements at any time during the product development process, approval process, or after approval, may subject an applicant to administrative or judicial sanctions. These sanctions could include, among other actions, the regulatory authority’s refusal to approve pending applications, withdrawal of an approval, clinical holds, untitled or warning letters, voluntary product recalls or withdrawals from the market, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, debarment, fines, refusals of government contracts, restitution, disgorgement, or civil or criminal penalties. Any agency or judicial enforcement action could have a material adverse effect on us.

U.S. Drug Development

In the U.S., the FDA regulates drugs under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”) and its implementing regulations. Drugs are also subject to other federal, state, and local statutes and regulations. Drugs must be approved by the FDA through the NDA process before they may be legally marketed in the U.S. The process required by the FDA before a drug may be marketed in the U.S. generally involves the following:

Prior to beginning a clinical trial with a product candidate in the United States, companies must submit an IND to the FDA. An IND is a request for authorization from the FDA to administer an investigational new drug product to humans. The central focus of an IND submission is on the general investigational plan and the protocol(s) for clinical studies. The IND also includes results of animal and in vitro studies assessing the toxicology, pharmacokinetics, pharmacology, and pharmacodynamic characteristics of the product; chemistry, manufacturing, and controls information; and any available human data or literature to support the use of the investigational product. An IND must become effective before human clinical trials may begin. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA, within the 30-day time period, raises safety concerns or questions about the proposed clinical trial. In such a case, the IND may be placed on clinical hold and the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns or questions before the clinical trial can begin. Submission of an IND therefore may or may not result in FDA authorization to begin a clinical trial.

Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational product to human subjects under the supervision of qualified investigators in accordance with GCPs, which include the requirement that all research subjects provide their informed consent for their participation in any clinical study. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols

18

detailing, among other things, the objectives of the study, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. A new IND, or a separate submission to the existing IND must be made for each successive clinical trial conducted during product development and for any subsequent protocol amendments. Furthermore, an independent IRB for each site proposing to conduct the clinical trial must review and approve the plan for any clinical trial and its informed consent form before the clinical trial begins at that site and must monitor the study until completed. Regulatory authorities, the IRB or the sponsor may suspend a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the subjects are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk or that the clinical trial is unlikely to meet its stated objectives. Some studies also include oversight by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the clinical study sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board, which may review data and endpoints at designated check points, make recommendations and/or halt the clinical trial if it determines that there is an unacceptable safety risk for subjects or other grounds, such as no demonstration of efficacy. There are also requirements governing the reporting of ongoing clinical studies and clinical study results to public registries.

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

A pivotal study is a clinical study that adequately meets regulatory agency requirements for the evaluation of a drug candidate’s efficacy and safety such that it can serve as the primary basis for approval of the drug. Generally, pivotal studies are also Phase 3 studies but may be Phase 2 studies if the trial design provides a well-controlled and reliable assessment of clinical benefit, particularly in situations where there is an unmet medical need. Post-approval trials, sometimes referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials, may be conducted after initial marketing approval. These trials are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication. In certain instances, the FDA may mandate the performance of Phase 4 clinical trials.

Progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials must be submitted at least annually to the FDA and written IND safety reports must be submitted to the FDA and the investigators for serious and unexpected adverse reactions, any finding from other clinical studies, tests in laboratory animals, or in vitro testing that suggests a significant risk for human subjects, or any clinically important increase in the rate of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure. The sponsor must submit an IND safety report within 15 calendar days after the sponsor determines that the information qualifies for reporting. The sponsor also must notify the FDA of any unexpected fatal or life-threatening suspected adverse reaction within seven calendar days after the sponsor’s initial receipt of the information. Phase 1, Phase 2, and Phase 3 trials may not be completed successfully within any specified period, if at all. The FDA, the IRB, or the clinical trial sponsor may suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research subjects or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the drug has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients.

We may also suspend or terminate a clinical trial based on evolving business objectives and/or competitive climate. Concurrent with clinical trials, companies usually complete additional animal studies and must also develop

19

additional information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the drug as well as finalize a process for manufacturing the drug in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the drug candidate and, among other things, cGMPs impose extensive procedural, substantive, and recordkeeping requirements to ensure and preserve the long-term stability and quality of the final drug product. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested, and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the drug candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life.

A manufacturer of an investigational drug for a serious disease or condition is required to make available, such as by posting on its website, its policy on evaluating and responding to requests for individual patient access to such investigational drug. This requirement applies on the earlier of the first initiation of a Phase 2 or Phase 3 trial of the investigational drug or, as applicable, 15 days after the drug receives a designation as a breakthrough therapy, fast track product, or regenerative advanced therapy.

We may be required to develop and implement additional clinical trial policies and procedures designed to help protect subjects from the COVID-19 virus. For example, in March 2020, the FDA issued guidance, which has been subsequently updated, on conducting clinical trials during the COVID-19 pandemic, which describes a number of considerations for sponsors of clinical trials impacted by the pandemic, including the requirement to include in the clinical trial report contingency measures implemented to manage the clinical trial and any disruption of the clinical trial as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, among other. Other COVID-19 related guidance documents issued by FDA include a guidance on good manufacturing practice considerations for responding to COVID-19 infection in employees in drug products manufacturing; manufacturing, supply chain, and drug and biological product inspections during COVID-19 public health emergency; and remote interactive evaluations of drug manufacturing and bioresearch monitoring facilities during the COVID-19 public health emergency. Changes in FDA’s operations and policies, including delays in providing regulatory review or feedback to sponsors or delays in pre-approval inspections, as a result of the COVID-19 public health emergency can materially impact our clinical development plans and regulatory approval.

NDA and the FDA Review Process

Following trial completion, trial data are analyzed to assess safety and efficacy. The results of preclinical studies and clinical trials are then submitted to the FDA as part of a NDA, along with proposed labeling for the drug and information about the manufacturing process and facilities that will be used to ensure drug quality, results of analytical testing conducted on the chemistry of the drug, and other relevant information. The NDA is a request for approval to market the drug and must contain sufficient evidence of drug product quality, safety and efficacy, which is demonstrated by extensive analytical, preclinical and clinical testing. Data may come from company-sponsored clinical trials intended to test the safety and efficacy of a use of a drug, or from a number of alternative sources, including studies initiated by investigators. To support marketing approval, the data submitted must be sufficient in quality and quantity to establish the safety and efficacy of the investigational drug product for a particular indication or indications to the satisfaction of the FDA. FDA approval of an NDA must be obtained before a drug may be offered for sale in the United States.

The submission of an NDA is subject to the payment of substantial user fees; a waiver of such fees may be obtained under certain limited circumstances. Additionally, no user fees are assessed on NDAs for products designated as orphan drugs, unless the product also includes a non-orphan indication.

