Item 1A.                                                 Risk Factors

You should carefully consider the following risk factors, in addition to the other information contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including the section of this report titled "Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations" and our consolidated financial statements and related notes. The risks and uncertainties described below are not the only ones we face. Additional risks and uncertainties of which we are unaware, or that we currently believe are not material, may also become important factors that adversely affect our business. If any of the events described in the following risk factors and the risks described elsewhere in this report occurs, our business, operating results and financial condition could be seriously harmed and the trading price of our common shares could decline. This Annual Report on Form 10-K also contains forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. Our actual results could differ materially from those anticipated in the forward-looking statements as a result of factors that are described below and elsewhere in this report. See the section of this report titled "Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements".

Risks Related to Our Business, Financial Position and Capital Requirements

We have a limited operating history and have never generated any product revenues.

We are a clinical-stage gene-therapy company with a limited operating history. Our operations to date have been limited to organizing and staffing our company, raising capital, acquiring product candidates and advancing our product candidates into clinical development. We have not yet demonstrated an ability to successfully complete a registration-enabling pivotal clinical trial, obtain marketing approval, manufacture a commercial-scale product, or arrange for a third-party to do so on our behalf, or conduct sales and marketing activities necessary for successful product commercialization. Consequently, we have no meaningful operations upon which to evaluate our business and predictions about our future success or viability may not be as accurate as they could be if we had a longer operating history or a history of successfully developing and commercializing pharmaceutical products.

In addition, the failure of our clinical trials for, and the discontinuation of development of, intepirdine and nelotanserin has required us to reevaluate our business and led to dramatic shifts in our strategy and business plan. Our new strategy and business plan have not yet been proven and we may never be successful in developing or commercializing any of our gene therapy product candidates, including our newly licensed gene therapy product candidates, which remain in early stages of clinical development.

Our ability to generate revenue and become profitable depends upon our ability to successfully complete the development of our product candidates and to obtain the necessary regulatory approvals for their commercialization. We have never been profitable, have not generated any revenue from product sales, and have no products approved for commercial sale.

Even if we receive regulatory approval for our product candidates, we do not know when those candidates will generate revenue, if at all. Our ability to generate product revenue depends on a number of factors, including our ability to:

Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with product development, we are unable to predict the timing or amount of increased expenses, or when, or if, we will be able to achieve or maintain profitability. Our expenses could increase beyond expectations if we are required by the FDA, European Medicines Agency ("EMA") Japan’s Pharmaceutical and Medical Devices Agency ("PMDA") or comparable regulatory authorities in other countries, to perform studies or clinical trials in addition to those that we currently anticipate. Even if our product candidates are approved for commercial sale, we anticipate incurring significant costs associated with their commercial launch. If we cannot successfully execute any one of the foregoing, our business may not succeed, and your investment will be adversely affected.

We are in the process of implementing a business plan that may continue to evolve as we integrate our newly licensed gene therapy product candidates. Our business plan may lead to the initiation of one or more development programs, the discontinuation of one or more development programs, or the execution of one or more transactions that you do not agree with or that you do not perceive as favorable to your investment.

Throughout 2018, we undertook a process of reviewing our strategic alternatives following the discontinuation of further development of our former product candidates, including identifying potential business development opportunities. In June 2018, we announced that we received from Oxford BioMedica a worldwide exclusive license to develop and commercialize AXO-LENTI-PD and its predecessor product candidate ProSavin and related gene therapy products. In July 2018, we announced that we received from Benitec a worldwide exclusive license to develop and commercialize investigational gene therapy AXO-AAV-OPMD and related gene therapy products. In December 2018, we announced that we had received from UMMS a worldwide exclusive license to develop and commercialize gene therapy product candidates AXO-AAV-GM1 and AXO-AAV-GM2. We initially plan to pursue a strategy to leverage our clinical experience and expertise to pursue the clinical development and regulatory approval of our product candidates. As part of our ongoing business strategy, we continue to explore potential opportunities to acquire or license new product candidates and to collaborate on our existing products in development.

We cannot be certain that our newly licensed product candidates will be successfully developed, or that the early clinical trial results of these product candidates will be predictive of future clinical trial results. For example, in June 2019, we decided to terminate the Benitec Agreement following our decision to no longer pursue development of AXO-AAV-OPMD and related gene therapy product candidates. In addition, we have limited data from small, uncontrolled clinical trials, performed by or on behalf of Oxford BioMedica, regarding the safety and tolerability of ProSavin, as the predecessor product candidate to AXO-LENTI-PD, in patients with advanced Parkinson’s disease, as well as nonclinical in vitro experiments with AXO-LENTI-PD. Prior ProSavin trials were not powered to demonstrate the efficacy of the therapy with statistical significance. Given the information above, these trials could be underpowered to demonstrate a potential clinical benefit for AXO-LENTI-PD in these indications.

This business plan requires us to be successful in a number of challenging, uncertain and risky activities, including pursuing development of our newly licensed gene therapy product candidates in indications for which we have limited or no human clinical data, designing and executing a nonclinical and/or clinical development program for our newly licensed product candidates, building internal or outsourced gene therapy capabilities, converting early stage gene therapy research efforts into clinical development opportunities, identifying additional promising new assets for development that are available for acquisition or in-license and that fit our strategic focus and identifying potential partners to collaborate on our products. We may not be successful at one or more of the activities required for us to execute this business plan. In addition, we are also continuing to consider other strategic alternatives, such as mergers, acquisitions, divestitures, joint ventures, partnerships and collaborations. We cannot be sure when or if any type of transaction will result. Even if we pursue a transaction, such transaction may not be consistent with our shareholders’ expectations or may not ultimately be favorable for our shareholders, either in the shorter or longer term.

Our growth prospects and the future value of our company are primarily dependent on the progress of our ongoing and planned clinical development programs for our product candidates as well as the outcome of our ongoing business development efforts and pipeline expansion activities, together with the amount of our remaining available cash. The development of our product candidates and the outcome of our ongoing business development efforts and pipeline expansion activities are highly uncertain.

We expect to continue to reassess and make changes to our existing development programs and pipeline expansion strategy. Our plans for our development programs may be affected by the results of competitors’ clinical trials of product candidates addressing our current target indications, and our business development efforts and pipeline expansion activities may also be affected by the results of competitors' ongoing research and development efforts. We may modify, expand or terminate some or all of our development programs, clinical trials or collaborative research programs at any time as a result of new competitive information or as the result of changes to our product pipeline or business development strategy.

We expect to incur significant losses for the foreseeable future and may never achieve or maintain profitability. Our independent registered public accounting firm has expressed substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern.

Investment in pharmaceutical and biological product development is highly speculative because it entails substantial upfront capital expenditures and significant risk that a product candidate will fail to gain regulatory approval or become commercially viable.  We have never generated any revenues, and we cannot estimate with precision the extent of our future losses. We do not currently have any products that are available for commercial sale and we may never generate revenue from selling products or achieve profitability. We expect to continue to incur substantial and increasing losses through the projected commercialization of our product candidates. Our product candidates have not been approved for marketing in the United States or any other jurisdiction, and we may never receive any such approvals. We are uncertain when or if we will achieve profitability and, if so, whether we will be able to sustain it. Our ability to produce revenue and achieve profitability is dependent on our ability to complete the development of our newly licensed product candidates, obtain necessary regulatory approvals, and have our product candidates manufactured and successfully marketed and commercialized. We cannot assure you that we will be profitable even if we successfully commercialize our product candidates. If we do successfully obtain regulatory approval to market our product candidates, our revenues will be dependent, in part, upon the size of the markets in the territories for which we gain regulatory approval, the number of competitors in such markets, the accepted price for our product candidates and whether we own the commercial rights for that territory. If the indication approved by regulatory authorities is narrower than we expect, or the treatment population is narrowed by competition, physician choice or treatment guidelines, we may not generate significant revenue from sales of our product candidates, even if approved. Even if we do achieve profitability, we may not be able to sustain or increase profitability on a quarterly or annual basis. Failure to become and remain profitable may adversely affect the market price of our common shares and our ability to raise capital and continue operations.

We expect our research and development expenses to be significant as we develop our gene therapy product candidates. In addition, if we obtain regulatory approval for any of our product candidates, we expect to incur increased sales and marketing expenses. As a result, we expect to continue to incur significant operating losses and negative cash flows for the foreseeable future. These losses have had and will continue to have an adverse effect on our financial position and working capital.

Our independent registered public accounting firm has issued a going concern opinion on our consolidated financial statements for the one-year period following the date that the accompanying consolidated financial statements for the year ended March 31, 2019 were issued, which have been prepared assuming that we will continue as a going concern. We have not made any adjustments to reflect the possible future effects on the recoverability and classification of assets or the amounts and classification of liabilities that may result from the possible inability of us to continue as a going concern. We will need to raise additional capital when needed, or adjust our operational plans to continue as a going concern. We continually assess multiple options to obtain additional funding to support our operations, including proceeds from offerings of our equity securities or debt, or transactions involving product development, technology licensing or collaboration arrangements, or other sources of capital to complete our currently planned development programs. Sources of a sufficient amount of financing may not be available to us on favorable terms, if at all.

We may not be successful in our efforts to identify and acquire additional gene therapy product candidates, or to enter into collaborations or strategic alliances for the development and commercialization of any such future product candidates.

Part of our strategy involves the business development activities of identifying and acquiring novel product candidates. The process by which we identify product candidates may fail to yield product candidates for clinical development for a number of reasons, including those discussed in these risk factors and also:

In addition, the process of identifying and acquiring product candidates is highly competitive, and our ability to compete successfully is impacted by the fact that many of the companies with which we compete for these candidates have significantly greater experience, development and commercialization capabilities, name recognition and financial and human resources than we do. Further, our business development efforts are led by our senior executive officers and other management team members and would be significantly impaired if we were to lose the services of any of these executives. The time and resources spent on business development activities may also distract management's attention from our other development and business activities. Even if we are successful in identifying and acquiring additional product candidates, we may choose to focus our efforts and resources on a potential product candidate that ultimately proves to be unsuccessful. If we are unable to identify and acquire suitable product candidates for clinical development, this could adversely impact our business strategy, our financial position and share price.

We may also decide to collaborate with other pharmaceutical companies for the development and potential commercialization of our product candidates in the United States or other countries or territories of the world. 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 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.

We are heavily dependent on the success of our gene therapy product candidates, which are still in early stages of clinical or preclinical development. If we are unable to successfully develop and commercialize any of our product candidates, our business will be harmed.

We currently have no products that are approved for commercial sale and may never be able to develop marketable products. We expect that a substantial portion of our efforts and expenditures over the next few years will be devoted to the development of our newly licensed gene therapy product candidates, all of which are in the early stages of clinical development. Accordingly, our business currently depends heavily on the successful development, regulatory approval and commercialization of these product candidates. We cannot be certain that any of our product candidates will receive regulatory approval or be successfully commercialized even if we receive regulatory approval. The research, testing, manufacturing, labeling, approval, sale, marketing and distribution of our product candidates are and will remain subject to extensive regulation by the FDA, the EMA, the PMDA and other comparable regulatory authorities that each have differing regulations. We are not permitted to market our product candidates in the United States or in any foreign countries until they receive the requisite approvals from the FDA or comparable regulatory authorities in other countries. We have not submitted marketing applications to the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities and do not expect to be in a position to do so for the foreseeable future. Obtaining marketing approval is a lengthy, expensive and inherently uncertain process, and regulatory authorities may delay, limit or deny approval of our product candidates for many reasons, including:

The terms of our credit facility place restrictions on our operating and financial flexibility.

In February 2017, we and our subsidiaries entered into a loan and security agreement, as amended in May and September 2017 (the "Loan Agreement"), with Hercules Capital, Inc. ("Hercules"). The Loan Agreement is secured by substantially all of our property and that of our subsidiaries that are parties to the Loan Agreement, other than intellectual property.

The Loan Agreement subjects us and our subsidiaries to various affirmative and restrictive covenants, including a covenant to maintain a minimum cash balance currently equal to the lesser of $30.0 million or the outstanding amount due under the Loan Agreement, a covenant against the occurrence of a "change in control," financial reporting obligations, and certain limitations on the incurrence of indebtedness, liens (including a negative pledge on intellectual property and other assets), investments, distributions (including dividends), collateral, transfers, mergers or acquisitions, taxes, corporate changes, and deposit accounts. Compliance with these covenants may limit our flexibility in operating our business and our ability to take actions that might be advantageous to us and our shareholders. For example, if we fail to meet our minimum cash covenant and we are unable to raise additional funds or obtain a waiver or other amendment to the Loan Agreement, we may be required to delay, limit, reduce or terminate certain of our clinical development efforts.

Additionally, we may be required to repay the entire amount of outstanding indebtedness under the Loan Agreement in cash if we fail to stay in compliance with our covenants or suffer some other event of default under the Loan Agreement. Under the Loan Agreement, an event of default will occur if, among other things: we fail to make payments under the Loan Agreement; we breach any of our covenants under the Loan Agreement, subject to specified cure periods with respect to certain breaches; there occurs an event that has a material adverse effect on (i) our business, operations, properties, assets or financial condition, (ii) our ability to perform or satisfy our obligations under the Loan Agreement as they become due or Hercules’s ability to enforce its rights or remedies with respect to our obligations under the Loan Agreement, or (iii) the collateral or liens securing our obligations under the Loan Agreement; we or our assets become subject to certain legal proceedings, such as bankruptcy proceedings; we are unable to pay our debts as they become due; or we default on contracts with third parties which would permit Hercules to accelerate the maturity of such indebtedness or that could have a material adverse effect on us. We may not have enough available cash or be able to raise additional funds through equity or debt financings to repay such indebtedness at the time any such event of default occurs. In that case, we may be required to delay, limit, reduce or terminate our clinical development efforts or grant to others rights to develop and market product candidates that we would otherwise prefer to develop and market ourselves. Hercules could also exercise its rights as collateral agent to take possession and dispose of the collateral securing the loan for its benefit, which collateral includes all of our property other than our intellectual property. Our business, financial condition and results of operations could be substantially harmed as a result of any of these events.

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

We are currently in the clinical stage of operations and have not yet achieved profitability. We expect to continue to incur significant operating and net losses, as well as negative cash flows, for the foreseeable future as we continue to develop our gene therapy product candidates and prepare for potential future regulatory approvals and commercialization of our products. We have not generated any revenue to date and do not expect to generate product revenue unless and until we successfully complete development and obtain regulatory approval for at least one of our gene therapy product candidates. Our current cash and cash equivalents balance will also not be sufficient to complete all necessary development activities and commercially launch our products.

We expect to spend substantial amounts to complete the development of, seek regulatory approvals for and commercialize our product candidates. Because the length of time and activities associated with successful development of our product candidates is highly uncertain, we are unable to estimate the actual funds we will require for development and any approved marketing and commercialization activities. Our future funding requirements, both near and long-term, will depend on many factors, including, but not limited to:

As of March 31, 2019 , our cash and cash equivalents totaled $107.0 million and our accumulated deficit was $686.0 million . For the years ended March 31, 2019 and 2018 , we incurred net losses of $129.1 million and $221.6 million , respectively. As of March 31, 2019 , we had aggregate net interest-bearing indebtedness of $44.2 million , of which $21.2 million was due within one year. We also had $22.3 million of other non-interest-bearing current liabilities due within one year. Our Loan Agreement with Hercules requires that we maintain a minimum cash balance currently equal to the lesser of $30.0 million or the outstanding amount due under the Loan Agreement. We anticipate that our current cash and cash equivalents balance will not be sufficient to maintain compliance with the minimum liquidity financial covenant under the Loan Agreement beyond the one-year period following the date that the accompanying consolidated financial statements were issued if the Loan Agreement is not amended or an additional financing is not completed. Failure to meet this minimum covenant would be considered an event of default under the Loan Agreement and could result in the acceleration of our existing indebtedness.

