Item 1A. Risk Factors.

Investing in our common stock is speculative and involves a high degree of risk. You should carefully consider the risks described below, as well as the other information in this Annual Report, including our consolidated financial statements and the related notes and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” before deciding whether to purchase, hold or sell shares of our common stock. The occurrence of any of the risks described below could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations, growth prospects, and/or stock price or cause our actual results to differ materially from those contained in forward-looking statements we have made in this Annual Report and those we may make from time to time. You should consider all of the risk factors described when evaluating our business.

18

Risks Related to Our Business and to the Discovery, Development and Regulatory Approval of MET642 and any Future Product Candidates

We will need to obtain substantial additional funding to complete the development and any commercialization of MET642 and any future product candidates. If we are unable to raise this capital when needed, we may be forced to delay, reduce or eliminate our development programs or other operations.

Since our inception, we have used substantial amounts of cash to fund our operations. The development of biopharmaceutical product candidates is capital intensive. As MET642 or any future product candidate enters and advances through preclinical studies and clinical trials, we will need substantial additional funds to expand our clinical, regulatory, quality and manufacturing capabilities. In addition, the conflict between Russia and Ukraine may result in delays or increased costs for our Phase 2a proof-of-concept clinical trial of MET642 for the treatment of UC, which originally included several trial sites located in Russia and Ukraine. Due to the ongoing conflict, we are currently identifying alternative and additional sites for the trial. We cannot be certain what the overall impact of this conflict will be on our ability to conduct and complete the clinical trial on schedule. In addition, if we obtain marketing approval for MET642 or any other future product candidate, we expect to incur significant commercialization expenses for marketing, sales, manufacturing and distribution. We expect to continue to incur costs associated with operating as a public company. Accordingly, we will need to obtain substantial additional funding in connection with our continuing operations. Adequate additional financing may not be available to us on favorable terms, or at all. In addition, we may seek additional capital due to favorable market conditions or strategic considerations even if we believe we have sufficient funds for our current or future operating plans. If we are unable to raise sufficient capital when needed or on favorable terms, we could be forced to delay, reduce or eliminate our development programs, our commercialization plans or other operations and cause the price of our common stock to decline. We believe that our cash and cash equivalents as of December 31, 2021 will enable us to fund our material cash requirements through at least the next 12 months. We have based this estimate on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and we could use our capital resources sooner than we currently expect. Changes beyond our control may occur that would cause us to use our available capital before that time, including changes in the progress of our drug development activities and changes in regulation of what is necessary to develop a therapy for UC and obtain approval. Our future capital requirements will depend on many factors, including:

Identifying potential product candidates and conducting preclinical studies and clinical trials is a time consuming, expensive and uncertain process that takes years to complete, and we may never generate the necessary data or results required to obtain regulatory approval and achieve product sales. In addition, MET642 and any future product candidate, if approved, may not achieve commercial success.

Our commercial revenues, if any, will be derived from sales of products that we do not expect to be commercially available for sale for many years, if at all. Accordingly, we will need to obtain substantial additional funding in connection with our continuing operations, including through a combination of equity offerings, debt financing, additional borrowings under the K2 Loan Agreement (as defined below), collaborations and other similar

19

arrangements. Adequate additional financing may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all. In addition, we may seek additional capital due to favorable market conditions or strategic considerations even if we believe we have sufficient funds for our current or future operating plans. If we are unable to raise sufficient capital when needed or on attractive terms, we may be required to:

Any of these events could have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results and prospects.

We are an early stage biopharmaceutical company with a very limited operating history. We have incurred net losses since our inception and anticipate that we will continue to incur significant losses for the foreseeable future. We have never generated any revenue from product sales and may never be profitable.

We are an early stage biopharmaceutical company with a very limited operating history that may make it difficult to evaluate the success of our business to date and to assess our future viability. We were incorporated in 2014 and commenced operations in 2015. To date, our operations have been limited to organizing and staffing our company, business planning, raising capital, researching, discovering and developing our pipeline in FXR and other drug targets, and general and administrative support for these operations. We intend to initiate a Phase 2a proof-of-concept clinical trial of our only product candidate, MET642, for the treatment of UC in the second quarter of 2022. We may experience delays in the commencement or completion of this trial, or potentially termination or suspension of the trial, which could result in increased costs to us, delay or limit our ability to generate revenue and adversely affect our commercial prospects. We have not yet demonstrated an ability to successfully complete any late stage clinical trials and have never completed the development of any product candidate. In October 2021, we discontinued future development of our FXR program for the treatment of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis, or NASH, and, in February 2022, we discontinued our other research and discovery programs. We have never generated any revenue from product sales and have incurred net losses each year since we commenced operations. For the years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020, our net losses were $62.2 million and $37.3 million, respectively. As of December 31, 2021, we had an accumulated deficit of $183.0 million. We expect to incur increasing levels of operating losses over time as we execute our plan to continue our development activities, including the ongoing and planned clinical development of MET642, and continue to incur the additional costs of operating as a public company. We expect that it will be several years, if ever, before we have a product candidate ready for potential regulatory approval and commercialization. Our prior losses, combined with expected future losses, have had and will continue to have an adverse effect on our stockholders’ deficit and working capital.

To become and remain profitable, we must develop and eventually commercialize a product with significant market potential. This will require us to be successful in a range of challenging activities, including completing preclinical studies and clinical trials of MET642 or any other future product candidate, obtaining marketing approval for these product candidates, manufacturing, marketing and selling those products for which we may obtain marketing approval and satisfying any post-marketing requirements. We may never succeed in these activities and, even if we succeed in obtaining approval for and commercializing MET642 or any future product candidate, we may never generate revenues that are significant enough to achieve profitability. In addition, as a young business, we may encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays and other known and unknown challenges. Furthermore, because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with pharmaceutical product development, we are unable to accurately predict the timing or amount of increased expenses or when, or if, we will be able to achieve profitability. If we do achieve profitability, we may not be able to sustain or increase profitability on a quarterly or annual basis and we will continue to incur substantial development and other expenditures to develop and market additional product candidates. Our failure to become and remain profitable would decrease the value of the company and could impair our ability to raise capital, maintain our development efforts, expand our business or continue our operations. A decline in the value of our company could also cause you to lose all or part of your investment.

20

If we fail to achieve the expected financial and operational benefits of our recent restructuring plan, our business and financial results may be harmed.

In February 2022, we implemented a corporate restructuring plan designed to reduce our operating expenses, preserve cash and align our resources to support the ongoing clinical development of MET642 for the treatment of UC. As part of this restructuring plan, we discontinued preclinical development of our hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase discovery program geared toward NASH and other liver diseases, and implemented a staff reduction of approximately 50%, primarily consisting of our research organization. We anticipate that we will incur between $1.1 million to $1.3 million of expenses related to the restructuring plan, substantially all of which will consist of one-time charges related to the staff reduction. Substantially all of the committed actions under the restructuring plan have been completed. The estimates of the costs we expect to incur, and the successful implementation of the restructuring activities pursuant to the restructuring plan, are subject to a number of assumptions, risks and uncertainties, and actual results may differ from the above-described estimates. We may also incur additional costs not currently contemplated due to events that may occur as a result of, or that are associated with, the restructuring plan. Restructuring activities may also result in a loss of continuity, accumulated knowledge and inefficiency during transitional periods and thereafter. In addition, restructurings can require a significant amount of time and focus from management and other employees, which may divert attention from drug development activities.

We are highly dependent on the success of our FXR program, which consists of our only product candidate MET642, which is in the early stage of development, and we may not be able to successfully obtain regulatory or marketing approval for, or successfully commercialize, MET642 for the treatment of UC.

Our future success will depend entirely on our ability to successfully develop, obtain regulatory approval for, and then successfully commercialize our only product candidate, MET642, an FXR agonist for the treatment of UC, which may never occur. We have no significant product candidates in our pipeline other than MET642. In October 2021, we discontinued future development of our FXR program in NASH and in February 2022, we discontinued our other research and discovery programs. We currently generate no revenues from sales of any drugs and we may never be able to develop or commercialize a marketable drug.

Before we can market and sell a drug in the United States or foreign jurisdictions, we will need to commence and complete additional clinical trials, manage clinical, preclinical and manufacturing activities, obtain necessary regulatory approvals from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or the FDA, and from similar foreign regulatory agencies in other jurisdictions, obtain manufacturing supply, build a commercial organization or enter into a marketing collaboration with a third party, and in some jurisdictions, obtain reimbursement authorization, among other things. We cannot assure you that we will be able to successfully complete the necessary clinical trials and/or obtain regulatory approvals and develop sufficient commercial capabilities for MET642 or any future product candidates. We have not submitted a NDA to the FDA, or similar drug approval filings to comparable foreign authorities, for any product candidate. Further, a product candidate may not receive regulatory approval even if it is successful in clinical trials. If we do not receive regulatory approvals, our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations will be adversely affected. Even if we obtain regulatory approvals, we may never generate significant revenues from any commercial sales of a marketable drug. If MET642 or any other future product candidate is approved and we fail to successfully commercialize it, we may be unable to generate sufficient revenues to sustain and grow our business and our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations will be adversely affected.

MET642 is an FXR agonist, a class of drugs from which there are no approved therapies in the diseases for which we are currently pursuing clinical trials. This makes it difficult to predict the timing and costs of clinical development for this product candidate.

Historically, we have concentrated our product development efforts on our FXR agonists, MET409 and MET642, for the treatment of NASH. In October 2021, we discontinued future development of our FXR program in NASH and elected to focus our efforts and resources on developing MET642 in UC and our future success depends on the successful development of our therapeutic approach to this disease. To date, no FXR agonists have been approved for the treatment of UC. The regulatory approval process for a novel product candidate such as ours can be more expensive and take longer than for other, better known or extensively studied pharmaceutical or other product candidates. Such evolution may impact our future clinical trial designs, including trial size and approval endpoints, in ways that we cannot predict today. As we advance MET642 or any future product candidate, we will be required to consult with the FDA and equivalent foreign authorities and comply with applicable guidelines. The FDA and equivalent foreign authorities may require that we perform additional studies beyond those that we currently expect. As a result, our expenses could increase materially beyond what we currently anticipate, and the timing of any potential product approval may be delayed. As an example, the FDA has suggested, and we have agreed, to include scans and other blood tests with respect to our Phase 2a clinical trial of MET642 in NASH which resulted in increases to our anticipated study costs. Delay or failure to obtain, or unexpected costs in obtaining, the regulatory approval

21

necessary to bring a potential product to market could decrease our ability to generate sufficient revenue to maintain our business.

The terms of the K2 Loan Agreement place restrictions on our operating and financial flexibility. If we raise additional capital through debt financing, the terms of any new debt could further restrict our operating and financial flexibility.

In August 2019, we entered into a loan and security agreement, or the K2 Loan Agreement, with K2 HealthVentures Equity Trust LLC, or K2, as amended in March 2020 and October 2021. We borrowed $10.0 million in the first tranche under the K2 Loan Agreement and borrowed an additional $5.0 million in connection with the October 2021 amendment. Our obligations under the K2 Loan Agreement are secured by a security interest in substantially all of our assets, other than our intellectual property. The K2 Loan Agreement includes customary affirmative and negative covenants, as well as standard events of default, including an event of default based on the occurrence of a material adverse event. The negative covenants include, among others, restrictions on us transferring collateral, incurring additional indebtedness, engaging in mergers or acquisitions, paying cash dividends or making other distributions, making investments, creating liens, selling assets and making any payment on subordinated debt, in each case subject to certain exceptions. These restrictive covenants could limit our flexibility in operating our business and our ability to pursue business opportunities that we or our stockholders may consider beneficial. In addition, K2 could declare a default upon the occurrence of any event that it interprets could have material adverse effect, as defined in the K2 Loan Agreement. Upon the occurrence and continuance of an event of default, K2 may declare all outstanding obligations immediately due and payable and take such other actions as set forth in the K2 Loan Agreement. Any declaration by K2 of an event of default could significantly harm our business and prospects and could cause the price of our common stock to decline. We may not have enough available cash or be able to raise additional funds through equity or debt financings to repay these outstanding obligations at the time any event of default occurs. Further, if we raise any additional capital through debt financing, the terms of such additional debt could further restrict our operating and financial flexibility.

We are very early in our development efforts and we have limited experience conducting clinical trials in humans.

We are early in our development efforts and we have limited experience conducting clinical trials in humans and have not yet conducted any clinical trials in UC. We expect to initiate a Phase 2a proof-of-concept clinical trial of MET642 for the treatment of UC in the second quarter of 2022. To date, MET642 has been evaluated for safety in 64 patients in a 14-day Phase 1 clinical trial and up to 190 patients in a 16-week Phase 2a clinical trial. The longer-term toxicity is unknown. We recently completed a nine-month non-human primate GLP toxicology study for MET642 to support longer-term clinical trials, and based on the preliminary findings from such study, we are planning to conduct an additional long-term animal toxicology study to support future longer-term clinical trials in the UC indication.  Adverse safety and toxicology findings may emerge as we review the findings from this study and as we conduct additional studies. The FDA may also require additional studies after their review of safety and toxicology findings.

In addition, success in early clinical trials does not mean that later clinical trials will be successful. For instance, the results of our completed Phase 1b proof-of-concept clinical trial of MET409 (a previous product candidate) in NASH patients and preliminary and interim results of our Phase 2a proof-of-concept clinical trials of MET642 in NASH may not be predictive of the results of any future clinical trial, including for other indications such as UC. Furthermore, our future clinical trials will need to demonstrate sufficient safety and efficacy in larger patient populations for approval by regulatory authorities. Companies frequently suffer significant setbacks in later-stage clinical trials, even after earlier clinical trials have shown promising results, and we cannot be certain that we will not face similar setbacks. Moreover, preclinical and clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses, and many companies that have believed their product candidates performed satisfactorily in preclinical studies and clinical trials have nonetheless failed to obtain marketing approval of their products. In addition, only a small percentage of drugs under development result in the submission of an NDA to the FDA and even fewer are approved for commercialization.

To date, we have had only limited interactions with the FDA regarding our plans for our MET642 clinical trials. We may not learn of certain information or the amount or type of data that the FDA may require for approval of our product candidates until after we have additional interactions with the FDA, including after their review of safety and toxicology findings. As an example, the FDA has suggested, and we have agreed, to include scans and other blood tests with respect to our Phase 2a clinical trial of MET642 in NASH which resulted in increases to our anticipated study costs. In part because of our limited infrastructure, experience conducting clinical trials as a company and regulatory interactions, we cannot be certain that our clinical trials will be initiated on time, that our planned clinical trials will be completed on time, if at all, that our planned development programs would be acceptable to the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities, or that, if approval is obtained, such product candidates can be successfully commercialized.

22

Our ability to generate product revenues, which we do not expect will occur for many years, if ever, will depend heavily on our ability to successfully complete the above activities and any other activities required for the successful development and eventual commercialization of MET642 or any future product candidate. The success of MET642 or any future product candidate will further depend on factors such as:

If we do not achieve one or more of these factors in a timely manner, we could experience significant delays or an inability to successfully obtain marketing approval and commercialize MET642 or any future product candidate, which would materially harm our business.

The development and commercialization of drug products is subject to extensive regulation, and we may not obtain regulatory approvals for MET642 for the treatment of UC, or any future product candidate.

The clinical development, manufacturing, labeling, packaging, storage, recordkeeping, advertising, promotion, export, import, marketing and distribution and other possible activities relating to MET642 as well as any future product candidate that we may develop in the future, are subject to extensive regulation in the United States and foreign jurisdictions. Marketing approval of drug candidates in the United States requires the submission of an NDA to the FDA and we are not permitted to market any product candidate in the United States until we obtain approval from the FDA of an NDA for that product. An NDA must be supported by extensive clinical and preclinical data, as well as extensive information regarding pharmacology, chemistry, manufacturing and controls.

Regulatory approval of an NDA is not guaranteed, and the approval process is an expensive and uncertain process that may take several years. The FDA and foreign regulatory entities also have substantial discretion in the approval process. The number and types of preclinical studies and clinical trials that will be required for NDA approval varies depending on the product candidate, the disease or the condition that the product candidate is designed to treat and the regulations applicable to any particular product candidate. Despite the time and expense associated with preclinical studies and clinical trials, failure can occur at any stage. The results of preclinical and early clinical trials of our product candidates and other products with the same mechanism of action may not be predictive of the results of our clinical trials. In particular, while we have conducted certain preclinical studies of MET642 and a Phase 1 clinical trial of MET642, we do not know whether MET642 will perform in current and future clinical trials as it has performed in these prior studies, including for other indications such as IBD, including UC. For example, in preclinical animal studies with our FXR agonist product candidates, we have observed improvement in colon inflammation on a level similar to a mouse antibody which targets IL-12/23, but there is no guarantee that a similar improvement will be observed in our clinical trials.