The FDA reviews an NDA to determine, among other things, whether a product is safe and effective for its intended use and whether its manufacturing is cGMP-compliant to assure and preserve the product’s identity, strength, quality, and purity. Under the PDUFA guidelines that are currently in effect, the FDA has a goal of ten months from the date of “filing” of a standard NDA for a new molecular entity to review and act on the submission. This review typically takes 12 months from the date the NDA is submitted to FDA because the FDA has approximately two months to make a “filing” decision after the application is submitted. The FDA conducts a preliminary review of all NDAs within the first 60 days after submission, before accepting them for filing, to determine whether they are sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. The FDA does not always meet its PDUFA goal dates for standard and priority NDAs, and the review process is often significantly extended by FDA requests for additional information or clarification. In such event, the NDA must be resubmitted with the additional information. The resubmitted application is also subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing.

20

After the NDA submission is accepted for filing, the FDA reviews the NDA to determine, among other things, whether the proposed drug is safe and effective for its intended use, and whether the drug is being manufactured in accordance with cGMP to assure and preserve the drug’s identity, strength, quality, and purity. The FDA may refer applications for novel drugs or drug candidates that present difficult questions of safety or efficacy to an advisory committee, typically a panel that includes clinicians and other experts, for review, evaluation, and a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions. In the course of its review, the FDA may re-analyze the clinical trial data, which could result in extensive discussions between the FDA and the applicant during the review process. The review and evaluation of an NDA by the FDA is extensive and time consuming and may take longer than originally planned to complete, and we may not receive a timely approval, if at all.

Before approving an NDA, the FDA typically conducts a pre-approval inspection of the manufacturing facilities for the new drug to determine whether they comply with cGMPs. The FDA will not approve the drug unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the drug within required specifications. In addition, before approving an NDA, the FDA may also audit data from clinical trials to ensure compliance with GCP requirements. After the FDA evaluates the application, manufacturing process, and manufacturing facilities where the drug product and/or its API will be produced, it may issue an approval letter or a Complete Response Letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the drug with specific prescribing information for specific indications. A Complete Response Letter indicates that the review cycle of the application is complete and the application is not ready for approval. A Complete Response Letter usually describes all of the specific deficiencies in the NDA identified by the FDA. The Complete Response Letter may require additional clinical data and/or an additional pivotal clinical trial(s), and/or other significant, expensive and time-consuming requirements related to clinical trials, preclinical studies, or manufacturing. If a Complete Response Letter is issued, the applicant may either resubmit the NDA, addressing all of the deficiencies identified in the letter, challenge the determination set forth in the letter by requesting a hearing, or withdraw the application. Even if such data and information are submitted, the FDA may ultimately decide that the NDA does not satisfy the criteria for approval. Data obtained from clinical trials are not always conclusive and the FDA may interpret data differently than we interpret the same data.

There is no assurance that the FDA will ultimately approve a drug product for marketing in the United States and we may encounter significant difficulties or costs during the review process. If a drug receives marketing approval, the approval may be significantly limited to specific diseases, dosages, or patient subgroups, or the indications for use may otherwise be limited, which could restrict the commercial value of the drug. Further, the FDA may require that certain contraindications, warnings, precautions, or adverse events be included in the drug labeling or may condition the approval of the NDA on other changes to the proposed labeling, development of adequate controls and specifications, or a commitment to conduct post-marketing testing or clinical trials, and surveillance to monitor the effects of approved drugs.

If regulatory approval of a product is granted, such approval will be granted for particular indications and may entail limitations on the indicated uses for which such product may be marketed. For example, the FDA may approve the NDA with a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (“REMS”) to ensure the benefits of the product outweigh its risks. A REMS is a safety strategy to manage a known or potential serious risk associated with a medicine and to enable patients to have continued access to such medicines by managing their safe use. It could include medication guides, physician communication plans, or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries, and other risk minimization tools.

Once approved, the FDA may withdraw the product approval if compliance with pre- and post-marketing requirements is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the marketplace. The FDA may also require one or more Phase 4 post-market studies and surveillance to further assess and monitor the product’s safety and effectiveness after commercialization and may limit further marketing of the product based on the results of these post-marketing studies. In addition, new government requirements, including those resulting from new legislation, may be established, or the FDA’s policies may change, which could impact the timeline for regulatory approval or otherwise impact ongoing development programs.

Any of these limitations on approval or marketing could restrict the commercial promotion, distribution, prescription, or dispensing of drugs. Drug approvals may be withdrawn for non-compliance with regulatory standards or if problems occur following initial marketing.

21

In November 2021, we received approval for the commercial sale of FYARRO from the FDA to treat patients with advanced (metastatic or locally advanced) PEComas. The NDA submission was based on results from our Phase 2 registrational study AMPECT, in patients with advanced malignant PEComa, for whom there are currently no approved therapies in the U.S.

FDA Expedited Development and Review Programs

The FDA has various programs, including fast track designation, priority review, accelerated approval, and breakthrough therapy designation, which are intended to expedite or simplify the process for the development and FDA review of drugs that are intended for the treatment of serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions and demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs. The purpose of these programs is to provide important new drugs to patients earlier than under standard FDA review procedures.

The FDA has a fast track designation program that is intended to expedite or facilitate the process for reviewing new drug products that meet certain criteria. Specifically, new drugs are eligible for fast track designation if they are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the disease or condition. With regard to a fast track product, the FDA may consider for review sections of the NDA on a rolling basis before the complete application is submitted, if the sponsor provides a schedule for the submission of the sections of the NDA, the FDA agrees to accept sections of the NDA and determines that the schedule is acceptable, and the sponsor pays any required user fees upon submission of the first section of the NDA.

Any product submitted to the FDA for approval, including a product with a fast track designation, may also be eligible for other types of FDA programs intended to expedite development and review, such as priority review and accelerated approval. A product is eligible for priority review if it has the potential to provide safe and effective therapy where no satisfactory alternative therapy exists or a significant improvement in the treatment, diagnosis, or prevention of a disease compared to marketed products. The FDA will attempt to direct additional resources to the evaluation of an application for a new drug designated for priority review in an effort to facilitate the review. The FDA endeavors to review applications with priority review designations within six months of the filing date as compared to ten months for review of new molecular entity NDAs under its current PDUFA review goals.

In addition, a product may be eligible for accelerated approval. Drug products intended to treat serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions may be eligible for accelerated approval upon a determination that the product has an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit, or on a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than irreversible morbidity or mortality, that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity, or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. As a condition of approval, the FDA may require a sponsor of a drug receiving accelerated approval to perform post-marketing studies to verify and describe the predicted effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality, or other clinical endpoint and to submit promotional materials for preapproval and pre-use review, which could adversely impact the timing of the commercial launch of the product. In addition, the drug may be subject to accelerated withdrawal procedures.

The Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act established a category of drugs referred to as “breakthrough therapies” that may be eligible to receive breakthrough therapy designation. A sponsor may seek FDA designation of a product candidate as a “breakthrough therapy” if the product is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other products, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. The designation includes all of the fast track program features, as well as more intensive FDA interaction and guidance. The breakthrough therapy designation is a distinct status from both accelerated approval and priority review, which can also be granted to the same drug if relevant criteria are met. If a product is designated as breakthrough therapy, the FDA will work to expedite the development and review of such drug.

In addition, the FDA may review new drug applications under the Oncology Center of Excellence Real-Time Oncology Review (“RTOR”), which, according to the FDA, aims to explore a more efficient review process to ensure that safe and effective treatments are available to patients as early as possible, while maintaining and improving review quality. Drugs considered for review under RTOR must be likely to demonstrate substantial improvements over available therapy, which may include drugs previously granted breakthrough therapy

22

designation for the same or other indications, and must have straight-forward study designs and endpoints that can be easily interpreted. RTOR allows the FDA to review much of the data in an NDA earlier, before the applicant formally submits the complete application. This analysis of the pre-submission package gives the FDA and applicants an early opportunity to address data quality and potential review issues and allows the FDA to provide early feedback regarding the most effective way to analyze data to properly address key regulatory questions.

Fast track designation, priority review, accelerated approval, and breakthrough therapy designation do not change the standards for approval, but may expedite the development or approval process. Even if a product qualifies for one or more of these programs, the FDA may later decide that the product no longer meets the conditions for qualification or decide that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened. We may explore some of these opportunities for FYARRO as appropriate.

Post-Marketing Requirements

Following approval of a new drug, a pharmaceutical company and the approved drug are subject to continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, establishment registration and drug listing, monitoring and recordkeeping activities, reporting to the applicable regulatory authorities of adverse experiences with the drug, providing the regulatory authorities with updated safety and efficacy information, drug sampling and distribution requirements, and complying with promotion and advertising requirements, which include, among others, standards for direct-to-consumer advertising, restrictions on promoting drugs for uses or in patient populations that are not described in the drug’s approved labeling, limitations on industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities, and requirements for promotional activities involving the internet.

In particular, the FDA closely regulates the marketing, labeling, advertising, and promotion of drug products. A company can make only those claims relating to safety and efficacy that are approved by the FDA and in accordance with the provisions of the approved label. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses. Failure to comply with these requirements can result in, among other things, adverse publicity, warning letters, corrective advertising, and potential civil and criminal penalties. Physicians may prescribe, in their independent professional medical judgment, legally available products for uses that are not described in the product’s labeling and that differ from those tested by us and approved by the FDA. Physicians may believe that such off-label uses are the best treatment for many patients in varied circumstances. The FDA does not regulate the behavior of physicians in their choice of treatments. The FDA does, however, restrict manufacturer’s communications on the subject of off-label use of their products. The federal government has levied large civil and criminal fines against companies for alleged improper promotion of off-label use and has enjoined companies from engaging in off-label promotion. The FDA and other regulatory agencies have also required that companies enter into consent decrees or permanent injunctions under which specified promotional conduct is changed or curtailed. However, companies may share truthful and not misleading information that is otherwise consistent with a product’s FDA-approved labelling. Modifications or enhancements to the drug or its labeling or changes of the site or process of manufacture are often subject to the approval of the FDA and other regulators, which may or may not be received or may result in a lengthy review process.

Prescription drug advertising is subject to federal, state, and foreign regulations. In the U.S., the FDA regulates prescription drug promotion, including direct-to-consumer advertising. Prescription drug promotional materials must be submitted to the FDA in conjunction with their first use. Any distribution of prescription drugs and pharmaceutical samples must comply with the U.S. Prescription Drug Marketing Act (“PDMA”), a part of the FDCA. The Drug Supply Chain Security Act (“DSCSA”), enacted in 2013, aims to build an electronic system to identify and trace certain prescription drugs distributed in the U.S. The DSCSA mandates phased-in and resource-intensive obligations for pharmaceutical manufacturers, wholesale distributors, and dispensers over a 10-year period that is expected to culminate in November 2023. The law’s requirements include the quarantine and prompt investigation of a suspect product to determine if it is illegitimate and notifying trading partners and the FDA of any illegitimate product. Drug manufacturers and their collaborators are also required to place a unique product identifier on prescription drug packages. This identifier consists of the National Drug Code, serial number, lot number, and expiration date, in the form of a 2-dimensional data matrix barcode that can be read by humans and machines.

In the U.S., once a drug is approved, its manufacture is subject to comprehensive and continuing regulation by the FDA. FDA regulations require that drugs be manufactured in specific facilities per the NDA approval and in accordance with cGMP. We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties for the production of clinical and commercial quantities of its drugs in accordance with cGMP regulations. cGMP regulations require among other

23

things, quality control and quality assurance as well as the corresponding maintenance of records and documentation and the obligation to investigate and correct any deviations from cGMP. Drug manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved drugs are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with cGMP and other laws. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money, and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain cGMP compliance. These regulations also impose certain organizational, procedural, and documentation requirements with respect to manufacturing and quality assurance activities. NDA holders using contract manufacturers, laboratories or packagers are responsible for the selection and monitoring of qualified firms, and, in certain circumstances, qualified suppliers to these firms. These firms and, where applicable, their suppliers are subject to inspections by the FDA at any time, and the discovery of violative conditions, including failure to conform to cGMP, could result in enforcement actions that interrupt the operation of any such facilities or the ability to distribute drugs manufactured, processed, or tested by them. Discovery of problems with a drug after approval may result in restrictions on a drug, manufacturer, or holder of an approved NDA, including, among other things, recall or withdrawal of the drug from the market, and may require substantial resources to correct.

The FDA also may require post-approval testing, sometimes referred to as Phase 4 testing, risk minimization action plans, and post- marketing surveillance to monitor the effects of an approved drug or place conditions on an approval that could restrict the distribution or use of the drug. Discovery of previously unknown problems with a drug or the failure to comply with applicable FDA requirements can have negative consequences, including adverse publicity, judicial, or administrative enforcement actions. Other potential consequences include, among other things:

The FDA may withdraw approval if compliance with regulatory requirements and standards is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the market. Newly discovered or developed safety or effectiveness data may require changes to a drug’s approved labeling, including the addition of new warnings and contraindications, and also may require the implementation of other risk management measures, including a REMS or the conduct of post-marketing studies to assess a newly discovered safety issue. Also, new government requirements, including those resulting from new legislation, may be established, or the FDA’s policies may change, which could delay or prevent regulatory approval of our drugs under development.