To continue as a going concern, we will need, among other things, to raise additional capital resources. We continually assess multiple options to obtain additional funding to support our operations, including proceeds from offerings of our equity securities or debt, or transactions involving product development, technology licensing or collaboration arrangements, or other sources of capital to complete our currently planned development programs. Sources of a sufficient amount of financing may not be available to us on favorable terms, if at all, and due to these uncertainties, there is substantial doubt about our ability to continue as going concern.

Raising additional funds by issuing securities may cause dilution to existing shareholders, raising additional funds through debt financings may involve additional restrictive covenants, and raising funds through lending and licensing arrangements may restrict our operations or require us to relinquish proprietary rights.

We expect that significant additional capital will be needed in the future to continue our planned operations. 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, strategic alliances and license and development agreements in connection with any collaborations. We do not have any committed external source of funds. To the extent that we raise additional capital by issuing equity securities, including pursuant to our "shelf" registration statement filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC"), our existing shareholders’ ownership may experience substantial dilution, and the terms of these securities may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect your rights as a common shareholder. Additional debt financing or preferred equity financing, if available, may involve agreements that include covenants further limiting or restricting our ability to take specific actions, such as incurring additional debt, making capital expenditures or declaring dividends.

If we raise additional funds through collaborations, strategic alliances or marketing, distribution or licensing arrangements with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our 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 develop and market ourselves.

We may be required to make significant payments to third parties under the agreements pursuant to which we acquired our gene therapy product candidates.

Under our agreements with Oxford BioMedica and UMMS, we are subject to significant obligations, including payment obligations upon achievement of specified milestones and payments based on product sales, as well as other material obligations. Some of these milestones require us to make payments prior to generating any product sales. We may not have sufficient funds available to meet our obligations at such time as any of these payments become due, in which case our development efforts would be harmed. Further, failure to make these payments or to meet our other material obligations may result in our counterparties pursuing various remedies under those agreements that could harm our operations.

We currently rely in part on services provided by Roivant Sciences, Inc. and Roivant Sciences GmbH.

We previously entered into Services Agreements with RSI and RSG, wholly owned subsidiaries of RSL, pursuant to which RSI and RSG provide certain services to us. The RSI or RSG personnel and support staff who provide services to us under these Services Agreements are not required to treat management and administration of our business as their primary responsibility or act exclusively for us, and we do not expect them to do so. Under the Services Agreements, RSI and RSG have the discretion to determine who, among their employees, will perform services for us. RSI and RSG have limited resources. If either RSI or RSG fails to perform its obligations in accordance with the terms of the Services Agreements or to effectively manage services provided to us, the operations of our business may be adversely affected. We have replaced most of the services previously provided by RSI and RSG with our own internally developed capabilities or external professional service providers. Consequently, the level of support we receive from RSI and RSG has decreased substantially and is expected to continue to decrease as we further assume activities from RSL. If we are unable to fully integrate the internal capabilities or further develop capabilities to replace the services currently provided by RSI or RSG or fail to do so in a timely and effective manner, the operations of our business would be adversely affected.

We may not be able to manage our business effectively if we are unable to attract and retain key personnel. In addition, if we are unable to effectively transition and integrate our new executive officers, our business and financial performance could be adversely affected.

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

Several members of our senior management team are relatively new to us. Our financial performance will depend in significant part on our senior management team and key employees, including new members of management with expertise in the gene therapy development field. In addition, recent corporate restructurings may have impacted employee morale and led, and may continue to lead, to higher rates of voluntary attrition compared to prior years. We are highly dependent on the skills and leadership of our management team. Our senior management and key employees may terminate their position with us at any time.

If we lose one or more members of our senior management team or key employees, our ability to successfully implement our business strategy could be seriously harmed. Replacing these individuals may be difficult, cause disruption, and may take an extended period of time because of the limited number of individuals in our industry with the breadth of skills and experience required to develop, gain regulatory approval of and commercialize products successfully. Competition to hire from this limited pool is intense, and we may be unable to hire, train, retain or motivate additional key personnel. We do not maintain "key person" insurance for any of our executives or other employees.

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

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

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

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

Our employees and contractors, including principal investigators, consultants, commercial collaborators, manufacturers, service providers and other vendors, or those of our affiliates, may engage in fraudulent or other illegal activity. Misconduct by these parties could include intentional, reckless and/or negligent conduct or other unauthorized activities that violate the laws and regulations, including those of the FDA and other similar regulatory bodies that require the reporting of true, complete and accurate information; manufacturing standards; federal, state and foreign healthcare fraud and abuse laws and data privacy; or laws that require the true, complete and accurate reporting of financial information or data. In particular, sales, marketing and other business arrangements in the healthcare industry are subject to extensive laws intended to prevent fraud, kickbacks, self-dealing, bribery, corruption, antitrust violations, and other abusive practices. These laws may restrict or prohibit a wide range of business activities, including research, manufacturing, distribution, pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, sales commission, customer incentive programs and other business arrangements. Activities subject to these laws also involve the improper use or misrepresentation of information obtained in the course of clinical trials, the creation of fraudulent data in nonclinical studies or clinical trials or illegal misappropriation of drug product, which could result in regulatory sanctions and serious harm to our reputation. It is not always possible to identify and deter employee or third-party misconduct, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to be in compliance with such laws or regulations. Additionally, we are subject to the risk that a person or government agency could allege such fraud or other misconduct, even if none occurred. If our employees, independent contractors, principal investigators, consultants, commercial collaborators, service providers or other vendors, or those of our affiliates, are alleged or found to be in violation of any such regulatory standards or requirements, or become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or similar agreement and curtailment of our operations, it could have a significant impact on our business and financial results, including the imposition of significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, monetary fines, suspension or delay in clinical trials, possible exclusion from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other federal healthcare programs, FDA debarment, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, additional reporting requirements and oversight, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations.

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

Our computer systems, as well as those of various third parties on which we rely, or may rely on in the future, including RSL and its affiliates, our CROs and other contractors, consultants, and law and accounting firms, may sustain damage from computer viruses, unauthorized access, data breaches, phishing attacks, cybercriminals, natural disasters, terrorism, war and telecommunication and electrical failures. We rely on our third-party providers to implement effective security measures and identify and correct for any such failures, deficiencies or breaches. The risk of a security breach or disruption, particularly through cyber-attacks or cyber intrusion, including by computer hackers, foreign governments, and cyber terrorists, has generally increased as the number, intensity and sophistication of attempted attacks and intrusions from around the world have increased. We have experienced phishing attacks in the past, which have not had a material impact on our operations, however, we may in the future experience material system failures or security breaches that could cause interruptions in our operations or result in a material disruption of our development programs. For example, the loss of nonclinical or clinical trial data from completed, ongoing or planned trials could result in delays in our regulatory approval efforts and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data. To the extent that any disruption or security breach were to result in a loss of or damage to our data or applications, or inappropriate disclosure of personal, confidential or proprietary information, we could incur liability and the further development of our product candidates could be delayed.

Operation of our business internationally exposes us to business, regulatory, political, operational, financial and economic risks associated with doing business in various jurisdictions globally.

Our business strategy includes establishing and maintaining operations and certain key third party arrangements in various jurisdictions around the world. Doing business internationally involves a number of risks, including:

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

Legal, political, and economic uncertainty surrounding the planned exit of the United Kingdom from the European Union are a source of instability and uncertainty.

The United Kingdom held a referendum on June 23, 2016 to determine whether the United Kingdom should leave the European Union, or remain as a member state, the outcome of which was in favor of leaving the European Union, which is commonly referred to as Brexit. Under Article 50 of the 2009 Lisbon Treaty, the United Kingdom will cease to be a member state when a withdrawal agreement is entered into (such agreement will also require parliamentary approval) or, failing that, two years following the notification of an intention to leave under Article 50, unless the European Council (together with the United Kingdom) unanimously decides to extend this period. On March 29, 2017, the United Kingdom formally notified the European Council of its intention to leave the European Union. In April 2019, the European Council and the United Kingdom agreed to extend the deadline by which they must agree to a withdrawal agreement to October 31, 2019. It is unclear whether they will successfully reach an agreement prior to that date, and it currently appears likely that Brexit will continue to involve a process of lengthy negotiations between the United Kingdom and EU members states to determine the future terms of the United Kingdom's relationship with the EU.

Lack of clarity about future U.K. laws and regulations as the United Kingdom determines which EU rules and regulations to replace or replicate in the event of a withdrawal, including financial laws and regulations, tax and free trade agreements, intellectual property rights, supply chain logistics, environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, immigration laws and employment laws, could decrease foreign direct investment in the United Kingdom, increase costs, depress economic activity and restrict access to capital. In addition, if the United Kingdom and the European Union are unable to negotiate acceptable withdrawal terms or if other EU member states pursue withdrawal, barrier-free access between the United Kingdom and other EU member states or among the European Economic Area overall could be diminished or eliminated. The long-term effects of Brexit will depend on any agreements (or lack thereof) between the United Kingdom and the European Union and, in particular, any arrangements for the United Kingdom to retain access to European Union markets either during a transitional period or more permanently.

Such a withdrawal from the European Union is unprecedented, and it is unclear how the United Kingdom’s access to the European single market for goods, capital, services and labor within the European Union, or the European single market, and the wider commercial, legal and regulatory environment, will impact our U.K. operations. We may also face new regulatory costs and challenges that could have an adverse effect on our operations and development programs. Even prior to any change to the United Kingdom’s relationship with the European Union, the announcement of Brexit has created economic uncertainty surrounding the terms of Brexit, and its consequences could negatively impact our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

The results of the United Kingdom’s referendum on withdrawal from the EU may have a negative effect on global economic conditions, financial markets and our business.

In June 2016, the United Kingdom ("UK") held a referendum in which voters approved an exit from the EU, commonly referred to as “Brexit.” This referendum has created political and economic uncertainty, particularly in the UK and the EU, and this uncertainty may persist for years. A withdrawal could, among other outcomes, disrupt the free movement of goods, services and people between the UK and the EU, and result in increased legal and regulatory complexities, as well as potential higher costs of conducting business in Europe. This is particularly the case if the UK and the EU do not reach agreement on how the UK will exit the EU, commonly referred to as a “hard Brexit.” The UK’s vote to exit the EU could also result in similar referendums or votes in other European countries in which we do business. Given the lack of comparable precedent, it is unclear what financial, trade and legal implications the withdrawal of the UK from the EU would have and how such withdrawal would affect us.

Brexit could result in the UK or the EU significantly altering its regulations affecting the clearance or approval of our product candidates that are manufactured or developed in the UK. For example, we anticipate that Oxford Biomedica, which is based in the UK, will continue to provide clinical and commercial supply for our AXO-Lenti-PD program. Brexit could affect the clearance or timing of the release of our clinical trial materials out of the UK. Any such delays could result in our clinical study sites outside of the UK not having sufficient clinical trial materials and could adversely affect the timing and completion of our clinical trials.

Any new regulations could add time and expense to the conduct of our business, as well as the process by which our products receive regulatory approval in the UK, the EU and elsewhere. In addition, the announcement of Brexit and the withdrawal of the UK from the EU have had and may continue to have, particularly in the case of a hard Brexit, a material adverse effect on global economic conditions and the stability of global financial markets, and may significantly reduce global market liquidity and restrict the ability of key market participants to operate in certain financial markets. Any of these effects of Brexit, among others, could adversely affect our business, our results of operations, liquidity and financial condition.

Use of social media platforms presents new risks.

We believe that our potential patient population is active on social media. Social media practices in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries are evolving, which creates uncertainty and risk of noncompliance with regulations applicable to our business. For example, patients may use social media platforms to comment on the effectiveness of, or adverse experiences with, a product candidate, which could result in reporting obligations. In addition, there is a risk of inappropriate disclosure of sensitive information or negative or inaccurate posts or comments about us or our product candidates on any social networking website. If any of these events were to occur or we otherwise fail to comply with applicable regulations, we could incur liability, face restrictive regulatory actions or incur other harm to our business.

The failure to successfully implement a new enterprise resource planning ("ERP") system, or maintain our current system, could adversely impact our business and results of operations.

As RSL decreases and decentralizes the services it provides to its affiliated companies, we expect to adapt the current ERP system or implement a new ERP system to upgrade certain existing business, operational, and financial processes, upon which we rely. Until such time, we will be reliant on financial systems supported by RSI and RSG. ERP implementations are complex and time-consuming projects that require transformations of business and financial processes in order to reap the benefits of the ERP system; any such transformation involves risk inherent in the conversion to a new computer system, including loss of information and potential disruption to normal operations. Additionally, if the ERP system is not effectively implemented as planned, or the system does not operate as intended, the effectiveness of our internal controls over financial reporting could be adversely affected or our ability to assess those controls adequately could be delayed. Significant delays in documenting, reviewing and testing our internal control could cause us to fail to comply with our SEC reporting obligations related to our management's assessment of our internal control over financial reporting. In addition, if we experience interruptions in service or operational difficulties and are unable to effectively manage our business during or following the implementation of the ERP system, our business and results of operations could be harmed.

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

The use of our product candidates in clinical trials and the sale of any products for which we obtain marketing approval exposes us to the risk of product liability claims. Product liability claims might be brought against us by consumers, health care providers, pharmaceutical companies or others selling or otherwise coming into contact with our products. On occasion, large monetary judgments have been awarded in class action lawsuits based on drugs that had unanticipated adverse effects. If we are not successful in defending ourselves against product liability claims, we could incur substantial liability and costs. In addition, regardless of merit or eventual outcome, product liability claims may result in:

The product liability insurance we currently carry, and any additional product liability insurance coverage we acquire in the future, may not be sufficient to reimburse us for any expenses or losses we may suffer. Moreover, insurance coverage is becoming increasingly expensive, and in the future, we may not be able to maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost or in sufficient amounts to protect us against losses due to liability. A successful product liability claim or series of claims brought against us could cause our share price to decline and, if judgments exceed our insurance coverage, could adversely affect our results of operations and business, including preventing or limiting the commercialization of any product candidates we develop.

Changes in funding for the FDA and other government agencies could hinder their ability to hire and retain key leadership and other personnel, or otherwise prevent new products and services from being developed or commercialized in a timely manner, which could negatively impact our business.

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

Disruptions at the FDA and other agencies may also slow the time necessary for new drugs to be reviewed and/or approved by necessary government agencies, which would harm our business. For example, over the last several years, including for 35 days beginning on December 22, 2018, the U.S. government has shut down several times and certain regulatory agencies, such as the FDA, have had to furlough critical FDA employees and stop critical activities. If a prolonged government shutdown occurs, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could harm our business.

If we fail to comply with applicable U.S. and foreign privacy and data protection laws and regulations, we may be subject to liabilities that adversely affect our business, operations and financial performance.