Clinical trial failure may result from a multitude of factors including flaws in trial design, dose selection, placebo effect, patient enrollment criteria and failure to demonstrate favorable safety or efficacy traits, and failure in clinical trials can occur at any stage. Companies in the biopharmaceutical industry frequently suffer setbacks in the advancement of clinical trials due to lack of efficacy or adverse safety profiles, notwithstanding promising results in earlier trials. Based upon negative or inconclusive results, we may decide, or regulators may require us, to conduct

23

additional clinical trials or preclinical studies. The ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine may result in delays or increased costs for our Phase 2a proof-of-concept clinical trial of MET642 for the treatment of UC, which we intend to initiate in the second quarter of 2022, because several trial sites were originally located in Russia and Ukraine. Due to the ongoing conflict, we are currently identifying alternative and additional sites for the trial. We cannot be certain what the overall impact of this conflict will be on our ability to conduct and complete the clinical trial on schedule. In addition, data obtained from clinical trials are susceptible to varying interpretations, and regulators may not interpret our data as favorably as we do, which may further delay, limit or prevent marketing approval. Furthermore, as more product candidates within a particular class of drugs proceed through clinical development to regulatory review and approval, the amount and type of clinical data that may be required by regulatory authorities may increase or change.

The FDA and similar foreign authorities could delay, limit or deny approval of a product candidate for many reasons, including because they:

Further, our planned clinical trials do or will contain and rely upon endpoints that require subjective assessments from patients and subject us to a substantial risk of “placebo effect” which is a well-known risk in clinical trials evaluating therapeutics for IBD, including UC. While a drug candidate may show clinical activity or therapeutic benefit, a high placebo effect in a clinical trial will make it difficult to ascertain that benefit or to show a statistically significant effect of the drug candidate as compared to the control arm and may ultimately cause a clinical trial to fail.

In the past we have used agents in combination with previous product candidates, including MET409, for clinical trials, and we may do so again in future clinical trials. Even if any product candidate we develop were to receive marketing approval or be commercialized for use in combination with other existing therapies, we would continue to be subject to the risks that the FDA or similar regulatory authorities outside of the United States could revoke approval of the therapy used in combination with MET642 or any future product candidate. There is also a risk that safety, efficacy, manufacturing or supply issues could arise with the antidiabetic agent that is used in the combination therapy. This could result in our own products being removed from the market or being less successful commercially.

Generally, public concern regarding the safety of drug products could delay or limit our ability to obtain regulatory approval, result in the inclusion of unfavorable information in our labeling, or require us to undertake other activities that may entail additional costs.

If we experience delays in obtaining approval or if we fail to obtain approval of MET642 or any future product candidate, the commercial prospects for our product candidates may be harmed and our ability to generate revenues will be materially impaired which would adversely affect our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

24

Any delays in the commencement or completion, or termination or suspension, of our clinical trials could result in increased costs to us, delay or limit our ability to generate revenue and adversely affect our commercial prospects.

Before obtaining marketing approval from regulatory authorities for the sale of a product candidate, we must complete preclinical development and extensive clinical studies to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of the product candidate in humans. Clinical testing is expensive, time consuming and uncertain as to outcome. In addition, we may rely in part on preclinical, clinical and quality data generated by CROs and other third parties for regulatory submissions for MET642 or any future product candidate. While we have or will have agreements governing these third parties’ services, we have limited influence over their actual performance. If these third parties do not make data available to us, or, if applicable, make regulatory submissions in a timely manner, in each case pursuant to our agreements with them, our development programs may be significantly delayed and we may need to conduct additional studies or collect additional data independently. In either case, our development costs would increase.

The FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require that we perform additional studies beyond those that we currently expect. As an example, the FDA has suggested, and we have agreed, to include scans and other blood tests with respect to our Phase 2a clinical trial of MET642 in NASH which resulted in increases to our anticipated study costs. As a result, our expenses could increase materially beyond what we currently anticipate, and the timing of any potential product approval may be delayed. Any such delays in the commencement or completion of our ongoing and planned clinical trials for MET642 or any future product candidate could significantly affect our product development costs. We do not know whether our planned trials will begin on time or be completed on schedule, if at all. The commencement and completion of clinical trials can be delayed for a number of reasons, including delays related to:

25

For example, the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine may result in delays or increased costs for our Phase 2a proof-of-concept clinical trial of MET642 for the treatment of UC, which we intend to initiate in the second quarter of 2022, because several trial sites were originally located in Russia and Ukraine. Due to the ongoing conflict, we are currently identifying alternative and additional sites for the trial. We cannot be certain what the overall impact of this conflict will be on our ability to conduct and complete the clinical trial on schedule.

We could also encounter delays if a clinical trial is suspended or terminated by us, by the IRBs of the institutions in which such trials are being conducted, by a Data Safety Monitoring Board for such trial or by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. IRBs, Data Safety Monitoring Boards or the FDA may impose a suspension or termination due to a number of factors, including failure to conduct the clinical trial in accordance with regulatory requirements or our clinical protocols, inspection of the clinical trial operations or trial site by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities resulting in the imposition of a clinical hold, unforeseen safety issues or adverse side effects, failure to demonstrate a benefit from using a drug, changes in governmental regulations or administrative actions or lack of adequate funding to continue the clinical trial. In addition, changes in regulatory requirements and policies may occur, and we may need to amend clinical trial protocols to comply with these changes. Amendments may require us to resubmit our clinical trial protocols to IRBs for reexamination, which may impact the costs, timing or successful completion of a clinical trial.

Further, conducting clinical trials in foreign countries (such as our Phase 1 clinical trial of MET409 conducted in the Netherlands and our Phase 1 clinical trial of MET642 conducted in Australia) presents additional risks that may delay completion of our clinical trials. These risks include the failure of enrolled patients in foreign countries to adhere to clinical protocol as a result of differences in healthcare services or cultural customs, managing additional administrative burdens associated with foreign regulatory schemes, as well as political and economic risks relevant to such foreign countries. Moreover, certain of our scientific advisors or consultants who receive compensation in connection with such services are likely to be investigators for our future clinical trials. Under certain circumstances, we may be required to report some of these relationships to the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. The FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authority may conclude that our financial relationships with principal investigators, some of whom we engage as consultants, have created a conflict of interest or otherwise affected interpretation of the study. The FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authority may therefore question the integrity of the data generated at the applicable clinical trial site and the utility of the clinical trial itself may be jeopardized. This could result in a delay in approval, or rejection, of our marketing applications by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authority, as the case may be, and may ultimately lead to the denial of marketing approval of one or more of our product candidates. If we experience delays in the completion of, or termination of, any clinical trial of a product candidate, the commercial prospects of such product candidate will be harmed, and our ability to generate product revenues from any of the product candidate will be delayed. Moreover, any delays in completing our clinical trials will increase our costs, slow down our product candidate development and approval process and jeopardize our ability to commence product sales and generate revenues.

In addition, many of the factors that cause, or lead to, termination or suspension of, or a delay in the commencement or completion of, clinical trials may also ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval of a product candidate. We may make formulation or manufacturing changes to a product candidate, in which case we may need to conduct additional preclinical studies to bridge the modified product candidate to earlier versions. Any delays to our clinical trials that occur as a result could shorten any period during which we may have the exclusive right to commercialize our product candidate and our competitors may be able to bring products to market before we do, and the commercial viability of MET642 or any future product candidate could be significantly reduced. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly.

If we experience delays or difficulties in enrolling patients in clinical trials, our receipt of necessary regulatory approvals could be delayed or prevented.

We may not be able to initiate or continue clinical trials for MET642 or any future product candidate if we are unable to identify and enroll a sufficient number of eligible patients to participate in these trials as required by the FDA or analogous regulatory authorities outside the United States. In addition, some of our competitors may have ongoing clinical trials for product candidates that would treat the same indications as MET642 or any future product candidate, and patients who would otherwise be eligible for our clinical trials may instead enroll in clinical trials of our competitors’ product candidates. This is acutely relevant for our development of MET642 for the treatment of patients with IBD (including UC), diseases for which there are significant competition for clinical trial subjects. There is also a

26

reluctance in the biopharmaceutical industry to expose patients to placebo treatment given the availability of multiple approved therapies, which has recently led to low rates of patient recruitment for participation in IBD clinical trials, particularly with respect to enrollment of phase 2a and 2b proof-of-concept studies. Additionally, long timelines, invasive procedures, and changing regulatory recommendations have led to increased burdens for patients, investigators, and industry sponsors, causing declines in patient enrollment.

Patient enrollment is also affected by other factors, including:

Our inability to enroll a sufficient number of patients for our clinical trials would result in significant delays or may require us to abandon one or more clinical trials altogether. Enrollment delays in our clinical trials may result in increased development costs for MET642 or any future product candidate, which would cause the value of our company to decline and limit our ability to obtain additional financing.

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

As is the case with pharmaceuticals generally, it is likely that there may be side effects and adverse events associated with the use of MET642 or any future product candidate. Results of our clinical trials could reveal a high and unacceptable severity and prevalence of side effects or unexpected characteristics. Undesirable side effects caused by MET642 or any future product candidate, used as a monotherapy or in combination with another medication, could result in the delay, suspension or termination of clinical trials by us, the FDA or other regulatory authorities for a number of reasons. If we elect or are required to delay, suspend or terminate any clinical trial of any product candidate that we develop, the commercial prospects of such product candidate will be harmed and our ability to generate product revenues from any such product candidate will be delayed or eliminated. Serious adverse events observed in clinical trials could hinder or prevent market acceptance of the product candidate at issue. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations significantly.

Moreover, if a product candidate becomes associated with undesirable side effects in clinical trials or has characteristics that are unexpected, we may elect to abandon its development or limit its development to more narrow uses or subpopulations in which the undesirable side effects or other characteristics are less prevalent, less severe or more acceptable from a risk-benefit perspective, which may limit the commercial expectations for the product candidate if approved. We may also be required to modify our study plans based on findings in our clinical trials. Many compounds that initially showed promise in early stage testing have later been found to cause side effects that prevented further development of the compound. In addition, regulatory authorities may draw different conclusions or require additional testing to confirm these determinations.

It is possible that, as we test MET642 or any future product candidate in larger, longer and more extensive clinical trials including with different dosing regimens, or if its use becomes more widespread following regulatory approval, illnesses, injuries, discomforts and other adverse events that were observed in earlier trials, as well as conditions that did not occur or went undetected in previous trials, will be reported by subjects. If such side effects become known later in development or upon approval, if any, such findings may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly.

27

In addition, if MET642 or any future product candidate receives marketing approval, and we or others later identify undesirable side effects caused by such products, a number of potentially significant negative consequences could result, including:

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

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

From time to time, we may publicly disclose interim, topline or preliminary data from our clinical studies, which is based on a preliminary analysis of then-available data, and the results and related findings and conclusions are subject to change following a more comprehensive review of the data related to the particular study or trial. We also make assumptions, estimations, calculations and conclusions as part of our analyses of data, and we may not have received or had the opportunity to fully and carefully evaluate all data. As a result, the topline results that we report may differ from future results of the same studies, or different conclusions or considerations may qualify such results, once additional data have been received and fully evaluated. Topline data also remain subject to audit and verification procedures that may result in the final data being materially different from the preliminary or interim data we previously published. As a result, topline data should be viewed with caution until the final data are available. From time to time, we may also disclose interim data from our clinical studies. Interim data from clinical trials that we may complete are subject to the risk that one or more of the clinical outcomes may materially change as patient enrollment continues and more patient data become available. Adverse differences between preliminary or interim data and final data could significantly harm our business prospects and disclosure of interim data by us or by our competitors could result in volatility in the price of our common stock. For additional discussion of the risk of volatility in our stock price, see “—Risks Related to our Common Stock.”

Further, others, including regulatory agencies, may not accept or agree with our assumptions, estimates, calculations, conclusions or analyses or may interpret or weigh the importance of data differently, which could impact the value of the particular program, the approvability or commercialization of the particular product candidate or product and our company in general. In addition, the information we choose to publicly disclose regarding a particular study or clinical trial is based on what is typically extensive information, and you or others may not agree with what we determine is the material or otherwise appropriate information to include in our disclosure, and any information we determine not to disclose may ultimately be deemed significant with respect to future decisions, conclusions, views, activities or otherwise regarding a particular product, product candidate or our business. If the topline data that we report differ from actual results, or if others, including regulatory authorities, disagree with the conclusions reached, our ability to obtain approval for, and commercialize, MET642 or any future product candidate may be harmed, which could harm our business, operating results, prospects or financial condition.

We have completed a Phase 1 clinical trials in the Netherlands and Australia, and may conduct additional clinical trials of product candidates outside of the United States. However, the FDA and other foreign equivalents may not accept data from such trials, in which case our development plans will be delayed, which could materially harm our business.

In 2019, we completed a Phase 1 clinical trial for MET409 in the Netherlands and, in December 2020, we completed a Phase 1 clinical trial of MET642 in Australia.

Although the FDA and foreign equivalents may accept data from clinical trials conducted entirely outside the United States and not under an IND, acceptance of such study data is generally subject to certain conditions. For example, the FDA requires the clinical trial to have been conducted in accordance with GCPs, and the FDA must be able to validate the data from the clinical trial through an onsite inspection if it deems such inspection necessary. In addition, when studies are conducted only at sites outside of the United States, the FDA generally does not provide

28

advance comment on the clinical protocols for the studies, and therefore there is an additional potential risk that the FDA could determine that the study design or protocol for a non-U.S. clinical trial was inadequate, which would likely require us to conduct additional clinical trials. Conducting clinical trials outside the United States also exposes us to additional risks, including risks associated with:

Even if MET642 or any future product candidate receives marketing approval, it may fail to achieve the degree of market acceptance by physicians, patients, hospitals, healthcare payors and others in the medical community necessary for commercial success.

If MET642 or any future product candidate receives marketing approval, it may nonetheless fail to gain sufficient market acceptance by physicians, patients, healthcare payors and others in the medical community. If MET642 or any future product candidate does not achieve an adequate level of acceptance, we may not generate significant product revenues and we may not become profitable. The degree of market acceptance of MET642 or any future product candidate, if approved for commercial sale, will depend on a number of factors, including:

We currently have no marketing and sales organization and have no experience as a company in commercializing products, and we may have to invest significant resources to develop these capabilities. If we are unable to establish marketing and sales capabilities or enter into agreements with third parties to market and sell MET642 or any future product candidate, we may not be able to generate product revenue.

We have no internal sales, marketing or distribution capabilities, nor have we commercialized a product. If MET642 or any future product candidate ultimately receives regulatory approval, we may not be able to effectively market and distribute the product candidate. We may have to seek collaborators, especially for marketing and sales outside of the United States, or invest significant amounts of financial and management resources to develop internal sales, distribution and marketing capabilities, some of which will be committed prior to any confirmation that our product candidates will be approved, if at all. We may not be able to enter into collaborations or hire consultants or external service providers to assist us in sales, marketing and distribution functions on acceptable financial terms, or at all. In addition, our product revenues and our profitability, if any, may be lower if we rely on third parties for these functions than if we were to market, sell and distribute any products that we develop ourselves. We likely will have little control over such third parties, and any of them may fail to devote the necessary resources and attention to sell and market our products effectively. Even if we determine to perform sales, marketing and distribution functions ourselves, we could face a number of additional related risks, including:

29

Even if we receive regulatory approval for MET642 or any future product candidate, we will be subject to ongoing regulatory obligations and continued regulatory review, which may result in significant additional expense. Additionally, MET642 or any future product candidate, if approved, could be subject to labeling and other restrictions and market withdrawal and we may be subject to penalties if we fail to comply with regulatory requirements or experience unanticipated problems with our product.

Any regulatory approvals that we receive for MET642 or any future product candidate may also be subject to limitations on the approved indicated uses for which the product may be marketed or to the conditions of approval, or contain requirements for potentially costly post-marketing testing, including Phase 4 clinical trials, and surveillance to monitor the safety and efficacy of the product candidate. In addition, if the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority approves MET642 or any future product candidate, the manufacturing processes, labeling, packaging, distribution, adverse event reporting, storage, advertising, promotion, import, export and recordkeeping for the product will be subject to extensive and ongoing regulatory requirements. These requirements include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, registration, as well as continued compliance with cGMPs and cGCPs, for any clinical trials that we conduct post-approval. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, undesirable side effects caused by the product, problems encountered by our third-party manufacturers or manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, either before or after product approval, may result in, among other things:

Additionally if MET642 or any future product candidate receives marketing approval, the FDA could require us to adopt a REMS to ensure that the benefits of the therapy outweigh its risks, which may include, among other things, a medication guide outlining the risks for distribution to patients and a communication plan to healthcare practitioners. Any of these events could prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of the product or the particular product candidate at issue and could significantly harm our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

In addition, if MET642 or any future product candidate is approved, our product labeling, advertising and promotion will be subject to regulatory requirements and continuing regulatory review. The FDA strictly regulates the promotional claims that may be made about drug products. In particular, a product may not be promoted for uses that are not approved by the FDA as reflected in the product’s approved labeling. If we receive marketing approval for a product candidate, physicians may nevertheless prescribe it to their patients in a manner that is inconsistent with the approved label. If we are found to have promoted such off-label uses, we may become subject to significant liability. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label uses may be subject to significant sanctions. The federal government has levied large civil and criminal fines against companies for alleged improper promotion and has enjoined several companies from engaging in off-label promotion. The FDA has also requested that companies enter into consent decrees or permanent injunctions under which specified promotional conduct is changed or curtailed.