As a condition of the approval of the NDA for FYARRO, we are required to conduct certain post-marketing requirements (“PMR”) and post-marketing commitments (“PMC”). If we fail to comply with the PMR and PMC, the FDA may take enforcement actions, which may include, among other things, the issuance of a Warning Letter and assessing civil monetary penalties.  The product may also be deemed misbranded.

Orphan Drug Designation

The FDA may grant orphan drug designation to drugs intended to treat a rare disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or if it affects more than 200,000 individuals in the United States, there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and marketing the drug for this type of disease or condition will be recovered from sales in the United States. Orphan drug designation must be requested before submitting an application for marketing approval. Orphan drug designation does not convey any advantage in, or

24

shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process. After the grant of an orphan drug designation, FDA may revoke the designation if FDA finds that the request for designation contained an untrue statement of material fact, omitted required material information, or if FDA subsequently finds that the drug had not been eligible for the orphan drug designation at the time of the submission of the request.

In the United States, orphan drug designation entitles a party to financial incentives such as opportunities for grant funding towards clinical trial costs, tax advantages, and user-fee waivers. In addition, if a product receives the first FDA approval for the indication for which it has orphan designation, the product is entitled to orphan drug exclusivity, which means the FDA may not approve any other application to market the same drug for the same indication for a period of seven years, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority over the product with orphan exclusivity.

In the European Union, the European Commission, after receiving the opinion of the European Medicines Agency’s (“EMA”) Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products (“COMP”), grants Orphan Drug Designation to also promote the development of products. The relevant European legislation provides that a product can be designated as an orphan drug by the European Commission if its sponsor can establish: that the product is intended for the diagnosis, prevention, or treatment of (1) a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition affecting not more than 5 in 10,000 persons in the European Union when the application is made, or (2) a life-threatening, seriously debilitating, or serious and chronic condition in the European Union and that without incentives it is unlikely that the marketing of the product in the European Union would generate sufficient return to justify the necessary investment. For either of these conditions, the applicant must also demonstrate that there exists no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention, or treatment of the condition in question that has been authorized in the European Union or, if such method exists, the product has to be of significant benefit compared to products available for the condition. Additionally, designation is granted for products intended for the diagnosis, prevention, or treatment of a life-threatening, seriously debilitating, or serious and chronic condition and when, without incentives, it is unlikely that sales of the drug in the European Union would be sufficient to justify the necessary investment in developing the drug or biological product.

In the European Union, Orphan Drug Designation also entitles a party to financial incentives such as reduction of fees or fee waivers and ten years of market exclusivity is granted following drug or biological product approval. During this market exclusivity period, neither the EMA nor the European Commission or the 27 member states that comprise the European Union can accept an application or grant a marketing authorization for the same therapeutic indication in respect of a “similar medicinal product.” A “similar medicinal product” is defined as a medicinal product containing a similar active substance or substances as contained in an authorized orphan medicinal product, and which is intended for the same therapeutic indication. This period may be reduced to six years if, after five years, the Orphan Drug Designation criteria are no longer met, including where it is shown that the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify maintenance of market exclusivity.

U.S. Patent Term Restoration and Marketing Exclusivity

Depending upon the timing, duration, and specifics of the FDA approval of our drug candidate, some of our United States patents may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Hatch-Waxman Act. The Hatch-Waxman Act permits a patent restoration term of up to five years as compensation for patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review process. However, patent term restoration cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the product’s approval date. The patent term restoration period is generally one-half the time between the effective date of an IND and the submission date of an NDA plus the time between the submission date of an NDA and the approval of that application. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), in consultation with the FDA, reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension or restoration.

Marketing exclusivity provisions under the FDCA can also delay the submission or the approval of certain marketing applications for competing products. The FDCA provides a five-year period of non-patent marketing exclusivity within the U.S. to the first applicant to obtain approval of an NDA for a new chemical entity. A drug is a new chemical entity if the FDA has not previously approved any other new drug containing the same active moiety, which is the molecule or ion responsible for the action of the drug substance. During the exclusivity period, the FDA may not accept for review an abbreviated new drug application (“ANDA”) or a 505(b)(2) NDA submitted by another company for another drug based on the same active moiety, regardless of whether the drug is intended for the same indication as the original innovator drug or for another indication. However, an application may be

25

submitted after four years if it contains a certification of patent invalidity or non-infringement to one of the patents listed with the FDA by the innovator NDA holder.

The FDCA also provides three years of marketing exclusivity for an NDA, or supplement to an existing NDA, if new clinical investigations, other than bioavailability studies, that were conducted or sponsored by the applicant are deemed by the FDA to be essential to the approval of the application, for example new indications, dosages, or strengths of an existing drug. This three-year exclusivity covers only the modification for which the drug received approval on the basis of the new clinical investigations and does not prohibit the FDA from approving ANDAs or 505(b)(2) applications for drugs containing the active agent for the original indication or condition of use.

These five-year and three-year exclusivities will not delay the submission or approval of a full NDA. However, an applicant submitting a full NDA would be required to conduct or obtain a right of reference to all of the preclinical studies and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials necessary to demonstrate safety and effectiveness.

Orphan drug exclusivity, as described above, may offer a seven-year period of marketing exclusivity, except in certain circumstances. Pediatric exclusivity is another type of regulatory market exclusivity in the U.S. Pediatric exclusivity, if granted, adds six months to existing exclusivity periods and patent terms. This six-month exclusivity, which runs from the end of other exclusivity protection or patent term, may be granted based on the voluntary completion of a pediatric trial in accordance with an FDA-issued “Written Request” for a pediatric trial.

Other U.S. Regulatory Matters

Manufacturing, sales, promotion, and other activities following drug approval are also subject to regulation by numerous regulatory authorities in addition to the FDA, including, in the United States, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”), other divisions of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”), the Drug Enforcement Administration for controlled substances, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Occupational Safety & Health Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, and state and local governments. In the United States, sales, marketing, and scientific/educational programs must also comply with state and federal fraud and abuse laws. Pricing and rebate programs must comply with the Medicaid rebate requirements of the U.S. Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 and more recent requirements in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (the “ACA”). If drugs are made available to authorized users of the Federal Supply Schedule of the General Services Administration, additional laws and requirements apply. The handling of any controlled substances must comply with the U.S. Controlled Substances Act and Controlled Substances Import and Export Act. Drugs must meet applicable child-resistant packaging requirements under the U.S. Poison Prevention Packaging Act. Manufacturing, sales, promotion, and other activities are also potentially subject to federal and state consumer protection and unfair competition laws.

We are subject to numerous foreign, federal, state, and local environmental, health, and safety laws and regulations, including those governing laboratory procedures and the handling, use, storage, treatment, and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes. In addition, our leasing and operation of real property may subject us to liability pursuant to certain U.S. environmental laws and regulations, under which current or previous owners or operators of real property and entities that disposed or arranged for the disposal of hazardous substances may be held strictly, jointly, and severally liable for the cost of investigating or remediating contamination caused by hazardous substance releases, even if they did not know of and were not responsible for the releases.