We are subject to laws and regulations requiring that we take measures to protect the privacy and security of certain information we gather and use in our business. For example, the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA") and its implementing regulations impose, among other requirements, certain regulatory and contractual requirements regarding the privacy and security of personal health information. In addition to HIPAA, numerous other federal and state laws, including, without limitation, state security breach notification laws, state health information privacy laws and federal and state consumer protection laws, govern the collection, use, and storage of personal information. In addition, in June 2018, California enacted the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”) which takes effect on January 1, 2020. The CCPA gives California residents expanded rights to access and require deletion of their personal information, opt out of certain personal information sharing, and receive detailed information about how their personal information is used. The CCPA provides for civil penalties for violations, as well as a private right of action for data breaches that may increase data breach litigation. Although the CCPA includes exemptions for certain clinical trials data, and HIPAA protected health information, the law may increase our compliance costs and potential liability with respect to other personal information we collect about California residents. The CCPA has prompted a number of proposals for new federal and state privacy legislation that, if passed, could increase our potential liability, increase our compliance costs and adversely affect our business.

We may also be subject to or affected by foreign laws and regulation, including regulatory guidance, governing the collection, use, disclosure, security, transfer and storage of personal data, such as information that we collect about patients and healthcare providers in connection with clinical trials and our other operations in the U.S. and abroad. The global legislative and regulatory landscape for privacy and data protection continues to evolve, and implementation standards and enforcement practices are likely to remain uncertain for the foreseeable future. This evolution may create uncertainty in our business, result in liability or impose additional costs on us. The cost of compliance with these laws, regulations and standards is high and is likely to increase in the future. For example, the EU has adopted the GDPR, which introduces strict requirements for processing personal data. The GDPR is likely to increase the compliance burden on us, including by mandating potentially burdensome documentation requirements and granting certain rights to individuals to control how we collect, use, disclose, retain and leverage information about them. The processing of sensitive personal data, such as physical health conditions, may impose heightened compliance burdens under the GDPR and is a topic of active interest among foreign regulators. In addition, the GDPR provides for breach reporting requirements, more robust regulatory enforcement and fines of up to 20 million euros or up to 4% of annual global revenue. While the GDPR affords some flexibility in determining how to comply with the various requirements, significant effort and expense has been, and will continue to be, invested to ensure continuing compliance. Moreover, the requirements under the GDPR may change periodically or may be modified by European Union national law and could have an effect on our business operations if compliance becomes substantially more costly than under current requirements.

It is possible that each of these privacy laws may be interpreted and applied in a manner that is inconsistent with our practices. Further, Brexit has created uncertainty with regard to data protection regulation in the UK. In particular, it is unclear whether, post Brexit, the UK will enact data protection legislation equivalent to the GDPR and how data transfers to and from the United Kingdom will be regulated. Any failure or perceived failure by us to comply with federal, state, or foreign laws or self-regulatory standards could result in negative publicity, diversion of management time and effort and proceedings against us by governmental entities or others. In many jurisdictions, enforcement actions and consequences for noncompliance are rising. As we continue to expand into other foreign countries and jurisdictions, we may be subject to additional laws and regulations that may affect how we conduct business.

Risks Related to Clinical Development, Regulatory Approval and Commercialization

Clinical trials are expensive, time-consuming, difficult to design and implement and involve an uncertain outcome.

Our gene therapy product candidates are still in development and will require extensive clinical testing before we are prepared to submit an application for marketing approval to regulatory authorities. We cannot predict with any certainty if or when we might submit any such application for regulatory approval for our product candidates or whether any such application will be approved by the applicable regulatory authority in our target markets. Human clinical trials are expensive and difficult to design and implement, in part because they are subject to rigorous regulatory requirements. For instance, regulatory authorities may not agree with our proposed endpoints for any clinical trials of our gene therapy product candidates, which may delay the commencement of our clinical trials. The clinical trial process is also time-consuming. We estimate that clinical trials of our product candidates will take at least several years to complete. Furthermore, failure can occur at any stage of the trials, and we could encounter problems that cause us to abandon or repeat clinical trials. Product candidates in later stages of clinical trials may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy traits despite having progressed through nonclinical studies and initial clinical trials, and the results of smaller nonclinical or early clinical trials therefore may not be predictive of the results of large scale or later-stage clinical programs. For example, in January 2018, we announced that intepirdine did not meet its primary efficacy endpoints in the Phase 2b HEADWAY and pilot Phase 2 Gait and Balance studies. In light of the data from these studies, as well as data from the September 2017 MINDSET readout, we discontinued our intepirdine program. Further, in December 2018, we announced that nelotanserin did not meet its primary efficacy endpoint in its Phase 2 clinical study, and we discontinued further clinical development of nelotanserin. Likewise, there can be no assurance that the results of studies conducted by collaborators or other third parties will be viewed favorably or are indicative of our own future study results. A number of companies in the biopharmaceutical industry, and especially in the neurology field, have suffered significant setbacks in advanced clinical trials due to lack of efficacy or adverse safety profiles, notwithstanding promising results in earlier trials, and in the regulatory approval process. For example, in August 2017, Acorda Therapeutics received a refusal to file letter from the FDA regarding its NDA for INBRIJA, an investigational treatment for symptoms of OFF episodes in patients with Parkinson’s disease taking a carbidopa/levodopa regimen.

All of our gene therapy product candidates are in early stages of development. The outcome of nonclinical testing and early clinical trials may not be predictive of the success of later stage clinical trials, interim results of a clinical trial do not necessarily predict final results and results from one completed clinical trial may not be replicated in a subsequent clinical trial with a similar study design. The clinical trials conducted to date for our gene therapy product candidates have involved a small number of patients, making it difficult to predict whether the favorable results that we observed in such trials will be repeated in larger and more advanced clinical trials.

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

Further, by way of example, we, a regulatory agency or an institutional review board ("IRB") at a clinical trial site may suspend our clinical trials at any time if it appears that we or our collaborators are failing to conduct a trial in accordance with regulatory requirements, including the FDA’s current Good Clinical Practice ("cGCP") regulations, that we are exposing participants to unacceptable health risks, or if the FDA finds deficiencies in our IND submissions or the conduct of these trials. Therefore, we cannot predict with any certainty the schedule for commencement and completion of clinical trials. If we experience delays in the commencement or completion of our clinical trials, or if we terminate a clinical trial prior to completion, the commercial prospects of our gene therapy product candidates could be harmed, and our ability to generate revenues may be delayed. In addition, any delays in our clinical trials could increase our costs, cause a drop in our share price, slow down the approval process and jeopardize our ability to commence product sales and generate revenues. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Moreover, principal investigators for our clinical trials may serve as scientific advisors or consultants to us from time to time and receive compensation in connection with such services. Under certain circumstances, we may be required to report some of these relationships to the applicable regulatory agency, which may conclude that a financial relationship between us and a principal investigator has created a conflict of interest or otherwise affected interpretation of the study. The applicable regulatory agency 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 applicable regulatory agency and may ultimately lead to the denial of marketing approval of one or more of our gene therapy product candidates.

In addition, we acquired worldwide rights to our gene therapy product candidates and were not involved in their development prior to such acquisitions. Any difficulties we experience in transitioning and integrating such gene therapy product candidates into our operations may result in delays in clinical trials as well as problems in our development efforts and regulatory filings, particularly if we do not receive all of the necessary materials, information, reports and data from third parties in a timely manner. More particularly, we have had no involvement with or control over the nonclinical and clinical development of our gene therapy product candidates prior to acquiring the rights to them. We are dependent on our predecessors including Oxford BioMedica and UMMS, having conducted such research and development in accordance with the applicable protocols, legal, regulatory and scientific standards, having accurately reported the results of all clinical trials and other research conducted prior to our acquisition of the gene therapy product candidates, having correctly collected and interpreted the data from these trials and other research and having supplied us with complete information, data sets and reports required to adequately demonstrate the results reported through the date of our acquisition of these assets. In addition, we have limited data regarding the safety, tolerability and efficacy of our gene therapy product candidates and their potential indications, and we have not previously conducted development activities for a biological product candidate. Problems related to our predecessors, including UMMS and Oxford BioMedica, and our limited available data for our gene therapy product candidates could result in increased costs and delays in the development of our gene therapy product candidates, which could adversely affect our ability to generate future revenues.

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

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

Enrollment and retention of patients in clinical trials is an expensive and time-consuming process and could be made more difficult or rendered impossible by multiple factors outside our control.

We may encounter delays in enrolling, or be unable to enroll, a sufficient number of patients to complete any of our clinical trials, and even once enrolled we may be unable to retain a sufficient number of patients to complete any of our trials. Patient enrollment and retention in clinical trials depends on many factors, including the size of the patient population, the nature of the trial protocol, the effectiveness of our patient recruitment efforts, the existing body of safety and efficacy data with respect to the study candidate, the perceived risks and benefits of gene therapy approaches for the treatment of neurological diseases, the number and nature of competing existing treatments for our target indications, the number and nature of ongoing trials for other product candidates in development for our target indications, perceived risk of the delivery procedure, patients with pre-existing conditions that preclude their participation in any trial, the proximity of patients to clinical sites and the eligibility criteria for the study. Furthermore, the negative results we have reported in clinical trials to date and any other negative results we may report in clinical trials of any of our gene therapy product candidates in the future may make it difficult or impossible to recruit and retain patients in other clinical trials of those gene therapy product candidates. Similarly, negative results reported by our competitors about their product candidates may negatively affect patient recruitment in our clinical trials. Delays or failures in planned patient enrollment or retention may result in increased costs, program delays or both, which could have a harmful effect on our ability to develop our gene therapy product candidates or could render further development impossible. In addition, we expect to rely on CROs and clinical trial sites to ensure proper and timely conduct of our future clinical trials and, while we intend to enter into agreements governing their services, we will be limited in our ability to control their actual performance.

We face significant competition from other biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, and our operating results will suffer if we fail to compete effectively.

Drug development, particularly in the gene therapy field, is highly competitive and subject to rapid and significant technological advancements. As a significant unmet medical need exists in the neurology field, particularly for the treatment of Parkinson's disease, there are several large and small pharmaceutical companies focused on delivering therapeutics for the treatment of these diseases. Further, it is likely that additional therapies will become available in the future for the treatment of our target indications.

Many of our existing or potential competitors have substantially greater financial, technical and human resources than we do and significantly greater experience in the discovery and development of product candidates, as well as in obtaining regulatory approvals of those product candidates in the United States and in foreign countries. Our current and potential future competitors also have significantly more experience commercializing drugs, particularly gene therapy and other biological products, that have been approved for marketing. Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries could result in even more resources being concentrated among a small number of our competitors.

We will face competition from other drugs or from other non-drug products currently approved or that will be approved in the future in the neurology field, including for the treatment of Parkinson’s disease. Therefore, our ability to compete successfully will depend largely on our ability to:

The availability of our competitors’ products could limit the demand, and the price we are able to charge, for any gene therapy product candidate we develop. The inability to compete with existing or subsequently introduced products would have an adverse impact on our business, financial condition and prospects.

Established pharmaceutical companies may invest heavily to accelerate discovery and development of novel compounds or to in-license novel compounds that could make our gene therapy product candidates less competitive. In addition, any new product that competes with an approved product must demonstrate compelling advantages in efficacy, convenience, tolerability and safety in order to overcome price competition and to be commercially successful. Accordingly, our competitors may succeed in obtaining patent protection, discovering, developing, receiving regulatory and marketing approval for or commercializing therapies before we do, which would have an adverse impact on our business and results of operations.

If we are not able to obtain required regulatory approvals, we will not be able to commercialize our gene therapy product candidates, and our ability to generate revenue will be materially impaired.

The activities associated with the development and commercialization of our gene therapy product candidates, including their design, research, testing, manufacture, safety, efficacy, recordkeeping, labeling, packaging, storage, approval, advertising, promotion, sale and distribution, are subject to comprehensive regulation by the FDA and other regulatory agencies in the United States and by the EMA, the PMDA and similar regulatory authorities outside the United States. Failure to obtain marketing approval for our gene therapy product candidates will prevent us from commercializing them.

We have not received approval from regulatory authorities to market any gene therapy product candidate in any jurisdiction, and we will need to complete pivotal clinical trials successfully for our gene therapy product candidates before we can submit any application for regulatory approval. It is possible that our gene therapy product candidates in the future will never obtain the appropriate regulatory approvals necessary for us to commence product sales.

We expect to rely on third-party CROs and consultants to assist us in filing and supporting the applications necessary to gain marketing approvals. Securing marketing approval requires the submission of extensive nonclinical and clinical data and supporting information for our gene therapy product candidates to regulatory authorities for each therapeutic indication to establish safety and efficacy of the gene therapy product candidate for that indication. Securing marketing approval also requires the submission of information about the product manufacturing process to, and inspection of manufacturing facilities by, the regulatory authorities. Delays or errors in the submission of applications for marketing approval or issues, including those related to gathering the appropriate data and the inspection process, may ultimately delay or affect our ability to obtain regulatory approval, commercialize our gene therapy product candidates and generate product revenues.

Our gene therapy product candidates may cause adverse effects or have other properties that could delay or prevent their regulatory approval or limit the scope of any approved label or market acceptance.

Adverse events caused by our gene therapy product candidates or that of adjuncts could cause us, other reviewing entities, clinical trial sites or regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay or halt clinical trials and could result in the denial of regulatory approval. If an unacceptable frequency or severity of adverse events are reported in our clinical trials for our gene therapy product candidates or any future product candidates, our ability to obtain regulatory approval for such product candidates may be negatively impacted. The laws and regulations governing controlled substances could limit commercialization of our gene therapy product candidates, and failure to comply with those laws and regulations could also result in adverse regulatory, legal, and operational consequences.

In particular, there have been several significant adverse side effects in gene therapy treatments in the past, including reported cases of leukemia in trials using earlier generation viral vectors. Gene therapy is still a relatively new approach to disease treatment and additional adverse side effects could develop. Possible adverse side effects that could occur with treatment with gene therapy products include an immunologic reaction early after administration which could substantially limit the effectiveness of the treatment or represent safety risks for patients. Another traditional safety concern for gene therapies using viral vectors has been the possibility of insertional mutagenesis by the vectors, leading to malignant transformation of transduced cells. Additionally, in previous clinical trials involving AAV vectors for gene therapy, some subjects experienced the development of a positive ELISPOT test associated with T-cell responses, which is of unclear clinical translatability.

There is also the potential risk of delayed adverse events following exposure to gene therapy products due to persistent biologic activity of the genetic material or other components of products used to carry the genetic material. Possible adverse side effects that may occur with treatment with gene therapy products include an immunologic reaction early after administration that could substantially limit the effectiveness of the treatment or represent safety risks for patients. Many times, side effects are only detectable after investigational products are tested in larger scale, pivotal clinical trials or, in some cases, after they are made available to patients on a commercial scale after approval.

In addition to side effects that may be caused by gene therapy product candidates, the administration process or related procedures also can cause adverse side effects. For example, integration of AAV DNA into the host cell's genome has been reported to occur. Further, our AAV delivery systems for AXO-AAV-GM1 and AXO-AAV-GM2 have not been validated in human clinical trials previously, and if such delivery systems do not meet the safety criteria or cannot provide the desired efficacy results, then we may be forced to suspend or terminate our development of AXO-AAV-GM1 or AXO-AAV-GM2.

If additional clinical experience indicates that any of our gene therapy product candidates has side effects or causes serious or life-threatening side effects, the development of the gene therapy product candidate may fail or be delayed, or, if the gene therapy product candidate has received regulatory approval, such approval may be revoked or limited.