The FDA’s policies may change and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of MET642 or any future product candidate. We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action, either in the United States or abroad. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may lose any marketing approval that we may have obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability, which would adversely affect our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

30

We may expend our limited resources to pursue a particular product candidate or indication and fail to capitalize on product candidates or indications that may be more profitable or for which there is a greater likelihood of success.

Because we have limited financial and managerial resources, we will need to focus MET642 or any future product candidate on the potential treatment of certain indications. For example, for MET642, we only have one clinical trial planned for the treatment of UC. We discontinued the pursuit of NASH opportunities with MET642, MET409 and HSD17b13 that later may prove to have greater commercial potential. Our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial products or profitable market opportunities. Our spending on current or potential future development programs and product candidates for specific indications may not yield any commercially viable products. If we do not accurately evaluate the commercial potential or target market for a particular product candidate, we may also relinquish valuable rights to that product candidate through collaboration, licensing or other royalty arrangements in cases in which it would have been more advantageous for us to retain sole development and commercialization rights to such product candidate. See “—If we fail to achieve the expected financial and operational benefits of our recent restructuring plan, our business and financial results may be harmed” for additional discussion.

Even if we obtain FDA approval of MET642 or any future product candidate, we may never obtain approval or commercialize such product outside of the United States, which would limit our ability to realize their full market potential.

In order to market any products outside of the United States, we must comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of other countries regarding safety and efficacy. Clinical trials conducted in one country may not be accepted by regulatory authorities in other countries, and regulatory approval in one country does not mean that regulatory approval will be obtained in any other country. Approval procedures vary among countries and can involve additional product testing and validation and additional administrative review periods. Seeking foreign regulatory approvals could result in significant delays, difficulties and costs for us and may require additional preclinical studies or clinical trials which would be costly and time consuming. Regulatory requirements can vary widely from country to country and could delay or prevent the introduction of our products in those countries. Satisfying these and other regulatory requirements is costly, time consuming, uncertain and subject to unanticipated delays. In addition, our failure to obtain regulatory approval in any country may delay or have negative effects on the process for regulatory approval in other countries. We do not have any product candidates approved for sale in any jurisdiction, including international markets, and we do not have experience in obtaining regulatory approval in international markets. If we fail to comply with regulatory requirements in international markets or to obtain and maintain required approvals, our ability to realize the full market potential of our products, if any, will be harmed.

Our business could be adversely affected by the effects of health pandemics or epidemics, including the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, and could cause significant disruption in the operations of third-party manufacturers, CROs and other third parties upon whom we rely.

Our business could be adversely affected by the effects of health pandemics or epidemics, including the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, and could cause significant disruption in the operations of third-party manufacturers, CROs and other third parties upon whom we rely. The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in governments implementing numerous containment measures, such as travel bans and restrictions, particularly quarantines, stay at home orders and business limitations and shutdowns.

We are following, and plan to continue to follow, recommendations from federal, state and local governments regarding workplace policies, practices and procedures. Any stay-at-home order and remote work policies may negatively impact productivity, increase risks associated with cybersecurity, disrupt our business and delay our clinical programs and timelines, the magnitude of which will depend, in part, on the length and severity of the restrictions and other limitations on our ability to conduct our business in the ordinary course. These and similar, and perhaps more severe, disruptions in our operations could negatively impact our business, operating results, and financial condition.

In addition, we expect that our corporate lease will terminate on or around March 31, 2022, at which point we will transition to a fully remote work environment and will not maintain a corporate headquarters. Having a fully remote work environment may make it more difficult for us to preserve our corporate culture and our employees may have decreased opportunities to collaborate in meaningful ways. Further, we cannot guarantee that having a fully remote work environment will not have a negative impact on employee morale and productivity. Any failure to preserve our corporate culture and foster collaboration could harm our future success, including our ability to retain and recruit personnel, innovate and operate effectively, and execute on our business strategy.

Quarantines, stay at home and similar government orders, or the perception that such orders, shutdowns or other restrictions on the conduct of business operations could occur, related to COVID-19 or other infectious

31

diseases, may impact personnel at third-party manufacturing facilities or the availability or cost of materials, which would disrupt our supply chain. In particular, some of our suppliers of certain materials used in the production of MET642, our only current product candidate, are located in Europe, where there have been government-imposed quarantines. While many of these materials may be obtained by more than one supplier, restrictions resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic may disrupt our supply chain or limit our ability to obtain sufficient materials for MET642 or any future product candidate.

In addition, our clinical trials may be affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Clinical site initiation and patient enrollment may be delayed due to prioritization of hospital resources toward the COVID-19 pandemic. Some patients may not be able or willing to comply with clinical trial protocols if quarantines impede patient movement or interrupt healthcare services. Similarly, our ability to recruit and retain patients, principal investigators and site staff (who as healthcare providers may have heightened exposure to COVID-19) may be hindered, which would adversely affect our clinical trial operations. Disruptions or restrictions on our ability to travel to monitor data from our clinical trials, or to conduct clinical trials, or the ability of patients enrolled in our studies to travel, or the ability of staff at study sites to travel, as well as temporary closures of our facilities or the facilities of our clinical trial partners and their contract manufacturers, would negatively impact our clinical trial activities. In addition, we rely on independent clinical investigators, CROs and other third-party service providers to assist us in managing, monitoring and otherwise carrying out our preclinical studies and clinical trials, including the collection of data from our clinical trials, and the outbreak may affect their ability to devote sufficient time and resources to our programs or to travel to sites to perform work for us. Similarly, our preclinical trials could be delayed and/or disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result, the expected timeline for data readouts of our preclinical studies and clinical trials and certain regulatory filings may be negatively impacted, which would adversely affect our ability to obtain regulatory approval for and to commercialize our product candidates, increase our operating expenses and have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic may cause interruption or delays in the operation of the FDA or other regulatory authorities which could negatively affect our planned clinical trials.

The ultimate impact of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic or a similar health pandemic or epidemic is highly uncertain and subject to change. We do not yet know the full extent of potential delays or impacts on our business, our clinical trials, healthcare systems or the global economy as a whole. These effects could have a material impact on our operations, and we will continue to monitor the COVID-19 situation closely. To the extent the COVID-19 pandemic adversely affects our operations, it may also have the effect of heightening many of the other risks described in this “Risk Factors” section.

We face substantial competition, which may result in others discovering, developing or commercializing products more quickly or marketing them more successfully than us. If their product candidates are shown to be safer or more effective than ours, then our commercial opportunity will be reduced or eliminated.

The development and commercialization of new products is highly competitive. We compete in the segments of the pharmaceutical, biotechnology and other related markets that develop small molecules and biologics for the treatment of GI diseases. Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, are more convenient, or are less expensive than any products that we may develop or that would render any products that we may develop obsolete or non-competitive. Our competitors also may obtain marketing approval for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market.

Major, currently-marketed IBD therapies include, but are not limited to, infliximab (marketed as Remicade by Janssen Biotech, Inc.), adalimumab (marketed as Humira by Pfizer, Inc.), vedolizumab (marketed as Entyvio by Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Inc.), ustekinumab (marketed as Stelara by Janssen Biotech, Inc.) and tofacitinib (marketed as Xeljanz by Pfizer, Inc.), and we are aware of several companies with development programs in this indication, including, but not limited to, Abbvie Inc., Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Pfizer, Inc. and Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Several companies have active research and development programs on FXR and are further along in development than we are with MET642. Our commercial opportunity could be substantially limited in the event that our competitors develop and commercialize products that are more effective, safer, less toxic, more convenient or cheaper than our comparable product. In geographies that are critical to our commercial success, competitors may also obtain regulatory approvals before us, resulting in our competitors building a strong market position in advance of our product’s entry. We believe the competitive factors that will determine the success of our programs will be the efficacy, safety, pricing and reimbursement and convenience of MET642 or any future product candidate.

32

As more product candidates within a particular class of drugs proceed through clinical development to regulatory review and approval, the amount and type of clinical data that may be required by regulatory authorities may increase or change. Consequently, the results of our clinical trials for product candidates in those class will likely need to show a risk benefit profile that is competitive with or more favorable than those products and product candidates in order to obtain marketing approval or, if approved, a product label that is favorable for commercialization. If the risk benefit profile is not competitive with those products or product candidates, we may have developed a product that is not commercially viable, that we are not able to sell profitably or that is unable to achieve favorable pricing or reimbursement. In such circumstances, our future product revenues and financial condition would be materially and adversely affected.

Many of our competitors, such as large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies like Arena Pharmaceuticals, Gossamer Bio, Prometheus Biosciences, and Protagonist Therapeutics have longer operating histories and significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical studies, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals and marketing approved products than we do.

Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors. Smaller and other early stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. These third parties compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel, establishing clinical trial sites and subject enrollment for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs.

The key competitive factors affecting the success of all of our programs are likely to be their efficacy, safety, convenience and availability of coverage and reimbursement. If we are not successful in developing, commercializing and achieving higher levels of reimbursement than our competitors, we will not be able to compete against them and our business would be materially harmed.

If the market opportunities for any product that we or our strategic partners develop are smaller than we believe they are, our revenue may be adversely affected and our business may suffer.

We are focused on the development of treatments for GI diseases. Our projections of addressable patient populations that have the potential to benefit from treatment with MET642 or any future product candidate are based on estimates. These estimates have been derived from a variety of sources, including the scientific literature, surveys of clinics, patient foundations or market research, and may prove to be incorrect. Further, new studies may change the estimated incidence or prevalence of these diseases. The number of patients may turn out to be lower than expected. If any of our estimates are inaccurate, the market opportunities for MET642 or any future product candidate could be significantly diminished and have an adverse material impact on our business.

Risks Related to Manufacturing and Our Reliance on Third Parties

We contract with third parties for the manufacturing and supply of product candidates for use in preclinical testing and clinical trials, which supply may become limited or interrupted or may not be of satisfactory quality and quantity.

We do not have any manufacturing facilities. We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties for the manufacture of product candidates for preclinical and clinical testing, as well as for commercial supply if MET642 or any future product candidate is approved. We currently do not have long-term agreements with any of our third-party manufacturers and do not have any contractual relationships for the manufacture of commercial supplies of any product candidate, if approved. This reliance increases the risk that we will not have sufficient quantities of MET642 or any future product candidates, or products, if approved, or such quantities at an acceptable cost or quality, which could delay, prevent or impair our development or commercialization efforts. This could be particularly problematic where we rely on a single-source supplier, as is currently the case for the manufacture of the drug substance and the drug product for MET642. In addition, if we were to experience an unexpected loss of supply of MET642 or any future product candidate for any reason, including as a result of manufacturing, supply or storage issues, our business would be harmed, and we could experience delays, disruptions, suspensions or terminations of, or be required to restart or repeat, any pending or ongoing clinical trials.

Furthermore, all entities involved in the preparation of therapeutics for clinical trials or commercial sale, including our existing contract manufacturers for MET642 and any future product candidate, are subject to extensive regulation. Components of a finished therapeutic product approved for commercial sale or used in clinical trials must be manufactured in accordance with cGMP requirements. These regulations govern manufacturing processes and procedures, including record keeping, and the implementation and operation of quality systems to control and assure the quality of investigational products and products approved for sale. Poor control of production processes can lead

33

to the introduction of contaminants, or to inadvertent changes in the properties or stability of MET642 or any future product candidate that may not be detectable in final product testing. We or our contract manufacturers must supply all necessary documentation in support of an NDA on a timely basis and must adhere to the FDA’s GLP regulations and cGMP regulations enforced by the FDA through its facilities inspection program. Comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require compliance with similar requirements. The facilities and quality systems of our third-party contractor manufacturers must pass a pre-approval inspection for compliance with the applicable regulations as a condition of marketing approval of MET642 or any future product candidate. We do not control the manufacturing process of, and are completely dependent on, our contract manufacturing partners for compliance with cGMP regulations, but we are nevertheless responsible for their failures to comply with applicable laws and regulations, including cGMP.

In the event that any of our manufacturers fails to comply with such requirements or to perform its obligations to us in relation to quality, timing or otherwise, or if our supply of components or other materials becomes limited or interrupted for other reasons, we may be forced to manufacture the materials ourselves, for which we currently do not have the capabilities or resources, or enter into an agreement with another third party, which we may not be able to do so on commercially reasonable terms, if at all. Further, we may be unable to use the product produced by that manufacturer, or if the manufacturer has manufactured product for our commercial sale, if and when we obtain approval, we could be subject to a recall of such product.

Any replacement of our manufacturers could require significant effort and expertise because there may be a limited number of qualified replacements. In some cases, the technical skills or technology required to manufacture MET642 or any future product candidate may be unique or proprietary to the original manufacturer and we may have difficulty transferring such skills or technology to another third party and a feasible alternative may not exist. These factors would increase our reliance on such manufacturer or require us to obtain a license from such manufacturer in order to have another third-party manufacture a product candidate. The process of changing manufacturers is extensive and time consuming and could cause delays or interruptions in our drug development. Further, if we are required to change manufacturers for any reason, we will be required to verify that the new manufacturer maintains facilities and procedures that comply with quality standards and with all applicable regulations and guidelines. The delays associated with the verification of a new manufacturer could negatively affect our ability to develop product candidates in a timely manner or within budget.

Our or a third party’s failure to execute on our manufacturing requirements, to do so on commercially reasonable terms and comply with cGMP could adversely affect our business in a number of ways, including:

In order to conduct later-stage clinical trials of MET642 or any future product candidate we will need to manufacture them in large quantities. We, or our manufacturing partners, may be unable to successfully increase the manufacturing capacity for any of a product candidate in a timely or cost-effective manner, or at all. In addition, quality issues may arise during scale-up activities. If we or our manufacturing partners are unable to successfully scale up the manufacture of a product candidate in sufficient quality and quantity, the development, testing and clinical trials of that product candidate may be delayed or become infeasible, and marketing approval or commercial launch of any resulting product may be delayed or not obtained, which could significantly harm our business.

Additionally, our third-party manufacturers may experience manufacturing difficulties due to resource constraints or as a result of labor disputes, or unstable political environments, or health pandemics or epidemics such as the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. For example, many of our raw materials for manufacture of MET642 are produced in Europe, which could impact our ability to manufacture and supply material for clinical and commercial supply. If our contract manufacturers were to encounter any manufacturing difficulties or delays due to these factors, our ability to provide MET642 or any future product candidate to patients in clinical trials, or to provide product for treatment of patients if and when approved, would be jeopardized.

34

We rely, and intend to rely, on third parties to conduct our clinical trials and perform some of our research and preclinical studies. If these third parties do not satisfactorily carry out their contractual duties or fail to meet expected deadlines, our development programs may be delayed or subject to increased costs, each of which may have an adverse effect on our business and prospects.

We do not have the ability to conduct all aspects of our preclinical testing or clinical trials ourselves. As a result, we are, and expect to remain, dependent on third parties to conduct our ongoing and planned clinical trials of MET642 or any future product candidate, and any future preclinical and clinical trials of any other product candidates. The timing of the initiation and completion of these trials will therefore be partially controlled by such third parties and may result in delays to our development programs. Specifically, we expect CROs, clinical investigators, and consultants to play a significant role in the conduct of these trials and the subsequent collection and analysis of data. However, we will not be able to control all aspects of their activities. Nevertheless, we are responsible for ensuring that each clinical trial is conducted in accordance with the applicable protocol and legal, regulatory and scientific standards, and our reliance on the CROs and other third parties does not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities. We and our CROs are required to comply with GCP requirements, which are regulations and guidelines enforced by the FDA, the Competent Authorities of the Member States of the EEA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities for any product candidates in clinical development. Regulatory authorities enforce these GCP requirements through periodic inspections of trial sponsors, clinical trial investigators and clinical trial sites. If we or any of our CROs or clinical trial sites fail to comply with applicable GCP requirements, the data generated in our clinical trials may be deemed unreliable, and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require us to perform additional clinical trials before approving our marketing applications. In addition, our clinical trials must be conducted with product produced under cGMP regulations. Our failure to comply with these regulations may require us to stop and/or repeat clinical trials, which would delay the marketing approval process.

There is no guarantee that any such CROs, clinical trial investigators or other third parties on which we rely will devote adequate time and resources to our development activities or perform as contractually required. If any of these third parties fail to meet expected deadlines, adhere to our clinical protocols or meet regulatory requirements, otherwise performs in a substandard manner, or terminates its engagement with us, the timelines for our development programs may be extended or delayed or our development activities may be suspended or terminated. If our clinical trial site terminates for any reason, we may experience the loss of follow-up information on subjects enrolled in such clinical trial unless we are able to transfer those subjects to another qualified clinical trial site, which may be difficult or impossible. In addition, clinical trial investigators for our clinical trial may serve as scientific advisors or consultants to us from time to time and may receive cash or equity compensation in connection with such services. If these relationships and any related compensation result in perceived or actual conflicts of interest, or the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities concludes that the financial relationship may have affected the interpretation of the trial, the integrity of the data generated at the applicable clinical trial site may be questioned and the utility of the clinical trial itself may be jeopardized, which could result in the delay or rejection of any marketing application we submit by the FDA or any comparable foreign regulatory authority. Any such delay or rejection could prevent us from commercializing MET642 or any future product candidate.