The distribution of pharmaceutical drugs is subject to additional requirements and regulations, including extensive record-keeping, licensing, storage, and security requirements intended to prevent the unauthorized sale of pharmaceutical drugs. The failure to comply with regulatory requirements subjects firms to possible legal or regulatory action. Depending on the circumstances, failure to meet applicable regulatory requirements can result in criminal prosecution, fines, or other penalties, injunctions, voluntary recall or seizure of drugs, total or partial suspension of production, denial or withdrawal of product approvals, or refusal to allow a firm to enter into supply contracts, including government contracts. In addition, even if a firm complies with FDA and other requirements, new information regarding the safety or efficacy of a product could lead the FDA to modify or withdraw product approval. Prohibitions or restrictions on sales or withdrawal of future products marketed by us could materially affect our business in an adverse way.

Changes in regulations, statutes, or the interpretation of existing regulations could impact our business in the future by requiring, for example: (i) changes to our manufacturing arrangements; (ii) additions or modifications to product

26

labeling; (iii) the recall or discontinuation of our products; or (iv) additional record-keeping requirements. If any such changes were to be imposed, they could adversely affect the operation of our business.

Coverage and Reimbursement

Sales of our drugs will depend, in part, on the extent to which our drugs will be covered by third-party payors, such as government health programs, commercial insurers, and managed healthcare organizations, as well as the level of reimbursement such third-party payors provide for our products. Patients and providers are unlikely to use our products unless coverage is provided and reimbursement is adequate to cover a significant portion of the cost of our products in which our products are used. These third-party payors are increasingly reducing reimbursements for medical drugs and services.

In the U.S., no uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for drugs or biological products exists, and one payor’s determination to provide coverage and adequate reimbursement for a product does not assure that other payors will make a similar determination. In the U.S., the principal decisions about reimbursement for new medicines are typically made by the CMS, an agency within the HHS, as the CMS decides whether and to what extent a new medicine will be covered and reimbursed under Medicare. Private third-party payors tend to follow Medicare coverage and reimbursement limitations to a substantial degree, but also have their own methods and approval process apart from Medicare determinations. Accordingly, decisions regarding the extent of coverage and amount of reimbursement to be provided for FYARRO will be made on a payor-by-payor basis. As a result, the coverage determination process may be a time-consuming and costly process that will require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of our products to each payor separately, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be obtained. Even if we obtain coverage for a given product, the resulting reimbursement payment rates might not be adequate for us to achieve or sustain profitability or may require co-payments that patients find unacceptably high.

Additionally, the containment of healthcare costs has become a priority of federal and state governments, and the prices of drugs have been a focus in this effort. The U.S. government, state legislatures, and foreign governments have shown significant interest in implementing cost-containment programs, including price controls, restrictions on reimbursement, and requirements for substitution of generic drugs. Adoption of price controls and cost-containment measures, and adoption of more restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could further limit our net revenue and results. Decreases in third-party reimbursement for FYARRO or a decision by a third-party payor to not cover FYARRO could reduce physician usage of such drug and have a material adverse effect on our sales, results of operations and financial condition.

The Medicaid Drug Rebate Program (“MDRP”) requires pharmaceutical manufacturers to enter into and have in effect a national rebate agreement with the Secretary of the HHS as a condition for states to receive federal matching funds for the manufacturer’s outpatient drugs furnished to Medicaid patients. The ACA made several changes to the MDRP, including increasing pharmaceutical manufacturers’ rebate liability by raising the minimum basic Medicaid rebate percentage on most branded prescription drugs of average manufacturer price (“AMP”) and adding a new rebate calculation for “line extensions” (i.e., new formulations, such as extended release formulations) of solid oral dosage forms of branded products, creating a new methodology by which rebates owed are calculated for drugs that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted, or injected, as well as potentially impacting their rebate liability by modifying the statutory definition of AMP. The ACA also expanded the universe of Medicaid utilization subject to drug rebates by requiring pharmaceutical manufacturers to pay rebates on Medicaid managed care utilization and by enlarging the population potentially eligible for Medicaid drug benefits. Pricing and rebate programs must also comply with the Medicaid rebate requirements of the U.S. Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990. Under the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, effective January 1, 2024, the statutory cap on Medicaid Drug Rebate Program rebates that manufactures pay to state Medicaid programs will be eliminated. Elimination of this cap may require pharmaceutical manufacturers to pay more in rebates than it receives on the sale of products, which could have a material impact on our business.

The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (“MMA”) established the Medicare Part D program to provide a voluntary prescription drug benefit to Medicare beneficiaries. Under Part D, Medicare beneficiaries may enroll in prescription drug plans offered by private entities that provide coverage of outpatient prescription drugs. Unlike Medicare Parts A and B, Part D coverage is not standardized. Part D prescription drug plan sponsors are not required to pay for all covered Part D drugs, and each drug plan can develop its own drug formulary that identifies which drugs it will cover and at what tier or level. However, while all Medicare drug plans must give at least a standard level of coverage set by Medicare, Part D prescription drug plan sponsors are not

27

required to pay for all covered Part D drugs, and each drug plan can develop its own drug formulary that identifies which drugs it will cover and at what tier or level. These Part D prescription drug formularies must include drugs within each therapeutic category and class of covered Part D drugs, though not necessarily all the drugs in each category or class. Any formulary used by a Part D prescription drug plan must be developed and reviewed by a pharmacy and therapeutic committee. Government payment for some of the costs of prescription drugs may increase demand for drugs for which we may obtain marketing approval. However, any negotiated prices for our drugs covered by a Part D prescription drug plan will likely be lower than the prices we might otherwise obtain. Moreover, while the MMA applies only to drug benefits for Medicare beneficiaries, private payors often follow Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own payment rates. Any reduction in payment that results from the MMA may result in a similar reduction in payments from non-governmental payors.