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

Any of these events could prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of the affected gene therapy product candidate and could substantially increase the costs of commercializing our gene therapy product candidates.

Our AAV-based gene therapy product candidates and our lentiviral-based gene therapy product candidate are based on new gene transfer technology, which makes it difficult to predict the time and cost of product candidate development and of subsequently obtaining regulatory approval.

The use of gene therapy in the treatment of GM1 gangliosidosis, GM2 gangliosidosis (including Tay-Sachs disease and Sandhoff disease) and Parkinson’s disease is new. We may experience problems or delays in developing new gene therapy product candidates and such problems or delays may cause unanticipated costs, and such development problems may not be solvable. We may also experience delays in developing a sustainable, reproducible and scalable manufacturing process or transferring that process for our gene therapy product candidates from their current manufacturers, which may prevent us from completing our clinical studies or commercializing our products on a timely or profitable basis, if at all.

In addition, the clinical trial requirements of the FDA and other foreign regulatory authorities and the criteria these regulators use to determine the safety and efficacy of a product candidate vary substantially according to the type, complexity, novelty and intended use and market of such product candidates. The regulatory approval process for novel product candidates such as ours can be more expensive and take longer than for other, better known or more extensively studied product candidates. To date, only a limited number of gene therapies have received marketing authorization from the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities. Until August 2017, the FDA had never approved a gene therapy product. Since that time, it has only approved a small number of product candidates, including Kymriah by Novartis International AG, for pediatric and young adult patients with a form of acute lymphoblastic leukemia, Yescarta by Kite Pharma, Inc., for adult patients with certain forms of non-Hodgkin lymphoma, Luxturna by Spark Therapeutics, Inc. for patients with an inherited form of vision loss, and Zolgensma by Novartis International AG, for children less than 2 years old with spinal muscular atrophy. It is difficult to determine how long it will take or how much it will cost to obtain regulatory approvals for our gene therapy product candidates in either the United States, or other major markets or how long it will take to commercialize our gene therapy product candidates, if any are approved. Approvals by foreign regulatory authorities may not be indicative of what the FDA may require for approval, and vice versa.

Regulatory requirements governing gene therapy products have changed frequently and may continue to change in the future. The FDA has established the Office of Tissues and Advanced Therapies within its Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research ("CBER") to consolidate the review of gene therapy and related products, and has established the Cellular, Tissue and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee to advise the CBER in its review. If we were to engage an NIH-funded institution, to conduct a clinical trial, that institution’s institutional biosafety committee as well as its IRB would need to review the proposed clinical trial to assess the safety of the trial. In addition, adverse developments in clinical trials of gene therapy products conducted by others may cause the FDA or other oversight bodies to change the requirements for approval of any of our gene therapy product candidates. Similarly, foreign regulatory authorities may issue new guidelines concerning the development and marketing authorization for gene therapy medicinal products and require that we comply with these new guidelines.

The FDA, NIH and the EMA have each expressed interest in further regulating biotechnology, including gene therapy and genetic testing. For example, the EMA advocates a risk-based approach to the development of a gene therapy product. Agencies at both the federal and state level in the United States, as well as the U.S. Congressional committees and other governments or governing agencies, have also expressed interest in further regulating the biotechnology industry. Such action may delay or prevent commercialization of some or all of our gene therapy product candidates.

These regulatory review committees and advisory groups and any new guidelines they promulgate may lengthen the regulatory review process, require us to perform additional studies, increase our development costs, lead to changes in regulatory positions and interpretations, delay or prevent approval and commercialization of these product candidates or lead to significant post-approval limitations or restrictions. As we advance our gene therapy product candidates, we will be required to consult with these regulatory and advisory groups and comply with applicable guidelines. If we fail to do so, we may be required to delay or discontinue development of certain of our gene therapy product candidates. These additional processes may result in a review and approval process that is longer than we otherwise would have expected. Delay or failure to obtain, or unexpected costs in obtaining, the regulatory approval necessary to bring a potential product to market could decrease our ability to generate sufficient product revenue, and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects would be materially and adversely affected.

Even if we obtain FDA approval for our gene therapy product candidates in the United States, we may never obtain approval for or commercialize them in any other jurisdiction, which would limit our ability to realize their full market potential.

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

Even if we obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates, we will still face extensive regulatory requirements and our products may face future development and regulatory difficulties.

Any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval, along with the manufacturing processes, post-approval clinical data, labeling, packaging, distribution, adverse event reporting, storage, recordkeeping, export, import, advertising and promotional activities for such product, among other things, will be subject to extensive and ongoing requirements of and review by the FDA, the EMA, the PMDA and other comparable foreign regulatory authorities. These requirements include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, establishment registration and drug listing requirements, continued compliance with cGMP requirements relating to manufacturing, quality control, quality assurance and corresponding maintenance of records and documents, requirements regarding the distribution of samples to physicians and recordkeeping and cGCP requirements for any clinical trials that we conduct post-approval. Even if marketing approval of a product candidate is granted, the approval may be subject to limitations on the indicated uses for which the product may be marketed or to the conditions of approval, including any requirement to implement a REMS. If any of our product candidates receives marketing approval, the accompanying labels for such products may limit the approved use of the product, which could limit sales.

Regulatory authorities may also impose requirements for costly post-marketing studies or clinical trials and surveillance to monitor the safety or efficacy of the product. For example, the holder of an approved BLA is obligated to monitor and report adverse events and any failure of a product to meet the specifications in the BLA. The FDA typically advises that patients treated with gene therapy undergo follow-up observations for potential adverse events for a 15-year period. The holder of an approved BLA also must submit new or supplemental applications and obtain FDA approval for certain changes to the approved product, product labeling or manufacturing process. These authorities closely regulate the post-approval marketing and promotion of drugs to ensure drugs are marketed only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved labeling. We will be subject to stringent restrictions on manufacturers’ communications regarding off-label use and if we do not market our products for their approved indications, we may be subject to enforcement action for off-label marketing. Violations of the FDCA or PHSA in the United States, and other comparable regulations in foreign jurisdictions, relating to the promotion of prescription drugs may lead to enforcement actions and investigations alleging violations of U.S. federal and state health care fraud and abuse laws, as well as state consumer protection laws and comparable laws in foreign jurisdictions.

In addition, later discovery of previously unknown adverse events or other problems with our products, manufacturers or manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may yield various results, including:

Government regulations may change, and additional government regulations may be enacted, either of which could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of our product candidates 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. 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.

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

Even if our product candidates receive marketing approval, they may nonetheless fail to gain sufficient market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors and others in the medical community, including due to the novelty of gene therapy products in general. If they do not achieve an adequate level of acceptance, we may not generate significant product revenues and become profitable. The degree of market acceptance for our product candidates, if approved for commercial sale, will depend on a number of factors, including but not limited to:

We expect sales of our product candidates, if approved, to generate substantially all of our product revenues for the foreseeable future. The failure of any of our product candidates, if approved, to find market acceptance would harm our business and could require us to seek additional financing.

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

Gene therapy remains a novel technology, with only a limited number of gene therapy products approved to date. Public perception may be influenced by claims that gene therapy is unsafe, unethical or immoral, and gene therapy may not gain the acceptance of the public or the medical community. In particular, our success will depend upon the comfort level of physicians to prescribe our product candidates, in lieu of, or in addition to, existing or standard treatments they are already familiar with and for which greater clinical data may be available.

More restrictive government regulations or negative public opinion would have a negative effect on our business or financial condition and may delay or impair the development and commercialization of our gene therapy product candidates. Earlier gene therapy trials led to several well-publicized adverse events, including cases of leukemia and death seen in such trials using earlier generation vectors. For example, a public backlash developed against gene therapy following the death of a patient in 1999 during a gene therapy trial of research subjects with ornithine transcarbamylase ("OTC") deficiency, a rare disorder in which the liver lacks a functional copy of the OTC gene. The death of the trial subject was due to complications of adenovirus vector administration. In addition, there is the potential risk of delayed adverse events following exposure to gene therapy products due to persistent biological activity of the genetic material or other components of products used to carry the genetic material. Among the risks in any gene therapy product based on viral vectors are the risks of immunogenicity, elevated liver enzymes, and insertional oncogenesis, which is the process whereby the insertion of a functional gene near a gene that is important in cell growth or division results in uncontrolled cell division, which could potentially enhance the risk of malignant transformation. If our vectors demonstrate a similar effect we may decide or be required to halt or delay further clinical development of our AAV-based product candidates. Adverse events in our clinical studies, even if not ultimately attributable to our product candidates (such as the many adverse events that typically arise from the conditioning process), or adverse events in other lentiviral gene therapy trials, and the resulting publicity, could result in increased governmental regulation, unfavorable public perception, potential regulatory delays in the testing or approval of our product candidates, stricter labeling requirements for those product candidates that are approved and a decrease in demand for any such product candidates.

Increasing demand for compassionate use or expanded access of our unapproved therapies could negatively affect our reputation and harm our business.

We are developing our product candidates for life-threatening illnesses for which there are currently limited to no available therapeutic options. It is possible for individuals or groups to target companies with disruptive social media campaigns related to a request for access to unapproved drugs for patients with significant unmet medical need. If we experience a similar social media campaign regarding our decision to provide or not provide our product candidates under an expanded access corporate policy, our reputation may be negatively affected and our business may be harmed.

Recent media attention to individual patients’ expanded access requests has resulted in the introduction of legislation at the local and national level referred to as “Right to Try” laws, such as the Right to Try Act, which are intended to give patients access to unapproved therapies. New and emerging legislation regarding expanded access to unapproved drugs for life-threatening illnesses could negatively impact our business in the future.

A possible consequence of both activism and legislation in this area is the need for us to initiate an unanticipated expanded access program or to make our product candidates more widely available sooner than anticipated. We are a small company with limited resources and unanticipated trials or access programs could result in diversion of resources from our primary goals.

In addition, some patients who receive access to unapproved drugs through compassionate use or expanded access programs have life-threatening illnesses and have exhausted all other available therapies. The risk for serious adverse events in this patient population is high which could have a negative impact on the safety profile of our product candidates if we were to provide them to these patients in accordance with our expanded access corporate policy, which could cause significant delays or an inability to successfully commercialize our product candidates, which could materially harm our business. If we were to provide patients with our product candidates under an expanded access program, we may in the future need to restructure or pause ongoing compassionate use and/or expanded access programs in order to perform the controlled clinical trials required for regulatory approval and successful commercialization of our product candidates, which could prompt adverse publicity or other disruptions related to current or potential participants in such programs.

If we are unable to establish sales, marketing and distribution capabilities either on our own or in collaboration with third parties, we may not be successful in commercializing our product candidates, even if approved.

We do not have an infrastructure for the sales, marketing or distribution of our product candidates should they be approved, and the cost of establishing and maintaining such an organization may exceed the cost-effectiveness of doing so. In order to market any product that may be approved, we must build our sales, distribution, marketing, managerial and other non-technical capabilities or make arrangements with third parties to perform these services and obtain requisite licenses. To achieve commercial success for any product for which we have obtained marketing approval, we will need a sales and marketing organization.

We plan to commercialize our product candidates in the United States, the European Union, Japan and other major markets. If our product candidates are approved for marketing, we may build a focused sales, distribution and marketing infrastructure to market them. There are significant expenses and risks involved with establishing our own sales, marketing and distribution capabilities, including our ability to hire, retain and appropriately incentivize qualified individuals, generate sufficient sales leads, provide adequate training to sales and marketing personnel, and effectively manage a geographically dispersed sales and marketing team. Any failure or delay in the development of our internal sales, marketing and distribution capabilities, and any failure to obtain and maintain the requisite licenses, could delay any product launch, which would adversely impact the commercialization of our product candidates.

Factors that may inhibit our efforts to commercialize our products on our own include: 

If we are unable to build our own sales force or negotiate a collaborative relationship for the commercialization of our product candidates, we may be forced to delay the potential commercialization of such products or reduce the scope of our sales or marketing activities for our product candidates. If we elect to increase our expenditures to fund commercialization activities ourselves, we will 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 will not be able to bring our product candidates to market or generate product revenue. We could enter into arrangements with collaborative partners or otherwise at an earlier stage than otherwise would be ideal and we may be required to relinquish rights to one or more of our product candidates or otherwise agree to terms unfavorable to us, any of which may have an adverse effect on our business, operating results and prospects.

If we obtain approval to commercialize any products outside of the United States, a variety of risks associated with international operations could materially adversely affect our business.

If our product candidates are approved for commercialization, we may enter into agreements with third parties to market them in certain jurisdictions outside the United States. We expect that we will be subject to additional risks related to international operations or entering into international business relationships, including:

Our current and future relationships with investigators, health care professionals, consultants, third-party payors, and customers will be subject to applicable healthcare regulatory laws, which could expose us to penalties.

Our business operations and current and future arrangements with investigators, healthcare professionals, consultants, third-party payors and customers may expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations.

These laws may regulate the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we conduct our operations, including how we research, market, sell and distribute our products for which we obtain marketing approval. Such laws include:

Efforts to ensure that our current and future business arrangements with third parties will comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations will involve substantial costs. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices do not comply with current or future statutes, regulations, agency guidance or case law involving applicable healthcare laws. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of these or any other health regulatory laws that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant penalties, including the imposition of significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, monetary fines, disgorgement, imprisonment, possible exclusion from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other federal healthcare programs, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, additional reporting requirements and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or similar agreement, and curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations. Even the mere issuance of a subpoena or the fact of an investigation alone, regardless of the merit, may result in negative publicity, a drop in our share price, and other harm to our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Defending against any such actions can be costly, time-consuming and may require significant financial and personnel resources. Therefore, even if we are successful in defending against any such actions that may be brought against us, our business may be impaired.

Recently enacted and future legislation may increase the difficulty and cost for us to obtain marketing approval of and commercialize our product candidates and affect the prices we may obtain.

In the United States and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system that could, among other things, prevent or delay marketing approval of our product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities and affect our ability to profitably sell any products for which we obtain marketing approval.