Furthermore, these third parties may also have relationships with other entities, some of which may be our competitors for whom they may also be conducting clinical trials or other drug development activities that could harm our competitive position. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties, meet expected deadlines or conduct our clinical trials in accordance with regulatory requirements or our stated protocols, we will not be able to obtain, or may be delayed in obtaining, marketing approvals for MET642 or any future product candidate and will not be able to, or may be delayed in our efforts to, successfully commercialize our products.

Even if we receive marketing approval, we may not be able to successfully commercialize MET642 or any future product candidate due to unfavorable pricing regulations or third-party coverage and reimbursement policies, which could make it difficult for us to sell our product candidates profitably.

Obtaining coverage and reimbursement approval for a product from a government or other third-party payor is a time consuming and costly process that could require us to provide supporting scientific, clinical and cost effectiveness data for the use of our products to the payor. There may be significant delays in obtaining such coverage and reimbursement for newly approved products, and coverage may be more limited than the purposes for which the product is approved by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. Moreover, eligibility for coverage and reimbursement does not imply that a product will be paid for in all cases or at a rate that covers our costs, including research, development, intellectual property, manufacture, sale and distribution expenses. Interim reimbursement levels for new products, if applicable, may also not be sufficient to cover our costs and may not be made permanent. Reimbursement rates may vary according to the use of the product and the clinical setting in which it is used, may be based on reimbursement levels already set for lower cost products and may be incorporated into existing payments for other services. Net prices for products may be reduced by mandatory discounts or rebates required by government healthcare programs or private payors, by any future laws limiting drug prices and by any

35

future relaxation of laws that presently restrict imports of product from countries where they may be sold at lower prices than in the United States.

There is significant uncertainty related to the insurance coverage and reimbursement of newly approved products. Third-party payors often rely upon Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting reimbursement policies, but also have their own methods and approval process apart from Medicare coverage and reimbursement determinations.

Coverage and reimbursement by a third-party payor may depend upon a number of factors, including the third-party payor’s determination that use of a product is:

We cannot be sure that coverage and reimbursement will be available for any product that we commercialize and, if coverage and reimbursement are available, what the level of reimbursement will be. Obtaining reimbursement for our products may be particularly difficult because of the higher prices often associated with branded therapeutics and therapeutics administered under the supervision of a physician. Our inability to promptly obtain coverage and adequate reimbursement rates from both government-funded and private payors for any approved products that we develop could have a material adverse effect on our operating results, our ability to raise capital needed to commercialize products and our overall financial condition.

Reimbursement may impact the demand for, and the price of, any product for which we obtain marketing approval. Assuming we obtain coverage for a given product by a third-party payor, the resulting reimbursement payment rates may not be adequate or may require co-payments that patients find unacceptably high. Patients who are prescribed medications for the treatment of their conditions, and their prescribing physicians, generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the costs associated with those medications. Patients are unlikely to use our products unless coverage is provided and reimbursement is adequate to cover all or a significant portion of the cost of our products. Therefore, coverage and adequate reimbursement is critical to new product acceptance. Coverage decisions may depend upon clinical and economic standards that disfavor new products when more established or lower cost therapeutic alternatives are already available or subsequently become available.

We expect to experience pricing pressures in connection with the sale of MET642 or any future product candidate due to the trend toward managed healthcare, the increasing influence of health maintenance organizations, and additional legislative changes. The downward pressure on healthcare costs in general, particularly prescription medicines, medical devices and surgical procedures and other treatments, has become very intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the successful commercialization of new products. Further, the adoption and implementation of any future governmental cost containment or other health reform initiative may result in additional downward pressure on the price that we may receive for any approved product.

Outside of the United States, many countries require approval of the sale price of a product before it can be marketed and the pricing review period only begins after marketing or product licensing approval is granted. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval in some of these countries, we may be required to conduct a clinical trial that compares the cost-effectiveness of MET642 or any future product candidate to other available therapies. In some foreign markets, prescription pharmaceutical pricing remains subject to continuing governmental control even after initial approval is granted. As a result, we might obtain marketing approval for a product candidate in a particular country, but then be subject to price regulations that delay our commercial launch of the product, possibly for lengthy time periods, and negatively impact the revenues, if any, we are able to generate from the sale of the product in that country. Adverse pricing limitations may hinder our ability to recoup our investment in MET642 or any future product candidate, even if such product candidates obtain marketing approval.

We may wish to acquire rights to future assets through in-licensing or may attempt to form collaborations in the future with respect to MET642 or any future product candidate, but may not be able to do so, which may cause us to alter or delay our development and commercialization plans.

The development and potential commercialization of MET642 or any future product candidate will require substantial additional capital to fund expenses. We may, in the future, decide to collaborate with biopharmaceutical companies for the development and potential commercialization of product candidates. We will face significant competition in seeking appropriate collaborators. We may not be successful in our efforts to establish a strategic partnership or other alternative arrangements for our product candidates because they may be deemed to be at too

36

early of a stage of development for collaborative effort and third parties may not view our product candidates as having the requisite potential to demonstrate safety and efficacy. If and when we collaborate with a third party for development and commercialization of a product candidate, we can expect to relinquish some or all of the control over the future success of that product candidate to the third party. Our ability to reach a definitive agreement for a collaboration will depend, among other things, upon our assessment of the collaborator’s resources and expertise, the terms and conditions of the proposed collaboration and the proposed collaborator’s evaluation of a number of factors. Those factors may include the following:

The collaborator may also consider alternative product candidates or technologies for similar indications that may be available to collaborate on and whether such a collaboration could be more attractive than the one with us for our product candidate. We may also be restricted under any license agreements from entering into agreements on certain terms or at all with potential collaborators. Collaborations are complex and time consuming to negotiate and document. In addition, there have been a significant number of recent business combinations among large pharmaceutical companies that have resulted in a reduced number of potential future collaborators and changes to the strategies of the combined company. As a result, we may not be able to negotiate collaborations on a timely basis, on acceptable terms, or at all. If we are unable to do so, we may have to curtail the development of such product candidate, reduce or delay one or more of our other development programs, delay the potential commercialization or reduce the scope of any planned sales or marketing activities for such product candidate, or increase our expenditures and undertake development, manufacturing or commercialization activities at our own expense. If we elect to increase our expenditures to fund development, manufacturing or commercialization activities on our own, we may need to obtain additional capital, which may not be available to us on acceptable terms or at all. If we do not have sufficient funds, we may not be able to further develop MET642 or any future product candidate or bring it to market and generate product revenue. Even if we are successful in our efforts to establish such collaborations, the terms that we agree upon may not be favorable to us, and we may not be able to maintain such collaborations if, for example, development approval of a product candidate is delayed, the safety of a product candidate is questioned or sales of an approved product candidate are unsatisfactory.

Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property

Our commercial success depends on our ability to obtain and maintain sufficient intellectual property protection for MET642 or any future product candidate and other proprietary technologies.

Our commercial success depends in large part on our ability to obtain and maintain patent and other intellectual property protection in the United States and various foreign jurisdictions such as Europe, China, and Japan with respect to MET642 or any future product candidate, proprietary technologies, and their uses, and the manufacture and formulation thereof, that we develop. If we are unable to obtain and maintain patent protection with respect to MET642 or any future product candidate, proprietary technologies, and their uses, our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects could be materially harmed. Given that the development of our product candidates, proprietary technologies, and their uses is at an early stage, our intellectual property portfolio with respect to certain aspects of our product candidates and proprietary technologies is also at an early stage.

We generally seek to protect our proprietary position by filing patent applications in the United States, Europe, China, Japan and other foreign jurisdictions related to our product candidates, proprietary technologies and their uses which are important to our business. Our pending and future patent applications cannot be enforced against third parties practicing the technology claimed in such patent applications unless, and until, patents issue from such patent applications, and then only to the extent the issued claims cover the technology. There can be no assurance that our patent applications will result in patents being issued or that issued patents will afford sufficient protection against competitors with similar technology, nor can there be any assurance that the patents issued will not be infringed, designed around or invalidated by third parties. Even issued patents may later be found invalid or unenforceable or may be modified or revoked in proceedings instituted by third parties before various patent offices or in courts. The degree of future protection for our proprietary rights is uncertain. Only limited protection may be available and may not adequately protect our rights or permit us to gain or keep any competitive advantage. This

37

failure to obtain the intellectual property rights relating to MET642 or any future product candidate could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

The patent application process is subject to numerous risks and uncertainties, and there can be no assurance that we or any of our potential future collaborators will be successful in protecting MET642 or any future product candidate by obtaining and defending patents. Obtaining and enforcing patents is expensive and time consuming, and we may not be able to file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications, or maintain and/or enforce patents that may issue based on our patent applications, at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner, including as a result of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. It is also possible that we will fail to identify patentable aspects of our development results before it is too late to obtain patent protection.

Although we enter into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with parties who have access to patentable aspects of our development output, such as our employees, corporate collaborators, outside scientific collaborators, contract research organizations, contract manufacturers, consultants, independent contractors, advisors and other third parties, any of these parties may breach these agreements and disclose such results before a patent application is filed, thereby jeopardizing our ability to seek adequate patent protection.

If the scope of any patent protection we obtain is not sufficiently broad, or if we lose any of our patent protection, our ability to prevent our competitors from commercializing similar or identical product candidates would be adversely affected.

The patent position of biopharmaceutical companies generally is highly uncertain, involves complex legal and factual questions and has in recent years been the subject of much litigation, resulting in court decisions, including Supreme Court decisions, that have increased uncertainties as to the ability to enforce patent rights in the future. In addition, the laws of foreign countries may not protect our rights to the same extent as the laws of the United States, or vice versa.

Further, we may not be aware of all third-party intellectual property rights potentially relating to our product candidates, or their intended uses, and as a result the potential impact of such third-party intellectual property rights upon the patentability of our own patents and patent applications, as well as the potential impact of such third-party intellectual property upon our freedom to operate, is highly uncertain. Because patent applications are maintained as confidential for a certain period of time (for example, patent applications in the United States and other jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing, or in some cases, not at all), until the relevant patents and patent applications are published, we may be unaware of third-party patents that may be infringed by commercialization of MET642 or any future product candidate, and we cannot be certain that we were the first to file a patent application related to a product candidate or technology. Moreover, because patent applications can take many years to issue, there may be currently pending patent applications that may later result in issued patents that our product candidates may infringe. In addition, identification of third-party patent rights that may be relevant to our technology is difficult because patent searching is imperfect due to differences in terminology among patents, incomplete databases, and the difficulty in assessing the meaning of patent claims. There is also no assurance that there is not prior art of which we are aware, but which we do not believe is relevant to our business, which may, nonetheless, ultimately be found to limit our ability to make, use, sell, offer for sale or import our products that may be approved in the future, or impair our competitive position. In addition, third parties may obtain patents in the future and claim that use of our technologies infringes upon their patents. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our patent rights are highly uncertain.

Our patents or pending patent applications may be challenged in the courts or patent offices in the United States, Europe, China, Japan, and other foreign jurisdictions. For example, we may be subject to a third-party pre-issuance submission of prior art to the USPTO or become involved in post-grant review procedures, derivations, reexaminations, or inter parties review proceedings, in the United States or oppositions or similar proceedings in foreign jurisdictions, challenging our patent rights. The legal threshold for initiating such proceedings may be low, so that even proceedings with a low probability of success might be initiated. An adverse determination in any such challenges may result in loss of exclusivity or in patent claims being narrowed, invalidated, or held unenforceable, in whole or in part, which could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical technology and products, or limit the duration of the patent protection of our technology and products.

Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting such candidates might expire before or shortly after such candidates are commercialized. As a result, our intellectual property may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing products similar or identical to ours.

38

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

As the biopharmaceutical industry expands and more patents are issued, the risk increases that MET642 or any future product candidate may be subject to claims of infringement of the patent rights of third parties. There can be no assurance that our operations do not, or will not in the future, infringe existing or future third-party patents. Identification of third-party patent rights that may be relevant to our operations is difficult because patent searching is imperfect due to differences in terminology among patents, incomplete databases and the difficulty in assessing the meaning of patent claims. We cannot guarantee that any of our patent searches or analyses, including the identification of relevant patents, the scope of patent claims or the expiration of relevant patents, are complete or thorough, nor can we be certain that we have identified each and every third-party patent and pending application in the United States and abroad that is relevant to our operations or necessary for the commercialization of our product candidates in any jurisdiction.

Numerous U.S. and foreign patents and pending patent applications exist in our market that are owned by third parties. Our competitors in both the United States and abroad, many of which have substantially greater resources and have made substantial investments in patent portfolios and competing technologies, may have applied for or obtained or may in the future apply for and obtain, patents that will prevent, limit or otherwise interfere with our ability to make, use and sell our products. We do not always conduct independent reviews of third-party pending patent applications and patents. Patent applications in the United States and elsewhere are typically published approximately 18 months after the earliest filing for which priority is claimed, with such earliest filing date being commonly referred to as the priority date. Certain U.S. applications that will not be filed outside the U.S. can remain confidential until patents issue. In addition, patent applications in the United States and elsewhere can be pending for many years before issuance, or unintentionally abandoned patents or patent applications can be revived. Furthermore, pending patent applications that have been published can, subject to certain limitations, be later amended in a manner that could cover our technologies, our products or the use of our products. As such, there may be third-party pending patent applications or recently revived third-party patents of which we are unaware. These patent applications may later result in issued patents that, or the revival of these previously abandoned patents, will prevent, limit or otherwise interfere with our ability to make, use or sell our products.

The scope of a patent claim is determined by an interpretation of the relevant law, the written disclosure in a patent and the patent’s prosecution history. Our interpretation of the relevance or the scope of a patent claim may be incorrect, which may negatively impact our ability to market our products. We may incorrectly determine that our products are not covered by a third-party patent or may incorrectly predict whether a third party’s pending application will issue with claims of relevant scope. Our determination of the expiration date of any patent in the United States or abroad that we consider relevant may be incorrect, which may negatively impact our ability to develop and market MET642 or any future product candidate. Our failure to identify and correctly interpret relevant patents may negatively impact our ability to develop and market our products.

We cannot provide any assurances that third-party patents do not exist which might be enforced against our current technology, product candidates, their respective methods of use, manufacture and formulations thereof, and could result in either an injunction prohibiting our manufacture or future sales, or, with respect to our future sales, an obligation on our part to pay royalties and/or other forms of compensation to third parties, which could be significant.

We cannot ensure that patent rights relating to inventions described and claimed in our pending patent applications will be issued or that patents based on our patent applications will not be challenged and rendered invalid and/or unenforceable.

We have patent applications and patents in our portfolio relating to our prior research programs and MET642 that are pending at the patent offices in the U.S., Europe, China, Japan, and other foreign jurisdictions. However, we cannot predict:

39

We cannot be certain that the claims in our pending patent applications directed to MET642 or any future product candidate, as well as technologies relating to any future research programs will be considered patentable by the USPTO or by patent offices in foreign countries. One aspect of the determination of patentability of our inventions depends on the scope and content of the “prior art,” information that was or is deemed available to a person of skill in the relevant art prior to the priority date of the claimed invention. There may be prior art of which we are not aware that may affect the patentability of our patent claims or, if issued, affect the validity or enforceability of a patent claim relevant to our business. There is no assurance that there is not prior art of which we are aware, but which we do not believe is relevant to our business, which may, nonetheless, ultimately be found to limit our ability to make, use, sell, offer for sale or import our products that may be approved in the future, or impair our competitive position. Even if the patents do issue based on our patent applications, third parties may challenge the validity, enforceability, or scope thereof, which may result in such patents being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable. Furthermore, even if they are unchallenged, patents in our portfolio may not adequately exclude third parties from practicing relevant technology or prevent others from designing around our claims. If the breadth or strength of our intellectual property position with respect to our product candidates is threatened, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to develop and threaten our ability to commercialize our product candidates. In the event of litigation or administrative proceedings concerning any of our issued patents, we cannot be certain that the claims in any of our issued patents will be considered valid by courts in the United States or foreign countries.

If we are sued for infringing intellectual property rights of third parties, such litigation could be costly and time consuming and could prevent or delay us from developing or commercializing MET642 or any future product candidate.

Our commercial success depends, in part, on our ability to develop, manufacture, market and sell MET642 or any future product candidate without infringing the intellectual property and other proprietary rights of third parties. Third parties may allege that we have infringed or misappropriated their intellectual property. Litigation or other legal proceedings relating to intellectual property claims, with or without merit, is unpredictable and generally expensive and time consuming and, even if resolved in our favor, is likely to divert significant resources from our core business, including distracting our technical and management personnel from their normal responsibilities, and there may be additional delays in such litigation or other legal proceedings due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Such litigation or other legal proceedings could substantially increase our operating losses and reduce the resources available for development activities or any future sales, marketing, or distribution activities. We may not have sufficient financial or other resources to adequately conduct such litigation or other legal proceedings. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of such litigation or other legal proceedings more effectively than we can because of their greater financial resources and more mature and developed intellectual property portfolios. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other legal proceedings could have a material adverse effect on our ability to compete in the marketplace.