For a drug product to receive federal reimbursement under the Medicaid or Medicare Part B programs or to be sold directly to U.S. government agencies, the manufacturer must extend discounts to entities eligible to participate in the 340B drug pricing program. The required 340B discount on a given product is calculated based on the AMP and Medicaid rebate amounts reported by the manufacturer. As of 2010, the ACA expanded the types of entities eligible to receive discounted 340B pricing, although, under the current state of the law, with the exception of children’s hospitals, these newly eligible entities will not be eligible to receive discounted 340B pricing on orphan drugs. In addition, as 340B drug pricing is determined based on AMP and Medicaid rebate data, the revisions to the Medicaid rebate formula and AMP definition described above could cause the required 340B discount to increase. In addition, legislation may be introduced that, if passed, would further expand the 340B program to additional covered entities or would require participating manufacturers to agree to provide 340B discounted pricing on drugs used in an inpatient setting.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provides funding for the federal government to compare the effectiveness of different treatments for the same illness. The plan for the research was published in 2012 by the HHS, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the National Institutes for Health, and periodic reports on the status of the research and related expenditures are made to Congress. Although the results of the comparative effectiveness studies are not intended to mandate coverage policies for public or private payors, it is not clear what effect, if any, the research will have on the sales of FYARRO, if any such drug or the condition that they are intended to treat are the subject of a trial. It is also possible that comparative effectiveness research demonstrating benefits in a competitor’s drug could adversely affect the sales of our drug candidate. If third-party payors do not consider our drugs to be cost-effective compared to other available therapies, they may not cover our drugs as a benefit under their plans or, if they do, the level of payment may not be sufficient to allow us to sell our drugs on a profitable basis.

In recent years, additional laws have resulted in direct or indirect reimbursement reductions for certain Medicare providers. For example, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, created measures for spending reductions by Congress. These changes included aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of up to 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect in April 2013 and will remain in effect through 2031, with the exception of a temporary suspension implemented under various COVID-19 relief legislation from May 1, 2020 through March 31, 2022, unless additional congressional action is taken. Under current legislation, the actual reduction in Medicare payments will vary from 1% in 2022 to up to 3% in the final fiscal year of this sequester. The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to several providers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. These laws, and future state and federal healthcare reform measures, as discussed further below, may be adopted in the future, any of which may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding and otherwise affect the prices we may obtain for any indication of FYARRO for which it may obtain regulatory approval or the frequency with which any such product candidate is prescribed or used.

In July 2021, the Biden administration released an executive order, “Promoting Competition in the American Economy,” with multiple provisions aimed at increasing competition for prescription drugs. The HHS has released a Comprehensive Plan for Addressing High Drug Prices that outlines principles for drug pricing reform and potential legislative policies that Congress could pursue to advance these principles. While no legislation or administrative actions have been finalized to implement these principles, Congress is considering legislation that, if passed, could have significant impact on prices of prescription drugs covered by Medicare, including limitations on drug price increases and allowing Medicare to negotiate pricing for certain covered drug products. The impact of these legislative, executive, and administrative actions and any future healthcare measures and agency rules implemented by the Biden administration on us and the pharmaceutical industry as a whole is unclear. The

28

implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability, or commercialize any of the product candidates for which we receive approval.

As noted above, the marketability of any products for which we receive regulatory approval for commercial sale may suffer if the government and other third-party payors fail to provide adequate coverage and reimbursement. We expect that an increasing emphasis on cost containment measures in the U.S. will continue to increase the pressure on pharmaceutical pricing. Coverage policies and third-party reimbursement rates may change at any time. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for one or more products for which we receive regulatory approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future.

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

U.S. Healthcare Reform

The ACA has had a significant impact on the healthcare industry. The ACA expanded coverage for the uninsured while at the same time containing overall healthcare costs. With regard to pharmaceutical products, the ACA, among other things, addressed a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the MDRP are calculated for drugs that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted, or injected, increased the minimum Medicaid rebates owed by manufacturers under the MDRP and extended the rebate program to individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations, established annual fees and taxes on manufacturers of certain branded prescription drugs, and a new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program, in which manufacturers must agree to offer 70% (increased pursuant to the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, effective as of 2019) 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. Under the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, effective January 1, 2024, the statutory cap on Medicaid Drug Rebate Program rebates that manufacturers pay to state Medicaid programs will be eliminated. Elimination of this cap may require pharmaceutical manufacturers to pay more in rebates than it receives on the sale of products, which could have a material impact on our business.

The ACA requires pharmaceutical manufacturers of branded prescription drugs to pay a branded prescription drug fee to the federal government. Each such manufacturer is required to pay a prorated share of the branded prescription drug fee based on the dollar value of its branded prescription drug sales to certain federal programs identified in the law. The ACA also expanded the 340B program to include additional types of covered entities. Federal law requires that any company that participates in the Medicaid rebate program also participate in the 340B program in order for federal funds to be available for the manufacturer’s drugs under Medicaid. The 340B program requires participating manufacturers to agree to charge statutorily defined covered entities no more than the 340B “ceiling price” for the manufacturer’s covered outpatient drugs. In addition, in order to be eligible to have its products paid for with federal funds under the Medicaid programs and purchased by certain federal grantees and agencies, a manufacturer also must participate in the Department of Veterans Affairs Federal Supply Schedule (“FSS”) pricing program, established by Section 603 of the Veterans Health Care Act of 1992. Under this program, the manufacturer is obligated to make products available for procurement on an FSS contract and charge a price to four federal agencies—the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Defense, the Public Health Service, and the Coast Guard—that is at least 24% less than the Non-Federal Average Manufacturing Price for the prior fiscal year.

Since the enactment of the ACA, there have been judicial and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA. In June 2021, the Supreme Court held that Texas and other challengers had no legal standing to challenge the ACA, upholding the ACA. In January 2021, President Biden also issued an executive order to initiate a special enrollment period to allow people to obtain health insurance coverage through the ACA marketplace and instructs certain governmental agencies to review and reconsider their existing policies and rules that limit access to

29

healthcare, among others. We cannot predict how future litigation, healthcare reform measures of the Biden administration, or what other regulations will ultimately be implemented at the federal or state level, or the effect of any future legislation or regulation may have on our business.

Moreover, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug products. At the federal level, for example, in September 2018, CMS announced that it will allow Medicare Advantage Plans the option to use step therapy for Part B drugs beginning January 1, 2019. Additionally, CMS issued a final rule, effective on July 9, 2019, that requires direct-to-consumer television advertisements of prescription drugs and biological products, for which payment is available through or under Medicare or Medicaid, to include in the advertisement the Wholesale Acquisition Cost, or list price, of that drug or biological product if it is equal to or greater than $35 for a monthly supply or usual course of treatment. Prescription drugs and biological products that are in violation of these requirements will be included on a public list.

In 2020, at the federal level, under the Trump administration, HHS and CMS issued various rules that are expected to impact, among others, price reductions from pharmaceutical manufacturers to plan sponsors under Part D, fee arrangements between pharmacy benefit managers and manufacturers, importation of prescription drugs from Canada and other countries, manufacturer price reporting requirements under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, including regulations that affect manufacturer-sponsored patient assistance programs subject to pharmacy benefit manager accumulator programs and Best Price reporting related to certain value-based purchasing arrangements. Multiple lawsuits have been brought against the HHS challenging various aspects of these new rules. As a result, the Biden administration and HHS have delayed the implementation or published rules rescinding some of these Trump-era policies. The impact of legislative, executive, and administrative actions of the current administration on us and the biopharmaceutical industry as a whole is unclear. At the state level, legislatures have increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing.