For example, in March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (collectively, the "Affordable Care Act") was enacted to broaden access to health insurance, reduce or constrain the growth of healthcare spending, enhance remedies against fraud and abuse, add new transparency requirements for health care and health insurance industries, impose new taxes and fees on the health industry and impose additional health policy reforms. The law has continued the downward pressure on pharmaceutical pricing, especially under the Medicare program, and increased the industry’s regulatory burdens and operating costs. Among the provisions of the Affordable Care Act of importance to our product candidates are the following:

We cannot predict the full impact of the Affordable Care Act on pharmaceutical companies, as many of the reforms require the promulgation of detailed regulations implementing the statutory provisions, some of which has not yet fully occurred. For example, in January 2016, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS") issued a final rule regarding the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, effective April 1, 2016, that, among other things, revises the manner in which the "average manufacturer price" is to be calculated by manufacturers participating in the program and implements certain amendments to the Medicaid rebate statute created under the Affordable Care Act. Further, there have been judicial and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act, and we expect there will be additional challenges and amendments to the Affordable Care Act in the future. Since January 2017, the President of the United States has signed two Executive Orders and other directives designed to delay the implementation of certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act or otherwise circumvent some of the requirements for health insurance mandated by the Affordable Care Act. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 includes a provision repealing, effective January 1, 2019, the tax-based shared responsibility payment imposed by the Affordable Care Act on certain individuals who fail to maintain qualifying health coverage for all or part of a year that is commonly referred to as the "individual mandate." Additionally, on January 22, 2018, President Trump signed a continuing resolution on appropriations for fiscal year 2018 that delayed the implementation of certain fees mandated by the Affordable Care Act, including the so-called "Cadillac" tax on certain high cost employer-sponsored insurance plans, the annual fee imposed on certain health insurance providers based on market share, and the medical device excise tax on non-exempt medical devices. Further, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, among other things, amends the Affordable Care Act, effective January 1, 2019, to increase from 50 percent to 70 percent the point-of-sale discount that is owed by pharmaceutical manufacturers who participate in Medicare Part D and to close the coverage gap in most Medicare drug plans, commonly referred to as the "donut hole." In addition, citing legal guidance from the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has concluded that cost-sharing reduction ("CSR") payments to insurance companies required under the Affordable Care Act have not received necessary appropriations from Congress and announced that it will discontinue these payments immediately until such appropriations are made. The loss of the CSR payments is expected to increase premiums on certain policies issued by qualified health plans under the Affordable Care Act. While Congress is considering legislation to appropriate funds for CSR payments, the future of that legislation is uncertain. Moreover, in July 2018, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services published a final rule permitting further collections and payments to and from certain Affordable Care Act qualified health plans and health insurance issuers under the Affordable Care Act risk adjustment program in response to the outcome of federal district court litigation regarding the method CMS uses to determine this risk adjustment. Congress will likely consider other legislation to replace elements of the Affordable Care Act. On December 14, 2018, a U.S. District Court Judge in the Northern District of Texas ruled that the individual mandate is a critical and inseverable feature of the Affordable Care Act, and therefore, because it was repealed as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, the remaining provisions of the Affordable Care Act are invalid as well. While the current administration and CMS have both stated that the ruling will have no immediate effect, it is unclear how this decision, subsequent appeals, if any, and other efforts to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act will impact the Affordable Care Act and our business. The Affordable Care Act is likely to continue the downward pressure on pharmaceutical pricing and may also increase our regulatory burdens and operating costs. We continue to evaluate the effect that the Affordable Care Act and its possible repeal and replacement has on our business. See "Item 1. Business-Government Regulation."

Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the Affordable Care Act was enacted. For example, in August 2011, President Obama signed into law the Budget Control Act of 2011, which, among other things, created the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction to recommend to Congress proposals in spending reductions. The Joint Select Committee did not achieve a targeted deficit reduction of at least $1.2 trillion for the years 2013 through 2021, triggering the legislation’s automatic reduction to several government programs. This included further reductions to Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect in April 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, will stay in effect through 2027 unless additional Congressional action is taken. Additionally, in January 2013, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was signed into law, which, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to several providers and increased the statute of limitations period in which the government may recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. Additionally, on May 30, 2018, the Trickett Wendler, Frank Mongiello, Jordan McLinn, and Matthew Bellina Right to Try Act of 2017 was signed into law. The law, among other things, provides a federal framework for certain patients to access certain investigational new drug products that have completed a Phase I clinical trial and are undergoing investigation for FDA approval. Under certain circumstances, eligible patients can seek treatment without enrolling in clinical trials and without obtaining FDA permission under the FDA expanded access program. There is no obligation for a pharmaceutical company to make its product candidates available to eligible patients as a result of the Right to Try Act.

Further, there have been several recent U.S. Congressional inquiries and proposed federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, reduce the out-of-pocket cost of prescription drugs and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs. Such scrutiny has resulted in several recent Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to pharmaceutical product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for products. At the federal level, the current administration’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2019 contains further drug price control measures that could be enacted during the 2019 budget process or in other future legislation, including, for example, measures to permit Medicare Part D plans to negotiate the price of certain drugs under Medicare Part B, to allow some states to negotiate drug prices under Medicaid, and to eliminate cost sharing for generic drugs for low-income patients. Additionally, on May 11, 2018, the President of the United States laid out his administration’s "Blueprint to Lower Drug Prices and Reduce Out-of-Pocket Costs" to reduce the cost of prescription drugs while preserving innovation and cures. The Department of Health and Human Services has already started the process of soliciting feedback on some of these measures and, at the same time, is immediately implementing others under its existing authority. In September 2018, CMS announced that it will allow Medicare Advantage Plans the option to use step therapy for Part B drugs beginning January 1, 2019, and on January 31, 2019, the HHS Office Inspector General proposed modifications to the U.S. federal Anti-Kickback Statute discount safe harbor for the purpose of reducing the cost of drug products to consumers which, among other things, if finalized, will affect discounts paid by manufacturers to Medicare Part D plans, Medicaid managed care organizations and pharmacy benefit managers working with these organizations. Additionally, CMS issued a final rule, effective on July 9, 2019, that requires direct-to-consumer television advertisements of prescription drugs and biological products, for which payment is available through or under Medicare or Medicaid, to include in the advertisement the Wholesale Acquisition Cost, or list price, of that drug or biological product if it is equal to or greater than $35 for a monthly supply or usual course of treatment. Prescription drugs and biological products that are in violation of these requirements will be included on a public list. Congress and the U.S. presidential administration have each indicated that they will continue to seek new legislative and/or administrative measures to control drug costs. At the state level, legislatures have become increasingly aggressive 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.

Moreover, the Drug Supply Chain Security Act, which was enacted in 2012 as part of the FDA Safety and Innovation Act, imposes new obligations on manufacturers of pharmaceutical products related to product tracking and tracing. Legislative and regulatory proposals have been made to expand post-approval requirements and restrict sales and promotional activities for pharmaceutical products. We are not sure whether additional legislative changes will be enacted, whether the current regulations, guidance or interpretations will be changed, or what the impact of such changes on our business, if any, may be. In addition, increased scrutiny by the U.S. Congress of the FDA’s approval process may significantly delay or prevent marketing approval, as well as subject us to more stringent product labeling and post-marketing testing and other requirements.

We expect that additional state and federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand for our product candidates or additional pricing pressures.

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

Market acceptance and sales of any approved product candidates that we develop will depend in part on the extent to which coverage and adequate reimbursement for these products and related treatments will be available from third-party payors, including government health administration authorities and private health insurers. In the United States, no uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for products exists among third-party payors. Third-party payors decide which drugs or therapies they will pay for and establish reimbursement levels. One payor’s determination to provide coverage for a product does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage, and adequate reimbursement, for the product. Additionally, a third-party payor’s decision to provide coverage for a drug or therapy does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Each plan determines whether or not it will provide coverage for a drug or therapy, what amount it will pay the manufacturer for the drug or therapy, on what tier of its formulary the drug or therapy will be placed, and whether to require step therapy. The position of a drug on a formulary generally determines the co-payment that a patient will need to make to obtain the drug and can strongly influence the adoption of a drug by patients and physicians. Patients who are prescribed treatments for their conditions and providers prescribing such services generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the associated healthcare costs. Patients are unlikely to use our products unless coverage is provided, and reimbursement is adequate to cover a significant portion of the cost of our products.

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

Additionally, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory proposals to change the healthcare system in the United States and in some foreign jurisdictions that could affect our ability to sell any future drugs profitably. There can be no assurance that our product candidates, if approved, will be considered medically reasonable and necessary, that it will be considered cost-effective by third-party payors, that coverage or an adequate level of reimbursement will be available, or that reimbursement policies and practices in the United States and in foreign countries where our products are sold will not adversely affect our ability to sell our product candidate profitably, if approved for sale.

Risks Related to Our Dependence on Third Parties

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

We are building teams with drug formulation and manufacturing expertise but do not own or operate, nor do we expect to own or operate, facilities for product manufacturing, storage and distribution, or testing. In addition to the technical challenges of drug product formulation and scale-up and environmental compliance aspects of chemical and biologics manufacturing, our vendors of manufacturing services will need to comply with U.S. and foreign regulatory authority licensure and cGMP quality requirements. These obligations are enforced by periodic inspection and audit by regulatory authorities, and any adverse findings or violations discovered on such inspections could distract our vendors and be costly and time consuming to remediate, potentially impacting their supply of clinical and future commercial products to us.

Under the Oxford BioMedica Agreement, Oxford BioMedica will manufacture and supply the AXO-LENTI-PD in accordance with separate clinical and commercial supply agreements, which will be negotiated between us and Oxford BioMedica. The Oxford BioMedica Agreement contains certain key provisions of the clinical and commercial supply agreements, including pricing structure and our ability to transfer the technology to another manufacturer at any time following the completion of formal process characterization, process validation or BLA submission. The UMMS Agreement provides that UMMS will supply material manufactured at Nationwide Children's Hospital to support the AXO-AAV-GM1 and AXO-AAV-GM2 Phase 1/2 clinical studies.

The process for manufacturing gene therapy products is more complex than those required for most chemical pharmaceuticals. Moreover, unlike chemical pharmaceuticals, the physical and chemical properties of a gene therapy product such as ours generally cannot be fully characterized. Although we may establish our own manufacturing facility or use that of a third-party contract manufacturer to support a commercial launch of our gene therapy product candidates, if approved, the timeframe for us to obtain approval for such facility or qualify such third-party contract manufacturer and ensure that all processes, methods and equipment are compliant with cGMP requirements is uncertain. In addition, our ability to receive damages from our CROs in connection with such failures is generally contractually limited.

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

Our product candidates are manufactured using technically complex processes requiring specialized facilities, highly specific raw materials and other production constraints. The complexity of these processes, as well as strict government standards for the manufacture and storage of our product candidates, subjects us to manufacturing risks for these product candidates. If supply from a manufacturing facility is interrupted, there could be a significant disruption in supply of our product candidates. If we are unable to engage other manufacturers or suppliers, we may not be able to enter into arrangements with them on favorable terms or at all. Use of new third-party manufacturers could increase the risk of delays in production or insufficient supplies of our product candidates as we transfer our manufacturing technology to these manufacturers and as they gain experience manufacturing our product candidates.

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

We intend to rely on third parties to conduct, supervise and monitor our nonclinical studies and our clinical trials, and if those third parties perform in an unsatisfactory manner, it may harm our business.

We intend to rely on CROs and nonclinical and clinical trial sites to ensure the proper and timely conduct of our nonclinical studies and our clinical trials, and we expect to have limited influence over their actual performance. In addition, pursuant to our agreements with Oxford BioMedica and UMMS, we may rely on their respective employees for certain services in connection with the transition of the respective gene therapy product candidates to us. We do not have complete control over those employees or their execution of services provided to us, and these employees may not perform such services in a timely or satisfactory manner, which could harm our business and development programs. 

We intend to rely upon CROs to monitor and manage data for our clinical programs, as well as the execution of future nonclinical studies. We expect to control only certain aspects of our CROs’ activities. Nevertheless, we will be responsible for ensuring that each of our studies is conducted in accordance with the applicable protocol, legal, regulatory and scientific standards and our reliance on the CROs does not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities.

We and our CROs will be required to comply with Good laboratory practices and cGCPs, which are regulations and guidelines enforced by the FDA and are also required by the competent authorities of the member states of the European Economic Area and comparable foreign regulatory authorities in the form of International Council for Harmonization guidelines for any of our product candidates that are in nonclinical and clinical development. The regulatory authorities enforce cGCPs through periodic inspections of trial sponsors, principal investigators and clinical trial sites. Although we may rely on CROs to conduct our GLP-compliant preclinical studies and GCP-compliant clinical trials, we will remain responsible for ensuring that each of our GLP preclinical studies and GCP clinical trials is conducted in accordance with its investigational plan and protocol and applicable laws and regulations, and our reliance on the CROs does not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities. If we or our CROs fail to comply with cGCPs, the clinical data generated in our clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may reject our marketing applications or require us to perform additional clinical trials before approving our marketing applications. Accordingly, if we or our CROs fail to comply with these regulations or other applicable laws, regulations or standards, or fail to recruit a sufficient number of subjects, we may be required to repeat clinical trials, which would delay the relevant regulatory approval process. Failure by our CROs to properly execute study protocols in accordance with applicable law could also create product liability and healthcare regulatory risks for us as sponsors of those studies.

Our CROs will not be our employees, and we will not control whether or not they devote sufficient time and resources to our clinical and nonclinical programs. These CROs may also have relationships with other commercial entities, including our competitors, for whom they may also be conducting clinical trials, or other drug development activities which could harm our competitive position. We face the risk of potential unauthorized disclosure or misappropriation of our intellectual property by CROs, which may reduce our trade secret and intellectual property protection and allow our potential competitors to access and exploit our proprietary technology. If our CROs do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or obligations, fail to meet expected deadlines, or if the quality or accuracy of the clinical data they obtain is compromised due to the failure to adhere to our (or their own) clinical protocols or regulatory requirements or for any other reasons, our clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated, and we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for, or successfully commercialize, any product candidate that we develop. As a result, our financial results and the commercial prospects for any product candidate that we develop could be harmed, our costs could increase, and our ability to generate revenues could be delayed.

If our relationships with these CROs terminate, we may not be able to enter into arrangements with alternative CROs or do so on commercially reasonable terms or in a timely manner. Switching or adding additional CROs involves substantial cost and requires management time and focus. In addition, there is a natural transition period when a new CRO commences work. As a result, delays occur, which can materially impact our ability to meet our desired clinical development timelines. Though we intend to carefully manage our relationships with our CROs, there can be no assurance that we will not encounter challenges or delays in the future or that these delays or challenges will not have an adverse impact on our business, financial condition and prospects.

We may seek to enter into collaborations in the future with other third parties. If we are unable to enter into such collaborations, or if these collaborations are not successful, our business could be adversely affected.

We will seek to enter into additional collaborations in the future, including sales, marketing, distribution, development, licensing, and/or broader collaboration agreements. Our likely collaborators include large and mid-size pharmaceutical companies, regional and national pharmaceutical companies, biotechnology companies, and medical device manufacturers. However, we may not be able to enter into additional collaborations on favorable terms or at all. Our ability to generate revenues from our collaborations will depend on our and our collaborators’ abilities to successfully perform the functions assigned to each of us in these arrangements. In addition, our collaborators have the ability to abandon research or development projects and terminate applicable agreements. Moreover, an unsuccessful outcome in any clinical trial for which our collaborator is responsible could be harmful to the public perception and prospects of our existing product candidate pipeline.

Our relationship with any future collaborations may pose several risks, including the following:

We will face significant competition in seeking appropriate collaborators, and the negotiation process is time-consuming and complex. Our ability to reach a definitive collaboration agreement with any future collaborators 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 several factors. Those factors may include the design or results of clinical trials, the likelihood of approval by the FDA or similar regulatory authorities outside the United States, the potential market for the subject product candidate, the costs and complexities of manufacturing and delivering such product candidate to patients, the potential of competing products, the existence of uncertainty with respect to our ownership of technology, which can exist if there is a challenge to such ownership without regard to the merits of the challenge, and industry and market conditions generally. We may also be restricted under future license agreements from entering into agreements on certain terms with potential collaborators.

Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property

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

We rely, and will continue to rely, upon a combination of patents, trademarks, trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements with employees, consultants, collaborators, advisors and other third parties to protect the intellectual property related to our current and future development programs and product candidates. Our success depends in large part on our ability to obtain and maintain patent protection in the United States and other countries for our current gene therapy product candidates and any future product candidates. We seek to protect our proprietary position by filing patent applications in the United States and abroad related to our current and future product development programs and product candidates. The patent prosecution process is expensive and time-consuming, and we may not be able to file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner.