There is a substantial amount of intellectual property litigation in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, and we may become party to, or threatened with, litigation or other legal proceedings regarding intellectual property rights with respect to MET642 or any future product candidate. Third parties may assert infringement claims against us based on existing or future intellectual property rights. The pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries have produced a significant number of patents, and it may not always be clear to industry participants, including us, which patents cover various types of products or methods of use. The scope of patent claims is subject to interpretation by the courts, and the interpretation is not always uniform. If we were sued for patent infringement, we would need to demonstrate that our product candidates, or methods of use either do not infringe the patent claims of the relevant patent or that the patent claims are invalid or unenforceable, and we may not be able to do this. Proving invalidity of third-party patent claims may be difficult and uncertain. Even if we are successful in these legal proceedings, we may incur substantial costs and the time and attention of our management and scientific personnel could be diverted in defending our rights in these legal proceedings, which could have a material adverse effect on our business and operations, including as a result of additional delays in such legal proceedings due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, we may not have sufficient resources to bring these actions to a successful conclusion.

If we are found to infringe a third party’s intellectual property rights, we could be forced, including by court order, to cease developing, manufacturing, or commercializing the infringing product candidate or product. Alternatively, we may be required to obtain a license from such third party in order to use the infringing technology and continue developing, manufacturing or marketing the infringing product candidate. However, we may not be able

40

to obtain any required license on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Even if we were able to obtain a license, it could be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors access to the same technologies licensed to us. In addition, we could be found liable for monetary damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees if we are found to have willfully infringed a patent. A finding of infringement could prevent us from commercializing MET642 or any future product candidate or force us to cease some of our business operations, which could materially harm our business. Claims that we have misappropriated the confidential information or trade secrets of third parties could have a similar negative impact on our business.

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

Competitors may infringe our patents, trademarks, copyrights, or other intellectual property that relate to any future research programs and product candidates, their respective methods of use, manufacture and formulations thereof. To counter infringement or unauthorized use, we may be required to file infringement claims, which can be expensive and time consuming and divert the time and attention of our management and scientific personnel. Any claims we assert against perceived infringers could provoke these parties to assert counterclaims against us alleging that we infringe their patents, in addition to counterclaims asserting that our patents are invalid or unenforceable, or both. In any patent infringement proceeding, there is a risk that a court will decide that a patent that we own or have licensed is invalid or unenforceable, in whole or in part, and that we do not have the right to stop the other party from using the invention at issue. There is also a risk that, even if the validity of our patents is upheld, the court will construe the claims of our patents narrowly or decide that we do not have the right to stop the other party from using the invention at issue on the grounds that our patent claims do not cover the invention at issue. An adverse outcome in a litigation or proceeding involving our patents could limit our ability to assert our patents against those parties or other competitors, and may curtail or preclude our ability to exclude third parties from making and selling similar or competitive products. Any of these occurrences could adversely affect our competitive business position, business prospects and financial condition. Similarly, if we assert trademark infringement claims, a court may determine that the marks we have asserted are invalid or unenforceable, or that the party against whom we have asserted trademark infringement has superior rights to the marks in question. In this case, we could ultimately be forced to cease use of such trademarks.

Even if we establish infringement by competitors, a court may decide not to grant an injunction against further infringing activity by competitors and instead award only monetary damages, which may or may not be an adequate remedy. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during litigation. Moreover, we cannot assure you that we will have sufficient financial or other resources to file and pursue such infringement claims, which typically last for years before they are concluded, and there may be additional delays as a result of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Even if we ultimately prevail in such infringement claims, the monetary cost of such litigation and the diversion of the attention of our management and scientific personnel could outweigh any benefit we receive as a result of the proceedings.

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

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

Intellectual property litigation may lead to unfavorable publicity that harms our reputation and causes the market price of our common stock to decline.

During the course of any intellectual property litigation, there could be public announcements of the initiation of the litigation as well as results of hearings, rulings on motions, and other interim proceedings in the litigation. If securities analysts or investors regard these announcements as negative, the perceived value of our existing products, programs or intellectual property could be diminished. Accordingly, the market price of shares of our common stock may decline. Such announcements could also harm our reputation or the market for our future products, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

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

Patents are of national or regional effect, and although we have one issued United States patent for our sole product candidate MET642 and pending patent applications in the United States, Europe, China, Japan and other foreign jurisdictions for MET642, filing, prosecuting and defending patents on any future research programs and

41

product candidates in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and our intellectual property rights in some countries outside the United States can be less extensive than those in the United States. In addition, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as federal and state laws in the United States. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in all countries outside the United States or from selling or importing products made using our inventions in and into the United States or other jurisdictions. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to develop their own products and, further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we have patent protection, but where enforcement is not as strong as that in the United States. These competitor products may compete with our product candidates, and our patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing.

Various companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of many countries do not favor the enforcement of patents and other intellectual property protection, particularly those relating to pharmaceuticals, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patents or marketing of competing products in violation of our proprietary intellectual property rights.

Various countries outside the United States have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner may be compelled to grant licenses to third parties. In addition, many countries limit the enforceability of patents against government agencies or government contractors. As a result, a patent owner may have limited remedies in certain circumstances, which could materially diminish the value of such patent. If we are forced to grant a license to third parties with respect to any patents relevant to our business, our competitive position may be impaired, and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects may be adversely affected. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce our intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop or license.

Further, the standards applied by the USPTO and foreign patent offices in granting patents are not always applied uniformly or predictably. As such, we do not know the degree of future protection that we will have on our technologies, products and product candidates. While we will endeavor to try to protect our technologies, products and product candidates with intellectual property rights such as patents, as appropriate, the process of obtaining patents is time consuming, expensive and unpredictable.

Geo-political actions in the United States and in foreign countries could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution or maintenance of our patent applications or those of any current or future licensors and the maintenance, enforcement or defense of our issued patents or those of any current or future licensors. For example, the United States and foreign government actions related to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine may limit or prevent filing, prosecution and maintenance of patent applications in Russia. Government actions may also prevent maintenance of issued patents in Russia. These actions could result in abandonment or lapse of our patents or patent applications, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in Russia. If such an event were to occur, it could have a material adverse effect on our business. In addition, a decree was adopted by the Russian government in March 2022, allowing Russian companies and individuals to exploit inventions owned by patentees from that have citizenship or nationality in, are registered in, or have predominately primary place of business or profit-making activities in the United States and other countries that Russia has deemed unfriendly without consent or compensation. Consequently, we would not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in Russia or from selling or importing products made using our inventions in and into Russia.  Accordingly, our competitive position may be impaired, and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects may be adversely affected.

Recent patent reform legislation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents.

On September 16, 2011, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (the “Leahy-Smith Act”) was signed into law in the United States. The Leahy-Smith Act includes a number of significant changes to U.S. patent law. These include provisions that affect the way patent applications will be prosecuted and may also affect patent litigation. In particular, under the Leahy-Smith Act, the United States transitioned in March 2013 to a “first inventor to file” system in which, assuming that other requirements of patentability are met, the first inventor to file a patent application will be entitled to the patent regardless of whether a third party was first to invent the claimed invention. A third party that files a patent application in the USPTO after March 2013 but before us could therefore be awarded a patent covering an invention of ours even if we had made the invention before it was made by such third party. This will require us to be cognizant going forward of the time from invention to filing of a patent application, including with respect to any delays due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, our ability to obtain and maintain valid and enforceable patents depends on whether the differences between our technology and the prior art allow our technology to be patented over the prior art. Since patent applications in the United States and most other countries are confidential for

42

a period of time after filing or until issuance, we cannot be certain that we were the first to either file any patent application related to our product candidates or invent any of the inventions claimed in our patents or patent applications.

The Leahy-Smith Act also includes a number of significant changes that affect the way patent applications will be prosecuted and also may affect patent litigation. These include allowing third-party submission of prior art to the USPTO during patent prosecution and additional procedures to attack the validity of a patent with the use of USPTO administered post-grant proceedings, including post-grant review, inter partes review, and derivation proceedings. An adverse determination in any such submission or proceeding could reduce the scope or enforceability of, or invalidate, our patent rights, which could adversely affect our competitive position. Because of a lower evidentiary standard in USPTO proceedings compared to the evidentiary standard in United States federal courts necessary to invalidate a patent claim, a third party could potentially provide evidence in a USPTO proceeding sufficient for the USPTO to hold a claim invalid even though the same evidence would be insufficient to invalidate the claim if first presented in a United States district court action. Accordingly, a third party may attempt to use the USPTO procedures to invalidate our patent claims that would not have been invalidated if first challenged by the third party as a defendant in a United States district court action. Thus, the Leahy-Smith Act and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Changes in patent law in the United States and other jurisdictions could diminish the value of patents in general, thereby impairing our ability to protect MET642 or any future product candidate.

As is the case with other biopharmaceutical companies, our success is heavily dependent on intellectual property, particularly patents relating to any future research programs and MET642 or any future product candidate. Obtaining and enforcing patents in the biopharmaceutical industry involves both technological and legal complexity and is therefore costly, time consuming and inherently uncertain. Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of the patent laws, rules and regulations in the United States and other countries could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of patent applications and the enforcement or defense of issued patents. We cannot predict the breadth of claims that may be issued or enforced in our patents or in third-party patents. In addition, the U.S. Congress or foreign legislative bodies may pass patent reform legislation that is unfavorable to us.

Depending on decisions by the U.S. Congress, the U.S. federal courts, the USPTO, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that could weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce our existing patents or patents we might obtain in the future. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on several patent cases in recent years, either narrowing the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances or weakening the rights of patent owners in certain situations. In addition to increasing uncertainty with regard to our ability to obtain patents in the future, this combination of events has created uncertainty with respect to the value of patents, once obtained.

Depending on future actions by the U.S. Congress, the U.S. federal courts, the USPTO, or similar authorities in foreign jurisdictions, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that could weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce our existing patents and patents that we might obtain in the future.

Obtaining and maintaining patent protection depends on compliance with various procedural requirements, document submissions, fee payments and other requirements imposed by governmental patent agencies, and our patent protection could be reduced or eliminated for non-compliance with these requirements.

Periodic maintenance fees, renewal fees, annuity fees and various other governmental fees on patents and/or patent applications will be required to be paid to the USPTO and various foreign patent agencies at various stages over the lifetime of our patents and/or patent applications. We have systems in place to remind us to pay these fees, and we rely on our outside patent annuity service to pay these fees when due. In addition, the USPTO and various foreign governmental patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar provisions during the patent application process. We employ reputable law firms and other professionals to help us comply with these provisions. In many cases, an inadvertent lapse can be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules. However, there are situations in which noncompliance (including as a result of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic) can result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction, including as a result of failure to respond to official actions within prescribed time limits, non-payment of fees and failure to properly legalize and submit formal documents. If such an event were to occur, including with respect to the patents and patent applications covering any future research programs and product candidates, as well as their respective methods of use, manufacture and formulations thereof, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, as for example, competitors might be able to enter the market earlier than would otherwise have been the case.

43

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

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

Patent terms may be inadequate to protect our competitive position on MET642 or any future product candidate for an adequate amount of time.

Patents have a limited lifespan. In the United States, if all maintenance fees are timely paid, the natural expiration of a patent is generally 20 years from its earliest U.S. non-provisional filing date. Various extensions may be available, but the life of a patent, and the protection it affords, is limited. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting such product candidates might expire before or shortly after such product candidates are commercialized. Even if patents covering MET642 or any future product candidate are obtained, once the patent life has expired for a product, we may be open to competition from generic products. As a result, our patent portfolio may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing products similar or identical to ours.

If we do not obtain patent term extension for MET642 or any future product candidate, our commercial success may be materially harmed.

A patent term extension based on regulatory delay may be available in the United States. Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of FDA marketing approval of MET642 or any future product candidate, one or more of our U.S. patents may be eligible for limited patent term restoration under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (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, only a single patent can be extended for each FDA approved product as compensation for the patent term lost during the FDA regulatory review process, and any patent can be extended only once, for a single product. A patent term extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval and only those claims covering such approved drug product, a method for using it or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. Moreover, the scope of protection during the period of the patent term extension does not extend to the full scope of the claim, but instead only to the scope of the product as approved. Patent term extension may also be available in certain foreign countries upon regulatory approval of our product candidates. Laws governing analogous patent term extensions in foreign jurisdictions vary widely, as do laws governing the ability to obtain multiple patents from a single patent family. Additionally, we may not receive an extension if we fail to apply within applicable deadlines, fail to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents or otherwise fail to satisfy applicable requirements. Moreover, the applicable time period or the scope of patent protection afforded could be less than we request. If we are unable to obtain patent term extension or restoration, or the term of any such extension is less than we request, the period during which we will have the right to exclusively market our product will be shortened and our competitors may obtain approval of competing products following our patent expiration, and our revenue could be reduced, possibly materially. Further, if this occurs, our competitors may take advantage of our investment in development and clinical trials by referencing our clinical and preclinical data and launch their product earlier than might otherwise be the case.

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

We have registered trademarks with the appropriate agencies in the United States, Europe, and China. Our future trademarks or trade names may be challenged, infringed, circumvented or declared generic or descriptive determined to be infringing on other marks. We may not be able to protect our rights to these trademarks and trade names or may be forced to stop using these names, which we need for name recognition by potential partners or customers in our markets of interest. During trademark registration proceedings, we may receive rejections. Although

44

we would be given an opportunity to respond to those rejections, we may be unable to overcome such rejections. In addition, in the USPTO and in comparable agencies in many foreign jurisdictions, third parties are given an opportunity to oppose pending trademark applications and to seek to cancel registered trademarks. Opposition or cancellation proceedings may be filed against our trademarks, and our trademarks may not survive such proceedings. If we are unable to establish name recognition based on our trademarks and trade names, we may not be able to compete effectively, and our business may be adversely affected. We may license our trademarks and trade names to third parties, such as distributors. Though these license agreements may provide guidelines for how our trademarks and trade names may be used, a breach of these agreements or misuse of our trademarks and tradenames by our licensees may jeopardize our rights in or diminish the goodwill associated with our trademarks and trade names.

Moreover, any name we have proposed to use with MET642 or any future product candidate in the United States must be approved by the FDA, regardless of whether we have registered it, or applied to register it, as a trademark. Similar requirements exist in Europe. The FDA typically conducts a review of proposed product names, including an evaluation of potential for confusion with other product names. If the FDA (or an equivalent administrative body in a foreign jurisdiction) objects to any of our proposed proprietary product names, it may be required to expend significant additional resources in an effort to identify a suitable substitute name that would qualify under applicable trademark laws, not infringe the existing rights of third parties and be acceptable to the FDA. Furthermore, in many countries, owning and maintaining a trademark registration may not provide an adequate defense against a subsequent infringement claim asserted by the owner of a senior trademark. At times, competitors or other third parties may adopt trade names or trademarks similar to ours, thereby impeding our ability to build brand identity and possibly leading to market confusion. In addition, there could be potential trade name or trademark infringement claims brought by owners of other registered trademarks or trademarks that incorporate variations of our registered or unregistered trademarks or trade names. If we assert trademark infringement claims, a court may determine that the marks we have asserted are invalid or unenforceable, or that the party against whom we have asserted trademark infringement has superior rights to the marks in question. In this case, we could ultimately be forced to cease use of such trademarks.

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

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

45

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

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

In addition to seeking patent protection for some of our technology and MET642 or any future product candidate, we also rely on trade secrets, including unpatented know-how, technology and other proprietary information, to maintain our competitive position. Elements of our product candidates, including processes for their preparation and manufacture, may involve proprietary know-how, information, or technology that is not covered by patents, and thus for these aspects we may consider trade secrets and know-how to be our primary intellectual property. Any disclosure, either intentional or unintentional, by our employees, the employees of third parties with whom we share our facilities or third-party consultants and vendors that we engage to perform research, clinical trials or manufacturing activities, or misappropriation by third parties (such as through a cybersecurity breach) of our trade secrets or proprietary information could enable competitors to duplicate or surpass our technological achievements, thus eroding our competitive position in our market.

Trade secrets and unpatented know-how can be difficult to trace, protect and enforce. We require our employees to enter into written employment agreements containing provisions of confidentiality and obligations to assign to us any inventions generated in the course of their employment. We and any third parties with whom we share facilities enter into written agreements that include confidentiality and intellectual property obligations to protect each party’s property, potential trade secrets, proprietary know-how and information. We further seek to protect our potential trade secrets, proprietary know-how and information in part, by entering into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with parties who are given access to them, such as our corporate collaborators, outside scientific collaborators, contract research organizations, contract manufacturers, consultants, advisors and other third parties. With our consultants, contractors and outside scientific collaborators, these agreements typically include invention assignment obligations. Although we have taken steps to protect our trade secrets and unpatented know-how, we cannot provide any assurances that all such agreements have been duly executed, and any of these parties may breach the agreements and disclose our proprietary information, including our trade secrets and unpatented know-how, and we may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for such breaches. Monitoring unauthorized uses and disclosures is difficult, and we do not know whether the steps we have taken to protect our proprietary technologies will be effective. Unauthorized parties may also attempt to copy or reverse engineer certain aspects of our products that we consider proprietary. Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret is difficult, expensive and time consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, some courts inside and outside the United States are less willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets.