We expect that additional federal and state healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare drugs and services, and in turn could significantly reduce the projected value of certain development projects and reduce our profitability and may increase our regulatory burdens and operating costs.

Moreover, on May 30, 2018, the Right to Try Act, was signed into law. The law, among other things, provides a federal framework for certain patients to access certain investigational new drug products that have completed a Phase I clinical trial and that are undergoing investigation for FDA approval. Under certain circumstances, eligible patients can seek treatment without enrolling in clinical trials and without obtaining FDA permission under the FDA expanded access program. There is no obligation for a drug manufacturer to make its drug products available to eligible patients as a result of the Right to Try Act, but the manufacturer must develop an internal policy and respond to patient requests according to that policy.

Other Healthcare Laws

For our product and any product candidates that obtain regulatory approval and are marketed in the United States, our arrangements, directly or indirectly, with third-party payors, healthcare providers, and customers may expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations that may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we markets, sells, and distributes any products for which it obtains marketing approval. Our employees, consultants, and commercial partners may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including non-compliance with regulatory standards and requirements. Federal and state healthcare laws and regulations that may affect our ability to conduct business, include, without limitation:

30

31

The scope and enforcement of each of these laws are uncertain and subject to rapid change in the current environment of healthcare reform. Federal and state enforcement bodies have recently increased their scrutiny of interactions between healthcare companies and healthcare providers, which has led to a number of investigations, prosecutions, convictions, and settlements in the healthcare industry. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices may not comply with current or future statutes, regulations, or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If our operations, including those of our contractors or agents who conduct business for or on our behalf, are found to be in violation of any of these laws or any other related governmental regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal, and administrative penalties, damages, fines, imprisonment, disgorgement, exclusion of drugs from government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, reputational harm, additional oversight, and reporting obligations if we becomes subject to a corporate integrity agreement or similar settlement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations. If any of the physicians or other healthcare providers or entities with whom we expect to do business is found to be not in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to similar actions, penalties, and sanctions, which may also adversely affect our business. Ensuring business arrangements comply with applicable healthcare laws, as well as responding to possible investigations by government authorities, can be time- and resource-consuming and can divert a company’s attention from the business.

Privacy and Data Protection Laws

We are subject to laws and regulations covering data privacy and the protection of health-related and other personal information. Federal, state, and foreign laws also govern the privacy and security of health information in some circumstances. These data privacy and security laws may differ from each other in significant ways and often are not pre-empted by HIPAA, which may complicate compliance efforts in states or jurisdictions we conduct business. For example, California recently enacted the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”), which creates new individual privacy rights for California consumers, as defined in the law, and places increased privacy and security obligations on entities handling personal data of consumers or households. The CCPA will require covered companies to provide certain disclosures to consumers about its data collection, use and sharing practices, and to provide affected California residents with ways to opt-out of certain sales or transfers of personal information. The CCPA went into effect on January 1, 2020 and became enforceable by the California Attorney General on July 1, 2020. While there is currently an exception for protected health information that is subject to HIPAA and clinical trial regulations, as currently written, the CCPA may impact our business activities. California also passed the California Privacy Rights Act, which imposes additional data protection obligations on companies doing business in California. These and other applicable state and foreign privacy laws, as well as uncertain changes in future regulation and legislation, could impact our business strategies, increase our potential liability, increase our compliance costs, and adversely affect our business.

The collection and use of personal health data in the European Union are governed by the provisions of the Data Protection Directive, and as of May 2018, the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”). This directive imposes several requirements relating to the consent of the individuals to whom the personal data relates, the information provided to the individuals, notification of data processing obligations to the competent national data protection authorities, and the security and confidentiality of the personal data. The Data Protection Directive and GDPR also impose strict rules on the transfer of personal data out of the European Union to the U.S. Failure to comply with the requirements of the Data Protection Directive, the GDPR, and the related national data protection laws of the European Union member states may result in fines and other administrative penalties. The GDPR introduces new data protection requirements in the European Union and substantial fines for breaches of the data protection rules. The GDPR regulations may impose additional responsibility and liability in relation to personal data that we process and we may be required to put in place additional mechanisms ensuring compliance with the new data protection rules. This may be onerous and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

Foreign Regulatory Matters

European Drug Development

In Europe, any future drug products for which we receive marketing authorization will also be subject to extensive regulatory requirements. As in the United States, medicinal products can only be marketed if a marketing authorization from the competent regulatory agencies has been obtained. Similar to the United States, the various phases of preclinical and clinical research in Europe are subject to significant regulatory controls. Although the

32

European Union Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC (“Clinical Trials Directive”) has sought to harmonize the EU clinical trials regulatory framework, setting out common rules for the control and authorization of clinical trials in the EU, the EU member states have transposed and applied the provisions of the Clinical Trials Directive differently. This has led to significant variations in the member state regimes. Under the current regime, before a clinical trial can be initiated, it must be approved in each of the EU member states where the trial is to be conducted by two distinct bodies: the National Competent Authority (“NCA”) and one or more Ethics Committees (“ECs”). Under the current regime, all suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions to the investigated drug that occur during the clinical trial have to be reported to the NCA and ECs of the member state where they occurred.

In 2014, a new Clinical Trials Regulation 536/2014 (“Clinical Trials Regulation”), replacing the current Directive, was adopted. The Clinical Trials Regulation will become directly applicable in all EU member states (without national implementation) once the EU Portal and Database are fully functional. The implementation of the Clinical Trials Regulation depends on confirmation of full functionality of the Clinical Trials Information System through an independent audit, which commenced in September 2020. This system went into application in first quarter of 2022. The Clinical Trials Regulation seeks to simplify and streamline the approval of clinical trials in the European Union. For example, the sponsor can submit a single application for approval of a clinical trial via the EU Portal. As part of the application process, the sponsor will propose a reporting member state, which will coordinate the validation and evaluation of the application. The reporting member state shall consult and coordinate with the other member states in which the clinical trial will take place, also referred to as the Member States Concerned. If an application is rejected, it can be amended and resubmitted through the EU Portal. If an approval is issued, the sponsor can start the clinical trial in all Member States Concerned. However, a Member State Concerned can in limited circumstances declare an “opt-out” from an approval. In such a case, the clinical trial cannot be conducted in that member state. The Clinical Trials Regulation also aims to streamline and simplify the rules on safety reporting and introduces enhanced transparency requirements such as mandatory submission of a summary of the clinical trial results to the EU Database.