The patent applications we have in-licensed or own cannot be enforced against third parties practicing the technology claimed in such applications unless and until a patent issues from such application(s). Our in-licensed and/or owned patent applications may fail to result in issued patents with claims that cover our current product candidates or other gene therapy product candidates in the United States or in foreign countries. Our in-licensed and owned patent portfolio alone may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing products similar or identical to ours.

It is also possible that we will fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development output before it is too late to obtain patent protection. The patent applications that we own or in-license may fail to result in issued patents with claims that cover our current product candidates or any future product candidates in the United States or in other foreign countries. We may also inadvertently make statements to regulatory agencies during the regulatory approval process that may be inconsistent with positions that have been taken during prosecution of our in-licensed or owned patents which may result in such patents being narrowed, invalidated, or held unenforceable. The patents and patent applications that we own or in-license may fail to result in issued patents with claims that cover our current product candidates or any future product candidates in the United States or in other foreign countries.

The patent rights that we own or have licensed relating to our product candidates may be limited in ways that may affect our ability to exclude third parties from competing against us if we obtain regulatory approval to market these product candidates. For our current product candidates or future product candidates for which we do not hold or do not obtain composition of matter patents, competitors who obtain the requisite regulatory approval can offer products with the same composition as our products so long as the competitors do not infringe any other patents, such as method patents, that we may hold or obtain rights to. Method patents only protect the product when used or sold for the specified method. However, this type of patent protection does not limit a competitor from making and marketing a product that is identical to our product that is labeled for an indication that is outside of the patented method, or for which there is a substantial use in commerce outside the patented method.

There is no assurance that all of the potentially relevant prior art relating to our patents and patent applications has been found, which can prevent a patent from issuing from a pending patent application or be used to invalidate a patent. The patent examination process may require us to narrow our claims, which may limit the scope of patent protection that we may obtain. Even if patents do successfully issue based on our owned or in-licensed applications and even if such patents cover our current or future product candidates, third parties may challenge their validity, enforceability or scope, which may result in such patents being narrowed, invalidated, or held unenforceable. Any successful opposition to these patents or any other patents owned by or licensed to us in the future could deprive us of rights necessary for the successful commercialization of any current or future product candidates, if approved. Further, if we encounter delays in regulatory approvals, the period of time during which we could market a product candidate under patent protection could be reduced.

Our owned or in-licensed pending applications cannot be enforced against third parties practicing the technology claimed in such applications unless and until a patent issues from such applications. If the patent applications we hold or have in-licensed with respect to our development programs and product candidates fail to issue, if their breadth or strength of protection is threatened, or if they fail to provide meaningful exclusivity for our current or future product candidates, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to develop product candidates and threaten our ability to commercialize future products.  Any such outcome could have an adverse effect on our business.

The patent position of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies generally is highly uncertain, involves complex legal and factual questions and has in recent years been the subject of much litigation. In addition, the laws of foreign countries may not protect our rights to the same extent as the laws of the United States. For example, European patent law restricts the patentability of methods of treatment of the human body more than United States law does. Publications of discoveries in scientific literature often lag behind the actual discoveries, and patent applications in the United States and other jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing, or in some cases not at all. Therefore, we cannot know with certainty whether we were the first to make the inventions claimed in our owned or licensed patents or pending patent applications, or whether we were the first to file for patent protection of such inventions. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our patent rights are highly uncertain. Our pending and future patent applications may not result in patents being issued which protect our technology or products, in whole or in part, or which effectively prevent others from commercializing competitive technologies and products. Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of the patent laws in the United States and other countries may diminish the value of our patents or narrow the scope of our patent protection.

Patent reform legislation could increase uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our owned and in-licensed patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our owned or in-licensed issued patents. On September 16, 2011, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (the "Leahy-Smith Act") was signed into law. The Leahy-Smith Act made a number of significant changes to United States patent laws. These include provisions that affect the way patent applications are prosecuted and challenged at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") and may also affect patent litigation. The USPTO has developed and continues to develop new regulations and procedures to govern administration of the Leahy-Smith Act, and many of the substantive changes to patent law associated with the Leahy-Smith Act, and in particular, the first to file provisions, only became effective on March 16, 2013. Accordingly, it is not clear what, if any, impact the Leahy-Smith Act, subsequent rulemaking, and judicial interpretation of the Leahy-Smith Act and regulations will have on the operation of our business. However, the Leahy-Smith Act and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement and/or defense of our issued patents, all of which could have an adverse effect on our business and financial condition.

Moreover, we may be subject to a third-party pre-issuance submission of prior art to the USPTO, or become involved in opposition, derivation, reexamination, inter partes review, post-grant review or interference proceedings challenging our patent rights or the patent rights of others. An adverse determination in any such submission, proceeding or litigation could reduce the scope of, or invalidate, our patent rights, allow third parties to commercialize our technology or products and compete directly with us, without payment to us, or result in our inability to manufacture or commercialize products without infringing third-party patent rights.

Even if our patent applications that we own or license issue as patents, they may not issue in a form that will provide us with any meaningful protection, prevent competitors from competing with us or otherwise provide us with any competitive advantage. Our competitors may be able to circumvent our patents by developing similar or alternative technologies or products in a non-infringing manner. In addition, if the breadth or strength of protection provided by our patents and patent applications is threatened, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to license, develop or commercialize current or future product candidates.

The issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity or enforceability, and our owned and licensed patents may be challenged in the courts or patent offices in the United States and abroad. Such challenges may result in loss of exclusivity or freedom to operate or in patent claims being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable, in whole or in part, which could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical technology and products, or limit the duration of the patent protection of our technology and products.

The inventorship and/or ownership rights for patents or patent applications we own or in-license may be challenged by third parties. Such challenges could result in loss of exclusive rights to such patents, which could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical technology and products or require us to obtain a license from such third parties on commercially reasonable terms to secure exclusive rights, or our business could be harmed. If any such challenges to inventorship and/or ownership were asserted, there is no assurance that a court would find in our favor or that, if we choose to seek a license, such license would be available to us on acceptable terms or at all.

Moreover, patents have a limited lifespan. In the United States, the natural expiration of a patent is generally 20 years after the first non-provisional filing date. Certain extensions may be available; however, the life of a patent, and the protection it affords, is limited. Without patent protection for our current or future product candidates, we may be open to competition from biosimilar or generic versions of such 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 owned and licensed 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 protection under the Hatch-Waxman Amendments by extending the patent term and obtain data exclusivity for our product candidates, our business may be materially harmed.

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

Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of FDA marketing approval of our product candidates, one or more of our U.S. patents or patent applications, once issued, may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, referred to as the Hatch-Waxman Amendments. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments permit a patent term extension of up to five years beyond the normal expiration of the patent as compensation for patent term lost during development and the FDA regulatory review process, which is limited to the approved indication (or any additional indications approved during the period of extension). However, the total patent term including the period of extension cannot exceed 14 years from the product's approval date. Furthermore, this extension is limited to only one patent that covers the approved product, the approved use of the product, or a method of manufacturing the product. However, the applicable authorities, including the FDA and the USPTO in the United States, and any equivalent regulatory authority in other countries, may not agree with our assessment of whether such extensions are available, and may refuse to grant extensions to our patents, or may grant more limited extensions than we request. We may not be granted an extension because of, for example, failing to apply within applicable deadlines, failing to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents or otherwise failing to 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 extend the expiration date of our existing patents or obtain new patents with longer expiry dates, our competitors may be able to take advantage of our investment in development and clinical trials by referencing our clinical and nonclinical data to obtain approval of competing products following our patent expiration and launch their product earlier than might otherwise be the case.

The validity, scope and enforceability of any patents that cover our biologic product candidates can be challenged by third parties.

For biologics, such as AXO-LENTI-PD, AXO-AAV-GM1 and AXO-AAV-GM2, the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act ("BPCIA") provides a mechanism for one or more third parties to seek FDA approval to manufacture or sell biosimilar or interchangeable versions of brand name biological products. Due to the large size and complexity of biological products, as compared to small molecules, a biosimilar must be "highly similar" to the reference product with "no clinically meaningful differences between the biological product and the reference product in terms of the safety, purity and potency of the product." The BPCIA provides, among other things, for a formal pre-litigation process which includes the exchange of information between a biosimilar applicant and a reference product sponsor that can include the identification of relevant patents and each parties’ basis for infringement and invalidity. After the exchange of this information (if the exchange is elected), we must then initiate an infringement lawsuit within 30 days for the patents identified in the exchange. If the biosimilar applicant successfully challenges the asserted patent claims it could result in the invalidation of, or render unenforceable, some or all of the relevant patent claims or result in a finding of non-infringement.

Litigation or other proceedings to enforce or defend intellectual property rights are often complex in nature, may be expensive and time-consuming, may divert our management’s attention from our core business, and may result in unfavorable results that could limit our ability to prevent third parties from competing with our product candidates.

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

Periodic maintenance fees on any issued patent are due to be paid to the USPTO and other foreign patent agencies in several stages over the lifetime of the patent. The USPTO and various foreign national or international patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar provisions during the patent application process. While an inadvertent lapse can in many cases be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules, there are situations in which noncompliance can result in abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. Non-compliance events that could result in abandonment or lapse of patent rights include, but are not limited to, failure to timely file national and regional stage patent applications based on our international patent application, failure to respond to office actions within prescribed time limits, non-payment of fees and failure to properly legalize and submit formal documents. If we or our licensors fail to maintain the patents and patent applications covering our current or future product candidates, our competitors might be able to enter the market sooner, which would have an adverse effect on our business.

We may need to license intellectual property from third parties, and such licenses may not be available or may not be available on commercially reasonable terms.

A third-party may hold intellectual property, including patent rights and trade secrets that are important or necessary to the development of our current or future product candidates. It may be necessary for us to use the patented or proprietary technology of one or more third parties to manufacture or commercialize our product candidates, in which case we would be required to obtain a license from these third parties on commercially reasonable terms, or our business could be harmed, possibly materially. If any such patents were to be asserted against us, there is no assurance that a court would find in our favor or that, if we choose or are required to seek a license, a license to any of these patents would be available to us on acceptable terms or at all.

It may be necessary to use a patented or proprietary AAV-related technology of one or more third parties to manufacture and commercialize AXO-AAV-GM1 or AXO-AAV-GM2. If we are unable to obtain licenses from such third parties when needed or on commercially reasonable terms, our ability to commercialize AXO-AAV-GM1 (if approved) or AXO-AAV-GM2 (if approved), would likely be delayed or impaired.

Third-party claims or litigation alleging infringement of patents or other proprietary rights or seeking to invalidate patents or other proprietary rights may delay or prevent the development and commercialization of our product candidates.

Our commercial success depends in part on our avoiding infringement and other violations of the patents and proprietary rights of third parties. There is a substantial amount of litigation, both within and outside the United States, involving patent and other intellectual property rights in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, including patent infringement lawsuits, interferences, derivation and administrative law proceedings, inter partes review, and post-grant review before the USPTO, as well as oppositions and similar proceedings in foreign jurisdictions. Numerous U.S. and foreign issued patents and pending patent applications, which are owned by third parties, exist in the fields in which we and our collaborators are developing product candidates. As the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries expand and more patents are issued, and as we gain greater visibility and market exposure as a public company, the risk increases that our product candidates or other business activities may be subject to claims of infringement of the patent and other proprietary rights of third parties. Third parties may assert that we are infringing their patents or employing their proprietary technology without authorization.

There may be third-party patents or patent applications with claims to compositions, materials, formulations, methods of manufacture or methods for treatment related to our current or future product candidates. 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 current or future product candidates may infringe. In addition, third parties may obtain patents in the future and claim that use of our technologies infringes upon these patents. If any third-party patents were held by a court of competent jurisdiction to cover the manufacturing process of any of our product candidates; any molecules, plasmids, vectors, cell lines, etc. formed during the manufacturing process; any final product itself or the intended method of treatment using the product, including combination therapy, the holders of any such patents may be able to block our ability to commercialize such product candidate unless we obtained a license under the applicable patents, or until such patents expire.

A license may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all.  In addition, we may be subject to claims that we are infringing other intellectual property rights, such as trademarks or copyrights, or misappropriating the trade secrets of others, and to the extent that our employees, consultants or contractors use intellectual property or proprietary information owned by others in their work for us, disputes may arise as to the rights in related or resulting know-how and inventions.

Parties making claims against us may obtain injunctive or other equitable relief, which could effectively block our ability to further develop and commercialize one or more of our product candidates. Defense of these claims, regardless of their merit, would involve substantial litigation expense and would be a substantial diversion of employee resources from our business.  In the event of a successful infringement or other intellectual property claim against us, we may have to pay substantial damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees for willful infringement, obtain one or more licenses from third parties, pay royalties or redesign our affected products, which may be impossible or require substantial time and monetary expenditure. We cannot predict whether any such license would be available at all or whether it would be available on commercially reasonable terms. Furthermore, even in the absence of litigation, we may need to obtain licenses from third parties to advance our research or allow commercialization of our product candidates, and we have done so from time to time. We may fail to obtain any of these licenses at a reasonable cost or on reasonable terms, if at all.  In that event, we would be unable to further develop and commercialize one or more of our product candidates, which could harm our business significantly.  Claims that we have misappropriated the confidential information or trade secrets of third parties could have a similar negative impact on our business.

We cannot provide any assurances that third-party patents do not exist which might be enforced against our product candidates, resulting in either an injunction prohibiting our sales, or, with respect to our sales, an obligation on our part to pay royalties or other forms of compensation to third parties.

Third-party patent applications directed to methods for producing recombinant lentiviral vectors or recombinant AAV vectors could adversely affect the potential commercialization of our current gene therapy product candidates, if patents issue from such applications that include claims that would cover the methods of making our current gene therapy product candidates. While we do not believe that such pending third-party claims that would cover the methods of making our current gene therapy product candidates are likely to be patentable, we may be incorrect in this belief.

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.

We cannot guarantee that any of our or our licensors’ patent searches or analyses, including the identification of relevant patents, the scope of patent claims or the expiration of relevant patents, are complete or thorough, nor can we be certain that we have identified each and every third-party patent and pending application in the United States and abroad that is or may be relevant to or necessary for the commercialization of our product candidates in any jurisdiction. Patent applications in the United States and elsewhere are not published until approximately 18 months after the earliest filing for which priority is claimed, with such earliest filing date being commonly referred to as the priority date. In addition, U.S. patent applications filed before November 29, 2000 and certain U.S. patent applications filed after that date that will not be filed outside the United States remain confidential until patents issue. Therefore, patent applications covering our products could have been filed by others without our knowledge. Additionally, pending patent applications that have been published can, subject to certain limitations, be later amended in a manner that could cover our product candidates or the use of our products.

The scope of a patent claim is determined by multiple factors including an interpretation of the law, the written disclosure in a patent and the patent’s prosecution history. Our interpretation of the relevance or the scope of a patent or a pending application may be incorrect, which may negatively impact our ability to market our 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, and our failure to identify and correctly interpret relevant patents may negatively impact our ability to develop and market our products.

If we fail to identify and correctly interpret relevant patents, we may be subject to infringement claims. We cannot guarantee that we will be able to successfully settle or otherwise resolve such infringement claims. If we fail in any such dispute, in addition to being forced to pay damages, we may be temporarily or permanently prohibited from commercializing any of our products that are held to be infringing. We might, if possible, also be forced to redesign products, processes, or services so that we no longer infringe the third-party intellectual property rights. Any of these events, even if we were ultimately to prevail, could require us to divert substantial financial and management resources that we would otherwise be able to devote to our business.