Trade secrets may be independently developed by others in a manner that could prevent legal recourse by us. Trade secrets will over time be disseminated within the industry through independent development, the publication of journal articles and the movement of skilled personnel from company to company or academic to industry scientific positions. Though our agreements with third parties typically restrict the ability of our advisors, employees, collaborators, licensors, suppliers, third-party contractors and consultants to publish data potentially relating to our trade secrets, our agreements may contain certain limited publication rights. Because from time to time we expect to rely on third parties in the development, manufacture and distribution of our products and provision of our services, we must, at times, share trade secrets with them. Despite employing the contractual and other security precautions described above, the need to share trade secrets increases the risk that such trade secrets become known by our competitors, are inadvertently incorporated into the technology of others, or are disclosed or used in violation of these agreements. If any of our trade secrets were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor or other third party, we would have no right to prevent them from using that technology or information to compete with us. If any of our trade secrets were to be disclosed to or independently developed by a competitor or other third party, our competitive position would be harmed.

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

We employ individuals who previously worked with other companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. We could in the future be subject to claims that we or our employees, consultants, or independent contractors have inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed alleged trade secrets or other confidential information of current or former employers or competitors. Although we try to ensure that our employees, consultants and independent contractors do not use the intellectual property, proprietary information, know-how or trade secrets of others in their work for us, we may become subject to claims that we caused an individual to breach the terms of his or her non-competition or non-solicitation agreement, or that we or these individuals have, inadvertently or otherwise,

46

used or disclosed the alleged intellectual property, proprietary information, know-how or trade secrets of a current or former employer or competitor.

While we may litigate to defend ourselves against these claims, even if we are successful, litigation could result in substantial costs and could be a distraction to management and other employees. If our defenses to these claims fail, in addition to requiring us to pay monetary damages, a court could prohibit us from using technologies that are essential to MET642 or any future product candidate, if such technologies are found to incorporate or be derived from the trade secrets or other proprietary information of the current or former employers. Moreover, any such litigation or the threat thereof may adversely affect our reputation, our ability to form strategic alliances or sublicense our rights to collaborators, engage with scientific advisors or hire employees or consultants, each of which would have an adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

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

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

Although these agreements typically restrict the ability of our advisors, employees, third-party contractors and consultants to publish data potentially relating to our trade secrets, our agreements may contain certain limited publication rights. For example, any academic institution that we may collaborate with will likely expect to be granted rights to publish data arising out of such collaboration, and any joint research and development programs may require us to share trade secrets under the terms of our research and development or similar agreements. Despite our efforts to protect our trade secrets, our competitors may discover our trade secrets, either through breach of our agreements with third parties, independent development or publication of information by any of our third-party collaborators. A competitor’s discovery of our trade secrets would impair our competitive position and have an adverse impact on our business.

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

From time to time, we may be required to license technologies relating to any future therapeutic research programs from additional third parties to further develop or commercialize MET642 or any future product candidate. Should we be required to obtain licenses to any third-party technology, including any such patents required to manufacture, use or sell our product candidates, such licenses may not be available to us on commercially reasonable terms, or at all. The inability to obtain any third-party license required to develop or commercialize any of our product candidates could cause us to abandon any related efforts, which could seriously harm our business and operations.

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

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

47

Risks Related to Employee Matters and Managing Growth and Other Risks Related to Our Business

We are highly dependent on our key personnel, and if we are not able to retain these members of our management team or recruit and retain additional management and clinical personnel, our business will be harmed.

We are highly dependent on the services of our key personnel, including Preston Klassen, M.D., who serves as our President and Chief Executive Officer. Our key personnel may terminate their employment with us at any time.  The loss of the services of our key personnel could harm our ability to successfully implement our business strategy.  Replacing key personnel may be difficult and may take an extended period of time because of the limited number of individuals in the highly competitive biopharmaceutical industry.

In addition, our industry has experienced a high rate of turnover in recent years. Our ability to compete in the highly competitive biopharmaceutical industry depends upon our ability to attract, retain and motivate highly skilled and experienced personnel with medical, regulatory, manufacturing and management skills and experience. We conduct our operations in the greater San Diego area, a region that is home to many other biopharmaceutical companies as well as many academic and research institutions, resulting in fierce competition for qualified personnel. We may not be able to attract or retain qualified personnel in the future due to the intense competition for a limited number of qualified personnel among biopharmaceutical companies. Many of the other biopharmaceutical companies against which we compete have greater financial and other resources, different risk profiles and a longer history in the industry than we do. Our competitors may provide higher compensation, more diverse opportunities and/or better opportunities for career advancement. Any or all of these competing factors may limit our ability to continue to attract and retain high quality personnel, which could negatively affect our ability to successfully develop and commercialize MET642 or any future product candidate and to grow our business and operations as currently contemplated.

We expect to expand our development, regulatory and operational capabilities as we advance our development programs and, as a result, we may encounter difficulties in managing our growth, which could disrupt our operations.

As of December 31, 2021, we had 32 full-time employees.  After a reduction in force implemented in February 2022 as part of our corporate restructuring plan, the number of employees dropped to 17. As we advance our development programs, we expect to experience some growth in the number of our employees and the scope of our operations, particularly in the areas of clinical development, quality, regulatory affairs and, if MET642 or any future product candidate receives marketing approval, sales, marketing and distribution. To manage our anticipated future growth, we must:

Our future financial performance and our ability to develop, manufacture and commercialize our product candidates will depend, in part, on our ability to effectively manage any future growth, and our management may also

48

have to divert financial and other resources, and a disproportionate amount of its attention away from day-to-day activities in order to devote a substantial amount of time, to managing these growth activities.

We currently rely, and for the foreseeable future will continue to rely, in substantial part on certain third-party contract organizations, advisors and consultants to provide certain services, including assuming substantial responsibilities for the conduct of our clinical trials and the manufacture of our product candidates. We cannot assure you that the services of such third-party contract organizations, advisors and consultants will continue to be available to us on a timely basis when needed, or that we can find qualified replacements. In addition, if we are unable to effectively manage our outsourced activities or if the quality or accuracy of the services provided by our vendors or consultants is compromised for any reason, our clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated, and we may not be able to obtain marketing approval of our product candidates or otherwise advance our business. We cannot assure you that we will be able to properly manage our existing vendors or consultants or find other competent outside vendors and consultants on economically reasonable terms, or at all.

If we are not able to effectively expand our organization by hiring new employees and expanding our groups of consultants and contractors, we may not be able to successfully implement the tasks necessary to further develop and commercialize MET642 or any future product candidate and, accordingly, may not achieve our development and commercialization goals.

Our employees, clinical trial investigators, CROs, consultants, vendors and any potential commercial partners may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including non-compliance with regulatory standards and requirements and insider trading.

We are exposed to the risk of fraud or other misconduct by our employees, clinical trial investigators, CROs, consultants, vendors and any potential commercial partners. Misconduct by these parties could include intentional, reckless and/or negligent conduct or disclosure of unauthorized activities to us that violates: (i) U.S. laws and regulations or those of foreign jurisdictions, including those laws that require the reporting of true, complete and accurate information, (ii) manufacturing standards, (iii) federal and state health and data privacy, security, fraud and abuse, government price reporting, transparency reporting requirements, and other healthcare laws and regulations in the United States and abroad or (iv) laws that require the true, complete and accurate reporting of financial information or data. Such misconduct could also involve the improper use of information obtained in the course of clinical trials, which could result in regulatory sanctions and cause serious harm to our reputation. We have adopted a code of conduct applicable to all of our employees, as well as a disclosure program and other applicable policies and procedures, but it is not always possible to identify and deter employee misconduct, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to comply with these laws or regulations. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business, including the imposition of significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, individual imprisonment, exclusion from government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare, Medicaid and other federal healthcare programs, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, additional integrity reporting and oversight obligations, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations.

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

Our future profitability may depend, in part, on our ability to commercialize MET642 or any future product candidate in foreign markets for which we may rely on collaboration with third parties. We are not permitted to market or promote any of our product candidates before we receive marketing approval from the applicable regulatory authority in that foreign market, and we may never receive such marketing approval for any of our product candidates. To obtain marketing approval in many foreign countries, we must comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of such countries regarding safety and efficacy and governing, among other things, clinical trials and commercial sales, pricing and distribution of our product candidates, and we cannot predict success in these jurisdictions. If we obtain approval of our product candidates and ultimately commercialize our product candidates in foreign markets, we would be subject to additional risks and uncertainties, including:

49

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

Our internal information technology systems, or those of our third-party CROs, contractors, consultants or others who process sensitive information on our behalf, may fail or suffer actual or perceived security breaches, loss or leakage of data and other compromises, any of which could result in a material disruption of our product candidates’ development programs, compromise sensitive information related to our business or prevent us from accessing such information, expose us to liability or otherwise adversely affect our business.

We are increasingly dependent upon information technology systems, infrastructure and data to operate our business. In the ordinary course of business, we may collect, store, transmit, or otherwise process information (including but not limited to intellectual property, proprietary business information and personal data of employees, clinical trial participants and others). It is critical that we do so in a secure manner to maintain the confidentiality, integrity and availability of such information. We also have outsourced certain of our operations to third parties, and as a result we manage a number of third parties who have access to our information.

Given our (and that of our third-party CROs, contractors, consultants or others who process sensitive information on our behalf) information technology systems’ size and complexity and the increasing amounts of information that they maintain, these systems are potentially vulnerable to breakdown, damage or disruptions caused by several potential sources, such as corruption, system malfunction, natural disasters, public health epidemics (such as the COVID-19 pandemic), terrorism, war or military conflicts (such as the conflict between Russia and Ukraine), telecommunication and electrical failures, fraudulent activity, cyber-attacks by sophisticated nation-state and nation-state supported actors, as well as security breaches from inadvertent or intentional actions (such as theft or error) by our employees, contractors, consultants, business partners, and/or other third parties, or from cyber-attacks by malicious third parties (including the deployment of harmful malware (such as malicious code, viruses and worms), phishing attacks, supply chain attacks, denial-of-service attacks, social engineering schemes and other means that affect service reliability and threaten the confidentiality, integrity and availability of information), which may compromise our system infrastructure as well as lead to unauthorized access, disclosure or acquisition of information. Similarly, ransomware attacks, including those perpetrated by organized criminal actors, nation-states, and nation-state-supported actors, are becoming increasingly prevalent and severe, and can lead to significant interruptions in our operations, loss of data and income, reputational harm, and diversion of funds. Extortion payments may alleviate the negative impacts of a ransomware attack, but we may be unwilling or unable to make such payments due to, for example, applicable laws or regulations prohibiting such payments. The techniques used to sabotage or to obtain unauthorized access to our information technology systems or those upon whom we rely to process our information change frequently, and we have not always been able in the past and may be unable in the future to anticipate such techniques or implement adequate preventative measures or to stop security breaches in all instances. The recovery systems, security protocols, network protection mechanisms and other security measures that we have integrated into our information technology systems, which are designed to protect against, detect and minimize security breaches, may not be adequate to prevent or detect service interruption, system failure or data loss. Third parties may also attempt to and successfully exploit vulnerabilities in, or obtain unauthorized access to, platforms, systems, networks and/or physical facilities utilized by us or our third-party CROs, contractors, consultants or others upon whom we rely. To the extent that any disruption or security breach were to result in a loss of, or damage to, our data or applications, and/or inappropriate disclosure of, inappropriate access to information, or other compromise, we could incur liability and reputational damage and the further development and commercialization of MET642 or any future product candidates could be delayed.

We cannot assure you that our data protection efforts and our investment in information technology will prevent significant breakdowns, data leakages, breaches in our systems or other cyber incidents that could have a material adverse effect upon our reputation, business, operations or financial condition. For example, if such an event were to occur and cause interruptions in our operations, it could result in a material disruption of our programs and the development of MET642 or any future product candidate could be delayed. In addition, the loss of clinical trial data for our product candidates could result in delays in our regulatory approval efforts and significantly increase our

50

costs to recover or reproduce the data. Furthermore, significant disruptions of our or our vendors’ information technology systems or security breaches could result in the loss, misappropriation and/or unauthorized access, use, or disclosure of, or the prevention of access to, information (including trade secrets or other intellectual property, proprietary business information and personal data), which could result in financial, legal, business and reputational harm to us.

Failure to prevent or mitigate cyberattacks could lead to negative publicity, may cause our collaborators or other relevant stakeholders to lose confidence in the effectiveness of our security measures and require us to expend significant capital and other resources to respond to and/or alleviate problems caused by the actual or perceived security breach. In addition, the costs to respond to a cybersecurity event or to mitigate any identified security vulnerabilities could be significant, including costs for remediating the effects of such an event, paying a ransom, restoring data from backups, and conducting data analysis to determine what data may have been affected by the breach. In addition, our efforts to contain or remediate a security breach or any vulnerability exploited to cause a breach may be unsuccessful, and efforts and any related failures to contain or remediate them could result in interruptions, delays, harm to our reputation, and increases to our insurance coverage.

In addition, litigation resulting from security breaches may adversely affect our business. Unauthorized access to our information technology systems could result in litigation with our collaborators, our clinical trial participants, or other relevant stakeholders. These proceedings could force us to spend money in defense or settlement, divert management’s time and attention, increase our costs of doing business, or adversely affect our reputation. We could be required to fundamentally change our business activities and practices in response to such litigation, which could have an adverse effect on our business. If a security breach were to occur and the confidentiality, integrity or availability of our data or the data of our collaborators were disrupted, we could incur significant liability, which could negatively affect our business and damage our reputation.

Further, failures or significant downtime of our information technology or telecommunication systems or those used by our third-party service providers could cause significant interruptions in our operations and adversely impact the confidentiality, integrity and availability of sensitive or confidential information, including preventing us from conducting clinical trials, tests or development activities and preventing us from managing the administrative aspects of our business.

We may not have adequate insurance coverage.

We may not have adequate insurance coverage or otherwise protect us from, or adequately mitigate, liabilities or damages. The successful assertion of one or more large claims against us that exceeds our available insurance coverage, or results in changes to our insurance policies (including premium increases or the imposition of large deductible or co-insurance requirements), could have an adverse effect on our business. In addition, we cannot be sure that our existing insurance coverage and coverage for errors and omissions will continue to be available on acceptable terms or that our insurers will not deny coverage as to any future claim.

We are subject to stringent and changing privacy and information security laws, regulations, standards, policies and contractual obligations related to data privacy and security. Our actual or perceived failure to comply with such obligations could lead to government enforcement actions, a disruption of our clinical trials or commercialization of our products, private litigation, changes to our business practices, increased costs of operations, adverse publicity, an increase the costs of our products, limitations on the use or adoption of our products, and other negative affects on our operating results and business.

Regulation of data (including personal data) is evolving, as federal, state, and foreign governments continue to adopt new, or modify existing, laws and regulations, or Privacy Regulations, addressing data privacy and security, and the collection, processing, storage, transfer, and use of data. These new or proposed laws and regulations are subject to differing interpretations and may be inconsistent among jurisdictions, and guidance on implementation and compliance practices are often updated or otherwise revised, which adds to the complexity of processing personal data. Moreover, we are subject to the terms of our privacy and security policies, representations, certifications, standards, publications, contracts and other obligations to third parties related to data privacy, security and processing. These and other requirements could require us or our collaborators to incur additional costs to achieve compliance, limit our competitiveness, necessitate the acceptance of more onerous obligations in our contracts, restrict our ability to use, store, transfer, and process data, impact our or our collaborators’ ability to process or use data in order to support the provision of our products, affect our or our collaborators’ ability to offer our products in certain locations, cause regulators to reject, limit or disrupt our clinical trial activities, result in increased expenses, reduce overall demand for our products, and make it more difficult to meet expectations of relevant stakeholders.

We and any potential collaborators may be subject to Privacy Regulations including, without limitation, laws that regulate personal data such as health data. For example, in the United States, numerous federal and state laws and regulations, including federal health information privacy laws, state personal information laws (e.g., the California

51

Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, or CCPA), state data breach notification laws, state health information privacy laws and federal and state consumer protection laws and regulations (e.g., Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act), govern the collection, use, disclosure and protection of health-related and other personal data. These laws and regulations could apply to our operations, the operations of our collaborators, or other relevant stakeholders upon whom we depend. In addition, we may obtain personal data (including health information) from third parties (including research institutions from which we obtain clinical trial data) that are subject to privacy and security requirements under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, or HITECH. Depending on the facts and circumstances, we could be subject to significant penalties if we violate HIPAA. Additionally, we could be subject to criminal penalties if we knowingly obtain, use, or disclose individually identifiable health information maintained by a HIPAA-covered entity in a manner that is not authorized or permitted by HIPAA.

In addition, the CCPA became effective on January 1, 2020. The CCPA gives California residents expanded rights to access and delete their personal data, opt out of certain personal data sharing and receive detailed information about how their personal data is used. The CCPA requires covered businesses to provide new disclosures to California residents. The CCPA provides for civil penalties for violations (up to $7,500 per violation), as well as a private right of action for data breaches that is expected to increase data breach litigation. Although there are limited exemptions for clinical trial data and the CCPA’s implementation standards and enforcement practices are likely to remain uncertain for the foreseeable future, the CCPA may increase our compliance costs and potential liability. It is anticipated that the CCPA will be expanded on January 1, 2023, when the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020, or CPRA, becomes operative. The CPRA will, among other things, give California residents the ability to limit use of certain sensitive information, establish restrictions on the retention of personal data, expand the types of data breaches subject to the CCPA’s private right of action and establish a new California Privacy Protection Agency to implement and enforce the new law. In addition, other states have enacted or proposed data privacy laws. For example, Virginia recently passed its Consumer Data Protection Act and Colorado recently passed the Colorado Privacy Act, both of which differ from the CPRA and go into effect in 2023. These laws demonstrate our vulnerability to the evolving regulatory environment related to personal data. As we expand our operations, these and similar laws may increase our compliance costs and potential liability.