European Drug Review and Approval

In the European Economic Area (“EEA”), which is comprised of the 27 EU member states plus Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein, medicinal products can only be commercialized after obtaining approval of an EU marketing authorization application (“MAA”). There are two types of marketing authorizations. The first is the community or centralized EU MAA, which is issued by the European Commission through the Centralized Procedure, based on the opinion of the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (“CHMP”) of the European Medicines Agency and which is valid throughout the entire territory of the EEA. The Centralized Procedure is mandatory for certain types of drugs, such as biotechnology medicinal drugs, orphan medicinal drugs, and medicinal drugs containing a new active substance indicated for the treatment of AIDS, cancer, neurodegenerative disorders, diabetes, auto-immune, and viral diseases. The Centralized Procedure is optional for drugs containing a new active substance not yet authorized in the EEA, or for drugs that constitute a significant therapeutic, scientific, or technical innovation or which are in the interest of public health in the EU.

National EU MAAs, which are issued by the competent authorities of the member states of the EEA and only cover their respective territory, are available for drugs not falling within the mandatory scope of the Centralized Procedure. Where a drug has already been authorized for marketing in a member state of the EEA, this National EU MAA can be recognized in another member states through the Mutual Recognition Procedure. If the drug has not received a National EU MAA in any member state at the time of application, it can be approved simultaneously in various member states through the Decentralized Procedure. Under the Decentralized Procedure an identical dossier is submitted to the competent authorities of each of the member states in which the EU MAA is sought, one of which is selected by the applicant as the Reference Member State (“RMS”). The competent authority of the RMS prepares a draft assessment report, a draft summary of the drug characteristics (“SPC”), and a draft of the labeling and package leaflet, which are sent to the other member states, or the Member States Concerned, for their approval. If the Member States Concerned raise no objections, based on a potential serious risk to public health, to the assessment, SPC, labeling, or packaging proposed by the RMS, the drug is subsequently granted a national EU MAA in all the member states, i.e., in the RMS and the Member States Concerned.

Under the above-described procedures, before granting the EU MAA, the EMA or the competent authorities of the member states of the EEA make an assessment of the risk-benefit balance of the drug on the basis of scientific criteria concerning its quality, safety, and efficacy.

European Chemical Entity Exclusivity

33

In Europe, new chemical entities, sometimes referred to as new active substances, qualify for eight years of data exclusivity upon marketing authorization and an additional two years of market exclusivity. This data exclusivity, if granted, prevents regulatory authorities in the EU from referencing the innovator’s data to assess a generic application for eight years, after which generic marketing authorization can be submitted, and the innovator’s data may be referenced, but not approved for two years. The overall ten-year period will be extended to a maximum of 11 years if, during the first eight years of those ten years, the marketing authorization holder obtains an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications which, during the scientific evaluation prior to their authorization, are held to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with existing therapies.

Brexit and the Regulatory Framework in the United Kingdom

On June 23, 2016, the electorate in the United Kingdom (“UK”) voted in favor of leaving the EU, commonly referred to as Brexit. Thereafter, on March 29, 2017, the country formally notified the EU of its intention to withdraw pursuant to Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. The UK formally left the EU on January 31, 2020. A transition period began on February 1, 2020, during which EU pharmaceutical law remains applicable to the UK and ends on December 31, 2020. Although the UK is no longer a member of the EU, EU law remains applicable in Northern Ireland. There are a number of new marketing authorization routes available in the UK, Great Britain (England, Scotland and Wales) or Northern Ireland, in addition to the national procedure. As with the EU position, a company can only start to market a medicine in the UK once it has received a marketing authorization. The main legislation that applies to clinical trials in the UK is the UK Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations 2004, which transposes the Clinical Trials Directive into domestic law. Consequently, the requirements and obligations that relate to the conduct of clinical trials in the UK currently remain largely aligned with the EU position. It is unclear how future regulatory regime in the UK will impact regulations of products, manufacturers, and approval of product candidates in the UK.

Other Foreign Countries

For other countries outside of the United States and the European Union, the requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, drug approval or marketing authorization, pricing, and reimbursement vary from country to country. In all cases, clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with GCP requirements and the applicable regulatory requirements and the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki, which is a statement of ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects, including research on identifiable human material and data, developed by the World Medical Association.

If we fail to comply with applicable foreign regulatory requirements, we may be subject to, among other things, fines, suspension or withdrawal of regulatory approvals, product recalls, seizure of products, operating restrictions, and criminal prosecution

Employees and Human Capital

We have operated by leveraging skilled experts, consultants, contract research organizations, and contractors to manage our clinical operations, manufacturing, research and development, and other functions under the leadership and direction of our management. We will continue to expand our infrastructure to manage our operations, including commercial with additional full-time employees.

As of December 31, 2021, we had 39 full-time or part-time employees. Of these employees, 22 employees are engaged in research and development activities and 17 employees are engaged in general and administrative activities. None of our employees are represented by labor unions or covered by collective bargaining agreements. We consider the relationship with our employees to be good.

Our human capital resources objectives include, as applicable, identifying, recruiting, retaining, incentivizing and integrating our existing and additional employees, advisors and consultants, while being committed to a diverse and dynamic workplace. The principal purposes of our equity incentive plans are to attract, retain and reward personnel through the granting of equity-based compensation awards in order to increase shareholder value and the success of our company by motivating such individuals to perform to the best of their abilities and achieve our objectives.

Our Corporate Information

We (formerly known as “Aerpio Pharmaceuticals, Inc.”) were originally incorporated in the State of Delaware in November 2007 under the name “Zeta Acquisition Corp. II.” Prior to the merger with Aerpio Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Zeta Acquisition Corp. II was a “shell” company registered under the Exchange Act with no specific

34

business plan or purpose until it began operating the business of Aerpio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. through a merger in March 2017. In August 2021, we effected a reverse merger pursuant to which a wholly owned subsidiary of ours, merged with and into Aadi Subsidiary, Inc. (formerly Aadi Bioscience, Inc.) (“Private Aadi”), with Private Aadi surviving as a wholly owned subsidiary of ours. Upon the closing of the Merger, we changed our name from “Aerpio Pharmaceuticals, Inc.” to “Aadi Bioscience, Inc.” and the name of Private Aadi was changed from “Aadi Bioscience, Inc.” to “Aadi Subsidiary, Inc.”

Our principal executive offices are located at 17383 Sunset Boulevard, Suite A250, Pacific Palisades, California 90272. We maintain a website at www.aadibio.com, to which we regularly post copies of our press releases as well as additional information about us. Our filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) will be available free of charge through the website as soon as reasonably practicable after being electronically filed with or furnished to the SEC. Information contained in our website does not constitute a part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K or any of our other filings with the SEC unless specifically incorporated herein by reference. In addition, our filings with the SEC may be accessed through the SEC’s Interactive Data Electronic Applications system at http://www.sec.gov. All statements made in any of our securities filings, including all forward-looking statements or information, are made as of the date of the document in which the statement is included, and we do not assume or undertake any obligation to update any of those statements or documents unless we are required to do so by law.

35