If we breach any of our license or collaboration agreements, it could compromise our development and commercialization efforts for our product candidates.

We have licensed rights to intellectual property from Oxford Biomedica, UMMS and Benitec in order to commercialize our product candidates, and, in the case of AXO-LENTI-PD, intend to enter into commercial supply and manufacturing agreements with Oxford BioMedica.

Disputes may arise between us and any of these counterparties regarding intellectual property rights that are subject to such agreements, including, but not limited to:

These or other disputes over intellectual property that we have licensed (or will license or acquire in the future) may prevent or impair our ability to maintain our current arrangements on acceptable terms or may impair the value of the arrangement to us. Any such dispute could have an adverse effect on our business.

If we materially breach or fail to perform any provision under these license and collaboration agreements, including failure to make payments to a licensor or collaborator when due for royalties and failure to use commercially reasonable efforts to develop and commercialize our product candidates, such licensors and collaborators have the right to terminate our agreement, and upon the effective date of such termination, our right to practice the licensed patent rights and other intellectual property would end. Any uncured, material breach under the agreements could result in our loss of rights to practice the patent rights and other intellectual property licensed to us under the agreements and to liability for potential damages.

Our intellectual property agreements with third parties may be subject to disagreements over contract interpretation, which could narrow the scope of our rights to the relevant intellectual property or technology.

Certain provisions in our intellectual property agreements may be susceptible to multiple interpretations. The resolution of any contract interpretation disagreement that may arise could affect the scope of our rights to the relevant intellectual property or technology or affect financial or other obligations under the relevant agreement, either of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

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

Competitors may infringe or otherwise violate our patents, the patents of our licensors or our other intellectual property rights.  To counter infringement or unauthorized use, we may be required to file legal claims, which can be expensive and time-consuming. In addition, in an infringement proceeding, a court may decide that a patent of ours or our licensors is not valid or is unenforceable or may refuse to stop the other party from using the technology at issue on the grounds that our patents do not cover the technology in question. An adverse result in any litigation or defense proceedings could put one or more of our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and could put our patent applications at risk of not issuing. The initiation of a claim against a third-party may also cause the third-party to bring counter claims against us such as claims asserting that our patents are invalid or unenforceable.

In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity or unenforceability are commonplace. Grounds for a validity challenge could be an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, including lack of novelty, obviousness, non-enablement, or lack of statutory subject matter. Grounds for an unenforceability assertion could be an allegation that someone connected with prosecution of the patent withheld relevant material information from the USPTO, or made a materially misleading statement, during prosecution. Third parties may also raise similar validity claims before the USPTO in post-grant proceedings such as ex parte reexaminations, inter partes review, or post-grant review, or oppositions or similar proceedings outside the United States, in parallel with litigation or even outside the context of litigation. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. We cannot be certain that there is no invalidating prior art, of which we and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution. For the patents and patent applications that we have licensed, we may have limited or no right to participate in the defense of any licensed patents against challenge by a third-party. If a defendant were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity or unenforceability, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of any future patent protection on our current or future product candidates. Such a loss of patent protection could harm our business.

We may not be able to detect or prevent, alone or with our licensors, misappropriation of our intellectual property rights, particularly in countries where the laws may not protect those rights as fully as in the United States. Any litigation or other proceedings to enforce our intellectual property rights may fail, and even if successful, may result in substantial costs and distract our management and other employees.

Even if we establish infringement, the court may decide not to grant an injunction against further infringing activity and instead award only monetary damages, which may or may not be an adequate remedy. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation. There could also be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments. If securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have an adverse effect on the price of our common shares.

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

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

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

The United States has recently enacted and implemented wide-ranging patent reform legislation. 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 actions by the U.S. Congress, the federal courts, and the USPTO, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that would weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce patents that we have licensed or that we might obtain in the future. Similarly, changes in patent law and regulations in other countries or jurisdictions or changes in the governmental bodies that enforce them or changes in how the relevant governmental authority enforces patent laws or regulations may weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce patents that we have licensed or that we may obtain in the future.

The United States federal government retains certain rights in inventions produced with its financial assistance under the Bayh-Dole Act. The federal government retains a "nonexclusive, nontransferable, irrevocable, paid-up license" for its own benefit. The Bayh-Dole Act also provides federal agencies with "march-in rights". March-in rights allow the government, in specified circumstances, to require the contractor or successors in title to the patent to grant a "nonexclusive, partially exclusive, or exclusive license" to a "responsible applicant or applicants." If the patent owner refuses to do so, the government may grant the license itself. Furthermore, if the U.S. Government has rights related to a product candidate under the Bayh-Dole Act, we may be obligated to substantially manufacture in the U.S. such product if it was invented using government funding. Under certain circumstances, we may be able to obtain a waiver to manufacture outside the U.S., however, such waivers are not guaranteed.

We may not be able to protect our intellectual property rights throughout the world, which could impair our business.

Filing, prosecuting and defending patents covering our current and future product candidates throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive. 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 may obtain patent protection, but where patent enforcement is not as strong as that in the United States. These products may compete with our products in jurisdictions where we do not have any issued or licensed patents and any future patent claims, or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from so competing.

Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of some countries do not favor the enforcement of patents and other intellectual property protection, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patents generally. Proceedings to enforce our patent rights in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, could put our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and our patent applications at risk of not issuing and could provoke third parties to assert claims against us. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate, and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful.

Many countries, including European Union countries, India, Japan and China, have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner may be compelled under specified circumstances to grant licenses to third parties. In those countries, we may have limited remedies if patents are infringed or if we are compelled to grant a license to a third-party, which could materially diminish the value of those patents. This could limit our potential revenue opportunities. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce our intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop or license.

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 expect to rely on third parties to manufacture our product candidates, and we expect to continue to collaborate with third parties on the development of our current and future product candidates, we must, at times, share trade secrets with them. We also conduct joint research and development programs that may require us to share trade secrets under the terms of our collaboration or similar agreements. We seek to protect our proprietary technology in part by entering into confidentiality agreements and, if applicable, material transfer agreements, consulting agreements or other similar agreements with our advisors, employees, third-party contractors and consultants prior to beginning research or disclosing proprietary information. These agreements typically limit the rights of the third parties to use or disclose our confidential information, including our trade secrets. Despite the contractual provisions employed when working with third parties, the need to share trade secrets and other confidential information increases the risk that such trade secrets become known by our competitors, are inadvertently incorporated into the technology of others, or are disclosed or used in violation of these agreements. Any disclosure, either intentional or unintentional, by our employees, the employees of third parties with whom we share 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. Further, adequate remedies may not exist in the event of unauthorized use or disclosure. Given that our proprietary position is based, in part, on our know-how and trade secrets, a competitor’s discovery of our trade secrets or other unauthorized use or disclosure would impair our competitive position and may have an adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

In addition, these agreements typically restrict the ability of our advisors, employees, third-party contractors and consultants to publish data potentially relating to our trade secrets, although our agreements may contain certain limited publication rights. Policing unauthorized use of our or our licensors' intellectual property is difficult, expensive and time-consuming, and we may be unable to determine the extent of any unauthorized use. Moreover, enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret is difficult, expensive and time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, some courts inside and outside the United States are less willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets. Despite our efforts to protect our trade secrets, our competitors 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.

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

We employ individuals who were previously employed at other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies. Although we seek to protect our ownership of intellectual property rights by ensuring that our agreements with our employees, collaborators, and other third parties with whom we do business include provisions requiring such parties to assign rights in inventions to us, we may be subject to claims that we or our employees, consultants or independent contractors have inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed confidential information of our employees’ former employers or other third parties. We may also be subject to claims that former employers or other third parties have an ownership interest in our patents. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. There is no guarantee of success in defending these claims, and if we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights, such as exclusive ownership of, or right to use, valuable intellectual property. Even if we are successful, litigation could result in substantial cost and be a distraction to our management and other employees. Moreover, any such litigation or the threat thereof may 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.

In addition, while it is our policy to require our employees and contractors who may be involved in the development of intellectual property to execute agreements assigning such intellectual property to us, we may be unsuccessful in executing such an agreement with each party who in fact develops intellectual property that we regard as our own. Our and their assignment agreements may not be self-executing or may be breached, and we may be forced to bring claims against third parties, or defend claims they may bring against us, to determine the ownership of what we regard as our intellectual property.

If we or our licensors fail in prosecuting or defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel. Even if we and our licensors are successful in prosecuting or defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management.

Intellectual property litigation could cause us to spend substantial resources and distract our personnel from their normal responsibilities.

Even if resolved in our favor, litigation or other legal proceedings relating to intellectual property claims may cause us to incur significant expenses and could distract our technical and management personnel from their normal responsibilities. In addition, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments and if securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a substantial adverse effect on the price of our common shares. Such litigation or proceedings could substantially increase our operating losses and reduce the resources available for development activities or any future sales, marketing or distribution activities. We may not have sufficient financial or other resources to conduct such litigation or proceedings adequately. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of such litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their greater financial resources. Accordingly, despite our efforts, we may not be able to prevent third parties from infringing upon or misappropriating our intellectual property. In addition, the uncertainties associated with litigation could compromise our ability to raise the funds necessary to initiate or continue our clinical trials and internal research programs, or in-license needed technology or other product candidates. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings could compromise our ability to compete in the marketplace, including compromising our ability to raise the funds necessary to continue our clinical trials, continue our research programs, license necessary technology from third parties, or enter into development collaborations that would help us commercialize our product candidates, if approved.

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

In addition to seeking patents for our current and future product candidates, we also rely on trade secrets, including unpatented know-how, technology and other proprietary information, to maintain our competitive position. We seek to protect our trade secrets, in part, by entering into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with parties who have access to them, such as our employees, corporate collaborators, outside scientific collaborators, contract manufacturers, consultants, advisors and other third parties. We also enter into confidentiality and invention or patent assignment agreements with our employees and consultants. Despite these efforts, any of these parties may breach the agreements and disclose our proprietary information, including our trade secrets, and we may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for such breaches. Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret is difficult, expensive and time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, some courts inside and outside the United States are less willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets.

If any of our trade secrets were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor, we would have no right to prevent them, or those to whom they communicate it, from using that technology or information to compete with us. If any of our trade secrets were to be disclosed to or independently developed by a competitor, our competitive position would be harmed.

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

We expect to rely on trademarks as one means to distinguish any of our product candidates that are approved for marketing from the products of our competitors. Once we select new trademarks and apply to register them, our trademark applications may not be approved. Third parties may oppose or attempt to cancel our trademark applications or trademarks, or otherwise challenge our use of the trademarks. In the event that our trademarks are successfully challenged, we could be forced to rebrand our products, which could result in loss of brand recognition and could require us to devote resources to advertising and marketing new brands. Our competitors may infringe our trademarks and we may not have adequate resources to enforce our trademarks.

If we attempt to enforce our trademarks and assert trademark infringement claims, a court may determine that the marks we have asserted are invalid or unenforceable, or that the party against whom we have asserted trademark infringement has superior rights to the marks in question. In this case, we could ultimately be forced to cease use of such trademarks.

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. The following examples are illustrative:

Risks Related to Our Common Shares

An active trading market for our common shares may not be sustained.

Although our common shares are listed on the Nasdaq Global Select Market ("Nasdaq") we cannot assure you that an active trading market for our common shares will be sustained. In addition, as a result of RSL owning approximately 58.1% of our common shares as of March 31, 2019, trading in our common shares may be less liquid than the shares of companies with broader public ownership. If an active market for our common shares is not sustained, you may not be able to sell your shares quickly or at the market price. An inactive market may also impair our ability to raise capital to continue to fund operations by selling common shares and may impair our ability to acquire other companies or technologies by using our common shares as consideration.

The market price of our common shares has been and is likely to continue to be highly volatile, and you may lose some or all of your investment.

The market price of our common shares has been and is likely to continue to be highly volatile and may be subject to wide fluctuations in response to a variety of factors, including the following:

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 companies. These fluctuations have often been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of those companies. Broad market and industry factors, as well as general economic, political, regulatory and market conditions, may negatively affect the market price of our common shares, regardless of our actual operating performance.

Volatility in our share price could subject us 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 and/or the discontinuation of development of a product candidate due to adverse clinical circumstances or results. This risk is especially relevant for us because pharmaceutical companies have experienced significant share 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.

We are a "controlled company" within the meaning of the applicable rules of the Nasdaq and, as a result, qualify for exemptions from certain corporate governance requirements.  If we rely on these exemptions, you will not have the same protections afforded to shareholders of companies that are subject to such requirements.

RSL controls a majority of the voting power of our outstanding common shares. As a result, we are a "controlled company" within the meaning of the Nasdaq corporate governance requirements. Under these rules, a company of which more than 50% of the voting power for the election of directors is held by an individual, group or another company is a "controlled company" and may elect not to comply with certain corporate governance requirements, including the requirements:

We have elected to use certain of these exemptions and we may continue to use all or some of these exemptions in the future. As a result, you may not have the same protections afforded to shareholders of companies that are subject to all of the Nasdaq corporate governance requirements.

RSL owns a significant percentage of our common shares and is able to exert significant control over matters subject to shareholder approval.

Based on common shares outstanding as of March 31, 2019 , RSL beneficially owns approximately 58.1% of the voting power of our outstanding common shares and has the ability to substantially influence us through this ownership position. For example, RSL is able to control elections of directors, amendments of our organizational documents, or approval of any merger, sale of assets, or other major corporate transaction. RSL’s interests may not always coincide with our corporate interests or the interests of other shareholders, and RSL may act in a manner with which you may not agree or that may not be in the best interests of our other shareholders. Further, RSL is a privately held company whose ownership and governance structure is not transparent to our other shareholders. There may be changes to the management or ownership of RSL that could impact RSL’s interests in a way that may not coincide with our corporate interests or the interests of other shareholders. So long as RSL continues to own a significant amount of our equity, RSL will continue to be able to strongly influence or effectively control our decisions.

Our organizational and ownership structure may create significant conflicts of interests.

Our organizational and ownership structure involves a number of relationships that may give rise to certain conflicts of interest between us and minority holders of our common shares, on the one hand, and RSL and its shareholders, on the other hand. Certain of our directors and employees have equity interests in RSL and, accordingly, their interests may be aligned with RSL’s interests, which may not always coincide with our corporate interests or the interests of our other shareholders. Further, our other shareholders may not have visibility into the RSL ownership of any of our directors or officers, which may change at any time through acquisition, disposition, dilution, or otherwise. Any change in our directors’ or officers’ RSL ownership could impact the interests of those holders.

In addition, we are party to certain related party agreements with RSL, RSI and RSG. These entities and their shareholders, including certain of our directors and employees, may have interests which differ from our interests or those of the minority holders of our common shares. For example, we are party to an information sharing and cooperation agreement with RSL pursuant to which RSL has granted us a right of first review on any potential dementia-related product or investment opportunity that RSL may consider pursuing. It is possible that we could fail to pursue a product candidate under this agreement and that product candidate is then successfully developed and commercialized by RSL or one of its other subsidiaries or affiliates. Any material transaction between us and RSL, RSI or RSG is subject to our related party transaction policy, which requires prior approval of such transaction by our Audit Committee. To the extent we fail to appropriately deal with any such conflicts of interests, it could negatively impact our reputation and ability to raise additional funds and the willingness of counterparties to do business with us, all of which could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

If securities or industry analysts cease to publish research or reports about our business, or publish negative reports about our business, our share price and trading volume could decline.