Foreign data protection laws, such as, without limitation, the European Union’s, or EU, General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR, and EU member state implementing legislation, may also apply to health-related and other personal data that we process, including, without limitation, personal data relating to clinical trial participants. European data protection laws impose strict obligations on the processing of health-related and other personal data of European data subjects, including in relation to security (which requires the adoption of administrative, physical and technical safeguards designed to protect such information), collection, use and transfer or personal data. European data protection laws may affect our use, collection, analysis, and transfer (including cross-border transfer) of such personal data. These include, without limitation, several requirements relating to transparency related to communications with data subjects regarding the processing of their personal data, obtaining the consent of the individuals to whom the personal data relates, limitations on the retention of personal data, increased requirements pertaining to health data, establishing a legal basis for processing, notification of data processing obligations or security incidents to the competent national data protection authorities and/or data subjects, the security and confidentiality of the personal data, various rights that data subjects may exercise with respect to their personal data, and strict rules and restrictions on the transfer of personal data outside of Europe (including from the European Economic Area, or EEA), Switzerland and United Kingdom, or UK.

European data protection laws prohibit, without an appropriate legal basis, the transfer of personal data to countries outside of Europe, such as to the United States, which are not considered able to provide an adequate level of data protection. A decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union, or the “Schrems II” ruling, invalidated the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework, and raised questions about whether the European Commission’s Standard Contractual Clauses, or SCCs, one of the primary alternatives to the Privacy Shield, can lawfully be used for personal data transfers from Europe to the United States or most other countries. Similarly, the Swiss Federal Data Protection and Information Commissioner opined that the Swiss-U.S. Privacy Shield is inadequate for transfers of personal data from Switzerland to the U.S. The UK, whose data protection laws are similar to those of the EU, has similarly determined that the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield is not a valid mechanism for lawfully transferring personal data from the UK to the United States. Use of the SCCs must now be assessed on a case-by-case basis taking into account the legal regime applicable in the destination country, in particular, applicable surveillance laws and rights of individuals and additional measures and/or contractual provisions may need to be put in place. However, the nature of these additional measures is currently uncertain. Additionally, the European Commission adopted new SCCs that require us to update our contracts that involve the transfer of personal data outside of the EEA to the new SCCs. As supervisory authorities issue further guidance on personal data export mechanisms, including on the new SCCs, and/or start taking enforcement action, our compliance costs could increase, we may be subject to complaints and/or regulatory investigations or fines, and/or if we are otherwise unable to transfer personal data between and among countries and regions in which we conduct clinical trials, this could negatively impact our business.

52

Further, the UK’s decision to leave the EU, often referred to as Brexit, and ongoing developments in the UK have created uncertainty regarding data protection regulation in the UK. Following December 31, 2020, and the expiry of transitional arrangements between the UK and EU, the data protection obligations of the GDPR continue to apply to UK-related Processing of personal data in substantially unvaried form under the so-called ‘UK GDPR’ (i.e., the GDPR as it continues to form part of UK law by virtue of section 3 of the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018, as amended). However, going forward, there is increasing risk for divergence in application, interpretation and enforcement of the data protection laws as between the UK and EEA. Furthermore, the relationship between the UK and the EEA in relation to certain aspects of data protection law remains uncertain, including with respect to regulation of data transfers between EU member states and the UK. On June 28, 2021, the European Commission issued an adequacy decision under the GDPR which allows transfers (other than those carried out for the purposes of United Kingdom immigration control) of personal data from the EEA to the UK to continue without restriction for a period of four years ending June 27, 2025. After that period, the adequacy decision may be renewed, but, only if the UK continues to ensure an adequate level of data protection. During these four years, the European Commission will continue to monitor the legal situation in the UK and could intervene at any point if the UK deviates from the level of data protection in place at the time of issuance of the adequacy decision. If the adequacy decision is withdrawn or not renewed, transfers of personal data from the EEA to the UK will require a valid ‘transfer mechanism’ and we may be required to implement new processes and put new agreements in place, such as SCCs, to enable transfers of personal data from the EEA to the UK to continue, which could disrupt our operations.

The increase of foreign privacy and security legal frameworks with which we must comply, increases our compliance burdens and exposure to substantial fines and penalties for non-compliance. For example, under the GDPR, entities that violate the GDPR can face fines of up to the greater of 20 million Euros or 4% of their worldwide annual turnover (revenue). Additionally, regulators could prohibit our use of personal data subject to the GDPR. The GDPR has increased our responsibility and potential liability in relation to personal data that we process, requiring us to put in place additional mechanisms to comply with the GDPR and other foreign data protection requirements.

We publish privacy policies and other documentation regarding our collection, processing, use and disclosure of personal data, and/or other confidential information. Although we endeavor to comply with our published policies and documentation, we may at times actually fail to do so or may be perceived to have failed to do so. Moreover, despite our efforts, we may not be successful in achieving compliance if our employees or contractors fail to comply with our published policies and documentation. Such failures can subject us to potential foreign, local, state and federal action if they are found to be deceptive, unfair, or misrepresentative of our actual practices.

Compliance with U.S. federal and state as well as foreign data protection laws and regulations could require us to take on more onerous obligations in our contracts, restrict our ability to collect, use and disclose data, or in some cases, impact our ability to operate in certain jurisdictions. Failure, or perceived failure, to comply with federal, state, and foreign data protection laws and regulations could result in government enforcement actions (which could include civil or criminal penalties, fines or penalties), private litigation, a diversion of management attention, adverse publicity and negative effects on our operating results and business. There can be no assurance that the limitations of liability in our contracts would be enforceable or adequate or would otherwise protect us from liabilities or damages if we fail to comply with applicable data protection laws, privacy policies or data protection obligations related to information security or security breaches. We also cannot be sure that our insurance coverage will be adequate or sufficient to protect us from or to mitigate liabilities arising out of our privacy and security practices, that such coverage will continue to be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all, or that such coverage will pay future claims.

Moreover, clinical trial participants or subjects about whom we or our collaborators obtain information, as well as the providers who share this information with us, may limit our ability to use and disclose the information. Claims that we have violated individuals’ privacy rights, failed to comply with data protection laws, contracts, privacy notices, or breached other obligations, even if we are not found liable, could be expensive and time consuming to defend and could result in adverse publicity that could harm our business. Compliance with data protection laws may be time consuming, require additional resources and could result in increased expenses, reduce overall demand for our products and make it more difficult to meet expectations of or commitments to our relevant stakeholders.

Any of these matters could adversely affect materially our business, financial condition, or operational results.

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

We or the third parties upon whom we depend may be adversely affected by earthquakes, fires, other natural disasters, health pandemics or epidemics, terrorism and similar unforeseen events beyond our control,

53

including for example the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, prevented us from using all or a significant portion of our headquarters or research facility, it may be difficult or, in certain cases, impossible for us to continue our business for a substantial period of time. We do not have a disaster recovery or business continuity plan in place and may incur substantial expenses as a result of the absence or limited nature of our internal or third-party service provider disaster recovery and business continuity plans, which, particularly when taken together with our lack of earthquake insurance, could have a material adverse effect on our business. Furthermore, integral parties in our supply chain are operating from single sites, increasing their vulnerability to natural disasters or other sudden, unforeseen and severe adverse events. If such an event were to affect our supply chain, it could have a material adverse effect on our ability to conduct our clinical trials, our development plans and business.

Our ability to use our net operating loss carryforwards and certain other tax attributes to offset future taxable income or taxes may be limited.

We have incurred substantial losses during our history and do not expect to become profitable in the near future, and we may never achieve profitability. Unused losses for tax years beginning on or prior to December 31, 2017 will carry forward to offset future taxable income, if any, until such unused losses expire. Under current law, unused federal losses generated in tax years beginning after December 31, 2017 may be carried forward indefinitely but the deductibility of such federal net operating loss carryforwards, or NOLs, in tax years beginning after December 31, 2020 is limited to 80% of current year taxable income. Many states have similar laws. In addition, both our current and our future unused losses and other tax attributes may be subject to limitation under Sections 382 and 383 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or the Code, if we undergo an “ownership change,” generally defined as a greater than 50 percentage point change (by value) in our equity ownership by certain stockholders over a three-year period. We have not completed a Section 382 study to assess whether an ownership change has occurred or whether there have been multiple ownership changes since our formation due to the complexity and cost associated with such a study and the fact that there may be additional such ownership changes in the future. As a result, if we earn net taxable income, our NOLs generated in tax years beginning before January 1, 2018 may expire prior to being used, our NOLs generated in tax years beginning after December 31, 2017 will be subject to a percentage limitation in tax years beginning after December 31, 2020 and, if we undergo an ownership change (or if we previously underwent an ownership change), our ability to use all of our pre-change NOLs and other pre-change tax attributes (such as research tax credits) to offset our post-change income or taxes may be limited. Similar provisions of state tax law may also apply to limit our use of accumulated state tax attributes. In addition, at the state level, there may be periods during which the use of NOLs is suspended or otherwise limited, which could accelerate or permanently increase state taxes owed. For example, California has imposed limits on the usability of California state net operating losses and certain California tax credits to offset taxable income and taxes, respectively, in certain tax years. As a result, even if we attain profitability, we may be unable to use all or a material portion of our NOLs and other tax attributes, which could adversely affect our future cash flows.

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

We face an inherent risk of product liability exposure related to the testing of product candidates in human clinical trials and will face an even greater risk if we commercially sell any products that we may develop. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against claims that MET642 or any future product candidate or products caused injuries, we could incur substantial liabilities. Regardless of merit or eventual outcome, product liability claims may result in:

We currently hold $10 million in aggregate product liability insurance coverage, which may not be adequate to cover all liabilities that we may incur. We anticipate that we will need to increase our insurance coverage if MET642 or any future product candidate advances through clinical trials and if we successfully commercialize any

54

products. Insurance coverage is increasingly expensive. We may not be able to maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost or in an amount adequate to satisfy any liability that may arise.

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

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

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (collectively, the “Affordable Care Act”) substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both the government and private insurers, and significantly impacts the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. The Affordable Care Act, among other things: (i) introduced a new average manufacturer price definition for drugs and biologics that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted or injected and not generally dispensed through retail community pharmacies; (ii) increased the minimum Medicaid rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program and expanded rebate liability from fee-for-service Medicaid utilization to include the utilization of Medicaid managed care organizations as well; (iii) established a branded prescription drug fee that pharmaceutical manufacturers of branded prescription drugs must pay to the federal government; (iv) expanded the list of covered entities eligible to participate in the 340B drug pricing program by adding new entities to the program; (v) established a new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program, in which manufacturers must agree to offer point-of-sale discounts (which through subsequent legislative amendments, was increased to 70% from 50%) 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; (vi) extended manufacturers’ Medicaid rebate liability to covered drugs dispensed to individuals who are enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations; (vii) expanded eligibility criteria for Medicaid programs by, among other things, allowing states to offer Medicaid coverage to additional individuals and by adding new mandatory eligibility categories for individuals with income at or below 133% of the federal poverty level, thereby potentially increasing manufacturers’ Medicaid rebate liability; (viii) created a licensure framework for follow on biologic products; and (ix) established a Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to test innovative payment and service delivery models to lower Medicare and Medicaid spending, potentially including prescription drug spending.

Since its enactment, there have been executive, judicial and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act. For example, legislation enacted in 2017, informally titled the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, included a provision repealing, effective January 1, 2019, the tax-based shared responsibility payment imposed by the Affordable Care Act on certain individuals who fail to maintain qualifying health coverage for all or part of a year that is commonly referred to as the “individual mandate.” On June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed a challenge on procedural grounds that argued the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional in its entirety because the “individual mandate” was repealed by Congress. Thus, the Affordable Care Act will remain in effect in its current form. Further, prior to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, on January 28, 2021, President Biden issued an executive order that initiated a special enrollment period for purposes of obtaining health insurance coverage through the Affordable Care Act marketplace, which began on February 15, 2021 and remained open through August 15, 2021. The executive order also instructed certain governmental agencies to review and reconsider their existing policies and rules that limit access to healthcare, including among others, reexamining Medicaid demonstration projects and waiver programs that include work requirements, and policies that create unnecessary barriers to obtaining access to health insurance coverage through Medicaid or the Affordable Care Act. Additionally, on March 11, 2021, President Biden signed the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 into law, which eliminates the statutory Medicaid drug rebate cap, currently set at 100% of a drug’s average manufacturer price, for single source and innovator multiple source drugs, beginning January 1, 2024. It is possible that the Affordable Care Act will be subject to judicial or Congressional challenges in the future. It is unclear how any such challenges and the healthcare reform measures of the Biden administration will impact the Affordable Care Act and our business.

Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the Affordable Care Act was enacted. These changes include aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of up to 2% per fiscal year pursuant to the Budget Control Act of 2011 and subsequent laws, which began in 2013 and will remain in effect through 2031, unless additional Congressional action is taken. However, COVID-19 relief legislation suspended the 2% Medicare sequester from May 1, 2020 through March 31, 2022. Under current legislation, the actual reduction in Medicare

55

payments will vary from 1% in 2022 to up to 3% in the final fiscal year of this sequester. In January 2013, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was signed into law, which, among other things, further reduced Medicare payments to several types of providers, including hospitals, imaging centers and cancer treatment centers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. In addition, Congress is considering additional health reform measures as part of other reform initiatives.

New laws may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding, which may materially adversely affect customer demand and affordability for our products (if approved) and, accordingly, the results of our financial operations. Also, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny recently over the manner in which drug manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which have resulted in several Congressional inquiries and proposed federal legislation, as well as state efforts, designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, reduce the cost of prescription drugs under Medicare, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug products. At the federal level, the Trump administration used several means to propose or implement drug pricing reform, including through federal budget proposals, executive orders and policy initiatives. For example, on July 24, 2020 and September 13, 2020, the Trump administration announced several executive orders related to prescription drug pricing that attempt to implement several of the administration’s proposals. The FDA concurrently released a final rule and guidance in September 2020 providing pathways for states to build and submit importation plans for drugs from Canada. Further, on November 20, 2020, the Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, finalized a regulation removing safe harbor protection for price reductions from pharmaceutical manufacturers to plan sponsors under Part D, either directly or through pharmacy benefit managers, unless the price reduction is required by law. The rule also creates a new safe harbor for price reductions reflected at the point-of-sale, as well as a new safe harbor for certain fixed fee arrangements between pharmacy benefit managers and manufacturers. The implementation of this rule has been delayed until January 1, 2026. On November 20, 2020, CMS issued an interim final rule implementing President Trump’s Most Favored Nation, or MFN, executive order, which would tie Medicare Part B payments for certain physician-administered drugs to the lowest price paid in other economically advanced countries. As a result of litigation challenging the MFN model, on December 27, 2021, CMS published a final rule that rescinded the MFN model interim final rule. In July 2021, the Biden administration released an executive order, “Promoting Competition in the American Economy,” with multiple provisions aimed at prescription drugs. In response to Biden’s executive order, on September 9, 2021, HHS released a Comprehensive Plan for Addressing High Drug Prices that outlines principles for drug pricing reform and sets out a variety of potential legislative policies that Congress could pursue as well as potential administrative actions HHS can take to advance these principles. No legislation or administrative actions have been finalized to implement these principles. At the state level, individual states in the United States are increasingly active in passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing.

We expect that these and other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future, may result in more rigorous coverage criteria and lower reimbursement, and in additional downward pressure on the price that we receive for any approved product. Further, it is possible that additional governmental action is taken in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government-funded programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability or commercialize our drugs, once marketing approval is obtained.

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

We will be subject to applicable fraud and abuse, transparency, government price reporting and other healthcare laws and regulations. If we are unable to comply, or have not fully complied, with such laws, we could face substantial penalties.

Healthcare providers and third-party payors will play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of any future product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. Our current and future arrangements with healthcare providers, third-party payors and customers may expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations that may affect the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we conduct our research as well as the manner in which we would market, sell and distribute our products if approved. Even though we do not and will not control referrals of healthcare services or bill directly to Medicare, Medicaid or other third-party payors, federal and state healthcare laws and regulations pertaining to fraud

56

and abuse and patients’ rights are and will be applicable to our business. The laws that may affect our ability to operate include, but are not limited to:

57

We have entered into consulting arrangements with physicians and other healthcare providers, some of whom are compensated with stock options including some who could influence the use of MET642 or any future product candidate, if approved. Because of the complex and far-reaching nature of these laws, regulatory agencies may view these transactions as prohibited arrangements that must be restructured, or discontinued, or for which we could be subject to other significant penalties. We could be adversely affected if regulatory agencies interpret our financial relationships with providers who may influence the ordering of and use our product candidates, if approved, to be in violation of applicable laws.