The trading market for our common shares depends, in part, on the research and reports that securities or industry analysts publish about us or our business. We do not have any control over these analysts. If our financial performance fails to meet analyst estimates or one or more of the analysts who cover us downgrade our common shares or change their opinion of our common shares, our share price would likely decline. If one or more of these analysts cease coverage of our company or fail to regularly publish reports on us, we could lose visibility in the financial markets, which could cause our share price or trading volume to decline.

Because we do not anticipate paying any cash dividends on our common shares in the foreseeable future, capital appreciation, if any, would be your sole source of gain.

We have never declared or paid any cash dividends on our common shares. We currently anticipate that we will retain future earnings for the development, operation and expansion of our business and do not anticipate declaring or paying any cash dividends for the foreseeable future. We are also subject to Bermuda legal constraints that may affect our ability to pay dividends on our common shares and make other payments. Additionally, our ability to pay dividends is currently restricted by the terms of the Loan Agreement. As a result, capital appreciation, if any, of our common shares would be your sole source of gain on an investment in our common shares for the foreseeable future.

Future sales of our common shares, or the perception that such sales may occur, could depress our share price, even if our business is doing well.

As of March 31, 2019, 13,244,047 of our outstanding common shares, representing a majority of our common shares, were held by RSL. If RSL, or any of our executive officers or directors, were to sell our common shares, or if the market perceived that RSL or any of our executive officers or directors intend to sell our common shares, it could negatively affect our share price. Such a decrease in our share price could also in turn impair our ability to raise capital through the sale of additional equity securities.

Further, we have filed registration statements on Form S-8 under the Securities Act to register the common shares that may be issued under our equity incentive plans from time to time. Shares registered under these registration statements are available for sale in the public market subject to vesting arrangements and exercise of options, as well as Rule 144 in the case of our affiliates. Sales of these common shares may negatively impact our share price.

In addition, we have filed a “shelf” registration statement on Form S-3 under the Securities Act, allowing us, from time to time, to offer up to $750 million of any combination of registered common shares, preferred shares, debt securities and warrants. We have also entered into a sales agreement with Cowen and Company, LLC to sell common shares having an aggregate offering price of up to $75.0 million from time to time through an at-the-market equity offering program. To the extent we issue new common shares as a result of needing additional capital, such shares could constitute a material portion of our then outstanding common shares and cause dilution our existing shareholders.

We have incurred and will continue to incur substantial costs as a result of operating as a public company, and our management has been and will be required to continue to devote substantial time to compliance with our public company responsibilities and corporate governance practices.

As a public company, we have incurred and will continue to incur significant legal, accounting and other expenses. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the listing requirements of Nasdaq and other applicable securities rules and regulations impose various requirements on public companies. Our management and other personnel devote a substantial amount of time to compliance with these requirements. Moreover, changing rules and regulations may increase our legal and financial compliance costs and make some activities more time-consuming and more costly. If, notwithstanding our efforts to comply with new or changing laws, regulations and standards, we fail to comply, regulatory authorities may initiate legal proceedings against us, and our business may be harmed.

Further, failure to comply with these laws, regulations and standards may make it more difficult and more expensive for us to obtain directors’ and officers’ liability insurance, which could make it more difficult for us to attract and retain qualified members of our Board of Directors or members of senior management.

If we are unable to maintain proper and effective internal controls over financial reporting and disclosure controls and procedures, investor confidence in our company and, as a result, the value of our common shares, may be adversely affected.

Effective internal controls over financial reporting are necessary for us to provide reliable financial reports and to protect from fraudulent, illegal or unauthorized transactions. Effective disclosure controls and procedures enable us to make timely and accurate disclosure of financial and non-financial information that we are required to disclose. If we cannot provide effective controls and reliable financial reports and other disclosures, our business and operating results could be harmed. We have in the past discovered, and may in the future discover, areas of our internal controls over financial reporting or disclosure controls and procedures that, even if effective, could be improved.

We are required, pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, to furnish a report by management on the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting as of the end of each fiscal year. Our independent registered public accounting firm will not be required to attest to the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting until our first annual report required to be filed with the SEC following the later of the date we are deemed to be a "large accelerated filer," as defined in the Exchange Act, or the date we are no longer an "emerging growth company," as defined in the JOBS Act.

If material weaknesses or control deficiencies occur or our disclosure controls and procedures are ineffective in the future, we may be unable to report our financial results or make other disclosures accurately on a timely basis, which could cause our reported financial results or other disclosures to be materially misstated and result in the loss of investor confidence and cause the market price of our common shares to decline.

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 shares less attractive to investors.

We are an "emerging growth company," as defined in the JOBS Act. For as long as we continue to be an emerging growth company, we may take advantage of exemptions from various reporting requirements that are applicable to other public companies that are not emerging growth companies, including exemption from compliance with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404, reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation and exemptions from the requirements of holding a nonbinding advisory vote on executive compensation and shareholder approval of any golden parachute payments not previously approved. We will remain an emerging growth company until the earliest of (1) March 31, 2021, (2) the last day of the fiscal year in which we have total annual gross revenue of at least $1.07 billion, (3) the date on which we are deemed to be a "large accelerated filer," which means the market value of our common shares that are held by non-affiliates exceeds $700.0 million as of the prior September 30, the end of our second fiscal quarter, and (4) the date on which we have issued more than $1.0 billion in non-convertible debt during the prior three-year period.

In addition, under the JOBS Act, emerging growth companies can delay adopting new or revised accounting standards until such time as those standards apply to private companies. We have irrevocably elected not to avail ourselves of this exemption from new or revised accounting standards and, therefore, we will be subject to the same new or revised accounting standards as other public companies that are not emerging growth companies.

Even after we no longer qualify as an emerging growth company, we may still qualify as a "smaller reporting company" which would allow us to take advantage of many of the same exemptions from disclosure requirements including exemption from compliance with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404 and reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation in our periodic reports and proxy statements.

We cannot predict if investors will find our common shares less attractive because we may rely on these exemptions. If some investors find our common shares less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for our common shares and our share price may be more volatile.

We are a Bermuda company and it may be difficult for you to enforce judgments against us or our directors and executive officers.

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

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

We are incorporated under the laws of Bermuda. As a result, our corporate affairs are governed by the Bermuda Companies Act 1981, as amended ("the Companies Act") which differs in some material respects from laws typically applicable to U.S. corporations and shareholders, including the provisions relating to interested directors, amalgamations, mergers and acquisitions, takeovers, shareholder lawsuits and indemnification of directors. Generally, the duties of directors and officers of a Bermuda company are owed to the company only. Shareholders of Bermuda companies typically do not have rights to take action against directors or officers of the company and may only do so in limited circumstances. Shareholder class actions are not available under Bermuda law. The circumstances in which shareholder derivative actions may be available under Bermuda law are substantially more proscribed and less clear than they would be to shareholders of U.S. corporations. The Bermuda courts, however, would ordinarily be expected to permit a shareholder to commence an action in the name of a company to remedy a wrong to the company where the act complained of is alleged to be beyond the corporate power of the company or illegal, or would result in the violation of the company’s memorandum of association or bye-laws. Furthermore, consideration would be given by a Bermuda court to acts that are alleged to constitute a fraud against the minority shareholders or, for instance, where an act requires the approval of a greater percentage of the company’s shareholders than those who actually approved it.

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

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

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

Our second amended and restated bye-laws enable our board of directors to issue preference shares, which may discourage a change of control.

Our second amended and restated bye-laws contain provisions that enable our board of directors to determine the powers, preferences and rights of our preference shares and to issue the preference shares without shareholder approval. 

This could discourage, delay or prevent a transaction involving a change in control of our company and may prevent our shareholders from receiving the benefit from any premium to the market price of our common shares offered by a bidder in a takeover context. Even in the absence of a takeover attempt, the existence of this provision may adversely affect the prevailing market price of our common shares if it is viewed as discouraging takeover attempts in the future. 

We may reduce the voting power of your common shares without your consent.

Under our amended and restated bye-laws, in the event that any U.S. person holds, directly, indirectly or constructively, 9.5% or more of the total voting power of our issued share capital, excluding any U.S. person that held, directly, indirectly or constructively, 9.5% or more of the total voting power of issued share capital immediately prior to the closing of our IPO in 2015, the aggregate votes conferred by the common shares held by such person (or by any person through which such U.S. person indirectly or constructively holds shares) will be reduced by our Board of Directors to the extent necessary such that the common shares held, directly, indirectly or constructively, by such U.S. person will constitute less than 9.5% of the voting power of all issued and outstanding shares. RSL, certain of its affiliates, and Vivek Ramaswamy, our founder and former principal executive officer, will not be subject to these provisions. Further, our Board of Directors may determine that shares shall carry different or no voting rights as it reasonably determines, based on the advice of counsel, to be appropriate to (1) avoid the existence of any U.S. person who holds 9.5% or more of the total voting power of our issued share capital or (2) avoid adverse tax, legal or regulatory consequences to us, any subsidiary of ours or any holder of our common shares or its affiliates.

These provisions may discourage potential investors from acquiring a stake or making a significant investment in our company as well as discourage a takeover attempt, which may prevent our shareholders from receiving the benefit of any such transactions as well as adversely affect the prevailing market price of our common shares if viewed as discouraging takeover attempts in the future.

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

We are incorporated under the laws of Bermuda, where we are not subject to any income or withholding taxes. We are centrally managed and controlled in the United Kingdom, and under current U. K. tax law, a company which is centrally managed and controlled in the United Kingdom is regarded as resident in the United Kingdom for taxation purposes. Accordingly, we expect to be subject to U.K. controlled foreign company rules and U.K. taxation on our income and gains, except where an exemption applies. We may be treated as a dual resident company for U.K. tax purposes. As a result, our right to claim certain reliefs from U.K. tax may be restricted, and changes in law or practice in the United Kingdom could result in the imposition of further restrictions on our right to claim U.K. tax reliefs. We may also become subject to income, withholding or other taxes in certain jurisdictions by reason of our activities and operations, and it is also possible that taxing authorities in any such jurisdictions could assert that we are subject to greater taxation than we currently anticipate. Any such additional tax liability could harm our results of operations.

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

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

Significant judgment is required in evaluating our tax positions and determining our provision for income taxes. During the ordinary course of business, there are many transactions and calculations for which the ultimate tax determination is uncertain. For example, our effective tax rates could be adversely impacted by changes in foreign currency exchange rates or by changes in the relevant tax, accounting, and other laws, regulations, principles, and interpretations. As we intend to operate in numerous countries and taxing jurisdictions, the application of tax laws can be subject to diverging and sometimes conflicting interpretations by tax authorities of these jurisdictions. It is not uncommon for taxing authorities in different countries to have conflicting views, for instance, with respect to, among other things, the manner in which the arm’s length standard is applied for transfer pricing purposes, or with respect to the valuation of intellectual property. In addition, tax laws are dynamic and subject to change as new laws are passed and new interpretations of the law are issued or applied. We continue to assess the impact of such changes in tax laws on our business and may determine that changes to our structure, practice or tax positions are necessary in light of such changes and developments in the tax laws of other jurisdictions in which we operate. Such changes may nevertheless be ineffective in avoiding an increase in our consolidated tax liability, which could harm our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

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

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

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

U.S. holders that own 10% or more of the vote or value of our common shares may suffer adverse tax consequences because we and/or any of our non-U.S. subsidiaries are expected to be characterized as a controlled foreign corporation ("CFC") under Section 957(a) of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended ("the Code").

A non-U.S. corporation is considered a CFC if more than 50% of (1) the total combined voting power of all classes of stock of such corporation entitled to vote, or (2) the total value of the stock of such corporation, is owned, or is considered as owned by applying certain constructive ownership rules, by United States shareholders (U.S. persons who own stock representing 10% or more of the vote or, for taxable years of non-U.S. corporations beginning after December 31, 2017, and for taxable years of shareholders with or within which such taxable years of non-U.S. corporations end, 10% or more of the value) on any day during the taxable year of such non-U.S. corporation. Certain United States shareholders of a CFC generally are required to include currently in gross income such shareholders’ share of the CFC’s "Subpart F income", a portion of the CFC’s earnings to the extent the CFC holds certain U.S. property, and a portion of the CFC's "global intangible low-taxed income" (as defined under Section 951A of the Code). Such United States shareholders are subject to current U.S. federal income tax with respect to such items, even if the CFC has not made an actual distribution to such shareholders. "Subpart F income" includes, among other things, certain passive income (such as income from dividends, interests, royalties, rents and annuities or gain from the sale of property that produces such types of income) and certain sales and services income arising in connection with transactions between the CFC and a person related to the CFC. "Global intangible low-taxed income" may include most of the remainder of a CFC’s income over a deemed return on its tangible assets.

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

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

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

Our status as a PFIC will depend on the nature and composition of our income and the nature, composition and value of our assets from time to time. The 50% passive asset test described above is generally based on the fair market value of each asset, with the value of goodwill and going concern value determined in large part by reference to the market value of our common shares, which may be volatile. Our status may also depend, in part, on how quickly we utilize the cash proceeds from our IPO and subsequent financings in our business. With respect to the taxable year that ended on March 31, 2019, we believe that we were not a PFIC; however, with respect to foreseeable future taxable years, because the PFIC tests are based upon the value of our assets, including any goodwill and going concern value, and the nature and composition of our income and assets, which cannot be known at this time, we cannot predict whether we will or will not be classified as a PFIC. Because the determination of whether we are a PFIC for any taxable year is a fact-intensive determination made annually after the end of each taxable year, and because certain aspects of the PFIC rules are uncertain, we cannot provide any assurances regarding our PFIC status for the current or future taxable years.

In our taxable year ending March 31, 2019, we implemented structures and arrangements intended to mitigate the possibility that we will be classified as a PFIC. There can be no assurance that the IRS will not successfully challenge these structures and arrangements, which may result in an adverse impact on the determination of whether we are classified as a PFIC.

Legislation enacted in Bermuda in response to the European Union's review of harmful tax competition could be harmful to our business.

During 2017, the European Union Economic and Financial Affairs Council ("ECOFIN") released a list of non-cooperative jurisdictions for tax purposes. The stated aim of this list, and accompanying report, was to promote good governance worldwide in order to maximize efforts to prevent tax fraud and tax evasion. In an effort to remain off this list, Bermuda committed to address concerns relating to economic substance by December 31, 2018. In accordance with that commitment, Bermuda has enacted legislation that requires certain entities in Bermuda engaged in "relevant activities" to maintain a substantial economic presence in Bermuda and to satisfy economic substance requirements. The list of "relevant activities" includes carrying on as a business any one or more of: banking, insurance, fund management, financing, leasing, headquarters, shipping, distribution and service center, intellectual property and holding entities. At present, it is unclear what (if anything) the company would be required to do in order to satisfy economic substance requirements in Bermuda, but to the extent we are required to increase our substance in Bermuda to satisfy such requirements, it could result in additional costs that could adversely affect our financial condition or results of operations. If we were required to satisfy economic substance requirements in Bermuda but failed to do so, we could face automatic disclosure to competent authorities in the EU of the information filed by us with the Bermuda Registrar of Companies in connection with the economic substance requirements and may also face financial penalties, restriction or regulation of our business activities and/or may be struck off as a registered entity in Bermuda.