The scope and enforcement of each of these laws is uncertain and subject to rapid change in the current environment of healthcare reform, especially in light of the lack of applicable precedent and regulations. Federal and state enforcement bodies have recently increased their scrutiny of interactions between healthcare companies, healthcare providers and other third parties, including charitable foundations, which has led to a number of investigations, prosecutions, convictions and settlements in the healthcare industry. Responding to investigations can be time- and resource-consuming and can divert management’s attention from our business. Any such investigation or settlement could increase our costs or otherwise have an adverse effect on our business.

Ensuring that our business arrangements with third parties comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations will likely be costly. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of these laws or any other current or future governmental laws and regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, imprisonment, exclusion from government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, additional reporting obligations and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or other agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could substantially disrupt 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 significant criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government funded healthcare programs.

We are subject to certain U.S. and certain foreign anti-corruption, anti-money laundering, export control, sanctions and other trade laws and regulations. We can face serious consequences for violations.

U.S. and foreign anti-corruption, anti-money laundering, export control, sanctions and other trade laws and regulations prohibit, among other things, companies and their employees, agents, CROs, legal counsel, accountants, consultants, contractors and other partners from authorizing, promising, offering, providing, soliciting, or receiving directly or indirectly, corrupt or improper payments or anything else of value to or from recipients in the public or private sector. Violations of these trade laws can result in substantial criminal fines and civil penalties, imprisonment, the loss of trade privileges, debarment, tax reassessments, breach of contract and fraud litigation, reputational harm and other consequences. We have direct or indirect interactions with officials and employees of government agencies or government-affiliated hospitals, universities and other organizations. We also expect our non-U.S. activities to increase over time. We expect to rely on third parties for research, preclinical studies and clinical trials and/or to obtain necessary permits, licenses, patent registrations and other marketing approvals. We can be held liable for the corrupt or other illegal activities of our personnel, agents, or partners, even if we do not explicitly authorize or have prior knowledge of such activities. Any violations of the laws and regulations described above may result in

58

substantial civil and criminal fines and penalties, imprisonment, the loss of export or import privileges, debarment, tax reassessments, breach of contract and fraud litigation, reputational harm and other consequences.

The requirements of being a public company may strain our resources, divert our management’s attention and our ability to attract and retain qualified board members.

We are subject to the reporting requirements of the Exchange Act, and are required to comply with the applicable requirements of Sarbanes-Oxley and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the listing requirements of Nasdaq, and other applicable securities rules and regulations relating to public companies. Sarbanes-Oxley, as well as rules subsequently adopted by the SEC, and the Nasdaq Global Market to implement provisions of Sarbanes-Oxley, impose significant requirements on public companies, including requiring establishment and maintenance of effective disclosure and financial controls and changes in corporate governance practices. Further, pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, the SEC has adopted additional rules and regulations in these areas, such as mandatory “say on pay” voting requirements that will apply to us when we cease to be an emerging growth company. Stockholder activism, the current political environment and the current high level of government intervention and regulatory reform may lead to substantial new regulations and disclosure obligations, which may lead to additional compliance costs and impact the manner in which we operate our business in ways we cannot currently anticipate. Compliance with the various reporting and other requirements applicable to public companies requires considerable time and attention of management. We cannot assure you that we will satisfy our obligations as a public company on a timely basis.

Compliance with these rules and regulations substantially increases our legal and financial compliance costs and makes some activities more time consuming and costly. To the extent these requirements significantly divert the attention of our management and personnel from other business concerns, they could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. These costs decrease our net income or increase our net loss, and may require us to reduce costs in other areas of our business or increase the prices of our products or services. Being a public company subject to these regulations also makes it more expensive for us to obtain certain types of insurance, including directors’ and officers’ liability insurance, and we may be forced to accept reduced policy limits and coverage or incur substantially higher costs to obtain the same or similar coverage. The impact of these events could also make it more difficult for us to attract and retain qualified personnel to serve on our board of directors, our board committees or as executive officers.

We are also subject to more stringent state law requirements because we are a public company. For example, on September 30, 2018, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law Senator Bill 826 (SB826), which generally requires public companies with their principal executive office in California to have a minimum number of females on the company’s board of directors. In order to be in compliance with SB826, we are required to have three female members of our board of directors. Additionally, on September 30, 2020, California enacted Assembly Bill 979 (AB979), requiring public companies with their principal executive office in California to have directors from  underrepresented communities based on ethnicity and sexual orientation.  In order to be in compliance with AB979, we are required to have at least three directors from underrepresented communities by December 31, 2022.  As of December 31, 2021, we were in compliance with AB979, which only required on director from an underrepresented community as of such date, but were not in compliance with SB826.  The current composition of our board of directors includes one female director and one director from an underrepresented community. In order to meet the requirements of applicable California law, we expect to onboard the requisite number of female and diverse directors before December 31, 2022. If we fail to comply with these laws, we could be fined by the California Secretary of State, with a $100,000 fine for the first violation and a $300,000 fine for each subsequent violation, and our reputation may be adversely affected. We cannot assure that we can recruit, attract and/or retain qualified members of the board and meet gender and diversity quotas as required by California law (provided that such laws are not repealed), which may cause certain investors to divert their holdings in our securities and expose us to financial penalties and/or reputational harm.

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

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

59

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

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

Risks Related to our Common Stock

The trading price of our common stock may be volatile and fluctuate substantially or may decline regardless of our operating performance, which could result in substantial losses.

Prior to the completion of our IPO, there was no public market for our common stock. We cannot assure you that an active or liquid market in our common stock will develop, or if it does develop, it may not be sustainable. Our stock price has been, and in the future, may be volatile. For example, the market price of our common stock declined significantly as a result of the announcement we made on October 24, 2021 regarding our determination to stop the development of our FXR product candidates in the indication of NASH. The stock market in general and the market for smaller pharmaceutical companies in particular have experienced extreme volatility that has often been unrelated to the operating performance of particular companies. The market price of our common stock may fluctuate significantly in response to numerous factors, many of which are beyond our control, including:

In addition, the stock markets have experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have affected and continue to affect the market prices of equity securities of many life sciences companies. Stock prices of many biopharmaceutical companies have fluctuated in a manner unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of those companies. For example, the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has negatively affected the stock market and investor sentiment and has resulted in significant volatility. The price of our common stock may be disproportionately affected as investors may favor traditional profit-making industries and companies during times of market uncertainty and instability. In the past, stockholders have filed securities class action litigation following periods of market volatility. If we were to become involved in securities litigation, it could subject us to substantial costs, divert resources and the attention of management from our business and adversely affect our business.

60

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

Until such time, if ever, as we can generate substantial product revenues, we expect to finance our cash needs through a combination of equity offerings, debt financings, additional borrowings under the K2 Loan Agreement, collaborations and other similar arrangements. In October 2021, we filed a shelf registration statement on Form S-3 (Registration No. 333-260023) that allows us to sell up to an aggregate of $150.0 million of our common stock, preferred stock, debt securities and/or warrants, which includes a prospectus covering the issuance and sale of up to $50.0 million of common stock pursuant to an at-the-market, or ATM, offering program. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, your ownership interest will be diluted and the terms of these securities may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect your rights as a common stockholder. Additional debt financing, if available, may involve agreements that include covenants further limiting or restricting our ability to take specific actions beyond those contained in the K2 Loan Agreement, such as further limitations on our ability to incur additional debt, make capital expenditures or declare dividends.

If we raise funds through collaborations, strategic alliances or licensing arrangements with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our technologies, future revenue streams, research programs or product candidates or grant licenses on terms that may not be favorable to us. If we are unable to raise additional funds through equity or debt financings when needed, we may be required to delay, limit, reduce or terminate our product development or future commercialization efforts or grant rights to develop and market product candidates that we would otherwise prefer to develop and market ourselves.

If we are unable to regain compliance with the listing requirements of the Nasdaq Global Market, our common stock may be delisted from the Nasdaq Global Market which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and could make it more difficult for you to sell your shares.

Our common stock is listed on the Nasdaq Global Market, and we are therefore subject to its continued listing requirements, including requirements with respect to the market value of publicly held shares, market value of listed shares, minimum bid price per share, and minimum stockholders' equity, among others, and requirements relating to board and committee independence. If we fail to satisfy one or more of the requirements, we may be delisted from the Nasdaq Global Market.

On February 4, 2022, we received a notice, or Notice, from the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC, or Nasdaq, that we are not currently in compliance with the $1.00 minimum bid price requirement for continued listing on the Nasdaq Global Market, as set forth in Nasdaq Listing Rule 5450(a)(1), or the Minimum Bid Price Requirement. The Notice indicated that, consistent with Nasdaq Listing Rule 5810(c)(3)(A), we have 180 days, or until August 3, 2022, to regain compliance with the Minimum Bid Price Requirement by having the closing bid price of our common stock meet or exceed $1.00 per share for at least ten consecutive business days. The Notice had no immediate effect on the listing of our common stock, and our common stock will continue to trade on the Nasdaq Global Market under the symbol “MTCR” at this time.

If we do not regain compliance by August 3, 2022, we may be afforded an additional 180 calendar day period to regain compliance. To qualify, we would be required to transfer to the Nasdaq Capital Market and meet the continued listing requirement for market value of publicly held shares and all other initial listing standards for the Nasdaq Capital Market, except for the Minimum Bid Price Requirement. In addition, we would be required to notify Nasdaq of our intent to cure the deficiency during the second compliance period. Following a transfer to the Nasdaq Capital Market, we would be afforded the second 180 calendar day period to regain compliance, unless it does not appear to Nasdaq that it is possible for us to do so. If we do not regain compliance with the Minimum Bid Price Requirement by the end of the compliance period (or the second compliance period, if applicable), our common stock will become subject to delisting. In the event that we receive notice that our common stock is being delisted, the Nasdaq listing rules permit us to appeal a delisting determination by the Staff to a hearings panel.

There can be no assurance, however, that we will be able to regain compliance with the Minimum Bid Price Requirement, and even if we do, there can be no assurance that we will be able to maintain compliance with the continued listing requirements for the Nasdaq Global Market (or, potentially, the Nasdaq Capital Market) or that our common stock will not be delisted in the future. In addition, we may be unable to meet other applicable listing requirements of the Nasdaq Global Market (or, potentially, the Nasdaq Capital Market), including maintaining minimum levels of stockholders’ equity or market values of our common stock in which case, our common stock could be delisted notwithstanding our ability to demonstrate compliance with the Minimum Bid Price Requirement.

Delisting from the Nasdaq Global Market may adversely affect our ability to raise additional financing through the public or private sale of equity securities, may significantly affect the ability of investors to trade our securities and may negatively affect the value and liquidity of our common stock. Delisting also could have other

61

negative results, including the potential loss of employee confidence, the loss of institutional investors or interest in business development opportunities.

If we are delisted from Nasdaq and we are not able to list our common stock on another exchange, our common stock could be quoted on the OTC Bulletin Board or in the “pink sheets.” As a result, we could face significant adverse consequences including, among others:

If securities or industry analysts do not publish research or publish inaccurate or unfavorable research about our business, our stock price and trading volume could decline.

The trading market for our common stock depends in part on the research and reports that securities or industry analysts publish about us or our business. We currently have research coverage from a limited number of securities or industry analysts. If no or only very few securities analysts commence coverage of us, or if industry analysts cease coverage of us, the trading price for our common stock would be negatively affected. If one or more of the analysts who cover us downgrade our common stock or publish inaccurate or unfavorable research about our business, our common stock price would likely decline. If one or more of these analysts cease coverage of us or fail to publish reports on us regularly, demand for our common stock could decrease, which might cause our common stock price and trading volume to decline.

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

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

These inherent limitations include the realities that judgments in decision-making can be faulty, and that breakdowns can occur because of simple error or mistake. For example, our directors or executive officers could inadvertently fail to disclose a new relationship or arrangement causing us to fail to make any related party transaction disclosures. Additionally, controls can be circumvented by the individual acts of some persons, by collusion of two or more people or by an unauthorized override of the controls. Accordingly, because of the inherent limitations in our control system, misstatements due to error or fraud may occur and not be detected.

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

We are an “emerging growth company” as defined in the JOBS Act and we intend to take advantage of some of the exemptions from reporting requirements that are applicable to other public companies that are not emerging growth companies, including:

62

In addition, as an “emerging growth company” the JOBS Act allows us to delay adoption of new or revised accounting pronouncements applicable to public companies until such pronouncements are made applicable to private companies. We have not elected to use this extended transition period under the JOBS Act.

We cannot predict if investors will find our common stock less attractive because we will rely on these exemptions. If some investors find our common stock less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for our common stock and our stock price may be more volatile. We may take advantage of these reporting exemptions until we are no longer an emerging growth company. We will remain an emerging growth company until the earlier of (a) December 31, 2025, (b) the last day of the fiscal year in which we have total annual gross revenue of at least $1.07 billion or (c) the date on which we first qualify as a large accelerated filer, which means the market value of our common stock that is held by non-affiliates exceeds $700 million as of the prior June 30th and (2) the date on which we have issued more than $1.0 billion in non-convertible debt during the prior three-year period.

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

We have never declared nor paid cash dividends on our capital stock. We currently intend to retain any future earnings to finance the operation and expansion of our business, and we do not expect to declare or pay any dividends in the foreseeable future. In addition, the terms of the K2 Loan Agreement preclude us from paying cash dividends. Consequently, stockholders must rely on sales of their common stock after price appreciation, which may never occur, as the only way to realize any future gains on their investment.

Delaware law and provisions in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws could make a merger, tender offer or proxy contest difficult, thereby depressing the trading price of our common stock.

Provisions of our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws may delay or discourage transactions involving an actual or potential change in our control or change in our management, including transactions in which stockholders might otherwise receive a premium for their shares or transactions that our stockholders might otherwise deem to be in their best interests. Therefore, these provisions could adversely affect the price of our common stock. Among other things, our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws:

63

Further, our amended and restated certificate of incorporation provides that unless we consent in writing to the selection of an alternative forum, to the fullest extent permitted by law, the federal district courts of the United States will be the exclusive forum for resolution of any complaint asserting a cause of action arising under the Securities Act.

The amendment of any of these provisions, with the exception of the ability of our board of directors to issue shares of preferred stock and designate any rights, preferences and privileges thereto, would require approval by the holders of at least 66 2/3% of our then-outstanding common stock.

In addition, as a Delaware corporation, we are subject to Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, or Section 203. These provisions may prohibit large stockholders, in particular those owning 15% or more of our outstanding voting stock, from merging or combining with us for a certain period of time. A Delaware corporation may opt out of this provision by express provision in its original certificate of incorporation or by amendment to its certificate of incorporation or bylaws approved by its stockholders. However, we have not opted out of this provision.

These and other provisions in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation, amended and restated bylaws and Delaware law could make it more difficult for stockholders or potential acquirors to obtain control of our board of directors or initiate actions that are opposed by our then-current board of directors, including delay or impede a merger, tender offer or proxy contest involving our company. The existence of these provisions could negatively affect the price of our common stock and limit opportunities for you to realize value in a corporate transaction.

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

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation provides that the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (or, if and only if the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware lacks subject matter jurisdiction, any state court located within the State of Delaware or, if and only if all such state courts lack subject matter jurisdiction, the federal district court for the District of Delaware) and any appellate court therefrom shall be the sole and exclusive forum for the following claims or causes of action under the Delaware statutory or common law: (i) any derivative claim or cause of action brought on our behalf, (ii) any action claim or cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty owed by any of our current or former directors, officers or other employees to us or our stockholders, (iii) any claim or cause of action against us or any of our current or former directors, officers or other employees arising out of or pursuant to any provision of the Delaware General Corporation Law, our certificate of incorporation or bylaws (as each may be amended from time to time); (iv) any claim or cause of action seeking to interpret, apply, enforce or determine the validity of our certificate of incorporation or our bylaws (as each may be amended from time to time, including any right, obligation, or remedy thereunder); (v) any claim or cause of action as to which the Delaware General Corporation Law confers jurisdiction on the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware and (vi) any claim or cause of action against us or any of our directors, officers or other employees that is governed by the internal-affairs doctrine; provided, that this Delaware forum provision set forth in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation will not apply to claims or causes of action brought to enforce a duty or liability created by the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, or any other claim for which the federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction. Further, our amended and restated certificate of incorporation provides that unless we consent in writing to the selection of an alternative forum, to the fullest extent permitted by law, the federal district courts of the United States will be the exclusive forum for resolution of any complaint asserting a cause of action arising under the Securities Act. These choice of forum provisions may limit a stockholder’s ability to bring a claim in a judicial forum that it finds favorable for disputes with us or our directors, officers or other employees and may discourage these types of lawsuits. Furthermore, the enforceability of similar choice of forum provisions in other companies’ certificates of incorporation

64

has been challenged in legal proceedings, and it is possible that a court could find these types of provisions to be inapplicable or unenforceable. If a court were to find the choice of forum provisions contained in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation to be inapplicable or unenforceable in an action, we may incur additional costs associated with resolving such action in other jurisdictions.

We could be subject to securities class action litigation.

In the past, securities class action litigation has often been brought against a company following a decline in the market price of its securities. This risk is especially relevant for us because biopharmaceutical companies have experienced significant stock price volatility in recent years. If we face such litigation, it could result in substantial costs and a diversion of management’s attention and resources, which could harm our business. If we experience a decline in our stock price, we could face securities class action lawsuits.